The distinction is irrelevant, and if you read the ruling - any evidence that proves difference between the three is inadmissible in court. It is impossible to challenge grounds of the Executive saying that any and ALL actions he takes is within the capacity of an "official duty". The ruling makes clear that we simply HAVE to take their word for it.
One must understand that the more safeguards we have to enact retribution in these cases, the better. You're not supposed to point to one after loss of another - you're supposed to point towards as many as possible. Before last July, the courts were the one we pointed to the most, and they are no longer nearly as much at our disposal as they were before then.
It doesn't invoke sovereign immunity through a loud roar, but from an understood nod.
One must understand that the more safeguards we have to enact retribution in these cases, the better. You're not supposed to point to one after loss of another - you're supposed to point towards as many as possible. Before last July, the courts were the one we pointed to the most, and they are no longer nearly as much at our disposal as they were before then.
It doesn't invoke sovereign immunity through a loud roar, but from an understood nod.