Countless Democrats and liberal pundits have overreacted to the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling in ways that show they either haven't read it or are being purposefully misleading about the majority's decision.

The latest example is Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), who suggested that President Joe Biden would be immune from prosecution if he used the military to "take out" the court's conservative justices as part of his "official duties," Fox News reported.

The congresswoman later walked back her provocative "hypothetical," but in truth, she was merely following the lead of the court's liberal jurists who used overblown hyperbole and rhetoric in their sharply critical dissents against the majority's opinion.

Biden could order military to "take out the conservative justices"

During an appearance Monday on MSNBC, Breitbart reported, Rep. Lofgren lamented the Supreme Court's immunity ruling and what she believed it would allow former President Donald Trump to do and get away with if re-elected to a second term in the White House.

She claimed Trump has been "very open" about his intentions to "terminate parts of the Constitution," which he now had "wide range" to do thanks to the court, that he'd "summoned" an "armed" mob to the Capitol, and that he would "not commit to accepting the election results" unless he won in November.

"So we’ve got a problem here. If he cannot be accountable to -- any president, any president cannot be held accountable under the laws that exist -- that’s a complete departure from our history," Lofgren said. "I guess, you know, theoretically, President Biden, acting within the scope of his official duties, could dispatch the military to take out the conservative justices on the Court, and he’d be immune. Think so?"

Overreactions from the liberal justices

Fox News observed that Rep. Lofgren and others have emulated the outrageously hyperbolic dissents from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson against the majority opinion on presidential immunity authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, who ruled the presidents enjoy presumptive immunity for "official acts" as president but no immunity for "unofficial" or private acts during their tenure in office.

"This new official-acts immunity now 'lies about like a loaded weapon' for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation," Sotomayor wrote.

"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution," she added. "Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

Jackson was no less hyperbolic in her dissent as she wrote, "Thus, even a hypothetical President who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics, or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup, has a fair shot at getting immunity under the majority’s new Presidential accountability model."

"In the end, then, under the majority’s new paradigm, whether the President will be exempt from legal liability for murder, assault, theft, fraud, or any other reprehensible and outlawed criminal act will turn on whether he committed that act in his official capacity, such that the answer to the immunity question will always and inevitably be: It depends," she added.

Of course, none of what the congresswoman and liberal justices said is true. There remain plenty of checks and balances on the presidency, and Chief Justice Roberts explained in the ruling that the presumptive immunity for official acts could be overcome by prosecutors in certain cases with sufficient evidence of an egregious unlawful act.

Lofgren claims she didn't really mean what she said

Fox News noted that Rep. Lofgren issued a statement explaining her "reaction" to the court's ruling in which she "posited a hypothetical scenario mirroring Justice Sotomayor’s dissent for the sake of discussion" that "some people" have misinterpreted to "make it seem or read like I was calling for the military to assassinate conservative justices."

"I did not call for political violence against the justices or anyone else. I merely offered a legal hypothetical, partially posed as a question, in the context of a conversation about the Supreme Court’s broad immunity ruling," she added. "I do not condone nor call for political violence, nor do I condone any president abusing power in any way (the latter of which the Supreme Court, sadly, made allowable under law)."