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?

  • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    20
    ·
    4 months ago

    You were missing the entire thing because that’s not what the ruling was from SCOTUS. All it did was reiterate the current responsibility of the president that he is immune from some of his actions of his job function when acting within the purview of his official function. He Would not be granted immunity at all if he was doing something that broke the law or was acting on a personal nature

    • FaceDeer@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Would be nice if SCOTUS had defined what “official acts” actually were.

    • dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      So it protects official acts without actually specifying what an official act is. If incitement of insurrection is an official act, it seems like the definition is quite broad.

    • vzq@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      he is immune from some of his actions of his job function when acting within the purview of his official function.

      Goose.jpg

      WHAT ACTIONS? WHAT ACTIONS MOTHERFUCKER?

    • razorwiregoatlick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Except that the supremacy court gets to decide. You know, the court that has currently sitting members who are not even hiding their support for Trump. Acting like this is perfectly fine and not a full assault on our democracy means you are either intentionally trying to play down this act or you are a fool.

    • ulkesh@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      So then Trump should still be prosecuted, right? Since he allegedly broke the law 91 times, 34 of which he has already been found guilty of exactly that… right?

      Pretty sure that the point of the ruling is to grant Trump considerably more ammunition to fight with since it wasn’t an outright “no, he’s not immune.” Any hedging that this was not a political move by the very conservative court is willful ignorance of reality.

      We as a nation have only two hopes left: that the public creates an overwhelming lopsided victory for Biden in November (unlikely since nearly half of the country would suck Trump’s very tiny penis if given the chance), or that Chutkan and other judges don’t let this moronic Supreme Court decision change their rulings since supposedly the decision leaves it in these judges hands. And it’s now very unlikely anything will occur prior to November so we may be left with only the one hope.

      Make no mistake — Trump is a criminal, a convicted felon, and Trump supporters love it. Because yet again they think they’re “owning the libs” when in reality they are destroying the republic with their sycophancy. I sincerely hope they each get what they want and the country gets irrevocably destroyed — so that their owning of the libs is complete and maybe, just maybe, they’ll finally shut — the — fuck — up.

      • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        nearly half of the country would suck Trump’s very tiny penis if given the chance

        Please don’t put such imagery in my head…