Comment by refulgentis
12 hours ago
You’re a student of history, thus I think you understand how “commander in chief of the armed forces” is a constitutional duty without needing further explanation of why.
I think you intended to communicate the Supreme Court would balk at it happening.
Yes.
Much like Kavanaugh balking at ethnicity-based stops after allowing language + skin color based stops. By then, it’s too late.
[flagged]
We blew up shipwrecked survivors a few weeks ago, which is a textbook example of a war crime.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/us-boat-attac...
> Two survivors of the initial attack later appeared to wave at the aircraft after clambering aboard an overturned piece of the hull, before the military killed them in a follow-up strike that also sank the wreckage. It is not clear whether the initial survivors knew that the explosion on their vessel had been caused by a missile attack.
And "textbook" is not an exaggeration.
https://apnews.com/article/boat-strikes-survivors-hegseth-72...
> The Pentagon’s own manual on the laws of war describes a scenario similar to the Sept. 2 boat strike when discussing when service members should refuse to comply with unlawful orders. “For example,” the manual says, “orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal.”
Ok, but that was not ordered by the president so is completely irrelevant to the discussion of presidential immunity.
7 replies →
The decision explicitly says anything you do is de facto legal.
I won't talk down to you like you talked down to me. I will continue to talk up to you, if neutral in this comment. What you said was unnecessary.