Says who? You can't ask me why I did it, according to the ruling. I could have had a good reason. And you can't use my private records, nor those of my assistants, either.
ATTN: The above comment is satirical and making a point. The point is that the majority says intent of an "official act" cannot be questioned.
So kind of how they said bribery is okay as long as it's not explicitly asked for and given as a "gift" after the fact, the majority holds that presidents can kill their political opponents as long as they "say" it was for national security.
The constitution gives me the power to kill people for good reasons (I am the commander in chief of the military, after all), and I assure you, I have good reasons. Which you can't ask about.
And don't tell me I need Congress to authorize my killing people. I haven't needed that since Vietnam or something.
The ruling has specifically left the definition of "official acts" for the lower courts to decide on a case-by-case basis; they have not limited official acts to Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. The president likely has modern "official acts" that are not in in the constitution (such as the ability to issue executive orders) so it is not as simple as pointing to it. As things stand, this ruling is a blank cheque of unknown (but undoubtedly large) size.
You need to think about this a bit more carefully. Today's ruling states that the president has immunity for all official acts. Official acts can be literally anything the president does _in his capacity as president_.
Assassinating people is my job, I'm the commander in chief of the military. I just happened to do my job on someone who also happened to be my political opponent. How is that not an official act for which I am immune? The court cannot inquire about my motives.
You don't seem to understand how the judicial system in USA works. The ultimate decision capacity is with the people. The way it's realized may differ, and the time may be long to pursue the decision, but not even SC has the last word, only the people. The court cannot inquire about your motives is only until people are ok with that; if they are not, the reason will be found - or not - and pursued - no options here - to insist.
The problem is that 50% of the people are in a camp that advocates for the overthrow of the US government, while consolidating power and ensuring that it is as difficult as possible for people who oppose them to vote.
The Senate allowed legislation that made public lynching a crime to fester in committee without a vote for years. The Supreme Court’s abandonment of any reasonable check on executive power or governmental integrity is absurd. You literally have a justice on the payroll of a billionaire who has paid him millions of dollars who helped redefine bribery to make it a crime impossible to prosecute:
