TLDR: there are no qualifying limitations on presidential immunity

Not only does any US president now have complete immunity from “official” actions(with zero qualifying restrictions or definitions), but if those actions are deemed “unofiicial”, no jury is legally allowed to witness the evidence in any way since that would interfere with the now infinitely broad “official” presidential prerogatives.

Furthermore, if an unofficial atrocity is decided on during an official act, like the president during the daily presidential briefing ordering the army to execute the US transexual population, the subsequent ordered executions will be considered legally official presidential acts since the recorded decision occurred during a presidential duty.

There are probably other horrors I haven’t considered yet.

Then again, absolute immunity is absolute immunity, so I don’t know how much threat recognition matters here.

If the US president can order an action, that action can be legally and officially carried out.

Not constitutionally, since the Constitution specifically holds any elected politician subject to the law, but legally and officially according to the supreme court, who has assumed higher power then the US Constitution to unconstitutionally allege that the US President is absolutely immune from all legal restrictions and consequences.

  • Abby@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 days ago

    I was wondering, this rules for immunity in presidents’ “official duties”. What bad things could a president do that fall under an official duty?

    Please inform me, as I’ve been out of the loop, and I’m kinda stupid.

    • toddestan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      The supreme court left it kind of vague in their ruling. The courts are supposed to decide, but for something like this no matter what the lower courts decide, any ruling would almost certainly get appealed up all the way up to the supreme court. So what is or isn’t an official act is basically boils to whatever the supreme court decides it to be.

    • Varyk@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 days ago

      Unofficial duties especially are not discreetly outlined or prohibited, so anything the US president does during an official act becomes an official act That cannot be legally scrutinized or prosecuted.

      The president is commander-in-chief of the US military.

      So ordering the US Navy to bomb Seattle is an official, legal act.

      The president receives ambassadors. If they decide to shoot someone while waiting for an ambassador to arrive, or set a wildfire in a field of horses while on a “brainstorming jog” for that meeting, that shooting or arson is part of their official duty.

      The State of the Union is an official act, so the president burning the flag while garroting an orphan on national television is now an official, legal act immune from legal liability.