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?

  • s38b35M5@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    So Biden could shoot Trump dead but the court would rule that that was illegal because some bullshit reason.

    Ah! But with what evidence? They also ruled that presidential conduct (paraphrasing here) can’t be used as evidence.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      5 months ago

      True, but they are also the ones who decide what they can and cannot do without recourse from anyone else (because we need 2/3 of Congress to impeach which is a non-starter.) so they can rule one way and then rule another for whatever reason they want.

      Our “justices” (/vomit…) don’t have to have any qualifications, we just pay lip service to norms so we (read: the federalist society) choose vaguely “acceptable” people to be justices, but you or I could be one too which really means that they have almost nothing to do with the actual law. We’re a fucking joke.