Presidents can't go around depriving people of life and liberty unless there's an extreme justification for it and this ruling doesn't change that.

But that is the question. Does it change that? In my previous post, I asked (or more correctly, a Justice asked, I just fleshed it out) about bribery. Is is OK for a president to accept a bribe to perform an official act? It's the exact same question as asking if a President can order the killing of a US citizen on US soil. It's not clear that the answer is "no." Not clear that it's "yes," either.

My gut says the answer should be "no." But I can certainly make an argument from the opinion (well, the tiny bits I've read - still haven't got to the whole thing, yet) that the answer is "yes." These normally illegal things are not prosecutable as a result of the presidential immunity resulting from this decision. Of course, we won't know for sure until an appropriate case comes up.

We just need a former president who is accused of criminal acts, is indicted for those alleged acts, and goes to court so that the case can eventually wend its way to the Supreme Court.

--Peter