> how is assassination an official act?

In the majority's opinion they stated that any act carved out by the constitution for the president is an official one.

The constitution establishes the president as the commander in chief of the armed forces. If the president orders a member of the military to assassinate an individual, he's exercising his role as the commander in chief, an official act, and is thus criminally immune.

The slightly longer form also includes that the majority held that for official acts, a president's motives can't be probed by the courts, so whether the president ordered Seal Team 6 to murder a political rival for self-interested reasons, that it was an official act is the only thing that need be considered.

If Lincoln had a Seal Team Six, and ordered said team to take out Jefferson Davis, would Lincoln have been open to prosecution, or immune as he had been undertaking an official act as commander in chief?

That's the problem. The ruling provides no guidance whatsoever, so as long as a President can make the case, it's an official act.

No, that's not right. The court will decide, and they do give some thoughts/guidance.

The Courts are dumb and often change their minds on appeal. All of this ends up at the Supreme Court where the clerics now rule.

Anything which reaches the supreme court is complicated, by definition. On top of that the world changes and the people sitting on the bench change. So yeah, the court changes it's "mind" from time to time.

The idea that they are "clerics" because they make a decision you disagree with is nonsensical.

Complicated by definition means absolutely nothing. Most cases are not complex but were decided on political ideology. This is why they tend to flip decisions. Anyway the current crop are indeed clerics.

https://verdict.justia.com/2023/05/03/how-did-six-conservati...

Well no, you’re making an assumption with how a court would rule in this situation.

There is nothing mandating that a court has to put careful consideration between what is and isn’t official business.

No, wrong. The comment says the court will rule, not how they'll rule. How on earth do you read that comment and think it says how they'll rule?