The Supreme Court recently delivered a landmark decision in Trump v. United States, addressing the former president's claim to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions related to the Capitol attack on January 6. This ruling has ignited a firestorm of debate, particularly around the hypothetical scenarios presented by the court's dissenting liberal justices. They argue that the majority's opinion could potentially allow a president to order extreme actions without facing criminal prosecution, including the assassination of political rivals by SEAL Team Six or the poisoning of cabinet members. These extreme hypotheticals have raised concerns about the scope of presidential immunity and its implications for the rule of law and democratic accountability.
Var först med att svara på denna allmän diskussion .