9 ms·

It'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 ago
That's not what the judgement says.
- Hammershaft 2y ago
  It in Sotomayer's dissenting opinion of the judgement.
  - 0xBDB 2y ago
    It'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 ago
        I'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 ago
        The example you gave doesn't seem emotional or blatantly false, but factual and appropriate.
      - 0xBDB 2y ago
        Personal 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 ago
  Actually, that's exactly what the judgement allows for.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  Citation 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 ago
    The 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 ago
        The 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 ago
  Sotomayor disagrees with you, as does the current President of the USA, so I dissent your interpretation
  - TeeMassive 2y ago
    And? She's not really seen as a the smartest justice out there, to put it gently.
    - EasyMark 2y ago
      She is one of the best lawyers and jurists in the country, certainly much better than 99.999999% of the people on HN

TeeMassive 2y ago

That's not what the judgement says.

Hammershaft 2y ago
It in Sotomayer's dissenting opinion of the judgement.
- 0xBDB 2y ago
  It'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 ago
      I'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 ago
        The example you gave doesn't seem emotional or blatantly false, but factual and appropriate.
    - 0xBDB 2y ago
      Personal 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 ago
Actually, that's exactly what the judgement allows for.
ttyprintk 2y ago
Citation 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 ago
  The 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 ago
      The 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 ago
Sotomayor disagrees with you, as does the current President of the USA, so I dissent your interpretation
- TeeMassive 2y ago
  And? She's not really seen as a the smartest justice out there, to put it gently.
  - EasyMark 2y ago
    She is one of the best lawyers and jurists in the country, certainly much better than 99.999999% of the people on HN