Two sides to the story related to two SCOTUS opinions

Two opinions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States this term have bearing on the crazy, yes, crazy rants of democrats suggesting that the Trump v. United States ruling could empower the sitting president to “off” his political opponent. Where did they get the ludicrous idea? From Justice Sotomayor’s dissent:

"When he [the President] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. 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.”

Here is Former Attorney General Bill Barr addressing the folly of her reasoning:

Within the opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, it was held of the president that “His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” ”

It takes a huge leap of imagination to attempt to validate the use of violence against a political enemy, that the ruling could sanction it as an official act of office. Any such action would always be illegal, whether or not the chief executive called for its implementation. The reason is plainly stated in Chief Justice Robert’s point.

Related is the opinion rendered on Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, believe it or not. Ridiculously floating the notion that Biden could take matters into his own hands, dispatching Seal Team Six to destroy political rivals, brings into question the full range of application of the Chevron rejection. If there is no legislative basis via Congress or the Constitution for executive or administrative action, including assassination, then the action would not be legally covered by presidential immunity, and it cannot be considered “official.”

It’s time democrats got a grip on reality that their pipedreams of removing opposition by any means available, violent or extra-legal, cannot be sanctioned by law

A little round about in explanation, but the executive office acts on an agency basis. If an executively ordered action is outside the scope, or a loose interpretation of Congressional legislation, which must concur with the Constitution, it isn’t legally binding according to the Loper Bright ruling. And, no matter how one may color the idea that a president has the authority to “take out” another individual, being flatly against statutory law it can’t be considered an official act.

“The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.” (Emphasis mine.)

What each of these opinions clarifies is that official acts either by the president or an executive-empowered agency cannot contravene or stretch the intent or letter of the law, statutory and constitutional. The implication is that executive orders to mandate electric vehicle purchases, vaccinations, regulate natural gas appliances, or implement climate change rules, etc. come under agency policies that are not supported by legislative authority.

It’s time democrats got a grip on reality that their pipedreams of removing opposition by any means available, violent or extra-legal, cannot be sanctioned by law.

Projection has run amuck within the democrat party

Their attempt to promote outrageous retribution against their “enemies” by first voicing hopes that Biden could invoke immunity to silence Trump, is an effort to hang an albatross around Trump’s neck. It didn’t take a full day for the progressive media and politicians to reverse the scenario and harangue the public with the idea that Trump would think like them, and when again seated as president, he’d fill the dictatorial role that Biden has already assumed.

Projection has run amuck within the democrat party, testing one implausible plot after another to distract from the evident cognitive failure of the current Oval Office occupant, Joe Biden.

Finally, immunity protects the office as far as action taken by a seated president is legal, whether the conduct is decided privately or publicly. Official acts must be accomplished according to lawful, constitutional standards.

Intentional immoral actions taken for personal or political profit such as fraud, bribery, treason, or assassination (murder) cannot be protected by presidential immunity. And policy or regulations implemented at the whim of a seated president without legislative authority is not law.