4 ms·

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 arr

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.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > The ruling did not grant absolute immunity for acts outside the scope of his office. Commanding the armed forces is very much in his scope. Remember, the same decision said motives couldn't be considered in determining official vs. non-official act; the difference between "Trump is a national security threat the judicial system clearly can't handle" and "al-Awlaki is a national security threat the judicial system clearly can't handle" is the President's motive behind the strike. > it's not at all the same - not unless 1) a bunch of SC judges became Al-Qaeda organizers... Can you clarify where in the Constitution it says it's OK to assassinate some Americans without a trial but not others? > The point is that the normal judicial process can work on them. I mean, maybe? Not long after news broke of Thomas accepting $4M+ in gifts, Snyder vs. United States said gratuities after an act don't count as bribes.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      > Commanding the armed forces is very much in his scope. Commanding the armed forces against other branches of the United States government is very much not in the scope of his office. "Commanding the armed forces" is not the unlimited blank check that you seem to think it is. Since Vietnam, it's drilled into the heads of the military not to accept an illegal order. Inherent in that is the idea that some orders are illegal. They are not legitimate things to ask the military to do. Well, if they're not legitimate to ask, then they can't be within the scope of the commander-in-chief's legitimate authority. And I'm pretty sure that killing Supreme Court justices would be on the "not legitimate" side of the line.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        > Commanding the armed forces against other branches of the United States government is very much not in the scope of his office. Why not? Where is this restriction laid out in the Constitution? The Presidential Oath of Office even says he'll defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". As we've discussed, precedent for "enemy" seems to be "DOJ writes themselves a permission slip". Absurd setup? Yes. That's precisely why folks are incensed about this ruling.

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.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  > The ruling did not grant absolute immunity for acts outside the scope of his office. Commanding the armed forces is very much in his scope. Remember, the same decision said motives couldn't be considered in determining official vs. non-official act; the difference between "Trump is a national security threat the judicial system clearly can't handle" and "al-Awlaki is a national security threat the judicial system clearly can't handle" is the President's motive behind the strike. > it's not at all the same - not unless 1) a bunch of SC judges became Al-Qaeda organizers... Can you clarify where in the Constitution it says it's OK to assassinate some Americans without a trial but not others? > The point is that the normal judicial process can work on them. I mean, maybe? Not long after news broke of Thomas accepting $4M+ in gifts, Snyder vs. United States said gratuities after an act don't count as bribes.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    > Commanding the armed forces is very much in his scope. Commanding the armed forces against other branches of the United States government is very much not in the scope of his office. "Commanding the armed forces" is not the unlimited blank check that you seem to think it is. Since Vietnam, it's drilled into the heads of the military not to accept an illegal order. Inherent in that is the idea that some orders are illegal. They are not legitimate things to ask the military to do. Well, if they're not legitimate to ask, then they can't be within the scope of the commander-in-chief's legitimate authority. And I'm pretty sure that killing Supreme Court justices would be on the "not legitimate" side of the line.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > Commanding the armed forces against other branches of the United States government is very much not in the scope of his office. Why not? Where is this restriction laid out in the Constitution? The Presidential Oath of Office even says he'll defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". As we've discussed, precedent for "enemy" seems to be "DOJ writes themselves a permission slip". Absurd setup? Yes. That's precisely why folks are incensed about this ruling.