[alphabetatheta]

This is a terrible take. The Supreme Court case severely limits even the use of evidence to prosecute a President. The majority ruling says that as long as something is done in "official" capacity the intentions don't matter.

EDIT: This ruling probably retroactively clears Nixon from Watergate. It would make it illegal to use the tapes as evidence against him.

[vessenes]

Would it? I am skeptical about this take and I am skeptical of Sotomayer’s take. What official capacity would Nixon have been undertaking? What official capacity would a seal team six assassination of trump be designated as?

I’m also skeptical of her dissent strategy; dissents are key places to limit a ruling. Why not just say what seems crystal clear and say ‘nothing about this ruling should be taken to mean calling something an official act as a fig leaf for criminality is okay; it’s not okay to assassinate a political rival ever.’ Instead she says it might be okay by the ruling. I dislike this approach in the extreme; it feels like grandstanding and complaining about the Roberts court rather than engaging with her own substantial influence.

[vharuck]

>Would it? I am skeptical about this take and I am skeptical of Sotomayer’s take. What official capacity would Nixon have been undertaking?

For the Nixon tapes, today's SCOTUS ruling would require the prosecution to convince a federal judge before trial that the value of the tapes in the criminal case greatly outweighs the general immunity from oversight presidents have when consulting advisors. Difficult, but not impossible. It probably would've given the same result in the Nixon case, because Nixon didn't use presidential powers to carry out the plan (just the cover up in the Saturday Night Massacre stage). If he had used an active FBI agent instead of a former one to place the bugs, then it might have been OK, according to today's ruling (see III.B.1 which grants immunity to Trump for his sham investigations using the DOJ).

>What official capacity would a seal team six assassination of trump be designated as?

The President is the head of the military and can direct them without consulting Congress. Congress is free to impeach him if he does so without authorization, but he'd have absolute immunity because this is a core power of the office.

Maybe you meant, "What reason could there be to justify that killing in the name of the nation or its people?" In which case, the President would never have to say. His motives are not even allowed to be investigated. See III.A from the majority opinion:

>In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of of- ficial conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II in- terests that immunity seeks to protect.

[vessenes]

I believe that 18 U.S.C. § 1385 specifically bans the US military from acting on US soil, full stop. And, while we are currently in permanent war post 9-11, in general the President needs to wait on an act of Congress to engage in deploying the military. I'm by no means a lawyer, much less a legal or constitutional scholar, but I think my question stands, maybe better written as:

Given that such acts are banned by law, (deployment of troops on US soil, for instance), how would a President who wanted to assassinate his rival be able to claim this occurred within his official capacity?

I would generally agree with the court that putting justices in charge of weighing Presidential motives isn't really a world we've had or would want. But others of course might disagree.

[alphabetatheta]

To quote the majority opinion: "Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial." Sounds almost impossible & a pretty definitive statement.

[chasd00]

>Instead she says it might be okay by the ruling

yeah it seems like a traditional FUD strategy, i would expect Supreme Court justices to be more analytical and sober than that.

[darkerside]

Thank you for verbalizing something that was really bothering me here. Sotomayor is playing the victim in a way that is bad for America.

[criddell]

Does it say anything about the person who carries out the order from the President?

If a member of Seal Team 6 did assassinate a political rival of the President, would they also be immune from prosecution? To me it sounds like the kind of order they would refuse.

[KingOfCoders]

Just pardon everyone in the United States that act on your orders every morning after you get up before breakfast.

[wing-_-nuts]

The would be eligible for a pardon which would be an official act

[chasd00]

well if the murder took place in the US then the state would charge them with murder and, as Trump found out, no pardons for state crimes.

[paulryanrogers]

Indeed. So if Trump himself takes an AR-15 into Congress (ostensibly to stop a 'fraudulent' election process) then he's free and clear.