I mean, it's definitely not great. This court is a sham that never should have had this makeup.
And this absolutely makes it harder to bring Trump to trial before the election.
This is not great.
But it is not "the president can assasinate people!!!"
At least, not to this layman. I would hope supreme court justices know better, but even the dissent seems a little unhinged to me, a progressive who thinks the rule of law should AND STILL DOES apply to everyone. (I am also not willing to just give up and say "yeah, guess assassination is legal now" - I think that junk is counterproductive and maybe being propagandized against us by unfriendly foreign governments.)
You go stay in the arson/bullet target area before throwing this shit around, armchair politician.
Article II, Section 3 - the president must take care to execute the laws faithfully. No president meeting the requirements of the office could issue an illegal official order. If the president orders something illegal, it's necessarily against the oath of office and should not be considered official.
My feeling is that this ruling means any cases brought against the president would need to establish that an act was unofficial before criminal proceedings could proceed. Thay seems fine to me to adjudicate in each case.
Being MAGA and being educated are mutually exclusive.
To believe in MAGA you need to believe there was a time in the past where America was great, but that that time has passed and that somehow there is a way to return to it.
Anyone with decent education realizes the myriad flaws with the very idea the movement is based on.
Functionally, when someone will not engage in good faith, what's the difference between a human and a bot?
If someone is not arguing cordially and supporting their position with facts, I don't care if they're human or not, they're a bot.
Article II Section 3 says the president shall take care to execute the laws faithfully. I do not see how a president could issue an official illegal order.
Takes a special kind of French citizen to wear a Nazi cap.
Lots of scars on both these characters that you can't see. Maybe the problem isn't the people or the gender.
You just won't concede that racism exists, and has existed in this country since its founding, will you?
I mean, that's the crux of the argument.
Either our country's education system failed you terribly and you're just incapable of continued learning, or you know fhe history and don't care.
Are you, too, tired of the rhyming?
If you empanel a grand jury and present them with compelling evidence that the president accepted a bribe for a pardon, you could presumably indict them.
From there, you would present this evidence that there was a quid-pro-quo bribe and presumably the defense would move to dismiss under "it was an official act, can't prosecute". The judge would then need to decide if there is sufficient evidence to call into question if the act was official, given that the president cannot give an illegal order as an official act. If there's enough evidence, presumably the judge wouldn't dismiss and the trial would continue. (If they did dismiss, presumably the prosecution could appeal to a higher level court,)
I am just not clear on why everyone both thinks, and seem to want to think that this has given up the ball game and now the president is a king.
I am trying to argue in good faith. I just don't agree with you that the president can now do whatever they want. If they could, Biden could order the assassinations of all Republicans sitting in congress, for instance - presuming your reading of this is correct, what's to stop him? If you think it's just that he's not bold enough, perhaps you should call the whitehouse and give your opinion on what he should do with his newfound powers.