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
    585 days ago
    link
    fedilink

    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
      235 days ago
      link
      fedilink

      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?

      • SkyezOpen
        24 days ago
        link
        fedilink

        Yes. I joked about this scenario when I didn’t think the scotus would hand down such a fucked up ruling, but we’re halfway to some really funny shit.

    • s38b35M5English
      155 days ago
      link
      fedilink

      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
        85 days ago
        link
        fedilink

        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.

        • s38b35M5English
          105 days ago
          link
          fedilink

          We’re a fucking joke.

          But nobody is laughing. I’m shivering

    • Jimmybander
      155 days ago
      link

      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.

    • callouscomicEnglish
      75 days ago
      link
      fedilink

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

      People have gotten fucking ridiculous lately.

      • HasturInYellow
        275 days ago
        link
        fedilink

        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
          35 days ago
          link
          fedilink

          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.

          • samus12345English
            25 days ago
            link
            fedilink

            Guilt or innocence is irrelevant in this case. The only thing that matters is whether the President was acting in an “official” capacity or not. If a Republican does it, it was official. If a Democrat does, it was not.

            • SanguinePar
              35 days ago
              link
              fedilink

              I agree, that’s how it would go. But you can’t start advocating for a Democratic president to murder his opponent with official impunity, just because of some politically motivated bullshit SCOTUS ruling. That way total anarchy and facism lies.

              If people start calling for that, then it’s no better than the shit show of a second Trump presidency may be. The rule of law matters, and it should apply to all equally. If Trump did it and got away with it, it would be bullshit, he should not get away with it. If Biden did it, he should not get away with it either, whether it’s “official” or not. Murder is murder.

              • samus12345English
                35 days ago
                link
                fedilink

                You’re correct, and I wasn’t saying otherwise. I’m just pointing out that the corrupt SCOTUS has set themselves up as the arbiter of consequences for the President. They can protect or not on a whim, with no way for anyone else to challenge them.

                • SanguinePar
                  34 days ago
                  link
                  fedilink

                  Agreed. It’s properly fucked up. Genuinely worried about the state of the States in the next few years if the Dems don’t get their acts together and win in November (and even if they do, tbh)

                  • samus12345English
                    24 days ago
                    link
                    fedilink

                    Same. Dems winning presidential elections feels like a drowning person who’s desperately thrashing around managing to get a lungful of air before sinking again.

              • Cryophilia
                -14 days ago
                link
                fedilink

                If people start calling for that, then it’s no better than the shit show of a second Trump presidency may be.

                I cannot disagree more strongly. Biden has this chance to RESTORE rule of law, which SCOTUS has already shredded. I will take the risk of Biden becoming a dictator over the near certainty that Trump will.