That’s not from the supreme court ruling. That’s an opinion piece. It holds no meaning over the ruling. Political fear mongering.

But notably, it does shield them from prosecution for crimes which are tangentially related to their official duties. For example, granting a presidential pardon is an official duty. Taking a bribe in exchange for that pardon would be a crime. But now the president is allowed to openly and blatantly take that bribe, because the bribe is tangential to their official duty, and they are therefore shielded from prosecution.

Not at all. While granting a pardon is an official duty, taking a bribe in exchange for a pardon is a criminal act. The decision does not shield the President from prosecution for such criminal conduct. Criminal acts are just as prosecutable as there were prior.

Excerpt from the ruling:

“As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The principles we set out in Clinton v. Jones confirm as much. When Paula Jones brought a civil lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton for acts he allegedly committed prior to his Presidency, we rejected his argument that he enjoyed temporary immunity from the lawsuit while serving as President. 520 U. S., at 684. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Id., at 694, and n. 19.”

Unofficial conduct includes taking bribes.

Many experts disagree with the second half of your sentence, because ordering an assassination could easily be argued to be an official duty; After all, the POTUS is the commander in chief of the military. According to this ruling, ordering it illegally would be protected, because the illegality is tied to the official duty.

“Many experts” isn’t someone I can talk with or argue against. They’re just weasel words.

Ordering an assassination is illegal. It violates the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the constitution (as they deprive persons of “life, liberty, or property” without fair legal procedures and protections). as well as Executive Order 12333 in which assassination is explicitly deemed illegal.

Who decides what is “official,” or “unofficial?” Oh, that’s right, Federalist Society planted judges.

The distinction between official and unofficial acts is largely guided by precedents set by the Supreme Court. Cases like Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) and Clinton v. Jones (1997) provide frameworks for understanding the scope of presidential immunity and the nature of official duties. It’s not just something they drum up out of nowhere. Judicial review and precedent are used for building out what constitutes official duties.

This is exactly why i’m asking people to read the ruling that I linked for your convenience It doesn’t even talk about bribery. At all. People are just saying things without doing any effort to source/reference/research what they’re talking about.

Hey so there’s some echo-chambery stuff going on in Lemmy right now, so I want to provide some clarification:

1. The court decision did not create a new law. It provided clarity on laws already in place. Presidential immunity is not a new thing. It’s a well established power. See: Clinton v. Jones (1997), United States v. Nixon (1974), United States v. Burr (1807), Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)

2. The court decision does not expand on the law either, it clarifies that:

The President has some immunity for official acts to allow them to perform their duties without undue interference. However, this immunity does not cover:

• Unofficial acts or personal behavior.

• Criminal acts, (to include assassination).

The decision reaffirms that the President can be held accountable for actions outside the scope of their official duties. It does not grant blanket immunity for all actions or allow the President to act as a dictator.

People who are giving opinions based on what they read on Lemmy instead of going and reading the supreme court opinion that is totally online and right here for you to reference are spreading misinformation and fear.

Would someone really do that? Just go on the Internet and tell lies?

I once clicked an ad for syrinscape because it intrigued me. I ended up using it. Loyal customer ever since.

Yeah. I’ve had exactly 0 issues in the past decade. The only people I tend to get op’s complaints from are usually lamenting that they can’t use the n-word or hate on marginalized groups anymore and hide behind “it’s a joke lmao”. Op was too vague to actually say what exactly they mean by sanitization, but it IS eerily similar.

DNS engineer here: it’s the bane of my existence. Vanity TLDs were a cash grab for ICANN. They have made defensive domains a nightmare

You don’t go to waffle House for waffles. The bloodhound gang didn’t sing about waffles.

“Want you smothered, want you covered like waffle House hash browns”

Dunno about you but I’ve never not crashed hash browns while hammered

I couldn’t roll my eyes hard enough. It instantly reminded me of r/atheism titles going “dae religion bad ?😤” 80,000 up votes

There’s no fight. No battle. It’s just people trying to get by day to day. “Boomers” are not a nation, they’re just another way to split up people trying to get by so one group can justify being shitty to another. Rich and powerful people are happy to promote anything that keeps us divided and conquered. Wars have leaders and strategies and clear lines drawn. The “generational war” is just rats fighting over a piece of cheese dropped by the rich and powerful looking for amusement.

Security through obscurity is not security

Doesn’t sound like alt history. Sounds like a joke. Two totally different eras.