Sorry if this is not the proper community for this question. Please let me know if I should post this question elsewhere.

So like, I’m not trying to be hyperbolic or jump on some conspiracy theory crap, but this seems like very troubling news to me. My entire life, I’ve been under the impression that no one is technically/officially above the law in the US, especially the president. I thought that was a hard consensus among Americans regardless of party. Now, SCOTUS just made the POTUS immune to criminal liability.

The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences. They also already have the ability to pardon anyone else for federal violations. The POTUS can literally threaten anyone now. They can assassinate anyone. They can order anyone to assassinate anyone, then pardon them. It may even grant complete immunity from state laws because if anyone tries to hold the POTUS accountable, then they can be assassinated too. This is some Putin-level dictator stuff.

I feel like this is unbelievable and acknowledge that I may be wayyy off. Am I misunderstanding something?? Do I need to calm down?

  • DeadHorseX@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences.

    This isn’t true.

    They ruled that the President has criminal immunity for official acts in line with the constitutional rights and duties of the POTUS.

    They also ruled that non-official acts, or acts taken in a personal capacity as a private citizen, are not immune to criminal prosecution, and that there’s a large gray area in between the two where it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

    • Phegan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      3 days ago

      They left it intentionally vague so cases will make it to the supreme Court so the court can decide based on of the president is on their team or not.

    • BrokenGlepnir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 days ago

      They also said that official acts cover just about everything when using presidential power, and you can’t take motive into account when determining if it’s an official act or not. Shooting a gun at someone himself. Not official sure. Ordering someone in the military to do it. You can’t ask why he did it, and if it was legal, why would immunity matter?

    • Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 days ago

      As commander in chief, communicating with the military is definitely a core duty and absolutely immune. So is writing pardons. So you just order the military to crime in your name and pardon them afterward.

    • Professorozone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 days ago

      And as I understand it, they SCOTUS get to decide what counts as official. So theoretically, they could decide, for example, that killing a political opponent is official. After all someone who disagrees might effect the smooth running of the government. And so on.