Answer: they would react differently if it were Biden versus Trump who did it. The SCOTUS would find a way to let Trump off while making Biden pay.

It has to be an official act within the scope of the executive branch. So he couldn't just bring a gun and shot him, however he could direct the justice department to focus on domestic terrorism and cite Trump's threats for political retribution as a terroristic threat and have him and every other Republican who publicly agreed with him disappeared.

The immunity only applies to Republican presidents.

Bring his own gun? Unofficial act. Have the DOJ black bag his opponent and rendition him to a CIA camp in Saudi Arabia? Official act and immune.

Because what they really did was set themselves up as the ones who decide what is and isn't an official act.

As long as there is a right-wing supreme court, any action by a republican president will be official and immune, but if a democratic president tried to throw their weight around in the same... They'll get shut down.

Declare a national security emergency. Have the SEALS eliminate Trump for being a traitor. Bing bang boom, America is Great Again.

They did not say that he was immune. They said that the president has immunity for certain acts. What acts? Whatever acts they, the SCOTUS, decide they should be immune from. So Biden could shoot Trump dead but the court would rule that that was illegal because some bullshit reason.

The immunity from criminal prosecution has to do with official acts, not personal acts. It wouldn't apply to Biden personally shooting Trump.

It would apply to a military proclamation as commander-in-chief that the Trump movement is a domestic insurrectionist movement that carried out an armed attack on the US Congress; that the Trump movement thus exists in a state of war against the United States; and directing the US Army to decapitate the movement by capturing or killing its leaders, taking all enemy combatants as prisoners of war, etc. (Now consider that the Army is only obliged to follow constitutional orders, and would have Significant Questions about the constitutionality of such an order.)

Further, the immunity is only from criminal prosecution and would not protect Biden from impeachment and removal from office by Congress while the Army is still figuring out whether the order is constitutional.

A lot of discussion on Lemmy forgets that a very large number of people actually support that Piece of Shit Donald Trump. Tens of Millions. Some of them are begging for a civil war. Killing Trump publicly would be a spark to a great flame.

He doesn’t even have to shoot anyone. Whoever interferes with an official act is clearly committing treason and can be sent to Gulag

Trump could bring his own gun and shoot him and the Court would still call it official.

don't be ridiculous; it says official acts, so he can't bring a gun himself.

he has to use seal team 6 instead. see? democracy isn't dead!

He must say: "This debate is officially over" before pulling the trigger.

Acts done in an official manner are immune. So for example if the president orders assassination of political leader of another country (what Trump did with Iran's Suleinami (I'm probably butchering name)). Protects president from prosecution for murder or whatever if there is evidence it was done in the interest of the state.

Another example is something Biden / Trump and even Hilary are guilty of. The misuse or mishandling of classified materials. Since they are acting in an official manner, it isn't a crime like it would be if a normal citizen mishandled the documents.

Acts done in an "unofficial manner" are not immune. So let's say a Mr President does some insider trading while president to enrich himself personally. That presumably would still be illegal and he could be charged.

So who decides what is official and what isn't? The courts. Lower courts make a determination and presumably it would go up to the SC if necessary.

It's an interesting question. For example- Reagan's Iran-Contra episode. Where his administration was smuggling cocaine in order to get money to covertly supply weapons to Iran. Would that be official or unofficial?

I think people need to realize the president has had broad powers to do a lot of dubious things for decades. This doesn't necessarily increase or decrease his power, but creates a potential pathway to either prosecute or acquit him. Whereas before, it always stayed in the legal gray zone (in Reagan's Iran Contra)

The supreme cunts can just change their ruling whenever they feel like it, so as long as it's their boss tRump it's fine but anyone ~~they~~ tRump doesn't like they'll just make another decision saying you can't do that anymore.

sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.

Just think about how many wars they have started: They had this license all the time!

His own devotion to ineffectiveness.

Pardon my ignorance but did the court say that inciting an insurection is an official act?

You're not missing anything. Based on the ruling, the president may now murder anyone they want - just so long as they claim it's an official act.