[john_b]

> "being immune to a lawsuit as long as he was acting within the bounds of the law"

There is no need for immunity when one acts within the bounds of the law. All that protects against is the hassle and cost of frivolous lawsuits. Absolute immunity prevents having to have another lawsuit to determine if the conduct in the first one was appropriate, and so on.

But you are right that absolute immunity of any kind is nuts. It's the mark of a tyrannical regime, and claims of self-policing do not in any way diminish this.

However, the real problem is that gag orders can be enforced after the trial is over. Why would any form of democracy want to lock up crucial information about how its laws are being interpreted from the public? What is the point of even having laws if the public is not made aware of how they are being interpreted in court?