Says who? You can't ask me why I did it, according to the ruling. I could have had a good reason. And you can't use my private records, nor those of my assistants, either.

Here is Justice Roberts’s definition of an official act. Since the courts are making it a new executive power, it’s in the eye of the wielder. Long live the king.

> In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that, under Section 201(a)(3):

> [A]n “official act” is a decision or action on a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.” The “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” must involve a formal exercise of governmental power that is similar in nature to a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee. It must also be something specific and focused that is “pending” or “may by law be brought” before a public official. To qualify as an “official act,” the public official must make a decision or take an action on that “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy,” or agree to do so. That decision or action may include using his official position to exert pressure on another official to perform an “official act,” or to advise another official, knowing or intending that such advice will form the basis for an “official act” by another official. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event (or agreeing to do so)—without more—does not fit that definition of “official act.”

As an official act, we determined that my political rival was an enemy of the state and known terrorist, who was threatening our democracy. As such, it was my duty to order her/his assassination, for the safety of our great nation.

You just have to drum up some flimsy excuse that sounds official, I guess.

What if the president deems it necessary out of national security interests?

It very much is if it's done by commanding the military to do it. Maybe not so much if a President did it themselves.

There have been instances in the past where the US military has assassinated US citizens that they deemed terrorists. Search for "Anwar al-Awlaki".

Under this ruling, it would be entirely possible for Biden to declare Trump a direct danger to the republic and, as commander in chief, order him to be assassinated. Of course the "officialness" of this would be debated in the courts, but the reason so many find this ruling unconscionable is that it does basically say "the President is above the law - he just needs to do things under the guise of official acts".

I guess we can call it bold when you claim to have a better understanding of the decision than a dissenting justice.

Imagine Biden assassinating Trump under the pretense that Trump likely had other classified documents hidden away, or was too mentally unstable to be trusted with presidential secrets. This is the kind of action this ruling sanctions, entirely.

Yeah but pardoning the killer is. Why the killer chose to do it, who knows? Frankly, even if the phone call is leaked, motive doesn't matter apparently.