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.

  • Lemminary
    link
    413 days ago

    Will there be a fight to reign in those powers legally in any way? Because it feels awfully convenient and lucrative for someone to win the presidency at all costs now.

      • @NJSpradlin
        link
        193 days ago

        We can’t get Congress to agree to anything right now, the ruling elite and external hostile governments have crippled them. The Republican members see this as a win for Trump and that Biden has limited time and won’t do anything antagonistic. Remember, the SCOTUS is the only entity that can determine whether or not a president acted officially, as per this ruling. The SCOTUS, that’s heavily right leaning, would crucify a Democratic president and justify a Republican. The other route would be impeachment, but we saw how that went and it has the same problems as a constitutional amendment, the gridlock in Congress.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          12 days ago

          We can’t get Congress to agree to anything right now, the ruling elite and external hostile governments have crippled them.

          For the record, the house is currently controlled by the Republicans. Saying “gridlock in Congress” when its run by the party that most benefits from being obstructionist seems a bit disengenuous. It’s not “gridlock”, it’s Republicans doing what they went there to do.

          • @NJSpradlin
            link
            12 days ago

            That’s what my quoted portion is describing, too. Hostile governments and the ruling elite have infiltrated Congress, and told them to bicker and act like they’re trying but actually do nothing noteworthy. Republicans are dancing to their tune and, yeah also benefiting from it. ‘See, how the government doesn’t work! Elect more stooges and dismantle it further! (Also, Project 2025!!)’

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      15
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      There can be a fight, but it can be stopped at any point by the executive branch for any reason without restriction or consequence.

      Plus, now there is a legal precedent for presidential immunity, so even if the best situation occurs and executive balance is restored, the next team of bandits can point to 2024 and say well look, the highest court in the land said their ruling supersedes the Constitution.

      Fixing this will require some sort of comprehensive rewrite of either the Constitution to make its powers inviolate or better yet, to make the limitations on the branches inviolate.

      Maybe increase the amendments by tenfold to elucidate exactly what is allowed and not allowed, because right now “reasonable judgment” is often invoked as a limitation on important legal rulings, but if you have a conservative majority refusing to honestly engage with “reasonable judgment” and willing to pwrjure themselvesto irritate harmful and unreasonable judgment, as the conservatives on the court are and have been willing to do for decades, then they can do things like violate or invalidate the Constitution.

      The problem with all of these solutions is that the limitations on executive power are already very clear, and the supreme Court is objectively violating them.

      I don’t see a clear resolution at this point, although I’m so shocked by the end of the US government that I’m still working through the consequences and considering hopeful solutions.

      Right now, the most hopeful solution I see is like when dumps asked pence to violate the Constitution and declare him president, pence refused.

      So if another atrocity is now ordered, right now the only hope is that the person being ordered to do it will risk being executed for treason and not follow that order.

      Relying on many someones like pence to all do the right thing is not exactly comforting.