assassination precedent

Supreme Court Gaslights Nation As Precedent Disappears

Chief Justice John Roberts has publicly defended the current Supreme Court against accusations of frequently overturning precedent, citing statistics that show fewer explicit overrulings than previous courts. However, critics argue that the Court is effectively undermining decades-old precedents without formally overturning them, a practice sometimes referred to as “stealth overrulings.” This distinction is crucial, as it makes it harder to challenge established legal principles and maintain stability in the law. Recent rulings concerning voting rights and the authority of presidents to remove independent agency officials demonstrate instances where prior decisions have been significantly weakened or reinterpreted, despite not being explicitly overturned.

Read More

Trump Opens Pandora’s Box of Assassination Norms

The assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei represents a significant departure from a long-standing U.S. policy against the targeted killing of foreign leaders. Established by President Gerald Ford in 1976, this ban, which has been successively strengthened by subsequent administrations, reflected deep concerns stemming from past intelligence abuses and the potential for destabilizing retaliation. However, technological advancements and evolving geopolitical threats, particularly in the post-9/11 era, have increasingly enabled and arguably incentivized targeted lethal operations against foreign adversaries, gradually eroding the precedent. This shift underscores a complex interplay between moral considerations, strategic calculations, and the growing capability to execute such actions with diminished risk of reprisal.

Read More