It is a fundamental misunderstanding and mistake to believe that people don't vote the way you want them too is because they are less intelligent than you.

Or you could run someone who doesn't have their foot half in the grave.

United States of America v. Ramiz Zijad Hodzic et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, No.4:15CR49CDP/DDN, 9 May 2018

Lawful combatants enjoy “combatant immunity” for acts of warfare, including the wounding or killing of other human beings, “provided those actions were performed in the context of ongoing hostilities against lawful military targets, and were not in violation of the law of war.”

Hell yeah my candidate isn't fascist, YOUR candidate is fascist!

You assumed wrong, as the supreme court said the trails court will determine what is and isn't an official act. What's the problem?

First responders get immunity while they are doing their duty. Judges do too. What exactly is the problem? Breaking the law CANNOT be an official act.

Trump was president for four years, enjoyed all of this immunity already, and not one politician was murdered. Pretty sure we'll be alright.

Source?

First responders have (in some counties had) immunity while doing their job. If grandma needs CPR you don't want a first responder to hesitate to provide that CPR because they might crack a rib and get sued, or worse, thrown in jail.

The president should not be afraid to make decisions in fear of political retaliation, which is exactly what this ruling clarifys.

If the first responder breaks the law they are held accountable. If the president breaks the law they will be held accountable.

This doesn't mean the president can do whatever they want and they are immune from the law. That's ridiculous. The ruling even states that.

Is that because I don't vote the way you want me to?

Lemmy isn't representative of the US. If you consumed any media outside your bubble you'd see that.

Funny, that's what I think about all the people clutching their pearls crying democracy is dead because of this ruling.

Never once have I said I'm for this.

Trails court does. You obviously didn't read the ruling. We have nothing to discuss.

Based on the incredible hyperbole written in the dissent. Legal expert turned partisan hack quite quickly when they start talking about assassinations.

The dissent is in bad faith and should be discarded. The president enjoys no authority to assassinate anyone and therefore enjoys no immunity for doing so. The dissent is not serious and should be treated as such.

The Constitution bestows the power upon the presidential office onto the president. Not SCOTUS.

Let's follow that logic.

You locate a terrorist. You just so happen to have a couple guys who can bomb that terrorist. You murder the terrorist. You are charged with murder because the laws of this nation do not allow murder.

Same scenario, but now it's the president. Please tell me what the difference is. Why can the president not be charged with a crime but you can? What would you call that?