If inciting an insurrection towards their own government is an action without legal repercussions, I don’t see how the law would be less lenient about straight up firing a gun at an opponent.

I by no means want any party to resolve to violent tactics. So even though I play with the thought, I really don’t want anything like it to happen. I am just curious if it’s actually the case that a sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.

What am I missing?

  • kandoh@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    5 months ago

    Because what they really did was set themselves up as the ones who decide what is and isn’t an official act.

    As long as there is a right-wing supreme court, any action by a republican president will be official and immune, but if a democratic president tried to throw their weight around in the same… They’ll get shut down.

      • eightpix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        5 months ago

        Wait, maybe the justices just gave Biden the authority to do just that.

        Naw. See, if he did, that’d delegitimize the presidency and cause a constitutional crisis.

        But, if a Republican President does it, it’s an exercise in upholding American freedom and the true authority of the office. See the difference?

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      That’s the perfect! That’s why we nominate someone of Bidens age. Not only can he get away with it now as an “official act” but by the time the next court rules on it, he’ll be long gone