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?

  • kandoh
    853 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    Because what they really did was set themselves up as the ones who decide what is and isn’t an official act.

    As long as there is a right-wing supreme court, any action by a republican president will be official and immune, but if a democratic president tried to throw their weight around in the same They’ll get shut down.

      • eightpix
        203 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        Wait, maybe the justices just gave Biden the authority to do just that.

        Naw. See, if he did, that’d delegitimize the presidency and cause a constitutional crisis.

        But, if a Republican President does it, it’s an exercise in upholding American freedom and the true authority of the office. See the difference?

        • ArmokGoB
          83 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          I would rather have the presidency delegitimized than take the gamble.

      • exanime
        -13 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        The SC will seem that an unofficial act Got to jail

    • AA5B
      73 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      That’s the perfect! That’s why we nominate someone of Bidens age. Not only can he get away with it now as an “official act” but by the time the next court rules on it, he’ll be long gone

    • Maggoty
      43 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      That presumes there’s still a SCOTUS Star Chamber to rule on the issue