@Hyolobrika @AltonDooley @volkris People understandably presume reasonableness of the Court, try to fill gaps in in such a way as you could say, look, this is a balanced measure to prevent harassing or politically motivated prosecution while continuing to ensure that Presidents follow the law. But read the text. It is not that, not at all. It provides absolute immunity for actions with sufficient scope to order violent lawlessness and protect perpetrators from any criminal accountability. /fin

@interfluidity the key point is, absolute immunity is only recognized for legal actions.

Can you cite legal basis for ordering violent lawlessness? Seems like a tall hill to climb.

If you can't cite legal basis for that action, then no, the text does not provide it.

@Hyolobrika @AltonDooley

@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley that is simply not true. absolute immunity is not distinguished by lawful or unlawful actions. there’d be no reason for that. no one needs immunity for lawful actions. prosecutors are explicitly enjoined from even *inquiring* into whether “official acts” are motivated in order to break the law. for “conclusive and preclusive” official acts, including commanding the military + providing pardons, immunity is absolute and automatic.

you misunderstood the decision.

@interfluidity you say there is no reason for that, but the reason for that is staring us in the face: IF a person is being prosecuted for something that's not illegal in the first place, that's a strong call for immunity from improper prosecution!

And that's what this is all about, reigning in an administration that's overreaching in its prosecution.

When people get hung up on the motivation aspect they're missing that there are some things that current law allows regardless of motivation. AND we can democratically change that law if we wish, adding in the motivation aspect.

Other authorizations are more limited, hence the categorical tiers that came out in this ruling.

Regardless, to claim immunity from prosecution the accused would first have to demonstrate that their actions have legal basis.

There's no automatic get out of jail free card here.

@Hyolobrika @AltonDooley

@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley again, you are just wrong on the facts. if a person is being prosecuted for something not illegal, the remedy is acquittal, not immunity. 1/

@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley there is nothing about this decision we can democratically change. the Supreme Court has declared absolute immunity for exercise of the President’s “conclusive and preclusive” powers part of the Constitution itself (defying history and literacy to do so). they have not conditioned this immunity on the exercise being otherwise legal. only the Supreme Court itself or a Constitutional amendment can undo this. 2/

@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley There is absolutely an automatic “get out of jail card” here. Not for all of the current Trump prosecutions, because some of what he’s being prosecuted for are arguably not “official acts”, and not “conclusive and preclusive” official acts. Trump’s prosecutions are now extraordinarily unlikely to succeed, but they can continue. But future Presidents have a clear map of how to act illegally without consequence. 3/

@interfluidity

Again, if they were acting illegally then this ruling doesn't protect them.

This ruling only provides protection from prosecution over legal actions.