3 ms·

> Right now, Biden is above the law. He could declare martial law in D.C., field promote his son and then—as commander in chief—order him to execute the conserv

> Right now, Biden is above the law. He could declare martial law in D.C., field promote his son and then—as commander in chief—order him to execute the conservative members of the Supreme Court, pardon his son, pardon himself, resign and—under current law—be absolutely immune. Not as I understand the Supreme Court decision. Ordering the execution of 6 members of the Supreme Court is not within the scope of his office. You'd have to prove it - there's a presumption that his actions are within scope - but it's not absolute. (For stuff that is within the scope of the powers of his office, there is absolute immunity.)

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Ordering the execution of 6 members of the Supreme Court is not within the scope of his office Commander in Chief is a core Constitutional duty, and one of the most-expansively interpreted ones at that. Of course, if someone did that the rules wouldn’t matter. And they wouldn’t follow up by resigning. But it’s illustrative of how silly the framework is.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  Commander in Chief, yes. Declaring martial law, that's within precedent. But... Ordering the killing of Supreme Court justices is not part of the powers of the Commander in Chief! And the fact that people are acting like it could be is evidence of how silly the discussion about the framework has gotten.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Ordering the killing of Supreme Court justices is not part of the powers of the Commander in Chief We’ve extrajudicially liquidated Americans overseas before. Why isn’t this a power of the Commander in Chief? What if they aren’t SCOTUS, but federal judges suspected of a terrorist plot? State judge? Where do we draw the line? (We’ve executed Americans extrajudicially and under Article I powers.) > that people are acting like it could be Nobody is. I’m not arguing that absurdity is a likelihood that can be defended against with laws. My point is there is no good source for what constitutes an official act. EDIT: You are arguing in good faith and shouldn’t be getting downvoted.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki Was this an official act? The President of the United States ordered the military to kill an American citizen who had not been convicted of a crime, with the "due process" being a DOJ memo. What would make a hit on SCOTUS any different? Both involve the President ordering the armed forces in his official capacity as Commander in Chief to kill an American citizen without trial. The only difference would be motive, and the Trump v. United States opinion explicitly states courts cannot consider it!
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      What would make a SCOTUS hit any different? Whether it's within the US or not (and whether it's somewhere that will extradite them or not). The ability to arrest them rather than hit them. Show me one instance of the president ordering a hit on a citizen within the US borders. For that matter, show me one instance of the president ordering it within a country that would extradite to the US.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > Whether it's within the US or not... OK, so he can drone strike SCOTUS if they go on vacation overseas? > The ability to arrest them rather than hit them. Well, it's pretty clear he can't arrest them. That wouldn't be an official act like issuing an order to the military would be. > Show me one instance of the president ordering a hit on a citizen within the US borders. The ruling granting absolute immunity without consideration to motives is brand new and the first and only person so far to be subject to it is a decent human being. The system needs to protect us against more than just the well-intended.
        AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        He can't arrest them himself, no. He can't order their arrest. The point is that the normal judicial process can work on them. So can impeachment. Neither was available for Awlaki. So, back to the main point: The ruling did not grant absolute immunity for acts outside the scope of his office. (Really! Read it! Take what it says about itself, not Sotomayor's hyperventilating dissent[1]. The ruling says the scope of what it does and does not cover.) And, second point: Ordering the execution of 6 sitting Supreme Court justices is not within the scope of the president's office. For all you keep raising Awlaki, it's not at all the same - not unless 1) a bunch of SC judges became Al-Qaeda organizers, and 2) the Justice Department, the FBI, the Marshalls Service, and the local police were completely unable to arrest them. [1] "Hyperventilating" because it had lots of rhetoric but very little actual legal analysis.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Ordering the execution of 6 members of the Supreme Court is not within the scope of his office Commander in Chief is a core Constitutional duty, and one of the most-expansively interpreted ones at that. Of course, if someone did that the rules wouldn’t matter. And they wouldn’t follow up by resigning. But it’s illustrative of how silly the framework is.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Commander in Chief, yes. Declaring martial law, that's within precedent. But... Ordering the killing of Supreme Court justices is not part of the powers of the Commander in Chief! And the fact that people are acting like it could be is evidence of how silly the discussion about the framework has gotten.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Ordering the killing of Supreme Court justices is not part of the powers of the Commander in Chief We’ve extrajudicially liquidated Americans overseas before. Why isn’t this a power of the Commander in Chief? What if they aren’t SCOTUS, but federal judges suspected of a terrorist plot? State judge? Where do we draw the line? (We’ve executed Americans extrajudicially and under Article I powers.) > that people are acting like it could be Nobody is. I’m not arguing that absurdity is a likelihood that can be defended against with laws. My point is there is no good source for what constitutes an official act. EDIT: You are arguing in good faith and shouldn’t be getting downvoted.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki Was this an official act? The President of the United States ordered the military to kill an American citizen who had not been convicted of a crime, with the "due process" being a DOJ memo. What would make a hit on SCOTUS any different? Both involve the President ordering the armed forces in his official capacity as Commander in Chief to kill an American citizen without trial. The only difference would be motive, and the Trump v. United States opinion explicitly states courts cannot consider it!
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    What would make a SCOTUS hit any different? Whether it's within the US or not (and whether it's somewhere that will extradite them or not). The ability to arrest them rather than hit them. Show me one instance of the president ordering a hit on a citizen within the US borders. For that matter, show me one instance of the president ordering it within a country that would extradite to the US.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > Whether it's within the US or not... OK, so he can drone strike SCOTUS if they go on vacation overseas? > The ability to arrest them rather than hit them. Well, it's pretty clear he can't arrest them. That wouldn't be an official act like issuing an order to the military would be. > Show me one instance of the president ordering a hit on a citizen within the US borders. The ruling granting absolute immunity without consideration to motives is brand new and the first and only person so far to be subject to it is a decent human being. The system needs to protect us against more than just the well-intended.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        He can't arrest them himself, no. He can't order their arrest. The point is that the normal judicial process can work on them. So can impeachment. Neither was available for Awlaki. So, back to the main point: The ruling did not grant absolute immunity for acts outside the scope of his office. (Really! Read it! Take what it says about itself, not Sotomayor's hyperventilating dissent[1]. The ruling says the scope of what it does and does not cover.) And, second point: Ordering the execution of 6 sitting Supreme Court justices is not within the scope of the president's office. For all you keep raising Awlaki, it's not at all the same - not unless 1) a bunch of SC judges became Al-Qaeda organizers, and 2) the Justice Department, the FBI, the Marshalls Service, and the local police were completely unable to arrest them. [1] "Hyperventilating" because it had lots of rhetoric but very little actual legal analysis.