By Polly Tickle
In a stunning turn of events that has sent shockwaves through the political landscape, the Supreme Court, in a decision that can only be described as an episode of “The Twilight Zone,” has given its nod to President Biden’s alleged plan to assassinate former President Donald Trump. This landmark ruling, delivered with the casual indifference of ordering takeout, has redefined the boundaries of executive power and judicial oversight.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion, stated, “While traditionally the president’s powers have been limited to vetoes and pardons, we’ve decided to expand these to include murder, provided it’s done in the interest of national security or because it’s a slow news week.” Roberts further clarified that this decision is “a natural extension of the president’s pardon powers – after all, you can’t pardon someone who isn’t guilty of something, and you can’t be guilty if you’re dead.”
The justices’ reasoning, though baffling, rests on the interpretation of Article II of the Constitution, where apparently a footnote (written in invisible ink) grants the sitting president the right to eliminate political rivals under the guise of “preventing electoral overcrowding.” This interpretation has been lauded by some as a pragmatic approach to handling the increasingly contentious political arena. “It’s like pruning a bonsai tree,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained, “You cut away the old, unhealthy parts to let the new growth flourish.”
Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring, noted that “executive privilege needs to be robust enough to encompass the occasional political assassination. Otherwise, how can a president truly express their power?” In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that this decision could set a “dangerous precedent,” where future presidents might feel emboldened to resolve conflicts through lethal means rather than democratic processes. Her warning, however, was dismissed as “naïve” and “out of touch with the modern realities of cutthroat politics.”
Meanwhile, the Biden administration has remained coy on the specifics of the plan, with Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stating, “We have no comment on hypothetical scenarios, especially ones that sound like they were written by a Hollywood screenwriter on a caffeine binge.”
On the Hill, reactions have been mixed. Democrats have hailed the decision as a necessary evil to maintain political stability, while Republicans have decried it as an egregious abuse of power. Senator Ted Cruz was seen outside the Supreme Court, clutching a copy of the Constitution and mumbling about the impending apocalypse.
In what can only be described as the ultimate twist, Trump himself has taken to Truth Social to express his approval of the ruling, claiming it vindicates his longstanding belief that the judiciary is “always fair when they agree with me.”
As America braces for this new era where the commander-in-chief might also be the “commander-in-mischief,” one thing is clear: democracy, like reality television, has taken a dark and unexpected turn. So, grab your popcorn and stay tuned – this is just the beginning of a saga that promises to be more bizarre than fiction.
Liv N. Large