Btw, your cope that it has to be the President specifically doing the acts is disagreed with by Sonya Sotomayor in her dissent where she states outright that this decision makes political assassination legal.
But you’d know the implications better than a SC Justice who works with the fascist members of the Court, right?
Yes, exactly. “They were insurrectionists bent on overthrowing our government, and it was a tough, but necessary, decision to protect the nation, which is my duty as President.”
You’re absolutely correct. This is the part that has been left out of every news article I’ve read, and is undoubtedly the most concerning:
And some Presidential conduct-for example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, see Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701 (2018) - certainly can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision. For those reasons, the immunity we have recognized extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”
So it’s not just acts committed by the President, but also ordered by the President.
It’s also vague enough that charges can get bounced around lower courts indefinitely.
Thank you again for the link. I didn’t see it when I first searched.
That only applies to criminal prosecution. You really think Biden is going to off a dozen or so House members?
"…Enemies foreign and domestic."
a man can but dream…
No, because he’s a coward and an appeaser.
Btw, your cope that it has to be the President specifically doing the acts is disagreed with by Sonya Sotomayor in her dissent where she states outright that this decision makes political assassination legal.
But you’d know the implications better than a SC Justice who works with the fascist members of the Court, right?
So Biden can officially assassinate the entire Republican side and the supreme Court and because he was president when he ordered it, it is legal?
That’s the dissent’s warning.
I guess the surviving members of the Court can reopen the question!
Yes, exactly. “They were insurrectionists bent on overthrowing our government, and it was a tough, but necessary, decision to protect the nation, which is my duty as President.”
That claim isn’t even entirely untrue.
No. It’s new, and I haven’t seen the full transcript. I’m repeating what I’ve read in the news. Do you have a link so I can learn more?
I understand how the President could theoretically order an assassination then pardon. That was a good point I read in another thread.
https://www.supremecourt.gov
Transcripts are posted after rulings.
Or you could just read one of the many, many, many articles quoting her dissent.
Or watch a video quoting her.
https://youtu.be/IOyItzldEBM?si=7qSrhX1P6npUdj0b
You’re absolutely correct. This is the part that has been left out of every news article I’ve read, and is undoubtedly the most concerning:
So it’s not just acts committed by the President, but also ordered by the President.
It’s also vague enough that charges can get bounced around lower courts indefinitely.
Thank you again for the link. I didn’t see it when I first searched.
You could at least make it easy and post a link to the pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Like you read it regardless.
Not all of it, obviously. But if you want someone else to, you should consider not making them search through a different website to try to find it.
It’s on the landing page, in the third “recent rulings” that helpfully even has Trump in the name, but go on.
The standard for citations has been established a long time and there’s no good reason to change it.
deleted by creator