14 ms·
Because they swear loyalty to the US Constitution, not POTUS, and can refuse to obey unlawful orders.
by quartesixte 2y ago
Because they swear loyalty to the US Constitution, not POTUS, and can refuse to obey unlawful orders.
- DEADMINCE 2y agoIt's no longer unawful for the commander in chief to consider an opponent a threat to the country and have them killed. That's the problem.
- TeeMassive 2y agoThat's not what the judgement says.
- Hammershaft 2y agoIt in Sotomayer's dissenting opinion of the judgement.
- 0xBDB 2y agoIt's pretty much a truism that one should never rely on a dissent's characterization of what the majority opinion says. Especially if the dissent writer is Sotomayor or Alito, frankly. Murdering political rivals isn't a core constitutional duty of the President with automatic immunity. If he orders Seal Team 6 to do it, it's an official act, for which he has a rebuttable presumption of immunity. That means the prosecution has to prove he hasn't got immunity. Roberts at least strongly hints in the majority opinion that Trump's immunity for trying to coerce Pence to commit crimes on Jan. 6 should be rebuttable. If that's the bar then ordering Seal Team Six to kill people will definitely get a president sent to prison the day he leaves office, whether the regular way or by impeachment. Immunity before impeachment has pretty much been the position of the Justice Department (I think wrongly btw) with regard to current presidents for decades, including the Biden justice department. This isn't as big of a change as it makes sense for the Democrats to make it out to be.
- DEADMINCE 2y ago> Especially if the dissent writer is Sotomayor or Alito, frankly. Weird. Sotomayor is one of the few credible justices we have.
- TeeMassive 2y agoI've listened to her during the vaccine mandates oral arguments. She was emotional during all the hearing and made blatantly false emotion based statements such as "think of all the millions of dead children".
- DEADMINCE 2y agoThe example you gave doesn't seem emotional or blatantly false, but factual and appropriate.
- 0xBDB 2y agoPersonal preference admittedly, but I much prefer Kagan and so far, Jackson. Sotomayor, like Alito and sometimes Thomas but generally not the rest, strikes me as purely results-oriented. The Chief justice is results-oriented in a different way. I think the reasoning matters more than the outcome, but I understand that not everyone does. Kagan's also a much better writer.
- DEADMINCE 2y agoActually, that's exactly what the judgement allows for.
- ttyprintk 2y agoCitation needed. Now on, we understand that powers granted the President by the Constitution are official. Actions even marginally associated with those powers cannot produce evidence in a court of law.
- leereeves 2y agoThe judgement says that the President has immunity (in certain narrow cases). It does not say that members of the military have immunity for following an unlawful order. It would also be very easy for a court to decide that executing a political rival is not an official act and deny the President immunity.
- ModernMech 2y ago> (in certain narrow cases) Again, citation needed. The whole problem today is that the category of immunity is so vague so as to be overly broad. > It does not say that members of the military have immunity for following an unlawful order. No, but it does say the President has an unreviewable pardon power to absolve them from any crime they are ordered by the President to commit. > It would also be very easy for a court to decide that executing a political rival is not an official act and deny the President immunity. It's now also very easy for a court to decide that it is. That is the problem.
- leereeves 2y agoThe citation is the Supreme Court ruling itself, which I had assumed people participating in this discussion were familiar with. It grants "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution [only] for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority". That is a narrow standard. The only acts in this case which met that standard were discussions with Justice Department officials. Everything else in this case was in fact remanded, and it remains within the power of the lower courts to deny Trump immunity on all other aspects of the case.
- ModernMech 2y ago
- EasyMark 2y agoSotomayor disagrees with you, as does the current President of the USA, so I dissent your interpretation
- TeeMassive 2y agoAnd? She's not really seen as a the smartest justice out there, to put it gently.
- EasyMark 2y agoShe is one of the best lawyers and jurists in the country, certainly much better than 99.999999% of the people on HN
- gdilla 2y agobut they will comply when the law will back the POTUS and not them.
- mrkeen 2y agoThis only works if the head of the executive branch doesn't select for loyalty.
- bigfishrunning 2y agoThe head of the executive branch doesn't select the members of seal team 6
- ModernMech 2y agoWhat’s stopping them from doing so?
- underdown 2y agoThe Pendleton civil service reform act of 1883. It effectively ended the spoils system that previously allowed what you’re suggesting.
- NickC25 2y agoDonald Trump doesn't give a fuck about any civil service act. He never has, and never will. He will do as he pleases, and a GOP led congress will simply let him, laws and precedent be damned (and the Supreme Court will comply). A DEM led congress will throw up their hands in uproar, and then refuse to actually do anything.
- mrkeen 2y agoThe first part sounds right, but the house introduced and voted yes on two impeachments, which isn't nothing.
- tremon 2y agoHow is that not nothing? He continued to remain in Office until the end of his term and even attempted to prolong his stay. If those impeachments were worth more than the paper the Constitution is written on, that would never have happened.
- pyuser583 2y agoThey must refuse to follow unlawful orders. They never get a choice. They always must follow the law. Refusing a lawful order is a crime, and following an unlawful order is a crime. But they never get a choice.
- a3n 2y agoOfficer's oath swears to protect and defend the Constitution, no mention of the president. Enlisted oath adds they will obey the orders of the president. So a president or his intermediary just needs to find the right Master Sergeant. In theory. But not to worry, there are plenty of authoritarian-friendly colonels available. Their oath doesn't prohibit them from following a president's orders. Wrinkle: all officers and enlisted are required to refuse illegal orders. But if you do so, you better be right. Of course, in this new United States that the Supreme Court created this week, summary executions could become a motivational tool. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment&diffonly=true https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_A... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Services_Oath_of_Office https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Uniformed_Serv... https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/what-the-law-of-military-obedience-can-and-cant-do-what-happens-if-a-presidents-orders-are-unlawful/ https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/what-the-law-of-military-... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_execution
- mojomark 2y agoYou must not have seen "A Few Good Men" Who ordered that code red? Not LT Weinberg, that's for sure.