Given your example, under this decision, the President could be charged, and the courts would have to decide whether it was an official act. Was it the murder of their mistress? Then obviously not official. Was it the murder of a terrorist planning an attack? Probably official. Is there some grey area in the middle that will really hard to decide? Probably. This was a moderate decision that defers making broad rules and lets courts decide on a case by case basis.
> Was it the murder of their mistress? Then obviously not official.
They could argue that if she came forward it would reduce American's faith in their government leading to instability or that it would provide an opportunity for our enemies to use the scandal to undermine national interests, or they could argue that the "vindictive ex" might expose secrets that she learned while in proximity to government officials, or even just lie and say she stole the secrets.
The president doesn't even have to murder her. The president can now disappear people in the middle of the night and ship them off to gitmo under the banner of "national security" and not tell anyone about it, and even if someone leaked that the cells in Guantanamo Bay were filling up even the supreme court wouldn't be allowed to see the evidence. Any trial at all would take place in secret military courts closed to the public.
This was the farthest thing from a moderate decision. It puts the president literally above the law. There is zero need for this kind of immunity when the actions a president takes while in office are legal, which is how we've gone nearly 250 years without ever once needing it.
They could argue that if she came forward it would reduce American's faith in their government leading to instability
I think you've been so riled up that you are worried over impossibilities. Judge Chutkan gets a pass at interpreting this, wait and see what she says about it. The kind of arguments you are suggest are wildly implausible and will never pass muster in any court, regardless of appointee. It explicitly isn't the intent of the decision.
It's certainly true that all we can do today is speculate about how this new immunity will be abused, but I suspect we'll find out a lot sooner than we'd like.
Its fair to approach arguments like this with skepticism because they sound so ridiculous, but I think they're lent more credence when referenced as a concern in the dissent from the Supreme Court itself. Sotomayor said: "When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune."
If you want to say she is worried over impossibilities too that's fine but based on the facts of the case and how it was ruled, I don't see why its not a realistic concern.
> Was it the murder of their mistress? Then obviously not official.
Why obviously? If mistress is causing "harm" to other official actions would it not be official duty to prevent this harm? You and I may not buy such a defence but a sympathetic audience of allies?
