7 ms·

Then it sounds like Sotomayor is being extreme by conflating domestic political assassinations as an "official act." Does she not understand the difference?

jandrese 2y ago
What if the President ordered the assassination of the head of a terrorist organization that attempted to overthrow Congress with physical force?
- anonfordays 2y ago
  Not the exact scenario you described, but a similar scenario occurred in the past: "... al-Awlaki ... was an American-Yemeni lecturer, and jihadist who was killed in 2011 in Yemen by a U.S. government drone strike ordered by President Barack Obama. Al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and killed by a drone strike from the U.S. government." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
downWidOutaFite 2y ago
The ruling is extremely wishy washy about what is official vs unofficial, and keeps saying that it is very hard to determine, and even prohibits prosecutors from using certain legal tactics to determine if something is official or unofficial.
- nradov 2y ago
  The Supreme Court wasn't even asked to define exactly what is official versus unofficial in this case. It will now return to a lower court to address that point, which is the normal way for the process to work.
  - downWidOutaFite 2y ago
    That is a scam. The tests given in the opinion mean that they were all official because they involved federal elections. The case is over. The president now has immunity to corrupt elections as he wishes. I honestly don't understand how any American can be happy about this.
Goronmon 2y ago
Does she not understand the difference? Explain the difference.
- treeFall 2y ago
  Depriving someone of their constitutional rights cannot be an official act by definition. Arguing that it can be is just word games in a world where words stop mattering.
  - monetus 2y ago
    Should an official act done in furtherance of a crime be official? I think the problem is that the section regarding evidence, c3 iirc, says that any evidence implicating a criminal unofficial act must itself be unofficial, and not related to presidential acts.
  - whamlastxmas 2y ago
    American citizens have been drone striked without due process so that is in fact the reality we live in
  - Zardoz89 2y ago
    Explain that in Guantanamo
  - pseudalopex 2y ago
    > Depriving someone of their constitutional rights cannot be an official act by definition. Who said?
    - treeFall 2y ago
      The definition of words. It is unconstitutional to infringe on constitutional rights. Official actions are made such by the granted authority. No unconstitutional action is supported by the granted authority of the constitution.
      - 2y ago
brokencode 2y ago
Just call it necessary for national security with some BS reasoning and thin or made up evidence and suddenly it’s an official act. There are so many ways a president could twist pretty much anything into an official act.
buildbot 2y ago
This was argued by Trump's defense team, it’s not a hypothetical https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pressed-assassination-question-team-trump-doubles-rcna149494 https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pressed-...
- lolinder 2y ago
  Rather, the prosecution asked it as a hypothetical and the defense refused to rule out that it might be an official act.
  - buildbot 2y ago
    That's explicitly arguing for the possibility then? Seems like splitting hairs and not a big leap to understand why the dissent might reference a take so wild as - yeah it's okay to murder your political rivals if it's official!
    - GlobalFrog 2y ago
      So, for the next election, if Biden decides to pressure several state officials for them to choose him as the state winner instead of the real election result prevailing, there would be no prosecution. So why wouldn't he do it? Oh yes, basic honesty and being faithful to his country (unless that being old and confused, he decides to do just that, so two reasons there for him not to be held responsible). During the Supreme Court hearings, has anyone asked the hypothetical of a president deciding to send Team 6 to get rid of some members of the Supreme Court? No prosecution for that too?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
jwithington 2y ago
couldn't be it reasonably construed as an official act if the president believed that person was a member of a terrorist group? the post 9/11 Authorization of Use for Military Force grants the president the use of all "necessary and appropriate force" in prosecuting terrorists. this act is still in effect.
- breadwinner 2y ago
  Could Proud Boys reasonably be considered a terrorist group?
  - jwithington 2y ago
    Hellfire on its way now
diob 2y ago
If you think it's extreme you haven't been paying attention to how Republicans have been acting with the "get out of jail free" card for years. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#Pardons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#Par...
jasonlotito 2y ago
A president could put a bullet through a political rivals head and say he was "to the best of his ability, preserving, protecting, and defending the Consitution of the United States" if that political rival was calling for the "termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution" and was preparing to do it. I could see the argument being made that yes, that's an official act. You'd have to argue why it's okay for a President to abandon their oath of office.

jandrese 2y ago

What if the President ordered the assassination of the head of a terrorist organization that attempted to overthrow Congress with physical force?

anonfordays 2y ago
Not the exact scenario you described, but a similar scenario occurred in the past: "... al-Awlaki ... was an American-Yemeni lecturer, and jihadist who was killed in 2011 in Yemen by a U.S. government drone strike ordered by President Barack Obama. Al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and killed by a drone strike from the U.S. government." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

downWidOutaFite 2y ago

The ruling is extremely wishy washy about what is official vs unofficial, and keeps saying that it is very hard to determine, and even prohibits prosecutors from using certain legal tactics to determine if something is official or unofficial.

nradov 2y ago
The Supreme Court wasn't even asked to define exactly what is official versus unofficial in this case. It will now return to a lower court to address that point, which is the normal way for the process to work.
- downWidOutaFite 2y ago
  That is a scam. The tests given in the opinion mean that they were all official because they involved federal elections. The case is over. The president now has immunity to corrupt elections as he wishes. I honestly don't understand how any American can be happy about this.

Goronmon 2y ago

Does she not understand the difference? Explain the difference.

treeFall 2y ago
Depriving someone of their constitutional rights cannot be an official act by definition. Arguing that it can be is just word games in a world where words stop mattering.
- monetus 2y ago
  Should an official act done in furtherance of a crime be official? I think the problem is that the section regarding evidence, c3 iirc, says that any evidence implicating a criminal unofficial act must itself be unofficial, and not related to presidential acts.
- whamlastxmas 2y ago
  American citizens have been drone striked without due process so that is in fact the reality we live in
- Zardoz89 2y ago
  Explain that in Guantanamo
- pseudalopex 2y ago
  > Depriving someone of their constitutional rights cannot be an official act by definition. Who said?
  - treeFall 2y ago
    The definition of words. It is unconstitutional to infringe on constitutional rights. Official actions are made such by the granted authority. No unconstitutional action is supported by the granted authority of the constitution.
    - 2y ago

brokencode 2y ago

Just call it necessary for national security with some BS reasoning and thin or made up evidence and suddenly it’s an official act. There are so many ways a president could twist pretty much anything into an official act.

buildbot 2y ago

This was argued by Trump's defense team, it’s not a hypothetical https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pressed-assassination-question-team-trump-doubles-rcna149494 https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/pressed-...

lolinder 2y ago
Rather, the prosecution asked it as a hypothetical and the defense refused to rule out that it might be an official act.
- buildbot 2y ago
  That's explicitly arguing for the possibility then? Seems like splitting hairs and not a big leap to understand why the dissent might reference a take so wild as - yeah it's okay to murder your political rivals if it's official!
  - GlobalFrog 2y ago
    So, for the next election, if Biden decides to pressure several state officials for them to choose him as the state winner instead of the real election result prevailing, there would be no prosecution. So why wouldn't he do it? Oh yes, basic honesty and being faithful to his country (unless that being old and confused, he decides to do just that, so two reasons there for him not to be held responsible). During the Supreme Court hearings, has anyone asked the hypothetical of a president deciding to send Team 6 to get rid of some members of the Supreme Court? No prosecution for that too?
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jwithington 2y ago

couldn't be it reasonably construed as an official act if the president believed that person was a member of a terrorist group? the post 9/11 Authorization of Use for Military Force grants the president the use of all "necessary and appropriate force" in prosecuting terrorists. this act is still in effect.

breadwinner 2y ago
Could Proud Boys reasonably be considered a terrorist group?
- jwithington 2y ago
  Hellfire on its way now

diob 2y ago

If you think it's extreme you haven't been paying attention to how Republicans have been acting with the "get out of jail free" card for years. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#Pardons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair#Par...

jasonlotito 2y ago

A president could put a bullet through a political rivals head and say he was "to the best of his ability, preserving, protecting, and defending the Consitution of the United States" if that political rival was calling for the "termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution" and was preparing to do it. I could see the argument being made that yes, that's an official act. You'd have to argue why it's okay for a President to abandon their oath of office.