First responders have (in some counties had) immunity while doing their job. If grandma needs CPR you don't want a first responder to hesitate to provide that CPR because they might crack a rib and get sued, or worse, thrown in jail.
The president should not be afraid to make decisions in fear of political retaliation, which is exactly what this ruling clarifys.
If the first responder breaks the law they are held accountable. If the president breaks the law they will be held accountable.
This doesn't mean the president can do whatever they want and they are immune from the law. That's ridiculous. The ruling even states that.
Based on the incredible hyperbole written in the dissent. Legal expert turned partisan hack quite quickly when they start talking about assassinations.
The dissent said the president can now assassinate someone. The president enjoys no such authority, and therefore, the dissent must be discarded as not a serious opinion.
The dissent is in bad faith and should be discarded. The president enjoys no authority to assassinate anyone and therefore enjoys no immunity for doing so. The dissent is not serious and should be treated as such.
You truly believe the court gave full immunity for all things don't you? You must have missed the part where it's only for actions carrying out functions of the constitution. Everything else enjoys no such privilege. If a president commits a crime it is not protected. Further, a court (not the supreme court) can determine if the act was official or not.
The highest court didn't give any president a free pass. If the president is carrying out a function of the constitution there is immunity. For everything else they enjoy no immunity. Like for instance breaking a law.
Blatant misinformation and a fundamental lack of understanding of the ruling. Nothing changed. President cannot commit a crime and say it was in official capacity. Obviously.
Misinformation. This does not allow the president to commit a crime and then say it was all in an official capacity. The very act of doing something criminal immediately puts it out of the realm of any official capacity. Obviously.
You cannot commit criminal acts in an official capacity, full stop. It is not possible. The moment your actions are criminal you are no longer upholding the oath you have taken and the action is not official. Obviously.
That's not true. Criminal acts are not protected, nor can they be made in an official capacity. Furthermore, the ruling says the court that determines official acts is the trails court. Not the supreme Court. Stop spreading misinformation.
First responders have (in some counties had) immunity while doing their job. If grandma needs CPR you don't want a first responder to hesitate to provide that CPR because they might crack a rib and get sued, or worse, thrown in jail.
The president should not be afraid to make decisions in fear of political retaliation, which is exactly what this ruling clarifys.
If the first responder breaks the law they are held accountable. If the president breaks the law they will be held accountable.
This doesn't mean the president can do whatever they want and they are immune from the law. That's ridiculous. The ruling even states that.