[piva00]

> The trump immunity case put forth what has always been - Presidents aren't charged without being impeached first.

In this case it means that the president is above the law as long as they have support of the Congress? That... Doesn't sound like a good thing.

[pintxo]

I'd have thought that lots of countries have immunity for representatives / members of the executive which can only be revoked by a vote in the legislature. Isn't this quite common?

It sounds reasonable to NOT allow just any member of the judiciary to prosecute members of the other branches, which might wreak havoc on the political process?

[piva00]

> I'd have thought that lots of countries have immunity for representatives / members of the executive which can only be revoked by a vote in the legislature. Isn't this quite common?

As far as I know it's rather common for official acts, not for criminal endeavours outside of the attributions of the executive branch.

From what I gather the Supreme Court decision ruled that former presidents have broad immunity, that's not common at all. I'd guess it's common in places like Russia or similar but not in functioning developed democracies.

[pintxo]

I can only speak for Germany here, and the law here is, that, as a member of the parliament, you have immunity for anything relating to criminal law, as long as you hold your seat. As quite some members of the Government are also members of the parliament, they have immunity though that, but not through their government office.

The living practice is, that the legislative will void immunity upon request. I don't think they have ever failed to do so. The previous parliament voided immunity a staggering 25 times.

[banana_feather]

> It sounds reasonable to NOT allow just any member of the judiciary to prosecute members of the other branches, which might wreak havoc on the political process?

The judiciary does not (and cannot) prosecute. Prosecutors are officials of the executive for this very reason. Regardless, offering blanket immunity as the solution to people hypothetically log-jamming the political process with frivolous lawsuits is laughable. I guess Bob Menendez shouldn't have been potentially interrupted from doing the peoples work.

[pintxo]

You are right, my language was imprecise.

Apparently, the history of parliamentary immunity is, that you don't want the executive to interfere with the parliament outside the constitutionally defined channels.

> Regardless, offering blanket immunity as the solution to people hypothetically log-jamming the political process with frivolous lawsuits is laughable.

What is the alternative? Think it through, an evil executive surely has the power to (lawfully, or not) arrest members of parliament, which could clearly throw a wrench into the gears of parliament, no?

> I guess Bob Menendez shouldn't have been potentially interrupted from doing the peoples work.

My comment did not imply that prosecution should be impossible. And clearly there are established ways to waive immunity in cases where the majority of a parliament agrees that prosecution is warranted.