The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
weird how libs haven't spent the past 150 yrs flipping out abt judicial immunity
| ceci n'est pas un avocat | 07/02/24 |
| "''"'"'""'"" | 07/02/24 |
| ceci n'est pas un avocat | 07/02/24 |
| logarithms | 07/02/24 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 2nd, 2024 11:15 AM Author: ceci n'est pas un avocat which is far, far broader than the presidential immunity opinion addressed yesterday. Same with prosecutorial immunity, or any of the other various government immunities that have existed since the common law
I'm sure they have a principled and nuanced explanation forthcoming |
Date: July 2nd, 2024 11:18 AM Author: "''"'"'""'"" Judges can still be prosecuted for taking bribes. SCOTUS just said Trump can take all the bribes he wants and you can’t even discuss his motives or you’ll be thrown in prison. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5549067&forum_id=2:#47801481) |
 |
Date: July 2nd, 2024 11:23 AM Author: ceci n'est pas un avocat yeah I guess this line would work on your average 95 iq share blue'r who hasn't read the opinion (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5549067&forum_id=2:#47801507) |
|
Date: July 2nd, 2024 11:22 AM Author: logarithms Judicial immunity is much more limited. If judges had immunity like the new POTUS immunity, these guys never could've gotten in legal trouble: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5549067&forum_id=2:#47801496) |