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?

  • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    45·
    4 months ago

    The Sotomayor dissent was awful. It’s an absurd argument with no real basis in reality. Whether the president is immune from ordering the assassination of a rival is largely irrelevant, because it wouldn’t get to a criminal trial anyway. It’s already illegal for the seals to carry out that order as well.

    The president told me to do it isn’t a valid defense

    • Mjpasta710@midwest.social
      1·
      4 months ago

      Except in the future - If you’re part of the official staff for the president - A defense wouldn’t be needed. The fact that the president told them to do it wouldn’t even be able to come up. It’s privileged communication now.

    • Mjpasta710@midwest.social
      24·
      4 months ago

      So your answer to why your opinion is more valid than everyone else is; Because I say so?

      Thanks for providing clear sources as to why your opinion is more valid than the dissenters with credentials.