• disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      52·
      3 days ago

      That only applies to criminal prosecution. You really think Biden is going to off a dozen or so House members?

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        133·
        2 days ago

        No, because he’s a coward and an appeaser.

        Btw, your cope that it has to be the President specifically doing the acts is disagreed with by Sonya Sotomayor in her dissent where she states outright that this decision makes political assassination legal.

        But you’d know the implications better than a SC Justice who works with the fascist members of the Court, right?

        • Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca
          4·
          2 days ago

          So Biden can officially assassinate the entire Republican side and the supreme Court and because he was president when he ordered it, it is legal?

          • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.socialEnglish
            10·
            2 days ago

            Yes, exactly. “They were insurrectionists bent on overthrowing our government, and it was a tough, but necessary, decision to protect the nation, which is my duty as President.”

            That claim isn’t even entirely untrue.

            • Asafum@feddit.nl
              61·
              2 days ago

              But Biden himself came out and spoke about the ruling (paraphrasing) “we need presidents to use their power with caution and respect the (self imposed) limitations of it. I’ll continue to do just that. The next guy might not do so and that’s concerning.”

              Just a big ol’ shrug from Biden… “I won’t do it, but he sure as hell will.”

              Thanks Mr.Virtue… where is all that virtue when it comes to Palestinians?

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          2·
          2 days ago

          No. It’s new, and I haven’t seen the full transcript. I’m repeating what I’ve read in the news. Do you have a link so I can learn more?

          I understand how the President could theoretically order an assassination then pardon. That was a good point I read in another thread.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              4·
              2 days ago

              You’re absolutely correct. This is the part that has been left out of every news article I’ve read, and is undoubtedly the most concerning:

              And some Presidential conduct-for example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, see Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701 (2018) - certainly can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision. For those reasons, the immunity we have recognized extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”

              So it’s not just acts committed by the President, but also ordered by the President.

              It’s also vague enough that charges can get bounced around lower courts indefinitely.

              Thank you again for the link. I didn’t see it when I first searched.

              • Asafum@feddit.nl
                3·
                2 days ago

                It’s also vague enough that charges can get bounced around lower courts indefinitely.

                Yup! It will be the 5th circuit almost certainly. It’s the Republican rubber stamp circuit…