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?

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

    They did not say that he was immune. They said that the president has immunity for certain acts. What acts? Whatever acts they, the SCOTUS, decide they should be immune from. So Biden could shoot Trump dead but the court would rule that that was illegal because some bullshit reason.

    • John Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      So… Biden could target SCOTUS as being treasonous & appoint new justices under immunity with the three remaining liberal justices quickly ruling he has executive privilege to do so?

    • Jimmybander@champserver.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      That court also wouldn’t be able to have the president arrested. He would need to be impeached and removed from office before any of that could happen.

    • s38b35M5@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      So Biden could shoot Trump dead but the court would rule that that was illegal because some bullshit reason.

      Ah! But with what evidence? They also ruled that presidential conduct (paraphrasing here) can’t be used as evidence.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        True, but they are also the ones who decide what they can and cannot do without recourse from anyone else (because we need 2/3 of Congress to impeach which is a non-starter.) so they can rule one way and then rule another for whatever reason they want.

        Our “justices” (/vomit…) don’t have to have any qualifications, we just pay lip service to norms so we (read: the federalist society) choose vaguely “acceptable” people to be justices, but you or I could be one too which really means that they have almost nothing to do with the actual law. We’re a fucking joke.

    • callouscomic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think that “some bullshit reason” would be murder.

      People have gotten fucking ridiculous lately.

      • HasturInYellow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        They said “some bullshit reason” because the same logic would very clearly not be applied to trump if he were to do the same. Think a bit. It’s ok.

        • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The bullshit in this example is not that they would find Biden guilty but that they could/would find Trump innocent.

          That would be bullshit. Biden killing Trump being ruled as murder would not be bullshit, it’d be accurate.