What might the SC want to review on the immunity issue?

Well, it's hard to predict what this hard right court might be up to, but, in my view, the Supreme Court is likely to consider the impact of presidential actions in the realms of foreign policy and military engagements abroad, particularly those affecting civilians. The Court may grant a form of immunity for these actions, which could retrospectively protect former presidents who have been accused by figures like Noam Chomsky of committing 'war crimes.' However, this immunity would not be as broad as what Trump might hope for, which is a sweeping immunity that would nullify all his legal challenges.

Additionally, the Court is unlikely to extend immunity to clear violations of international laws, such as those outlined in the Geneva Conventions. Thing is, there is a difference between clear violations of Geneva conventions and 'collateral damage' of military actions, unforseen consequences of cloak and dagger maneuvers, etc. I think they want to discuss it, and try and define it with some clarity for a ruling of some sort. We shall see what they are up to, but I doubt it's anywhere hear what Trump is hoping for. He's delusional, to be blunt.

Your thoughts? Anything I missed?

 

I think immunity makes sense for political or policy decisions a president makes. Certainly it doesn't make sense for crimes unrelated to their office or for things done when not in office.

 

So if Biden orders the military to slaughter the whole population of Dallas Texas before the elections so he can win the state's electoral votes.... would that be a political decision for which he would have immunity? Interesting thought.... It would not be an illegal order, because... the President has immunity. So everything he orders is legal.

How about if a President orders Supreme Court Justices, or Senators killed so he can implement his policies without being impeached?