President Biden should ask the justices for clarification: "Can I legally have you shot?"

[Towlie]

"Can I legally have you shot?"
"Can I legally have some of you shot?"
"Can I legally have Trump shot?"
"Can I legally have every Republican who abuses our Constitution shot?"
"And if not, why not?"

[Ferrets are Cool]

1. He wont, but it would be fun.

[Conjuay]

5. He could ask

very nonchalantly, Shades on, ice cream cone in his hand... ya'know, Joe Cool with that little mischievous grin on his face.

[Towlie]

21. Right! People below think I'm suggesting he actually do it but I'm only saying he should ask.

[pwb]

2. Good one.

.

[rampartc]

3. the question is

"may i legally use my unitary executive powers to clean up this mess that you made?"

to which the justices have already answered " do anything you want. someone can hold an evidentiary hearing later. "

"fearing for our democracy, i dissent." sotomayer.

[LisaL]

4. Well, it's better to ask for forgiveness than permission.

[Meadowoak]

6. Just do it, he plans to do it to you, and you should believe him.

[onecaliberal]

35. He can't because his clown court just gave Biden immunity.

[thatdemguy]

7. Something I want to know, is why everyone keeps defaulting

to violence and murder?

I see this ruling much more constrained than most people are for some reason. I take it as the president cant be charged with say bombing a country like iran to destroy say missile launchers, or an EO that turns out to be illegal. An example of a EO would be something like changing the pricing of medicine prices on Medicare, which hypothetically was found to be illegal.

Yes it says in line with presidential duties, but ordering the murder US citizens for no reason is not with in presidential duties. And impeachment is still a thing as rump knows ( x2 ).

[LisaL]

8. What if it's for a reason?

Would that be o'key?

[Shrek]

9. Exactly

People keep imagining actions that are not within the scope of presidential powers.

[LisaL]

10. How is it not within the scope?

Lets say somebody is suspected of being a spy. Can he or she be ordered killed as an official act of the president?

[Shrek]

11. No

The President has no authority to order extrajudicial killings.

[LisaL]

12. Says who?

Nothing president does as official business is illegal anymore.

[Zeitghost]

23. That's not how any of this works

The act remains illegal. It may or may not be prosecutable.

[Mossfern]

13. What if it's

in an "official capacity?"

[Emile]

14. Maybe not this President, but one with a Magic R

most certainly does with this Supreme Court.

[asm128]

15. I guess you best go tell Sotomayor

that she is wrong in her dissent, because a guy named Shrek knows better.

[thatdemguy]

16. If you ask me this is painting with a wide brush

But its very bad optics for the Democratic party and those who stand behind it to be taking the ruling like this. Its easy to see how people could say its projection. AKA hey we would like to do this, but we think the other side will.

[TwilightZone]

19. Agreed

We constantly complain and fret about how Trump would potentially abuse presidential power, then we suggest that Biden do similar things.

The assertion in the OP is laughable, in my opinion. If Trump did something similar, we'd be all over it, with good reason.

[Towlie]

20. Read the opening post again! I'm simply suggesting that he ask questions.

[BlueKota]

30. I don't believe violence is called for, unless it's

a last resort matter of self defense or defense of others, who have done no harm themselves.

Firing people for willfully violating their oaths of office and imprisoning those who aleady actually attempted to violently overthrow the duly elected government of the U.S., however, I wouldn't have a problem with. I also wouldn't have a problem with President Biden saying it's his Constitutional duty to make sure the laws passed by the Legislators are enforced properly, and since the SC decision prevents that, it is declared null and void and order the Trump trials go full speed ahead, and all convictions of January 6 insurrectionists already adjudicated stand as is.

Especially since impeachment is not an option because Republicans have already made it clear they will put Trump and their own power first, over the law & the majority of the people.

The traditional safeguards aren't going to save us this time, so it's time to brain storm alternatives.

[Bonx]

34. We don't do nuance.

[Meadowoak]

40. trumps been saying at his rallies, take him at his word.

[getagrip_already]

17. No, not legally.....

It would still be illegal. Why even ask it that way?

He simply couldn't be prosecuted for it.

[Towlie]

24. Asking questions would be illegal???

[getagrip_already]

25. No, killing someone would....

It would be a silly question to ask because killing someone is still illegal. Ordering someone else to kill someone is still illegal.

He is just immune from prosecution if it was an official act. But just like with a pardon, the act itself would still be illegal.

Those he ordered to carry it out would be carrying out an illegal order. They would be committing murder. They could be pardoned at the federal level, but it would still be illegal.

[Silent Type]

27. Agree with your interpretation. Of course, the victim is still dead while the courts try to figure out if it was an

official or unofficial act.

[getagrip_already]

29. True that....

But the op postulated Joe should ask if it would be legal for him to kill a scotus justice. It wouldn't.

If he tried, it would be illegal. Most likely nobody would agree to carry out an order like that.

Not on the current chain of command.

The proposed tsf chain? Yeah, without question.

[BlueKota]

36. Isn't the whole point of having laws to discourage people

from doing acts that harm other citizens?

I don't understand what the point of saying something is illegal if there are zero consequences for breaking the law, what's to discourage the criminal from doing it again? When he knows nothing will happen to him anyway? This is my problem with the SC decision in terms of Trump.

[getagrip_already]

37. I agree, but hopefully there is some downstream deterrence

Even though he has immunity, his minions don't.

They can be prosecuted. They would be carrying out illegal orders, and committing crimes.

Is that a deterrent? Who knows. I tend to doubt it in magadonia.

[BlueKota]

39. Trumps followers would probably risk arrest,

because they will assume he'd pardon them, and maybe he would, but no doubt a price would be attached.

Amazing how many are blind to the amount of people he's thrown under the bus when he's done using them.

[Meadowoak]

41. illegal? that never stopped trump before.

[Bucky]

18. Please, only

... six of them

[Kid Berwyn]

22. Like they say at the NRA...

“Shoot first. Ask questions later.”

…and at the Feudalist Society…and at the Heretic Foundation…

[Prairie Gates]

26. "That's not how any of this works"

[kelly1mm]

28. The Supreme Court does not give 'advisory opinions'

It only issues rulings in actual ‘cases or controversies’

[Irish_Dem]

31. Just for asking the question the SC will throw Joe into a federal supermax prison.

[Meadowoak]

42. joe needs to balance the court before its too late.

[Goodheart]

32. He had a GREAT opportunity during the debate to make lots of points

There were many posts on this site with recommendations for what he should say. There were many cutting things he could have said but didn't.

I will certainly vote for him if he's our candidate, sure, but I can't shake my disappointment.

[getagrip_already]

38. 600++ lies in 90 minutes.....

Hard to even latch onto a few, and still answer the questions you are being asked.

It's easy to armchair criticize. Try it.

[blogslug]

33. Heya!