Presidential Immunity: Second Thoughts

Thinking up what-ifs is the ultimate test to see how reasonable a law is. You can't help running outlandish scenarios through your head. That's why the scenario, what if the President ordered the elite commandos under his authority Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival, was so vexing and shocking. It's a possibility, although admittedly an unlikely one, less likely than, say, what if the President told his Attorney General to indict his political rivals with crimes. Classic dictator stuff. Trump has already said he wants to do that as part of his retribution campaign in a second term. The Supreme Court ruling just gave him the legal tool. It would be an 'official act' and therefore 'presumptively immune', which means it could be scrutinized for criminality. But the act of talking to the Attorney General itself could not be used as evidence for an indictment because the Court deemed that it would constitute a potential 'intrusion' on Presidential authority, which is an absolute no-no. Also, the President's motive could not be questioned. The more I think and write about this decision the more bonkers (and political) it seems. 

Another thing this ruling does, that not many people have talked about, is settle the Presidential Pardon question. It's perhaps the most significant aspect about the decision. It was already understood that Presidents had exclusive power to pardon. But there remained questions about how far a President could go with that. For example could a President sell pardons? The dissenting Justices ran that scenario. Now we know he is absolutely immune. Another scenario no one has talked about is whether the President can pardon himself, which was a question that loomed large with Donald Trump. Now that question has also been settled. Yes. Of course a pardon implies an acceptance of guilt, which I guess could be a disincentive. To some people.