End of Chevron doctrine

[Hards Alumni]

Or, foreign-based terrorist linked to multiple attacks on Americans, publicly encouraged the killing of Americans and who was formally declared a military enemy of the U.S. through official means, making him not subject to the ban on assasinations.

Pretty much the exact same thing as Trump ordering the murder of Mitt Romney.

It was an extra judicial murder, was it not?

I'm clearly, just playing the semantics game, but indulge me.

[rocket surgeon]

So you support the idea of presidential immunity including for Joe Biden?

  yes and no

i do believe more reasoned and thoughtful heads should prevail here as it's really meant to be interpreted 

[Pakuni]

It was an extra judicial murder, was it not?

I'm clearly, just playing the semantics game, but indulge me.

Well, speaking of semantics, I suppose the answer to your questions depends on how you define extrajudical. Webster defines it as "a) not forming a valid part of regular legal proceedings, b) delivered without legal authority.

In this case, at least to my understanding, the administration followed the proscribed legal process for declaring a citizen a military enemy and approving his killing through the National Security Council. So, assuming that's true, it does seem legal authority existed.

[Hards Alumni]

Well, speaking of semantics, I suppose the answer to your questions depends on how you define extrajudical. Webster defines it as "a) not forming a valid part of regular legal proceedings, b) delivered without legal authority.

In this case, at least to my understanding, the administration followed the proscribed legal process for declaring a citizen a military enemy and approving his killing through the National Security Council. So, assuming that's true, it does seem legal authority existed.

The Executive Branch did this?  What are the grounds?  What are the legal processes defined in the constitution that allow for this?

[lawdog77]

The Executive Branch did this?  What are the grounds?  What are the legal processes defined in the constitution that allow for this?

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1192-36

[Hards Alumni]

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2012cv1192-36

Okay, so because the President (and his DOJ by extension and memorandum) said he could be put on a 'kill list', that it was legal that a US citizen wasn't afforded his 5th amendment constitutional right?   No trial, extrajudicial murder, just okey dokey it's war, and the executive branch can do what it wants!

I think you're proving my point.

Also, I can't believe you made me read all of that.  Cruel.

[Sir Lawrence]

I'd probably direct you to The Federalist Papers on this particular matter.  The role of the executive was thoroughly discussed when the constitution was penned.  The role of the executive have evolved quite dramatically since then.  Honestly, both sides should want an executive that isn't above the law and acts more like what was envisioned versus what it is today.

Furthermore, I'd probably read biographies on the executives that held the office between the end of the civil war and the assassination of William McKinley and compare them to the presidencies of your lifetime.  It's a fascinating and telling dichotomy of how the position has been interpreted with regards to the principles of our founding fathers.

As for caring about the founders, I'd say the founders would agree modeling a government solely based on 1790 America in 2024 is ridiculous.  The founders would be appalled by both the left and right of modern America, imo, largely because 99% of America couldn't begin to remotely articulate what the founding fathers thought.

This is perhaps your best work.  And your conclusion saddens me.  Maybe require passing a history exam before one can register on a social media account?

[JWags85]

This is perhaps your best work.  And your conclusion saddens me.  Maybe require passing a history exam before one can register on a social media account?

I don't think (outside of misinterpreting studies and statistics) there is a more absurd display of lacking intellect, critical thinking, and compete naivety on social media than history.  You'll see a complete whiff on historical fact or interpretation of something historical and 90% of the responses are agreeing or some emotional response and the few accurate corrections get buried or ignored.

The other day I saw a tweet about how disgusting the Belgians were cause they sell chocolate hands...which is celebrating how the Belgians gleefully cut off native hands in Africa, and they still celebrate it to this day.  It had 10s of thousands of likes.  The thread was full of people agreeing how horrible and disturbing it is...the one person who said "umm, guys, it's actually based on Antwerp folklore and it's actually an evil giant's hand" basically got ignored.

[Not all scoop users are created equal apparently]

I don't think (outside of misinterpreting studies and statistics) there is a more absurd display of lacking intellect, critical thinking, and compete naivety on social media than history.  You'll see a complete whiff on historical fact or interpretation of something historical and 90% of the responses are agreeing or some emotional response and the few accurate corrections get buried or ignored.

The other day I saw a tweet about how disgusting the Belgians were cause they sell chocolate hands...which is celebrating how the Belgians gleefully cut off native hands in Africa, and they still celebrate it to this day.  It had 10s of thousands of likes.  The thread was full of people agreeing how horrible and disturbing it is...the one person who said "umm, guys, it's actually based on Antwerp folklore and it's actually an evil giant's hand" basically got ignored.

Yeah there's plenty of actual Belgian atrocities to be mad at, we don't need to make them up like that. Important to vet sources and stats!

[MU82]

This is perhaps your best work.  And your conclusion saddens me.  Maybe require passing a history exam before one can register on a social media account? serve as president, senator or congressperson?

FIFY

[Skatastrophy]

We need a Belgium hate thread.

[Pakuni]

We need a Belgium hate thread.

Their beer sucks and "In Bruges" is overrated.

[MU82]

Their beer sucks and "In Bruges" is overrated.

Loved "In Bruges."

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

It's like when the D's changed the rules to make only a simple majority necessary for the Senate to confirm a SCOTUS justice. They liked it at the time, but it has come back to bite them on the keister. Be careful what you ask for.

82, you usually get these correct.
Democrats in the Senate switched to simple majority for confirming judges but exempted Supreme Court votes.

The Republicans changed to simple majority for Supreme Justices so they could vote Niel Gorsuch in.

[The Sultan]

We need a Belgium hate thread.

A made up country that's half French and half Dutch.  And the French portion kinda sucks.

[MU82]

82, you usually get these correct.
Democrats in the Senate switched to simple majority for confirming judges but exempted Supreme Court votes.

The Republicans changed to simple majority for Supreme Justices so they could vote Niel Gorsuch in.

Yes, correct. The D's set the precedent, and the R's expanded it. Thanks for the correction.

McConnell was laser-focused on pushing courts everywhere as far right as possible, and took advantage of rules making it easier to do so. SCOTUS is out front, so everybody knows about it, but McConnell got hundreds of young right-wing judges installed on federal benches. It will be his enduring legacy.

[forgetful]

Well, speaking of semantics, I suppose the answer to your questions depends on how you define extrajudical. Webster defines it as "a) not forming a valid part of regular legal proceedings, b) delivered without legal authority.

In this case, at least to my understanding, the administration followed the proscribed legal process for declaring a citizen a military enemy and approving his killing through the National Security Council. So, assuming that's true, it does seem legal authority existed.

Pakuni, the point is (and you address this at the end), and it coincides with my scenario, is that there are legitimate legal processes that would be considered "official presidential actions" that would place a US citizen on the "kill list." The Supreme Court's have perviously (although not officially ruled on it, just referenced it in other cases) supported this authority.

That means, a President can now lawfully, based on the Supreme Court ruling, place political Enemy's on kill lists simply by working with his appointed officials (who he now has full authority to threaten, remove, and bribe), by going through the process of making them enemies of the state, which is what I outlined in my extreme scenario.

We no longer have laws to protect us from this, we just have to hope that the President is not such an evil and vindictive person.

[lawdog77]

Pakuni, the point is (and you address this at the end), and it coincides with my scenario, is that there are legitimate legal processes that would be considered "official presidential actions" that would place a US citizen on the "kill list." The Supreme Court's have perviously (although not officially ruled on it, just referenced it in other cases) supported this authority.

That means, a President can now lawfully, based on the Supreme Court ruling, place political Enemy's on kill lists simply by working with his appointed officials (who he now has full authority to threaten, remove, and bribe), by going through the process of making them enemies of the state, which is what I outlined in my extreme scenario.

We no longer have laws to protect us from this, we just have to hope that the President is not such an evil and vindictive person.

Lay off the crack.

[forgetful]

Lay off the crack.

Explain to me where in the document you provided outlining the legal process to having US citizens added to a kill list, that doesn't involve official presidential actions involving his appointed officials.

[Pakuni]

Pakuni, the point is (and you address this at the end), and it coincides with my scenario, is that there are legitimate legal processes that would be considered "official presidential actions" that would place a US citizen on the "kill list." The Supreme Court's have perviously (although not officially ruled on it, just referenced it in other cases) supported this authority.

That means, a President can now lawfully, based on the Supreme Court ruling, place political Enemy's on kill lists simply by working with his appointed officials (who he now has full authority to threaten, remove, and bribe), by going through the process of making them enemies of the state, which is what I outlined in my extreme scenario.

We no longer have laws to protect us from this, we just have to hope that the President is not such an evil and vindictive person.

Well, for starters, the Supreme Court decision doesn't do what you lay out above. Because everything you say above was possible last week. A president has always had the power to work with his appointed officials to declare a person a military enemy. Obama did it!
None of this has changed. And what laws existed to protect us from this still exist.
What's changed is the Court saying that, depending on the circumstances, the president - and only the president - might be immune from criminal prosecution after the fact.
Your scenario assumes that everyone else who would need to sign off on this, from the NSC, to the generals to the DOJ, would all go agree to at the risk of being prosecuted for murder ... because it might cost them their jobs? That seems highly unlikely to me.

But even if that were true, you're making a false assumption that ordering the assassination of one's political opponents on American soil would be deemed an "official act" under the Constitution. I've already laid out why that's not likely.

And a president has always had the ability to hire political appointees and fire them if they don't enact his policies. A boss firing an at-will employee for not doing his/her job the way the boss wants it done is not, and never has been, illegal.

[JWags85]

We need a Belgium hate thread.

Without a shadow of a doubt, the country with the WORST weather on the planet.  A climate that makes the stereotypical rain and gloom of the UK look like Ibiza.

A number of years ago, Antwerp had new parking meters that were solar powered in a big EU green push.  They had to redo the battery backups cause they literally didn't get enough sun to function.

[MU82]

making them enemies of the state

Given that the previous president has called numerous folks "enemies of the state" - including Powell, Pence, Liz Cheney, Biden, Obama, Clinton and Pelosi - this is troubling.

we just have to hope that the President is not such an evil and vindictive person.

See my previous sentence.

[muwarrior69]

After the decision President Biden stated we do not have Kings in this country. I disagree. We have hundreds if not thousands of Kings and/or Queens: They're called Prosecutors all who have qualified immunity. I find it odd that the minority Justices did not want to apply that principle to our Presidents.

[Uncle Rico]

After the decision President Biden stated we do not have Kings in this country. I disagree. We have hundreds if not thousands of Kings and/or Queens: They're called Prosecutors all who have qualified immunity. I find it odd that the minority Justices did not want to apply that principle to our Presidents.

lol

[Jockey]

FIFY

Didn't need to be fixed. Traitors should not be allowed to be president. Rapists should not be allowed to be president. Coup leaders should not be allowed to be president.

Reading through this thread, I simply see an exercise in silliness with all of the analysis. We have history with this guy. He has never been held accountable for anything (and never will - SCOTUS will eventually declare  Jack Smith's role to be illegal so as to protect trump). Trump sees this ruling as permission for anything and everything - and if he gets elected no one else's opinion will matter. No matter what heinous thing he doers, he has the protection of SCOTUS and the MAGAts.

Bottom line? If trump gets in office again, he will be president for life. Before you laugh (collective 'you' -  not you, Mike) and mock me, make sure you weren't one of the ones who laughed in 2018 when I was the 1st person on Scoop to say trump would not leave if he lost in 2020.