• aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 months ago

    It allows for immunity to any “official acts” by the president while they are in office and does not define what an “unofficial” act would be. So if an action is challenged from the lower courts it’ll end up at the supreme court where they will deem it official or unofficial.

    Which brings the onus of dethroning a king president up to the Congress to impeach them. Which has never happened. However, we have impeached a supreme court justice in the past.

    • _ffiresticks_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      They did rule that you can’t question a president about his motivations or reasons for any particular act when determining whether it was official or not. Only whether the act itself qualifies as official or not, regardless of the reason behind it.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      This, to my understanding, is how things already worked. We’ve just never had to draw the line before because we haven’t ever had to charge a former president with a crime. My understanding is that the SCOTUS refused to draw the line, not that they granted the office of president absolute immunity.