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?

  • aleph@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    It’s not that simple; A court must rule that the action in question is an “official act”. As the SCOTUS intentionally declined to elaborate further on how this is defined, it will be up for the courts to decide what is and what is not covered by immunity.

    Not that this couldn’t become subject to abuse and partisan rulings, but it’s more than just the presidental equivalent of

    Michael scott declaring bankruptcy