[terminalshort]

Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that.

As a practical matter, if the president is ordering the military to do those things and the military is obeying those orders, we are far beyond the point where concepts like legal immunity matter.

[refulgentis]

You’re a student of history, thus I think you understand how “commander in chief of the armed forces” is a constitutional duty without needing further explanation of why.

I think you intended to communicate the Supreme Court would balk at it happening.

Yes.

Much like Kavanaugh balking at ethnicity-based stops after allowing language + skin color based stops. By then, it’s too late.

[avidiax]

Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces.

The ruling makes it very clear that core constitutional powers have conclusive and preclusive (absolute) immunity.

Other official acts have presumptive immunity.

In all cases, the motive is above question. If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her. He doesn't even need to claim that she's a spy. It can never be questioned in court. He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court.

In all cases, the official acts are explicitly not admissible as evidence. Using the example above, the District of Columbia can try to prosecute for murder, but is unable to introduce the fact of the order as evidence. If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible.

[terminalshort]

> Ordering violence orchestrated by the military is a core constitutional power. It's called being "commander-in-chief" of the armed forces.

Incorrect. The commander in chief, same as all military officers, has the authority to issue lawful orders to the chain of command below him. He does not have the authority to issue unlawful orders, and if he does, his subordinates have the legal obligation to disobey them. The president does not have constitutional power to order arbitrary violence.

> If Trump has a fight with Melania, he can order the CIA to rendition and disappear her

No he can't because this is against the law, and it is therefore not a presidential power. The president has no constitutional authority to order agencies to violate the law.

> He can then pardon everyone involved, so even the underlings face no court.

This is, unfortunately, true. But it has been true as long as the US has existed.

> If Trump receives a bribe, the official act that he undertook at the briber's behest is similarly inadmissible.

This is true, but the act of taking the bribe is not an exercise of presidential power so he can be charged with accepting a bribe. This is not new to the recent SC decision.

[avidiax]

> has the authority to issue lawful orders

This decision says that he can issue unlawful orders, and there's nothing the court can do about it. He's immune. You don't need immunity for lawful acts. The very best you could argue is that this prevents prosecution for "gray area" acts that may or may not be lawful. But this decision essentially says that all of those "gray areas" are effectively lawful.

Decide that the protesters in Minnesota are an insurrection? Maybe they start turning up with long guns, like countless previous protestors? Order the troops to fire. It's up to them if they do or don't, but it's guaranteed if they don't, they'll be in courts martial for disobeying the order. The meeting minutes, the reports, what was known and when it was known, Trump's motive: all of them don't matter at all. The official records are inadmissible, his motive is unquestionable, and he is absolutely immune for his orders as commander-in-chief. He can pardon everyone and make them federally immune as well. Only state courts can do anything, far after the fact.

[wtfwhateven]

Have you actually read the SC opinion or are you just assuming what it says? It is apparently the latter.

>No he can't because this is against the law

What exactly do you think immunity makes someone immune from?

[actionfromafar]

Ok he can tell his chain of command some lies then. Same difference.

[terminalshort]

How on earth is that going to make the orders lawful?

[wtfwhateven]

Do you think immunity is for lawful things? Why on earth are you arguing that unlawful acts are not covered by immunity? What exactly do you think immunity makes someone immune from?

[cosmicgadget]

Sedition isn't lawful and it's what the immunity decision addressed.

And that wasn't anywhere near the amount of deference the president gets when it comes to emergency and war powers.

[actionfromafar]

On the receiving end, giving cover and benefit of a doubt.

The chain of command may or may not signal (similarly to the Supreme Court) what kind of fig leaf lies are required.

From there it’s a game of telephone until a barrel of a gun.

[fzeroracer]

> Unless ordering assassinations and launching a coup are "core constitutional powers" of the president, then no the ruling does not give him immunity for that.

Just to be clear: you are disagreeing with a dissenting Supreme Court justice on how much the law protects the president. Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law?

[terminalshort]

Are you disagreeing with all 6 concurring Supreme Court justices on much the law protects the president? Are you a lawyer? Do you know more about how much the law binds the president than the literal office that has the final say on the law?

See how stupid that argument is?

[Starman_Jones]

No, they aren't, because the concurring justices have not said that those acts are not covered. All we have is what the majority wow, which notably did not include any exceptions

[cosmicgadget]

Important to note that the majority and concurring opinions typically respond to the dissent. The fact that they declined to make any clarifications on those matters is significant.

You should read the decision.

[seattle_spring]

If you think Roberts, Alito, and especially Thomas have actually been following the law as it was intended, then I have a beautiful bridge in New York to sell to you.

[fzeroracer]

Make no mistake, I fully believe the Supreme Court is complicit in this manner and has long since abdicated their duties to uphold the law and the constitution. But my point is that when the Supreme Court comes out and says that the President is immune to all actions they take, it seems like a folly to try and pretend that they don't mean what they say, at least as long as Trump is President. The 'law' is what the Supreme Court says it is, and they've decided Trump is the law.

[cosmicgadget]

The coup question specifically came up in oral arguments. Trump's attorney said he would have immunity. The majority opinion more or less says it's up to congress to impeach.

So yes.