The SC ruled, 6–3 that presidents have absolute immunity for acts committed within presidents' core constitutional purview, presumptive immunity for official acts within outer perimeter of official responsibility, & no immunity for unofficial acts. Where does this chaos & destruction fall?
Sometimes I wonder if they even think about the Founders, what they meant, or why they wrote what they wrote in the Constitution, because their rulings sure don’t suggest it. They seem to forget King George III got kicked to the curb.
Given that it's the courts and that they decide cases and not issue edicts, I would guess that what you're asking only occurs when a case challenges the murkier aspects of their decision on presidential immunity, such as how far it extends in protecting the president.
Nope...instead they open the path for selling people as slaves to foreign prisons without any checks at all..you know checks like - are they a US citizen.
Comments
https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4183&context=clr
Ruling against immunity would never hinder an honest president.