|
|
|
|
|
|
by banana_feather
691 days ago
|
|
|
> 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. |
|
|
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.