[hvb2]

> Your desire for a higher oversight authority beyond the chief executive suggests you may have concerns about the efficacy of democracy.

No that's not what I said. The courts can hold someone in the executive branch accountable. They're the check on their power.

Except the president, because of that one ruling.

So if the president commits fraud as part of an official act he's immune? No other person in the executive branch has this immunity. And it was given to the most powerful person.

[groundzeros2015]

The president just tried to operate an executive order and it got shut down by the courts.

The specific ruling is about the president being immune from criminal charges while in office. And yeah, you can’t be taking George Washington to court (or jail) while he is leading the revolution. It’s essential for the nation to have a functioning leader, especially among the fog of war.

The Bible story of David and Saul presents another example of this principle.

To bring it back though… what you’re telling me is we can’t trust a democracy to elect an executive.

[svachalek]

With the amount of gerrymandering and campaign finance going on, there's a question of whether this is a democracy in the first place. If it is, it's clear it can't be trusted to elect an executive who follows the laws.

[hvb2]

I don't think you understand the issue. That ruling has nothing to do with prosecuting a sitting president. There's been longstanding policy that that doesn't happen.

The fact that an executive order is incompatible with the constitution is something completely different. That's a law being judged on its merits. Immunity is about the executive as a person.