Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

17
  • 29
    "Moreover, the people who would have to carry out such orders would not share in any immunity claims." - the President can pardon federal crimes. Trump has pardoned actual killers (four Blackwater military contractors convicted, one of first-degree murder, for their involvement in the Nisour Square massacre).
    – Lag
    Commented Jul 3 at 15:45
  • 19
    I rather disagree with this reasoning. Roberts put almost any kind of talk by the president to the underlings (e.g. those in the DOJ) as an official act. So, POTUS telling Seal Team 6 to do this or that is very similar. Commented Jul 3 at 16:36
  • 24
    -1. The judicial branch not adhering to it's own decision does not "torpedo Sotomayor's dissent", that's paradoxical. As ruled this week, the president has absolute immunity for official acts and assumed immunity for the "outer limit" of his duties. It's a big stretch to declare deploying Seal Team 6 as commander in chief, not an official act, while deploying the justice department in any way you see fit, is.
    – I Funball
    Commented Jul 3 at 16:50
  • 19
    "it's unlikely a Federal court would" Why is it unlikely? Considering the president appoints those judges and with enough "gratuity" anything is possible.
    – Dan M.
    Commented Jul 3 at 17:22
  • 17
    Exactly how can you argue that giving an order to the US armed forces not a "core power" of the president? Remember, the illegality of the communicated information doesn't change things under the majority opinion.
    – Yakk
    Commented Jul 4 at 13:58