Says who? You can't ask me why I did it, according to the ruling. I could have had a good reason. And you can't use my private records, nor those of my assistants, either.

Where in the Enumerated Powers of the Constitution does it give the the President the power to kill political opponents?

The constitution gives me the power to kill people for good reasons (I am the commander in chief of the military, after all), and I assure you, I have good reasons. Which you can't ask about.

And don't tell me I need Congress to authorize my killing people. I haven't needed that since Vietnam or something.

This is a silly response.

The ruling has specifically left the definition of "official acts" for the lower courts to decide on a case-by-case basis; they have not limited official acts to Enumerated Powers of the Constitution. The president likely has modern "official acts" that are not in in the constitution (such as the ability to issue executive orders) so it is not as simple as pointing to it. As things stand, this ruling is a blank cheque of unknown (but undoubtedly large) size.

>"As things stand, this ruling is a blank cheque of unknown (but undoubtedly large) size."

Easily the best way I've seen the impact of this ruling, articulated.

You need to think about this a bit more carefully. Today's ruling states that the president has immunity for all official acts. Official acts can be literally anything the president does _in his capacity as president_.

Constitution also doesn't give the President the power to go to the bathroom.

It codifies rules for certain aspects of their role. Not everything.

ATTN: The above comment is satirical and making a point. The point is that the majority says intent of an "official act" cannot be questioned.

So kind of how they said bribery is okay as long as it's not explicitly asked for and given as a "gift" after the fact, the majority holds that presidents can kill their political opponents as long as they "say" it was for national security.

Says who? A court.

Assassinating people is my job, I'm the commander in chief of the military. I just happened to do my job on someone who also happened to be my political opponent. How is that not an official act for which I am immune? The court cannot inquire about my motives.

You don't seem to understand how the judicial system in USA works. The ultimate decision capacity is with the people. The way it's realized may differ, and the time may be long to pursue the decision, but not even SC has the last word, only the people. The court cannot inquire about your motives is only until people are ok with that; if they are not, the reason will be found - or not - and pursued - no options here - to insist.

The problem is that 50% of the people are in a camp that advocates for the overthrow of the US government, while consolidating power and ensuring that it is as difficult as possible for people who oppose them to vote.

The Senate allowed legislation that made public lynching a crime to fester in committee without a vote for years. The Supreme Court’s abandonment of any reasonable check on executive power or governmental integrity is absurd. You literally have a justice on the payroll of a billionaire who has paid him millions of dollars who helped redefine bribery to make it a crime impossible to prosecute:

That's unfortunately the practical problem and the reality of the situation. In other words, I agree.

Here is Justice Roberts’s definition of an official act. Since the courts are making it a new executive power, it’s in the eye of the wielder. Long live the king.

> In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that, under Section 201(a)(3):

> [A]n “official act” is a decision or action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.” The “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” must involve a formal exercise of governmental power that is similar in nature to a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee. It must also be something specific and focused that is “pending” or “may by law be brought” before a public official. To qualify as an “official act,” the public official must make a decision or take an action on that “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” or agree to do so. That decision or action may include using his official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an “official act,” or to advise another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an “official act” by another official. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so)—without more—does not fit that definition of “official act.”

As an official act, we determined that my political rival was an enemy of the state and known terrorist, who was threatening our democracy. As such, it was my duty to order her/his assassination, for the safety of our great nation.

You're implying the parent poster isn't concerned about the illegal Obama drone killing. Which is making this about teams when there are none.

For myself, I personally think it crossed a dangerous line when Obama killed that citizen without a trial. I also think this SCOTUS is corrupt and this ruling is dangerous.

>a dangerous line

That's the same lukewarm sentiment that he's always received. It was an impeachable, criminal act.

My point is that he got away with it anyways, even without this "official act" clarification. Which just goes to show you that people whipping themselves into a frenzy about this have not been paying attention. They're using the most extreme language ("Seal Team 6 assassinations!!!") to describe some hypothetical that has already occurred without this ruling. It's silly.

I have no specific knowledge of the case you're referring to. I'll just assume it happened as you say it did.

Why are you upset that people are concerned by a ruling allowing exactly what you're concerned about? Shouldn't you be upset that neither the DOJ nor Congress took action against the President in question?

It doesn't allow it, because it already happens. People are acting like this is enabling some new behavior, and that the sky is falling, but this behavior has already been established.

Then the ruling is unnecessary, right?

There’s a difference between an American citizen combatant aiding the enemy abroad, and say an uncooperative Vice President refusing to participate in a coup.

I didn't realize the government could legally designate a citizen as X and then kill them without a declaration of war or a trial. Last time I checked, treason was a crime that you went to trial for.

I don't agree with the outcome, but at least the motive mattered there. The target was ostensibly leading a military operation against the US or something. Motive doesn't matter any more.

EDIT: And yes, what Obama did was illegal and he should have been impeached and prosecuted for that.

Of course people only care about “their” party. It is everything about what is broken in the US.

It blows my fucking mind that the left is about to nominate the only qualified person, of many qualified people, that can lose to trump. We saw this movie in 2016 with clinton.

How does this happen?

Well, he actually beat Trump, which Hillary failed to do. But I agree - other than nominating Hillary, there was probably nobody else who could lose to Trump.

But it's equally stupid on the other side. Trump is probably the only Republican candidate who could lose to Biden, either.

How did we get this way? Not much of a real primary on either side. Trump as the leading candidate refused to debate anybody else, and the Republican Party refused to block his nomination purely on that ground. Trump's daughter-in-law is also the chair of the Republican Party.

On the Democratic side, nobody real challenged Biden because he's the incumbent, despite his horrible approval ratings.

The US election dynamics produce a two-party system. Every so often, one of the major parties implodes, and a new party takes its place. Both parties are making a good case for it...

Sure is a giant disaster at the moment. I saw a “2020 comet” bumper sticker today, almost seems like a good idea.

IANAL: in no way shape or form am I encouraging destruction.

Which political rival of Obama's are you referring to?

So you're only worried about rich and influential people being killed, not the rest of us lowly American plebs?

Obama killed multiple American citizens, not just one.

Not worried. Happy. Biden can now do anything to Trump with immunity. Trump is DONE.

You just have to drum up some flimsy excuse that sounds official, I guess.

It very much is if it's done by commanding the military to do it. Maybe not so much if a President did it themselves.

What if the president deems it necessary out of national security interests?

There have been instances in the past where the US military has assassinated US citizens that they deemed terrorists. Search for "Anwar al-Awlaki".

Under this ruling, it would be entirely possible for Biden to declare Trump a direct danger to the republic and, as commander in chief, order him to be assassinated. Of course the "officialness" of this would be debated in the courts, but the reason so many find this ruling unconscionable is that it does basically say "the President is above the law - he just needs to do things under the guise of official acts".

I guess we can call it bold when you claim to have a better understanding of the decision than a dissenting justice.

Claiming to have the same understanding as the majority of justices seems safe, though, if that's how you decide what opinions to hold.

Did the majority opinions refute the dissent?

All I saw was that they were dismissed as “extreme hypotheticals”. All of that despite the publication of Project 2025 openly calling for the next conservative president to bend and break bureaucracy to carry out their desires.

We’re firmly in the Fuck Around stage of what exactly this ruling will and will not allow, and one way or another, we’re going to Find Out within the next 3-6 months. I know which candidate I hope to Find Out from.

In the majority opinion, this part would disagree with Sotomayor's example: "The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts."

The language isn't as electrifying as Sotomayor's example, but you can still imagine unofficial acts that would not warrant immunity.

High level of snark given that this is the most definitive part of the ~~actual decision~~ syllabus you could find to possibly counter what Sotomayor wrote. Guess you didn't read it first.

(Advanced trick: you are reading the syllabus. The actual decision is below.)

I read it this morning. Which part would you have quoted? I picked that part because it seemed like the clearest summary.

I guess we can call it bold when you claim to have a better understanding of the decision than the justices who wrote it.

Imagine Biden assassinating Trump under the pretense that Trump likely had other classified documents hidden away, or was too mentally unstable to be trusted with presidential secrets. This is the kind of action this ruling sanctions, entirely.

> This is the kind of action this ruling sanctions, entirely.

Given the extraordinary claim you're making, I'm doubtful that you have the qualifications to support the absolute statement being made pretending to be fact. This is especially true given how little this new ruling has been covered by the very people that are charged with deciding how it will work in practice.

You're not issuing an opinion in what you said. You're claiming it's a matter of fact. Constitutional and executive branch experts with decades of experience will be debating what this means for a very long time to come, with far less certainty than what your comment contains.

Presidents order the deaths of people in the interest of national security all the time. It's entirely within their official duties.

This is a legal thread on a tech forum so I find your credentialism thoroughly disingenuous. If you want to actually discuss I'm game, but your inane appeal to non-authority is tedious.

Which is why Biden must do this and immediately resign the presidency. Though he also needs to fix the Supreme Court so dubious territory even with the recusal.

> Which is why Biden must do this and immediately resign the presidency.

Calling for the murder of specific people is very much against the rules of this site.

Intentionally misinterpreting comments is very much against the rules of this site.

You’re supposed to be charitable in your interpretations.

I’m saying that Biden must act with his newfound unconstitutional powers freshly minted by the unqualified tyrannical theist fascists on the Supreme Court. How he does that is up to Biden, sorry I wasn’t more explicit - I ignorantly assumed the nuance to be as plain as the fascist intentions of trump and the company he keeps.

Yeah but pardoning the killer is. Why the killer chose to do it, who knows? Frankly, even if the phone call is leaked, motive doesn't matter apparently.