How so? The ruling was that he had full immunity during "presidential duties", which has many times been interpreted by the SC as "anything he wants to do while president."
And notably, before any further disagreement pops up the other dissenting judges literally said as much. The relevant quote:
"When he uses his official powers in any way, under
the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from
criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official
power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one
day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as
bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the
majority’s message today."
Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that.
As a practical matter, if the president is ordering the military to do those things and the military is obeying those orders, we are far beyond the point where concepts like legal immunity matter.
> The ruling was that he had full immunity during "presidential duties"
Yes. This was basically agreed upon before that the president has legal immunity for exercising his constitutional powers, but was never explicitly ruled on by the court. If the president does something outside his legal authority, then that isn't his presidential duty, and he can be punished.
> which has many times been interpreted by the SC as "anything he wants to do while president."
How so? The ruling was that he had full immunity during "presidential duties", which has many times been interpreted by the SC as "anything he wants to do while president."
And notably, before any further disagreement pops up the other dissenting judges literally said as much. The relevant quote:
"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today."
Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that.
As a practical matter, if the president is ordering the military to do those things and the military is obeying those orders, we are far beyond the point where concepts like legal immunity matter.
28 replies →
> The ruling was that he had full immunity during "presidential duties"
Yes. This was basically agreed upon before that the president has legal immunity for exercising his constitutional powers, but was never explicitly ruled on by the court. If the president does something outside his legal authority, then that isn't his presidential duty, and he can be punished.
> which has many times been interpreted by the SC as "anything he wants to do while president."
This part is just false
You have clearly not actually read the opinion being discussed and have resorted to outright lying about what it says. Please stop it.
> If the president does something outside his legal authority, then that isn't his presidential duty, and he can be punished.
Your choice of words is rather telling.
It is what they ruled. What do you gain from lying about this?