[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.