The justices of the supreme court ruled that Trump was immune and effectively above the law while being president. What is now stopping Biden from bringing a gun to the next debate?
The justices of the supreme court ruled that Trump was immune and effectively above the law while being president. What is now stopping Biden from bringing a gun to the next debate?
If inciting an insurrection towards their own government is an action without legal repercussions, I don't see how the law would be less lenient about straight up firing a gun at an opponent.
I by no means want any party to resolve to violent tactics. So even though I play with the thought, I really don't want anything like it to happen. I am just curious if it's actually the case that a sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.
What am I missing?
You're viewing a single thread.
You're not missing anything. Based on the ruling, the president may now murder anyone they want - just so long as they claim it's an official act.
They can also pardon themselves if it isn't an official act, since their pardon power is an official act.
It's not that simple; A court must rule that the action in question is an "official act". As the SCOTUS intentionally declined to elaborate further on how this is defined, it will be up for the courts to decide what is and what is not covered by immunity.
Not that this couldn't become subject to abuse and partisan rulings, but it's more than just the presidental equivalent of
Misinformation. This does not allow the president to commit a crime and then say it was all in an official capacity. The very act of doing something criminal immediately puts it out of the realm of any official capacity. Obviously.
You’ve clearly been living under a rock the past 8 years if you think this is true.
They will definitely use this ruling to allow a president to do criminal things. Obviously.
Why would immunity be necessary if the act is not otherwise a crime?
You truly believe the court gave full immunity for all things don't you? You must have missed the part where it's only for actions carrying out functions of the constitution. Everything else enjoys no such privilege. If a president commits a crime it is not protected. Further, a court (not the supreme court) can determine if the act was official or not.
I did not assert that the court gave full immunity for all things, but will now suggest that not every crime is a violation of the constitution, or could not be committed while carrying out a function of the constitution.