5 ms·

Assassinating a political rival is not an official act.

tines 2y ago
Says who? You can't ask me why I did it, according to the ruling. I could have had a good reason. And you can't use my private records, nor those of my assistants, either.
- joshuaheard 2y ago
  Where in the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution does it give the the President the power to kill political opponents?
  - tines 2y ago
    The constitution gives me the power to kill people for good reasons (I am the commander in chief of the military, after all), and I assure you, I have good reasons. Which you can't ask about. And don't tell me I need Congress to authorize my killing people. I haven't needed that since Vietnam or something.
  - moreofthis 2y ago
    This is a silly response. The ruling has specifically left the definition of "official acts" for the lower courts to decide on a case-by-case basis; they have not limited official acts to Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. The president likely has modern "official acts" that are not in in the constitution (such as the ability to issue executive orders) so it is not as simple as pointing to it. As things stand, this ruling is a blank cheque of unknown (but undoubtedly large) size.
    - HaZeust 2y ago
      >"As things stand, this ruling is a blank cheque of unknown (but undoubtedly large) size." Easily the best way I've seen the impact of this ruling, articulated.
  - threeseed 2y ago
    Constitution also doesn't give the President the power to go to the bathroom. It codifies rules for certain aspects of their role. Not everything.
  - enraged_camel 2y ago
    You need to think about this a bit more carefully. Today's ruling states that the president has immunity for all official acts. Official acts can be literally anything the president does _in his capacity as president_.
- thallium205 2y ago
  Says who? A court.
  - tines 2y ago
    Assassinating people is my job, I'm the commander in chief of the military. I just happened to do my job on someone who also happened to be my political opponent. How is that not an official act for which I am immune? The court cannot inquire about my motives.
    - avmich 2y ago
      You don't seem to understand how the judicial system in USA works. The ultimate decision capacity is with the people. The way it's realized may differ, and the time may be long to pursue the decision, but not even SC has the last word, only the people. The court cannot inquire about your motives is only until people are ok with that; if they are not, the reason will be found - or not - and pursued - no options here - to insist.
      - Spooky23 2y ago
        The problem is that 50% of the people are in a camp that advocates for the overthrow of the US government, while consolidating power and ensuring that it is as difficult as possible for people who oppose them to vote. The Senate allowed legislation that made public lynching a crime to fester in committee without a vote for years. The Supreme Court’s abandonment of any reasonable check on executive power or governmental integrity is absurd. You literally have a justice on the payroll of a billionaire who has paid him millions of dollars who helped redefine bribery to make it a crime impossible to prosecute:
        avmich 2y ago
        That's unfortunately the practical problem and the reality of the situation. In other words, I agree.
- unethical_ban 2y ago
  ATTN: The above comment is satirical and making a point. The point is that the majority says intent of an "official act" cannot be questioned. So kind of how they said bribery is okay as long as it's not explicitly asked for and given as a "gift" after the fact, the majority holds that presidents can kill their political opponents as long as they "say" it was for national security.
lunarboy 2y ago
Yeah but pardoning the killer is. Why the killer chose to do it, who knows? Frankly, even if the phone call is leaked, motive doesn't matter apparently.
camgunz 2y ago
Imagine Biden assassinating Trump under the pretense that Trump likely had other classified documents hidden away, or was too mentally unstable to be trusted with presidential secrets. This is the kind of action this ruling sanctions, entirely.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
  Which is why Biden must do this and immediately resign the presidency. Though he also needs to fix the Supreme Court so dubious territory even with the recusal.
  - adventured 2y ago
    > Which is why Biden must do this and immediately resign the presidency. Calling for the murder of specific people is very much against the rules of this site.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
      Intentionally misinterpreting comments is very much against the rules of this site. You’re supposed to be charitable in your interpretations. I’m saying that Biden must act with his newfound unconstitutional powers freshly minted by the unqualified tyrannical theist fascists on the Supreme Court. How he does that is up to Biden, sorry I wasn’t more explicit - I ignorantly assumed the nuance to be as plain as the fascist intentions of trump and the company he keeps.
- adventured 2y ago
  > This is the kind of action this ruling sanctions, entirely. Given the extraordinary claim you're making, I'm doubtful that you have the qualifications to support the absolute statement being made pretending to be fact. This is especially true given how little this new ruling has been covered by the very people that are charged with deciding how it will work in practice. You're not issuing an opinion in what you said. You're claiming it's a matter of fact. Constitutional and executive branch experts with decades of experience will be debating what this means for a very long time to come, with far less certainty than what your comment contains.
stefan_ 2y ago
I guess we can call it bold when you claim to have a better understanding of the decision than a dissenting justice.
- 1123581321 2y ago
  Claiming to have the same understanding as the majority of justices seems safe, though, if that's how you decide what opinions to hold.
  - brayhite 2y ago
    Did the majority opinions refute the dissent? All I saw was that they were dismissed as “extreme hypotheticals”. All of that despite the publication of Project 2025 openly calling for the next conservative president to bend and break bureaucracy to carry out their desires. We’re firmly in the Fuck Around stage of what exactly this ruling will and will not allow, and one way or another, we’re going to Find Out within the next 3-6 months. I know which candidate I hope to Find Out from.
    - 1123581321 2y ago
      In the majority opinion, this part would disagree with Sotomayor's example: "The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts." The language isn't as electrifying as Sotomayor's example, but you can still imagine unofficial acts that would not warrant immunity.
      - stefan_ 2y ago
        High level of snark given that this is the most definitive part of the ~~actual decision~~ syllabus you could find to possibly counter what Sotomayor wrote. Guess you didn't read it first. (Advanced trick: you are reading the syllabus. The actual decision is below.)
neogodless 2y ago
As an official act, we determined that my political rival was an enemy of the state and known terrorist, who was threatening our democracy. As such, it was my duty to order her/his assassination, for the safety of our great nation.
- treeFall 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    Obama killed multiple American citizens, not just one.
  - neogodless 2y ago
    Which political rival of Obama's are you referring to?
    - treeFall 2y ago
      So you're only worried about rich and influential people being killed, not the rest of us lowly American plebs?
  - dzhiurgis 2y ago
    Not worried. Happy. Biden can now do anything to Trump with immunity. Trump is DONE.
  - tines 2y ago
    I don't agree with the outcome, but at least the motive mattered there. The target was ostensibly leading a military operation against the US or something. Motive doesn't matter any more. EDIT: And yes, what Obama did was illegal and he should have been impeached and prosecuted for that.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    Of course people only care about “their” party. It is everything about what is broken in the US. It blows my fucking mind that the left is about to nominate the only qualified person, of many qualified people, that can lose to trump. We saw this movie in 2016 with clinton. How does this happen?
Miner49er 2y ago
It very much is if it's done by commanding the military to do it. Maybe not so much if a President did it themselves.
davidw 2y ago
You just have to drum up some flimsy excuse that sounds official, I guess.
spamizbad 2y ago
What if the president deems it necessary out of national security interests?
Spooky23 2y ago
Here is Justice Roberts’s definition of an official act. Since the courts are making it a new executive power, it’s in the eye of the wielder. Long live the king. > In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that, under Section 201(a)(3): > [A]n “official act” is a decision or action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.” The “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” must involve a formal exercise of governmental power that is similar in nature to a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee. It must also be something specific and focused that is “pending” or “may by law be brought” before a public official. To qualify as an “official act,” the public official must make a decision or take an action on that “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” or agree to do so. That decision or action may include using his official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an “official act,” or to advise another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an “official act” by another official. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so)—without more—does not fit that definition of “official act.”
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
There have been instances in the past where the US military has assassinated US citizens that they deemed terrorists. Search for "Anwar al-Awlaki". Under this ruling, it would be entirely possible for Biden to declare Trump a direct danger to the republic and, as commander in chief, order him to be assassinated. Of course the "officialness" of this would be debated in the courts, but the reason so many find this ruling unconscionable is that it does basically say "the President is above the law - he just needs to do things under the guise of official acts".

Says who? You can't ask me why I did it, according to the ruling. I could have had a good reason. And you can't use my private records, nor those of my assistants, either.

joshuaheard 2y ago
Where in the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution does it give the the President the power to kill political opponents?
- tines 2y ago
  The constitution gives me the power to kill people for good reasons (I am the commander in chief of the military, after all), and I assure you, I have good reasons. Which you can't ask about. And don't tell me I need Congress to authorize my killing people. I haven't needed that since Vietnam or something.
- moreofthis 2y ago
  This is a silly response. The ruling has specifically left the definition of "official acts" for the lower courts to decide on a case-by-case basis; they have not limited official acts to Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. The president likely has modern "official acts" that are not in in the constitution (such as the ability to issue executive orders) so it is not as simple as pointing to it. As things stand, this ruling is a blank cheque of unknown (but undoubtedly large) size.
  - HaZeust 2y ago
    >"As things stand, this ruling is a blank cheque of unknown (but undoubtedly large) size." Easily the best way I've seen the impact of this ruling, articulated.
- threeseed 2y ago
  Constitution also doesn't give the President the power to go to the bathroom. It codifies rules for certain aspects of their role. Not everything.
- enraged_camel 2y ago
  You need to think about this a bit more carefully. Today's ruling states that the president has immunity for all official acts. Official acts can be literally anything the president does _in his capacity as president_.
thallium205 2y ago
Says who? A court.
- tines 2y ago
  Assassinating people is my job, I'm the commander in chief of the military. I just happened to do my job on someone who also happened to be my political opponent. How is that not an official act for which I am immune? The court cannot inquire about my motives.
  - avmich 2y ago
    You don't seem to understand how the judicial system in USA works. The ultimate decision capacity is with the people. The way it's realized may differ, and the time may be long to pursue the decision, but not even SC has the last word, only the people. The court cannot inquire about your motives is only until people are ok with that; if they are not, the reason will be found - or not - and pursued - no options here - to insist.
    - Spooky23 2y ago
      The problem is that 50% of the people are in a camp that advocates for the overthrow of the US government, while consolidating power and ensuring that it is as difficult as possible for people who oppose them to vote. The Senate allowed legislation that made public lynching a crime to fester in committee without a vote for years. The Supreme Court’s abandonment of any reasonable check on executive power or governmental integrity is absurd. You literally have a justice on the payroll of a billionaire who has paid him millions of dollars who helped redefine bribery to make it a crime impossible to prosecute:
      - avmich 2y ago
        That's unfortunately the practical problem and the reality of the situation. In other words, I agree.
unethical_ban 2y ago
ATTN: The above comment is satirical and making a point. The point is that the majority says intent of an "official act" cannot be questioned. So kind of how they said bribery is okay as long as it's not explicitly asked for and given as a "gift" after the fact, the majority holds that presidents can kill their political opponents as long as they "say" it was for national security.

lunarboy 2y ago

Yeah but pardoning the killer is. Why the killer chose to do it, who knows? Frankly, even if the phone call is leaked, motive doesn't matter apparently.

camgunz 2y ago

Imagine Biden assassinating Trump under the pretense that Trump likely had other classified documents hidden away, or was too mentally unstable to be trusted with presidential secrets. This is the kind of action this ruling sanctions, entirely.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
Which is why Biden must do this and immediately resign the presidency. Though he also needs to fix the Supreme Court so dubious territory even with the recusal.
- adventured 2y ago
  > Which is why Biden must do this and immediately resign the presidency. Calling for the murder of specific people is very much against the rules of this site.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
    Intentionally misinterpreting comments is very much against the rules of this site. You’re supposed to be charitable in your interpretations. I’m saying that Biden must act with his newfound unconstitutional powers freshly minted by the unqualified tyrannical theist fascists on the Supreme Court. How he does that is up to Biden, sorry I wasn’t more explicit - I ignorantly assumed the nuance to be as plain as the fascist intentions of trump and the company he keeps.
adventured 2y ago
> This is the kind of action this ruling sanctions, entirely. Given the extraordinary claim you're making, I'm doubtful that you have the qualifications to support the absolute statement being made pretending to be fact. This is especially true given how little this new ruling has been covered by the very people that are charged with deciding how it will work in practice. You're not issuing an opinion in what you said. You're claiming it's a matter of fact. Constitutional and executive branch experts with decades of experience will be debating what this means for a very long time to come, with far less certainty than what your comment contains.

stefan_ 2y ago

I guess we can call it bold when you claim to have a better understanding of the decision than a dissenting justice.

1123581321 2y ago
Claiming to have the same understanding as the majority of justices seems safe, though, if that's how you decide what opinions to hold.
- brayhite 2y ago
  Did the majority opinions refute the dissent? All I saw was that they were dismissed as “extreme hypotheticals”. All of that despite the publication of Project 2025 openly calling for the next conservative president to bend and break bureaucracy to carry out their desires. We’re firmly in the Fuck Around stage of what exactly this ruling will and will not allow, and one way or another, we’re going to Find Out within the next 3-6 months. I know which candidate I hope to Find Out from.
  - 1123581321 2y ago
    In the majority opinion, this part would disagree with Sotomayor's example: "The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts." The language isn't as electrifying as Sotomayor's example, but you can still imagine unofficial acts that would not warrant immunity.
    - stefan_ 2y ago
      High level of snark given that this is the most definitive part of the ~~actual decision~~ syllabus you could find to possibly counter what Sotomayor wrote. Guess you didn't read it first. (Advanced trick: you are reading the syllabus. The actual decision is below.)

neogodless 2y ago

As an official act, we determined that my political rival was an enemy of the state and known terrorist, who was threatening our democracy. As such, it was my duty to order her/his assassination, for the safety of our great nation.

treeFall 2y ago
[flagged]
- ImJamal 2y ago
  Obama killed multiple American citizens, not just one.
- neogodless 2y ago
  Which political rival of Obama's are you referring to?
  - treeFall 2y ago
    So you're only worried about rich and influential people being killed, not the rest of us lowly American plebs?
- dzhiurgis 2y ago
  Not worried. Happy. Biden can now do anything to Trump with immunity. Trump is DONE.
- tines 2y ago
  I don't agree with the outcome, but at least the motive mattered there. The target was ostensibly leading a military operation against the US or something. Motive doesn't matter any more. EDIT: And yes, what Obama did was illegal and he should have been impeached and prosecuted for that.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  Of course people only care about “their” party. It is everything about what is broken in the US. It blows my fucking mind that the left is about to nominate the only qualified person, of many qualified people, that can lose to trump. We saw this movie in 2016 with clinton. How does this happen?

Miner49er 2y ago

It very much is if it's done by commanding the military to do it. Maybe not so much if a President did it themselves.

davidw 2y ago

You just have to drum up some flimsy excuse that sounds official, I guess.

spamizbad 2y ago

What if the president deems it necessary out of national security interests?

Spooky23 2y ago

Here is Justice Roberts’s definition of an official act. Since the courts are making it a new executive power, it’s in the eye of the wielder. Long live the king. > In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that, under Section 201(a)(3): > [A]n “official act” is a decision or action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.” The “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” must involve a formal exercise of governmental power that is similar in nature to a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee. It must also be something specific and focused that is “pending” or “may by law be brought” before a public official. To qualify as an “official act,” the public official must make a decision or take an action on that “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” or agree to do so. That decision or action may include using his official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an “official act,” or to advise another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an “official act” by another official. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so)—without more—does not fit that definition of “official act.”

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

There have been instances in the past where the US military has assassinated US citizens that they deemed terrorists. Search for "Anwar al-Awlaki". Under this ruling, it would be entirely possible for Biden to declare Trump a direct danger to the republic and, as commander in chief, order him to be assassinated. Of course the "officialness" of this would be debated in the courts, but the reason so many find this ruling unconscionable is that it does basically say "the President is above the law - he just needs to do things under the guise of official acts".