reflecting on the immunity decision a bit, what the Court seems to be saying is that every element of the executive branch is at the President’s disposal, no matter what he wants to use it for. his motives don’t matter. the office is a weapon to be wielded however he sees fit.
I know this is tongue in cheek, but the point is that the limitation is the scope of the office as the Court sees it. within that scope, it’s open season. so under the majority’s logic, for example, there’s really no limit to what the president could use the military for.
to put a sharper point on this, the President’s power to pass an executive order regulating emissions is severely hampered. his power to use the DOJ or the military to regulate emissions is nearly unlimited
Oh without a doubt. Only complete rubes take the libertarian arguments at their word. It boils down to "I want the right to drugged child sex slaves on my reinforced compound" and always has.
I've always thought we should be using the military (or at least the guise of defense) as a means to enact more liberal policies. It's how we got the national highways, after all!
My impression is both would be subject to lawsuits to stop them and neither would be subject to prosecution, no? It’s just that the idea of an injunction telling the president to stop assassinating political rivals or whatever is… kind of silly
Not exactly, right? But the only thing standing between the two is whether the fraction of seal team 6 that won't follow an illegal order is bigger than the fraction that expects to be pardoned for doing it, and the President themselves will never suffer any consequences?
wouldn't they issue a rule that the military has to stop? what roberts would say is "I just said Biden can't be criminal prosecuted for using the military this way--not that we can't order him to stop." Biden surely could say "John Ron Roberts has made his decision now let him enforce it, but ...
