> You can't just frame things however you want.

The decision literally states "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives."

He can claim the assassination was an official act in defense of national security, and no amount of "but he owed the guy money!" matters.

I can't reply to your last comment since it's nested so deep: "Help me understand how you read "courts may not inquire into the President’s motives", then. That's a ruling, by the Supreme Court, that they can not do so in this specific case."

There's scopes to the application of the ruling. An extrajudicial killing of a political opponent certainly falls outside of scope.

> An extrajudicial killing of a political opponent certainly falls outside of scope.

There wasn't all that much fuss when we did it to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki.

while i appreciate he was a US citizen, i fail to see how it applies to our conversation

What legal theory makes this offing of a US citizen extrajudicially on national security grounds different?

this is an extreme example that really needs no explanation

Anyone can claim anything they want. That's why we have courts.

Help me understand how you read "courts may not inquire into the President’s motives", then. That's a ruling, by the Supreme Court, that they can not do so in this specific case.

Which is not particularly helpful when you can openly bribe Supreme Court justices with not repercussions..