• Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    5 months ago

    weird that the constitution says nothing about “immunity” but the courts keep creating various forms of it. Its almost like we explicitly need an amendment that says courts are not allowed to declare things “immune” from the law.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s crazy because so much of the constitution is about ensuring no one is above the law, because they were trying to get away from a monarchy. Somehow this SC either can’t read or understand the constitution though because here we are.

      • Doc Avid Mornington
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        ·
        5 months ago

        Oh, they can read, they know exactly what they are doing. The Republic has had enemies within from the start, and now they control the most powerful branch of government.

      • barsquid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        5 months ago

        But wouldn’t you also sell out your country in exchange for a deluxe RV and some luxury fishing trips?

    • nickwitha_k (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      weird that the constitution says nothing about “immunity” but the courts keep creating various forms of it.

      Also weird that it explicitly prohibits warrantless search and seizure of personal property and documents as well as due process, but, the courts have allowed personal property to be stolen via civil asset forfeiture (somehow, it’s considered legal to accuse non-sentient objects of crimes, for which there is little to no recourse because they have no consciousness) and >=90% of the country which is within 100miles of a border (international airports are considered borders) are vulnerable to detention without charge by the Border Patrol.