Chief justice Roberts pushed for quick immunity ruling in Trump’s favor – report

MicroWave@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 598 points – Chief justice Roberts pushed for quick immunity ruling in Trump’s favor – report
theguardian.com

Chief justice reportedly took unusually active role in three recent supreme court decisions centering on Trump

John Roberts Jr used his position as the US supreme court’s chief justice to urge his colleagues to rule quickly – and in favor – of Donald Trump ahead of the decision that granted him and other presidents immunity for official acts, according to a New York Times investigation published on Sunday.

The new report provides details about what was happening behind the scenes in the country’s highest court during the three recent supreme court decisions centering on – and generally favoring – the Republican former president.

Based on leaked memos, documentation of the proceedings, and interviews with court insiders, the Times report suggests that Roberts – who was appointed to the supreme court during Republican George W Bush’s presidency – took an unusually active role in the three cases in question. And he wrote the majority opinions on all three.

46

"Small government!" cries the Republican party, while trying to grant the president unprecedented levels of power.

In fairness, one single person seems like a pretty small government

Lord Vetinari, from Terry Pratchett's Discworld

Yeah but arguably only works cos they've got a Vimes though aven't they?

You've for your Vetinaris, sure, but it all only really hangs together -only works- because you've got your Vimes too, see. And Dibblers, probly.

It all works because it's fantasy my friend

The pardon power is explicitly given to the president by the Constitution. Therefore it's a core power with absolute immunity.

The president is also given the clear authority to direct his subordinates in the executive branch as the "chief Executive." The SCOTUS has ruled that the president has almost unfettered power to hire/fire/order anyone in the federal government to do just about anything he wants with no restrictions.

So logically:

  1. The president can order an agency head to issue a new rule that's probably unconstitutional.
  2. Someone sues in a district court to block it.
  3. A court issues an injunction preventing its enforcement.
  4. The agency head ignores the court order and enforces it anyway.
  5. The court finds the agency head and/or other employees of the agency in contempt for violating the injunction.
  6. The president pardons anyone subject to the injunction (and this pardon power is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution or investigation).
  7. The rule goes into effect and gets enforced despite being enjoined by a federal court.
  8. We now have a constitutional crisis because courts no longer have any way to check on the Executive because the president can simply neutralize any criminal penalties with a pardon even if that pardon is clearly issued as part of a conspiracy to violate a court order.

I guarantee this is not what the Framers envisioned or wanted, but this is what "conservative" judicial extremists on the SCOTUS have given us. Although I would be entirely unsurprised if they decided to roll this power back somehow if ever a Democratic president were to wield it.

I would argue that this sort of logical path wouldn’t be too shocking for the founders and they would just count on civility or elections to keep this from happening. The executive pardon itself is a fairly indefensible and corruption-facilitating loophole in the justice system.

  1. The president orders the Attorney General to enforce rules that favor his re-election. The rules are clearly unconstitutional.
  2. Someone sues in a district court to block it.
  3. ...

You can see where this goes. Sadly, the founders weren't nearly as clever and cynical as they needed to be to spot these exploits.

My guess is they figured if someone got to far out of line president would be forcibly removed and the constitution ammended. At the time 1 person didn't have the ability to command armys across the world. Communications were by horse. You could likely take out the president with minimal effort if you wanted as the secret service didn't exist yet either.

Send a boat out to deliver people to attack a fort in oppenents land. 2 days later an emissary delivers a surrender... Oops, you can't catch the boat nor notify them on any other manner, weeks after a peace treaty is signed, people are are attacked by the people they surrendered too.

They did. They just had too much faith in people in government doing the right thing.

I didn't think you could even pardon contempt, but apparently Trump pardoned Arpaio's criminal contempt charge, and it stuck. There's a long discussion with a bunch of history here: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/in-print-2/volume-18-number-1-winter-2020/can-a-presidential-pardon-trump-an-article-iii-courts-criminal-contempt-conviction-a-separation-of-powers-analysis-of-president-trumps-pardon-of-sheriff-joe-arpaio/

Though, he's got small hands so what could he possibly do? /s

1 more...

Since the Roe v Wade verdict was leaked, I feel like the media has been glossing over the revelation that there's just as much wheeling and dealing in the Supreme Court as in any of the other branches.

It's still just humans. Did you really expect otherwise?

I think most people actually do.

Most people aren’t exactly geniuses.

Being above the fray is what the Supreme Court was intended to be, so you can't fault people for initially assuming that.

Remind me again….

How many years ago was the Supreme Court established?

What it was meant to be and what it has become aren’t the same. It was meant to be apolitical, sure, but anyone whose paying attention can see: its fucking political.

I hate this unitary executive bullshit

Yeah but if you unify the government into one person, you could then technically drown that person in a bathtub, q.e.d. small government. Checkmate libruls!

Seems people have certainly been trying.

Yeah latest guy seems like a "don't tread on me" libertarian based purely on vibes, so that checks out

“We fight tyranny!” Republicans say while giving presidents immunity.

So what you're saying is that Roberts is the orange idiot's little butt boy?

Did he at least get an RV motor-coach out of it?

Oh, is this the same guy that gives the commencement speech "I wish you bad luck"? I quite liked that speech but not so on this decision.

Seems like maybe we don't pay these judges nearly enough if they can be bought so easily. Why don't we just give them an unlimited spending account. Basically make them never want for anything so they can be immune to bribery. It's a lifelong appointment to serve the country why should they be bound by a paycheck?

Maybe we start with an enforceable code of conduct instead of...you know... a blank check?

But, they’d choke on that!

In any case, I’m not sure Robert’s did this for a bribe. I think he might be a True Believer™️, maybe not in trump but in all the conservative bullshit trump enabo

Like elon musk is not bought out.

Do the inverse, elected for 5 or 7 years.

And instead of paying them, pay 500 toddlers $2 each to kick them in the shins their entire career

Which makes them incapable of being bought? Look at any senator you care to.

At least when they're bought then it won't be for the rest of my fucking life.

Maybe not always, but there are plenty of senators who are fundamentally there for life (McConnell).

This also means theres a lower chance for those who truly can't be bought, because running a nationwide campaign is expensive. They will all need money--most of it from corporate. Could you imagine Citizens United being decided by an elected court?

The one advantage would be that the court would more rapidly match the public's views, and not take decades to move along with the country... But we still elected a raving lunatic like trump.

I think Bidens proposals strike a reasonable balance; a 5-7 year elected term I fear forces more money into the equation and doesn't give any opportunity to fix the thing.

He's a fool and not a natural born citizen, also his brain is broken.

I feel we would win a fight to pay the justices more, more easily than it would to change their appointments.

Pay them unlimited, yeah that wouldn't attract the wrong people, like at all, no no not the slightest, only incorruptible well meaning people for sure.