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?

  • actionjbone@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • snooggums@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      They can also pardon themselves if it isn’t an official act, since their pardon power is an official act.

    • aleph@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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

      Michael scott declaring bankruptcy

    • Akuden@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

        • Akuden@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

          • FanciestPants@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            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.

      • criitz@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        They will definitely use this ruling to allow a president to do criminal things. Obviously.