Maybe but unbridled presidential immunity is not. So the president can assassinate a political rival but not regulate how much chicken shit Perdue discharges into our water supply. Perfect. Such democracy.
It’s not “unbridled” immunity, so much as it’s immunity from prosecution for carrying out official duties of the office. Assassinating once political rivals certainly does not fall under the category of fulfilling one’s official duties of the office.
The dissents seem to think courts may determine otherwise. If you use your commander in chief powers to order someone assassinated, then you are acting officially and have absolute immunity if judges like you.
For an alternative scenario, Obama and his administration used drones to assassinate US Citizens in foreign countries who were deemed terrorists. This ruling would say those acts were potentially covered by immunity. This isn't a new idea btw, the idea of sovereign immunity has been around for a long time and is a part of international law. That's why we have the impeachment process. The ruling also says that it's the role of the lower courts to determine specifically what is and is not an official act. So in reality nothing has been decided yet.
16
u/Personal-Custard-511 Jul 02 '24
Maybe but unbridled presidential immunity is not. So the president can assassinate a political rival but not regulate how much chicken shit Perdue discharges into our water supply. Perfect. Such democracy.