Supreme Court considers former attorney general Ashcroft's liability in lawsui

[Crabtownboy]

I have not decided which side of this issue I come down on. However, the defense being used and reported in the quote below makes no sense to me in that if it is upheld it would mean that the Attorney General .... any Attorney General serving a president would be above the law. What are your thoughts?

Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal told the justices Wednesday that Ashcroft cannot be subject to personal liability for actions he took while performing his job.

"The prosecutor's act of seeking the material witness warrant is integrally associated with the judicial process and entitled to absolute immunity," Katyal told the justices.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/02/AR2011030207434.html?moreheadlines

Material witness:

The most recent version allows material witnesses to be held to ensure the giving of their testimony in criminal proceedings or to a grand jury. Since September 11, 2001, the U.S. has used the material witness statute to detain suspects without charge for indefinite periods of time, often under the rubric of securing grand-jury testimony. This use of the statute is controversial and is currently under judicial review.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_witness