TLDR: there are no qualifying limitations on presidential immunity
Not only does any US president now have complete immunity from “official” actions(with zero qualifying restrictions or definitions), but if those actions are deemed “unofiicial”, no jury is legally allowed to witness the evidence in any way since that would interfere with the now infinitely broad “official” presidential prerogatives.
Furthermore, if an unofficial atrocity is decided on during an official act, like the president during the daily presidential briefing ordering the army to execute the US transexual population, the subsequent ordered executions will be considered legally official presidential acts since the recorded decision occurred during a presidential duty.
There are probably other horrors I haven’t considered yet.
Then again, absolute immunity is absolute immunity, so I don’t know how much threat recognition matters here.
If the US president can order an action, that action can be legally and officially carried out.
Not constitutionally, since the Constitution specifically holds any elected politician subject to the law, but legally and officially according to the supreme court, who has assumed higher power then the US Constitution to unconstitutionally allege that the US President is absolutely immune from all legal restrictions and consequences.
AP News: House Democrat is proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court’s immunity decision
Whether it goes anywhere is a crapshoot.
We can’t get Congress to agree to anything right now, the ruling elite and external hostile governments have crippled them. The Republican members see this as a win for Trump and that Biden has limited time and won’t do anything antagonistic. Remember, the SCOTUS is the only entity that can determine whether or not a president acted officially, as per this ruling. The SCOTUS, that’s heavily right leaning, would crucify a Democratic president and justify a Republican. The other route would be impeachment, but we saw how that went and it has the same problems as a constitutional amendment, the gridlock in Congress.
For the record, the house is currently controlled by the Republicans. Saying “gridlock in Congress” when its run by the party that most benefits from being obstructionist seems a bit disengenuous. It’s not “gridlock”, it’s Republicans doing what they went there to do.