|
Quinta Jurecic@qjurecic.bsky.social |
along similar lines, has anyone actually explained *why* the seal team six hypo is ruled out by the majority opinion? all I've seen is right-leaning law profs mocking everyone who raises the issue. but nobody has explained why a president wouldn't be immune for assassinating a rival
38 replies 57 reposts 367 likes
|
🍩𝓉𝒽𝑒 𝓇𝒶𝓅𝓉𝓊𝓇𝑒🧸
@born2.bsky.social
[ View ] |
his lawyer argued as much in front of the court its absurd for Roberts to say that the dissenters are being dramatic when this is the verbatim quote from the defense with regards to using the military to assassinate a political rival
4 replies 70 reposts 234 likes
|
@lexiitea.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It isn't. OLC probably has the memo on the desk for this after this ruling. Just remember the majority already said that a President can tell the DOJ to commit fraudulent investigations to steal an election as an official act. It's a matter of votes/politics at this point which is very bad.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Paul Rosenberg
@paulrosenberg.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Eye rolls are the only arguments they have.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Caren with a C
@caren.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I think the conservative SCOTUS justices have betrayed their oaths of office. Why shouldn't Joe, as an act of office to protect the country, set Seal Team 6 on them? This whole thing is predicated on Dems not being murderous felons.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Indiscreet Function
@homotopic.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I think it is distinguishable if you read the part about Trump meeting with DOJ *very* narrowly and you assume that what the Court actually means on the presumptive immunity is a kind of balancing test (though maybe one where you need an extreme disproportion to beat immunity)
3 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
DĂ©cervelage
@decervelage.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It’s never happened before, so it won’t ever happen under any circumstances. That’s how norms work.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Rotanen ♾️
@rotanen.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Like libertarians mocking people for asking who will build the roads.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Nigel Tufnel
@misterrora.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This is why Biden should test that limit. The Supreme Court will overturn themselves within minutes if a liberal president exercises the expanded authority.
0 replies 1 reposts 7 likes
|
Stef @wikisteff@mastodon.social Christensen
@wikisteff.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Under this ruling, it is not clear they would be.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Steve Pheley
@othersteve.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Not a lawyer, but maybe they’re just thinking that presidential immunity from prosecution doesn’t change that it’s still an illegal order for everybody below him in the chain of command, and still impeachable by Congress? (Of course he can still threaten or fire people who disobey, etc. ?)
2 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Dire Sloth
@magneticsara.bsky.social
[ View ] |
We also don't know why a president is immune for official acts, so I'm just assuming calvinball.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Jon Kelvey
@jonkelvey.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I keep seeing "That's not part of his duties under the constitution" or "US Code of Military Justice forces any soldier to disobey that illegal order".
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Nicholas Weaver
@ncweaver.skerry-tech.com
[ View ] |
The only thing is "you could still prosecute Seal Team 6 themselves under state laws against murder because Trump can't pardon the state law charges against underlings"
2 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Corey Rayburn Yung
@coreyryung.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Andy Grewal has posted responses on Xitter built from his article on the subject. I found them unpersuasive and built on a very narrow view of what constitutes "official acts."
1 replies 0 reposts 20 likes
|
|
@crispybanks.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The dedication to creating norms out of deeply immoral, abnormal behavior only emboldens the right. You should be alarmed, do things that make it alarming to regular people.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Pwnallthethings
@pwnallthethings.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I think you can make a case that the /president/ would be immune for ordering the assassination of a rival, but the official pulling the trigger wouldn't be. Tho thanks to a combination of qualified immunity and presidential pardon powers, I think it's really a distinction without much difference
9 replies 6 reposts 69 likes
|
Dustin
@dustinn.bsky.social
[ View ] |
National Security is the easiest to identify “core constitutional” duty of the President. If he thinks his opponent is a national security concern requiring military force, who are the courts to question that decision
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Tristan Palmgren
@tristanpalmgren.bsky.social
[ View ] |
"Surely the adults in the room will stop this." Many people are saying.
0 replies 0 reposts 5 likes
|
Neil Stenhouse
@nstenhouse.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The answer is: those profs have vibes about it
0 replies 0 reposts 4 likes
|
The Other Same Dog
@manticore-night.bsky.social
[ View ] |
norms
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Tom Scocca
@tomscocca.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Given that he campaigned last time on having sent the Marshals to do a summary execution of a fugitive, I'm not sure the hypo is even properly a hypo
4 replies 2 reposts 32 likes
|
Nick Wagers
@nwagers.bsky.social
[ View ] |
You have to go back to the foundational theory of right wing law. If Republicans do it: probably legal, if Democrats do it: definitely not.
1 replies 0 reposts 6 likes
|
Satisfied Psychic
@satisfiedpsychic.bsky.social
[ View ] |
They know Biden won't do it. They don't care that Trump will. That's all there is to it.
0 replies 0 reposts 8 likes
|
@jenniferholton7.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The only difference between that hypothetical and trying to get Pence and Pelosi killed on Jan 6 (immunity for which SCOTUS failed to settle) is involvement of Seal Team 6.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Sharmake Farah
@sharmake.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It is very likely not ruled out, thanks to Article II and Titles 10 and 50, unfortunately.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Warhammerchick
@celticdragon1.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Baseball head guy on the hell site thinks that murdering rivals would be enough to finally trigger an impeachment that removes the President. Lolololol
5 replies 2 reposts 60 likes
|
Dan Nicotera
@geeklaw.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I'm not sure the majority did rule it out. They accuse the dissent of fear mongering and dismiss the dissent's concerns over abuses of power, but they never actually say that the dissent is applying their framework incorrectly
bsky.app/profile/jaco...
0 replies 1 reposts 9 likes
|
Don Zeko
@donzeko.bsky.social
[ View ] |
They aren't explaining why because they can't! It is the extremely clear implication of the majority's holding
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Andrew Parker
@andrewparker.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The president probably couldn’t be prosecuted. But if the president is crossing that rubicon it seems doubtful that hypothetical prosecution stops him. The important part is the decision doesn’t give any immunity to the members of SEAL Team Six for following an order to do illegal acts.
2 replies 0 reposts 6 likes
|
@napoleon-the-pig.bsky.social
[ View ] |
They are simply trying to bully people into dropping the questions and arguments.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
@abovoadmala.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I haven't seen it either!! It's crazy! All I've seen is one guy asserting it would be subject to review because Congress has the powe to declare war, which sounds very stupid to me
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
The Silvered Spherical Ideal Median Voter
@swolecialism.bsky.social
[ View ] |
"right leaning law profs mocking people" as opposed to explaining why it wouldn't be straightforwardly possible is a good sign that it isn't actually ruled out, imo
2 replies 2 reposts 82 likes
|
KC Momkin
@kc-momkin.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Because this is an abusive relationship technique. If you question, your emotions get ridiculed and your good question is unaddressed. They want plausible deniability, and they can't get that with a direct conversation. Or they are scared.
1 replies 0 reposts 20 likes
|
@mjk4mj.bsky.social
[ View ] |
"Under today's ruling, a President would be immune for any way in which he used the military (a "core function"), even to kill American citizens in America. ..." bsky.app/profile/mitc...
0 replies 3 reposts 16 likes
|
Political Punnery
@politicalpunner.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Sincerely, I think these 'in the know' people believe that the Judges making up these pseudo-rulings would just not allow ABSURD SCENARIO X, even though on paper it's now fine. They've accepted rule by arbitrary decree from the (Republican) Supreme Court.
0 replies 0 reposts 6 likes
|
Vituperative Erb
@vituperativeerb.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The actual argument is “well they don’t actually give a test in the opinion so who can say” but like “they didn’t affirmatively say you can do it, they just didn’t rule it out” isn’t a big improvement!
1 replies 0 reposts 5 likes
|
Buttadeus
@thewanderingjew.bsky.social
[ View ] |
My assessment is that it would be an illegal order, but the DOJ wouldn't be able to charge the president with a crime. However, it would mean that the actual Seal Team could refuse it, or could be prosecuted for obeying (and be pardoned, or not).
1 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
Vacated Vergogna
@not-human-capital.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The minority claims that if the president was a face-eating leopard that the president would eat faces. HAHAHA they're so hysterical. This is why people with uteruses shouldn't be judges. Of COURSE the face eating leopard won't eat faces, that would be ridiculous. You have my word.
0 replies 1 reposts 3 likes