Ask Lemmy

The president already was protected from all civil lawsuits due to previous rulings. This ruling was only about criminal prosecutions.

He has absolute immunity for any use, for any reason, of his core presidential powers include anything listed in article 2 (the military, pardons, firing or hiring officials within the executive department). There is no determining if those are an official act or not. Anything the president does with an article 2 power is an official act with absolute immunity now. Motives or reason for using that power or the outcome of that cannot be questioned. It is legal for the president to accept a bribe to pardon someone right now. The fact that it happened couldn't even be mentioned in court.

Only when the president is doing something not listed in the constitution can it be determined if it's an official or unofficial act by the courts and should be immune. And again it's the action, not the motive or the result or purpose of the action, that determines whether it is official. The only example they gave was talking to justice department officials is official. So if he is talking to justice department officials to arrange a bribe or plan a coup? Legal, immune, can't even be used as evidence against him. It doesn't matter why he was talking to the justice department, the fact that he was makes him immune from any laws he breaks in the process of doing so. They aren't determining if a bribe or coup is an official act, they're determining if talking to justice department officials in general is. It doesn't matter what he's actually doing it for, arranging a coup? That's perfectly okay. Oh someone found out, pardon everyone else involved in the conspiracy who wasn't already immune. Now it can't even be brought up in court.

In the example you gave of ordering an assassination, if it used the military to do the assassination that is a core power, cannot be questioned. The supreme court ruling placed no limits on what can be done with his article 2 powers. Only a nebulous official vs not official test for things not listed in article 2. There's also a very worrying core power in article 2 about "ensuring laws are faithfully executed" that even Barrett thought was too much in her concurrence as it could apply to seemingly anything. Basically, as long as the president is using the levers of government to commit crimes, legal now.

Impeachment is the only recourse now as you say, but even if impeached and removed from office by some miracle, they still wouldn't be able to be held criminally liable afterwards for that.

Everyone panicking in this thread is right to do so.

They’re essentially protecting a president from flagrant lawsuits that could be brought for unfounded accusations.

Usually i see strawmen making things sound worse than they are, but this is the complete opposite. Lawsuits is strawman, unfounded is strawman, accusations is strawman. This is for criminal cases, not civil, its actual prosecution, not accusations, and no requirement that they be unfounded for this immunity to apply. You are trying extremely hard to downplay this and cant have good intentions for this. Other justices have already claimed this includes political assassinations, and Trumps own legal team has already made the argument assassinating a political opponent can be an official act as president.

There is a group of individuals who are attempting to gain control of Congress who would allow a certain person, if elected president carte blanche to do anything as "an official act". A good portion buys the line that this former president declassified documents just by thinking so.

There is another set of 5 or 6 individuals that have happily shown they will prioritize their own beliefs and views over judicial principles their country had maintained over the last couple centuries.

We have already seen Congress try to hold a criminal President to account. It hasn't worked yet and these rulings make it even less likely to.

Why do you imagine that a President wouldn't get away with assassination of a Congressional leader? Say, for example, that Pres. Trump tells special ops forces that he has ironclad intelligence that Rep. Hakim Jeffries is a Chinese agent orchestrating an imminent attack on the U.S., and orders him killed on an overseas trip. That's a legal order from the commander in chief, on the face of it. (I mean, the track record of the military refusing orders is extremely thin on the ground, and it won't really matter if they install loyalists like Project 2025 calls for.) We've already established the precedent that the President has immense discretion to handle immediate threats.

And maybe it was a lie, but that's irrelevant. He has absolute immunity in the exercise of his Article 2 duties. End of story. The only possible remedy is impeachment, and, well, who's going to do that?