Can commuted and pardoned cases be reheard once the elected executive is out of office, if there no limit to the statute of limitations?
(Ludicrous that the court would consider total immunity for an executive of one branch, by the way.)
> The rules themselves are weak. Consider recusal, when justices step aside from considering a case. The justices took the rule that applies to lower court judges but then inserted a handful of new loopholes, including one that could be so big that it swallows the rule — basically allowing a justice to disregard a required recusal if they think their vote is needed in the case. And the financial disclosure rules haven’t tightened at all — a significant shortcoming, since the justices have proven themselves troublingly adept at sidestepping the current rules, whether for RVs, tuition, fishing trips, or real estate deals.
Isn't that the wolf guarding the hen house; i.e. what the founders expressly intended to prevent?
Are they American? Where is their birthy certy? (Is there Habeas Corpus for all persons. "You're not even American!")
If the executive is totally immune, they wouldn't need to assist a foreign country illegally in order to get Congress to grant them extra power.
You simply can’t file a “conflict of interest” case against SCOTUS. At all. The statute of limitations is a femtosecond.
That said, the DOJ is executive, not judicial. The courts are not part of it.
Can SCOTUS censure Members of Congress or the Executive, then?
If there are insufficient checks and balances there should be Amendments to preserve separation of powers amongst the branches.
That would be a double-jeopardy issue.