> Commanding the armed forces is very much in his scope.
Commanding the armed forces against other branches of the United States government is very much not in the scope of his office.
"Commanding the armed forces" is not the unlimited blank check that you seem to think it is. Since Vietnam, it's drilled into the heads of the military not to accept an illegal order. Inherent in that is the idea that some orders are illegal. They are not legitimate things to ask the military to do. Well, if they're not legitimate to ask, then they can't be within the scope of the commander-in-chief's legitimate authority. And I'm pretty sure that killing Supreme Court justices would be on the "not legitimate" side of the line.
> Commanding the armed forces against other branches of the United States government is very much not in the scope of his office.
Why not? Where is this restriction laid out in the Constitution? The Presidential Oath of Office even says he'll defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign and domestic". As we've discussed, precedent for "enemy" seems to be "DOJ writes themselves a permission slip".
Absurd setup? Yes. That's precisely why folks are incensed about this ruling.
> Commanding the armed forces against other branches of the United States government is very much not in the scope of his office
We fought and won a civil war. Lincoln was well within his rights the whole time. Based on that, firing upon leaders of traitorous states is precedented.
> it's drilled into the heads of the military not to accept an illegal order
Absolute immunity toys with that restraint. The President, if absolutely immune, is tactically sovereign. Add to that pardon power and this blurs the line between what constitutes a legal, executable order and one that does not. (We’re no saints when it comes to international law, incorporated or not.)
We’re not in a scary place. The levers of tyranny have always been there. We’re in a stupid place. That makes more likely not calculated coup but idiotic dishevelment.
Commanding the armed forces against other branches of the United States government is very much not in the scope of his office.
"Commanding the armed forces" is not the unlimited blank check that you seem to think it is. Since Vietnam, it's drilled into the heads of the military not to accept an illegal order. Inherent in that is the idea that some orders are illegal. They are not legitimate things to ask the military to do. Well, if they're not legitimate to ask, then they can't be within the scope of the commander-in-chief's legitimate authority. And I'm pretty sure that killing Supreme Court justices would be on the "not legitimate" side of the line.