• ignirtoq@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Edit: I was thinking about the wrong “immunity” in this comment (the recently granted Presidential immunity to prosecution, not immunity to prosecution for law enforcement officers). I’ll leave the comment for context, but it’s not what the original commenter was talking about.

    Actually it will be very easy for the Supreme Court to give Trump a win and keep qualified immunity. If Biden didn’t directly order the raid on Mar-a-lago, then the immunity they granted doesn’t apply.

    Remember, these rulings don’t need logical consistency because they are bad faith justifications for any actions taken by their team. So when a Republican is in office they can extend the immunity to basically the whole Executive branch, but when a Democrat is in the White House that can shrink to just the President’s actions. And even there only those that are “official acts,” which only the Supreme Court gets to decide, so they can shrink it to almost nothing.

    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      If Biden needs to give a direct order, then most cops won’t have qualified immunity. It will take years before the SCOTUS gets another chance to rule on the matter, meanwhile a ton of lawsuits will be unleashed against abusive cops.

      • ignirtoq@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        My mistake, I thought by “qualified immunity” the original comment meant the immunity to any prosecution they just gave to Presidents. I wasn’t thinking about qualified immunity to law enforcement.