The ruling makes a distinction between official actions of a president, which have immunity, and those of a private citizen. In dissent, the court’s liberals lament a vast expansion of presidential power.
That’s very important. The court has given itself the power to decide which acts are official, so step one is assassinating anyone who would say it’s not. You probably don’t need to do all of them, just a few, then the others will get the idea.
(Note I am not calling for actual assassinations, just pointing out that the court is both the decider and vulnerable to the edict enshrining a lawless president.)
That’s very important. The court has given itself the power to decide which acts are official, so step one is assassinating anyone who would say it’s not. You probably don’t need to do all of them, just a few, then the others will get the idea.
(Note I am not calling for actual assassinations, just pointing out that the court is both the decider and vulnerable to the edict enshrining a lawless president.)