Skip to main content
Law

Return to Question

Mod Moved Comments To Chat
Became Hot Network Question
added 100 characters in body
Source Link
Nate Eldredge
Nate Eldredge
  • 30.1k
  • 93
  • 95

This is less a question about the SCOTUS ruling itself, and more about how SCOTUS rulings are interpreted in applying the law.

In the SCOTUS rulingSCOTUS ruling in Trump v. United States (23-939) on July 1st, 2024, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

Obviously, this statement is intended to criticize the majority opinion, but in future, could it actually be used to justify the specific actions mentioned? Let's say a sitting President actually did have Seal Team 6 execute their political opponent. In a criminal trial for such an action, couldn't the lawyer say "Here, we have a Supreme Court ruling, and in that ruling, one of the Justices explicitly states that this ruling makes the President immune to criminal actions if that President has Seal Team 6 execute their political opponent."?

This seems absurd, but it isn't clear to me what the problem with this argument would be. A Supreme Court Justice has explicitly stated that this is an outcome of the ruling, so why couldn't that be used as a defense in this situation? Is there a section of the ruling that can't actually be used to set precedent? Was this statement written there? Or is there some other legal principle that would prevent a situation like this?

This is less a question about the SCOTUS ruling itself, and more about how SCOTUS rulings are interpreted in applying the law.

In the SCOTUS ruling on July 1st, 2024, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

Obviously, this statement is intended to criticize the majority opinion, but in future, could it actually be used to justify the specific actions mentioned? Let's say a sitting President actually did have Seal Team 6 execute their political opponent. In a criminal trial for such an action, couldn't the lawyer say "Here, we have a Supreme Court ruling, and in that ruling, one of the Justices explicitly states that this ruling makes the President immune to criminal actions if that President has Seal Team 6 execute their political opponent."?

This seems absurd, but it isn't clear to me what the problem with this argument would be. A Supreme Court Justice has explicitly stated that this is an outcome of the ruling, so why couldn't that be used as a defense in this situation? Is there a section of the ruling that can't actually be used to set precedent? Was this statement written there? Or is there some other legal principle that would prevent a situation like this?

This is less a question about the SCOTUS ruling itself, and more about how SCOTUS rulings are interpreted in applying the law.

In the SCOTUS ruling in Trump v. United States (23-939) on July 1st, 2024, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

Obviously, this statement is intended to criticize the majority opinion, but in future, could it actually be used to justify the specific actions mentioned? Let's say a sitting President actually did have Seal Team 6 execute their political opponent. In a criminal trial for such an action, couldn't the lawyer say "Here, we have a Supreme Court ruling, and in that ruling, one of the Justices explicitly states that this ruling makes the President immune to criminal actions if that President has Seal Team 6 execute their political opponent."?

This seems absurd, but it isn't clear to me what the problem with this argument would be. A Supreme Court Justice has explicitly stated that this is an outcome of the ruling, so why couldn't that be used as a defense in this situation? Is there a section of the ruling that can't actually be used to set precedent? Was this statement written there? Or is there some other legal principle that would prevent a situation like this?

Source Link
Michael
Michael
  • 551
  • 1
  • 10

Does Justice Sotomayor's "Seal Team 6" example, in and of itself, explicitly give the President the authority to execute opponents? If not, why not?

This is less a question about the SCOTUS ruling itself, and more about how SCOTUS rulings are interpreted in applying the law.

In the SCOTUS ruling on July 1st, 2024, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote "Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

Obviously, this statement is intended to criticize the majority opinion, but in future, could it actually be used to justify the specific actions mentioned? Let's say a sitting President actually did have Seal Team 6 execute their political opponent. In a criminal trial for such an action, couldn't the lawyer say "Here, we have a Supreme Court ruling, and in that ruling, one of the Justices explicitly states that this ruling makes the President immune to criminal actions if that President has Seal Team 6 execute their political opponent."?

This seems absurd, but it isn't clear to me what the problem with this argument would be. A Supreme Court Justice has explicitly stated that this is an outcome of the ruling, so why couldn't that be used as a defense in this situation? Is there a section of the ruling that can't actually be used to set precedent? Was this statement written there? Or is there some other legal principle that would prevent a situation like this?