The ruling made such a case unprosecutable as it made any possible evidence in such a case inadmissable. You've been told this multiple times but gloss over it for some reason.
The majority went out of there way to make the president unprosecutable. Not only did they make "official"
(whether or not something is an official act is something this very same majority will decide!) acts unprosecutable they ensured that even if immunity doesn't apply then NONE of the evidence is admissible.
The simple and irrefutable fact is that the ruling allows the president to have a political opponent killed and be wholly immune to any possible prosecution.
For example:
- President has political opponent killed by any means (ask CIA to do it or whatever), or accepts a bribe from someone in return for sending weaponry or anything else
- President's term ends
- Former president is charged for his obviously criminal acts
- Former president's lawyers argue their actions were "official acts"
- Prosecutor appeals
- Gets all the way to the supreme court
- Supreme court decides that the crimes commited were official acts because the president did them (and thus must be official)
or if the court tries to look marginally less ridiculous and corrupt:
- Supreme court decides the crimes themselves weren't official acts but any and all communication related to the acts themselves were official acts and are this inadmissable (making the prosecution impossible)
MAYBE the 'justices' have integrity at that point and don't rule that way... too bad. The president can just have pre-emptively have disloyal 'justices' killed and personally appoint loyalists... and have them rule the way he wants. It's all an official act, after all.
Can you show me what part of the ruling prevents the above?
Whether or not you believe the above is "unrealistic" or "fearmongering" is irrelevant as this is what the majority's absurd opinion allows for. It's simply unjustifiable, unconstitutional, ridiculous and there's no excuse for it.
This is a lie.
The ruling made such a case unprosecutable as it made any possible evidence in such a case inadmissable. You've been told this multiple times but gloss over it for some reason.
The majority went out of there way to make the president unprosecutable. Not only did they make "official" (whether or not something is an official act is something this very same majority will decide!) acts unprosecutable they ensured that even if immunity doesn't apply then NONE of the evidence is admissible.
The simple and irrefutable fact is that the ruling allows the president to have a political opponent killed and be wholly immune to any possible prosecution.
For example:
- President has political opponent killed by any means (ask CIA to do it or whatever), or accepts a bribe from someone in return for sending weaponry or anything else
- President's term ends
- Former president is charged for his obviously criminal acts
- Former president's lawyers argue their actions were "official acts"
- Prosecutor appeals
- Gets all the way to the supreme court
- Supreme court decides that the crimes commited were official acts because the president did them (and thus must be official)
or if the court tries to look marginally less ridiculous and corrupt:
- Supreme court decides the crimes themselves weren't official acts but any and all communication related to the acts themselves were official acts and are this inadmissable (making the prosecution impossible)
MAYBE the 'justices' have integrity at that point and don't rule that way... too bad. The president can just have pre-emptively have disloyal 'justices' killed and personally appoint loyalists... and have them rule the way he wants. It's all an official act, after all.
Can you show me what part of the ruling prevents the above?
Whether or not you believe the above is "unrealistic" or "fearmongering" is irrelevant as this is what the majority's absurd opinion allows for. It's simply unjustifiable, unconstitutional, ridiculous and there's no excuse for it.