The dissent is in bad faith and should be discarded. The president enjoys no authority to assassinate anyone and therefore enjoys no immunity for doing so. The dissent is not serious and should be treated as such.
Based on the incredible hyperbole written in the dissent. Legal expert turned partisan hack quite quickly when they start talking about assassinations.
Are you still at this shit? Im still waiting on you to provide where in the ruling it specifically addresses not allowing assassinations like you claimed
deleted by creator
Yes. The supreme court just made it legal for the president to destroy the country by doing all that. Do you see the problem?
deleted by creator
Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent that basically says that anything can be an official act (with enough creativity i’m sure) and it’s not hyperbole.
No one is going to believe your arguments over the dissenting judges.
It is also very telling you’ve responded to no comments mentioning what the dissenting judges have said.
The dissent is in bad faith and should be discarded. The president enjoys no authority to assassinate anyone and therefore enjoys no immunity for doing so. The dissent is not serious and should be treated as such.
obama thanks you for not remembering that time he assassinated a 16 year old american citizen.
deleted by creator
Based upon what?
The bar for internet rando invalidating legal expert is pretty high BTW.
Based on the incredible hyperbole written in the dissent. Legal expert turned partisan hack quite quickly when they start talking about assassinations.
Are you still at this shit? Im still waiting on you to provide where in the ruling it specifically addresses not allowing assassinations like you claimed
deleted by creator