Ok correction, it's not legal, the president can just never be punished for it, as he is immune in order to act swiftly and boldly or whatever the fuck the SC came up with as an excuse to make America a Christo-Fascist state.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Not true, the Supreme Court decides it on a case by case basis. And murder of a political opponent would land Biden in jail faster than you can say "one Missisipi". And rightfully so. That's why he didn't do anything of the sort - because he is not a criminal.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 5 points 23 hours ago

With just a couple more assassinations, they might be more cooperative!

[–] Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not saying that he should be doing it or that it makes sense. But no, it is very clear from the decision that he would be immune. He has absolute immunity for core powers and presumed immunity for all official acts, which the court left very vague, but didn't deny would include assassinating political opponents. The dissenting opinion made it very clear that this was the case.

With that said, in some way you are right. If Biden did it, it would be appealed and the SC would rule that in this specific case he isn't immune, whereas if Trump did the same, it would be appealed and they would rule that he is immune. Because the SC is corrupt and doesn't care about precedent.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world -1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

The decision they made wasn't a precedent, they allowed it as a case-by-case basis. So Biden wouldn't be able to point to Trump and say "he did it! So it's legal!".

[–] Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 3 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts

[–] Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 2 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Just to add some more fun quotes:

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.

This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.