If the Washington Post headline tomorrow isn't "SCOTUS Rules POTUS Can Assassinate SCOTUS Without Criminal Liability" I don't know what we're even doing
Are any commentators offering a refutation of the "President orders assassination of opponents, pardons the assassin" hypothetical after this ruling, or are they just shrugging and saying it won't happen?
Does each assassination have to be adjudicated to determine whether it's an official act?
So, couple of questions:
1) does the immunity extend to the executive branch member and that member's subordinates?
2) if the executive branch member enlists a contractor or volunteer to execute the directive, does the immunity extend to the contractor or volunteer?
Until recently, I wouldn't have thought that the president's party would have mattered.
But that suggests another follow-up question:
Does this decision apply to the current administration?
Genuinely hoping to understand this:
If he had been convicted in his 1st impeachment (the 1 where he w/held military assistance from an ally to try to force that ally to assist in his 2020 campaign, to the later benefit of an opponent of U.S., which had aided in his 2016 campaign) ...
1/2
OK so the only real guard against this is executive branch employees refusing to follow orders (illegally after this ruling, I take it).
In other words: either the 25th amendment, something like the Pence-Milley-Pelosi triumvirate takes over, or a President can just liquidate any and all opponents.
Loath to defend Robert and his lawless decision, but I think he'd say it's a rebuttable presumption of immunity. Sort of his game. "We can't decide anything on THESE facts."
If the President gives an order, it's an official act.
If the assassin does it as a favor, it's personal. Even if it's "just business". Or ridding the president of a turbulent/meddlesome priest.
"although he may face consequences if the other party holds the House and roughly 35% of his party's senators agree to impeach him.
"Note that there have been four impeachments in US history, and in none of them have more than one (?) senator from POTUS's party voted to convict."
how does the evidentiary bar on official acts shake out in the classified docs case. trump's decision to send the docs to his house and his decision to declassify (or not) were official acts. can trump use evidence of these acts as a defense? can the government use evidence of these facts to rebut?
