Puppet: This article mentions fear of arrest curbing the underlings. I think that is wrong. It would activate them to support extremes, because their real fear is accountability, which would be limited by their strong man's control. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...

It's important to note that Trump tried to order this at least twice we know of during his regime.

right. the president could order troops to suppress protesters using live fire and the supreme court would extend that absolute immunity

it isn't clear to me whether the trigger pullers would have criminal immunity. 'following orders' may not be covered. it seems to say that the directions of the exec are immune, meaning anyone could be prosecuted except the CinC. This is an even deeper threat than what has been feared.

if a president didn't want to use immunity as a way to stay in power, his followers would face prosecution after a transition, which would incentivize them to support a president who was as ruthless and arbitrary as needed to protect them, by never allowing a change of executive.

creating a conditions for conflict that could only be alleviated by authoritarian rule. But, if you take that as a goal, the ruling is very well crafted, isn't it?

This article mentions fear of arrest curbing the underlings. I think that is wrong. It would activate them to support extremes, because their real fear is accountability, which would be limited by their strong man's control. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/202...

Supreme Court’s Trump immunity ruling poses risk for democracy, experts saywww.washingtonpost.com The decision raised fears that a future president will be able to act with impunity because official acts have been deemed off limits from prosecution.

Post