SCOTUS

[falafel]

Killing your political rival doesn't strike me as something that has any reasonable chance of being classified as an "official" act of the presidency.

Sending Seal Team 6 to kill a political rival, probably not. Sending Seal Team 6 to kill a threat to our democracy?

[Uncle Ted]

Sending Seal Team 6 to kill a political rival, probably not. Sending Seal Team 6 to kill a threat to our democracy?

Cool... Grandpa Joe is going to tell us, again tonight, that Trump is a threat to our democracy:

Embedded Tweet

Maybe he will be in the situation room and give us a live feed of Seal Team 6 hunting down Trump.

[frank ryan]

Also probably gets you impeached.

That is less reassuring than it should be.

[Bo Diddley]

Cool... Grandpa Joe is going to tell us, again tonight, that Trump is a threat to our democracy:

Embedded Tweet

Maybe he will be in the situation room and give us a live feed of Seal Team 6 hunting down Trump.

I hope he can remember to pardon Seal Team 6 after they've carried out that illegal order. Let's hope the local authorities opt not to press charges lest they be next on Joe's list.

[Northwestcoug]

Huh? That is not the context I remember.

A lawyer for the former president said he would be immune from prosecution for the murder of a political rival while in office unless he was first impeached and convicted in Congress.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/10/u...ssination.html

[All-American]

That is less reassuring than it should be.

Consider the flipside, though: a President who knows that his successor will prosecute and imprison him, unless he can stay in power. History has shown there's a danger there too; in fact, the threat of prosecution is the very thing that pushed Caesar across the Rubicon.

Immunity may remove the deterring effect that comes with the threat of jail time, but it also removes the incentive to take brazenly illegal actions to avoid the threat of jail time. I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the former effect is more important than the latter.

[Jeff Lebowski]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/10/u...ssination.html

It was not initially presented by the attorneys. It was a hypothetical raised by one of the justices.

[falafel]

Cool... Grandpa Joe is going to tell us, again tonight, that Trump is a threat to our democracy:

Embedded Tweet

Maybe he will be in the situation room and give us a live feed of Seal Team 6 hunting down Trump.

Usually they don't give us that news until after they've taken the target and gone through his porn stash. There will be pictures, though.

[Moliere]

Also probably gets you impeached.

Not if you also, as part of an official act, kill all reps from the other political party

[Northwestcoug]

It was not initially presented by the attorneys. It was a hypothetical raised by one of the justices.

ok but the lawyers ran with it.
I don’t see much of a distinction here.

[falafel]

It was not initially presented by the attorneys. It was a hypothetical raised by one of the justices.

It was essentially presented by the lawyer. The justices were probing how far the Trump team claimed the immunity would go. Justice Pan presented a number of scenarios that would theoretically fit within Trump's proposed interpretation, including the Seal Team 6 one. Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, confirmed it. He agreed with the hypothetical! How is that any different.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It was essentially presented by the lawyer. The justices were probing how far the Trump team claimed the immunity would go. Justice Pan presented a number of scenarios that would theoretically fit within Trump's proposed interpretation, including the Seal Team 6 one. Trump's lawyer, John Sauer, confirmed it. He agreed with the hypothetical! How is that any different.

It was an issue raised to cleverly expose the absurdity of complete immunity. It was not part of the main arguments presented by the attorneys as was implied above.

Listen, I am as worried about a second Trump presidency as most people, but if anyone thinks he’s gonna go around executing his political rivals because of this ruling, they are being delusional.

[Uncle Ted]

It was an issue raised to cleverly expose the absurdity of complete immunity. It was not part of the main arguments presented by the attorneys as was implied above.

Listen, I am as worried about a second Trump presidency as most people, but if anyone thinks he’s gonna go around executing his political rivals because of this ruling, they are being delusional.

Yes, the Dems and at least two of the liberal Supreme Court justices are delusional. Man, I have been trying to y’all this for like forever.

[old_gregg]

It was an issue raised to cleverly expose the absurdity of complete immunity. It was not part of the main arguments presented by the attorneys as was implied above.

Listen, I am as worried about a second Trump presidency as most people, but if anyone thinks he’s gonna go around executing his political rivals because of this ruling, they are being delusional.

it doesn't matter if it was explicitly part of his argument (of course it wasn't), and the practical probability of political murder is not at all the point.

[falafel]

It was an issue raised to cleverly expose the absurdity of complete immunity. It was not part of the main arguments presented by the attorneys as was implied above.

Listen, I am as worried about a second Trump presidency as most people, but if anyone thinks he’s gonna go around executing his political rivals because of this ruling, they are being delusional.

Agreed. But the immunity argument in that full and incredibly broad context (which the Justices pointed out was absurd) was advanced and advocated by Trump's lawyers. In Sauer's view, he has immunity for that and any other ridiculous act unless he's impeached and convicted, at which point immunity is destroyed.

I harbor no illusions that Trump will try to kill a rival and say he is immune, but I didn't think Trump would try to overthrow democracy either.