This was originally written as a Reddit post on July 5, about a week after the Trump v. US decision.
The “Seal Team 6 Scenario” is where the President orders an assassination of a political rival. Arguably, under the Trump v. US decision, this would fall within the President’s “core powers” as Commander in Chief, and so would be immune from any criminal prosecution. A lot of Trump opponents are worried about this scenario, but TS [Trump supporters] don’t seem to be. In the Trump decision, the majority just dismissed it as “hyperbolic,” without actually refuting the argument.
But it seems to me like TS should be worried about this kind of scenario:
A lot of TS believe that Democratic political leaders are/have been/will be willing to use antidemocratic/tyrannical/authoritarian measures to secure power.
Trump v. US allows things like political assassination.
We have a Democratic president now, it’s a live possibility that we’ll have a Democratic president a year from now, and we’ll almost certainly have a Democratic president sooner or later.
So, from the perspective of a lot of TS, there’s a live possibility that, sooner or later, a Democratic political leader will use political assassination to secure power.
“Live possibility” doesn’t mean it’s especially likely, just that it’s something that might foreseeably happen. Like, if Biden only has a 25% chance of legitimately winning the election (1:3 odds), he’s definitely not favored. But his chances are way better than rolling snake eyes on a pair of dice (1:35 odds, about 3% chance) or drawing two pair in poker (about 5% chance).
So if you’re not worried about the Seal Team 6 Scenario, where’s the misstep in my argument 1-4?