<story><title>Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts</title><url>https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-capitol-riot-immunity-2dc0d1c2368d404adc0054151490f542</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>cogman10</author><text>What about overthrowing the government?  Because that&amp;#x27;s the &amp;quot;offical&amp;quot; act of the president with today&amp;#x27;s ruling.&lt;p&gt;Further, it should be noted that the lower court already did exactly what the supreme court remanded back to them.  They said &amp;quot;we don&amp;#x27;t know what sorts of immunity are granted to a president, but if there is any they are not granted, it&amp;#x27;s overturning an election as is accused in this specific case&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;The supreme court took up this case specifically to help donald trump and because they couldn&amp;#x27;t challenge the ruling given they made up their own facts to give the ruling they wanted to give.</text></item><item><author>throwadobe</author><text>Everyone seems to be calling this &amp;quot;blanket immunity&amp;quot; but that&amp;#x27;s not right. It&amp;#x27;s immunity for official acts which are the prerogative of the president. Basically the president is allowed to do all presidential things without having to worry about whether it will be deemed illegal.&lt;p&gt;This doesn&amp;#x27;t mean that the president cannot be tried for some illegal act that was not their official duty. Murdering someone, for example.</text></item><item><author>afavour</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m dismayed by this ruling but I&amp;#x27;m curious: can someone defend it? I&amp;#x27;m able to understand the counter-perspectives to my own on many hot-button issues (2nd amendment, abortion bans) but this one seems very nakedly bad. But maybe I&amp;#x27;m just not seeing the counterpoint?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tiltowait</author><text>Doesn’t the ruling say the lower courts have to go back and determine which acts were and were not official?</text></comment>
<story><title>Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts</title><url>https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-trump-capitol-riot-immunity-2dc0d1c2368d404adc0054151490f542</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>cogman10</author><text>What about overthrowing the government?  Because that&amp;#x27;s the &amp;quot;offical&amp;quot; act of the president with today&amp;#x27;s ruling.&lt;p&gt;Further, it should be noted that the lower court already did exactly what the supreme court remanded back to them.  They said &amp;quot;we don&amp;#x27;t know what sorts of immunity are granted to a president, but if there is any they are not granted, it&amp;#x27;s overturning an election as is accused in this specific case&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;The supreme court took up this case specifically to help donald trump and because they couldn&amp;#x27;t challenge the ruling given they made up their own facts to give the ruling they wanted to give.</text></item><item><author>throwadobe</author><text>Everyone seems to be calling this &amp;quot;blanket immunity&amp;quot; but that&amp;#x27;s not right. It&amp;#x27;s immunity for official acts which are the prerogative of the president. Basically the president is allowed to do all presidential things without having to worry about whether it will be deemed illegal.&lt;p&gt;This doesn&amp;#x27;t mean that the president cannot be tried for some illegal act that was not their official duty. Murdering someone, for example.</text></item><item><author>afavour</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m dismayed by this ruling but I&amp;#x27;m curious: can someone defend it? I&amp;#x27;m able to understand the counter-perspectives to my own on many hot-button issues (2nd amendment, abortion bans) but this one seems very nakedly bad. But maybe I&amp;#x27;m just not seeing the counterpoint?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>curt15</author><text>&amp;gt;
What about overthrowing the government? Because that&amp;#x27;s the &amp;quot;offical&amp;quot; act of the president with today&amp;#x27;s ruling.&lt;p&gt;The ruling basically says the only way for the case to move forward is to determine what parts of Trump&amp;#x27;s conduct can be deemed &amp;quot;unofficial&amp;quot;.</text></comment>