Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has been left “shaken” by the unexpected public reaction to his ruling in the Donald Trumppresidential immunity case, a columnist wrote Friday.
Slate’s judicial writer Dahlia Lithwick wrote that Roberts was left shocked that Americans didn’t buy his attempt to persuade them that his ruling was not about Trump, but instead focused on the office of the presidency. The court ruled that a president was largely immune from criminal prosecution for official actions.
Lithwick referenced a report by CNN’s Joan Biskupic. He “was shaken by the adverse public reaction to his decision affording [Donald] Trump substantial immunity from criminal prosecution," she wrote.
"His protestations that the case concerned the presidency, not Trump, held little currency.”
He doesn’t fear enough.
Assuming I believe anything he says in the first place. We are so divided that he won’t see consequences.
Tbh I’m low-key waiting for someone to try taking a shot at one or more members of the Tribunal of Six. They’re so obviously standing in the way of progress in so many ways. They’re only appointed for life, after all. Someone’s going to take advantage of the darker side of that statement at some point. Roberts and his ilk should be scared.
It’s honestly wild that two people have tried to take a shot at Trump first. Trump’s just a useful idiot to these fuckers, the real assholes that are destroying our country are the ones on the Supreme Court.
funny thing, it doesnt say explicitely in the constitution that justices are lifetime appointments. Its more of a tradition. Biden or Harris could tell the Office of personnel that theres a madatory retirement age for all federal employees, and see if it gets overthrown. The justices cant be plaintiffs and judge in their own case.
He should be. There is no way that the constitution had immunity in mind for the president. George Washington would be flipping some tables in the supreme court if he was alive.
The fact that the Supreme Court gave themselves the ability to effectively unilaterally write federal laws with Marbury v Madison was already massively overstepping bounds and the concept of checks and balances.
We need to overturn Marbury v Madison.
Roberts was left shocked that Americans didn’t buy his attempt to persuade them that his ruling was not about Trump, but instead focused on the office of the presidency. The court ruled that a president was largely immune from criminal prosecution for official actions.
AND WHICH FUCKING PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE, JOHN?
Maybe this columnist thinks he’s “shaken”, but I doubt it. The reason he acted in a more moderate way before was that the Christian Nationalist justices didn’t have a strong majority and the ability to impose their agenda with impunity. The minute they had a 6-3 majority, he knew they could do whatever they wanted, and they have.
The only thing we can do about it now is elect as many Dems as possible to the House and Senate and pressure them to impose term limits and expand the Court, things that should have been done a long time ago.
And please, regardless of whether you think your vote for POTUS will count, vote anyway and fill out your full ballot because you have much more influence on your State legislature and local offices, which is where so many things that affect your life are decided.
Term limits are defined by the Constitution and require an Amendment. See the 22nd:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
We are currently too divided to pass any Amendment right now.
pressure them to impose term limits and expand the Court
No amount of voting will implement this pressure. This has been the chronic problem: electoral victories don’t translate into pressure for any given policy.
Who said electoral victories translate into pressure for a given policy? Voting them into office gets them to where they have power and can then be pressured to wield it for our benefit, which is a different type of political action than an election. Voting in elections is how you try to get people who are closest to the values you’re looking for into office–and the primaries are as important as the general for that.
Organizing around an issue, speaking out with meetings, in the media, with protests, etc., calling attention and building up support for a cause–all those things exert pressure on elected officials. Read about movements in American history – the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, etc. and BTW you want to know a movement that was very effective? The fucking Tea Party movement, which led to the maga takeover of the republican party.
For some reason (lack of proper civics education in schools is part of the problem), people have this simplistic idea that all they have to do is go vote for a president every four years, get pissed that they don’t like the choices, and assume that the POTUS is supposed to somehow magically fix everything, not understanding the other branches of government involved, and when it doesn’t happen fast enough or at all, they get pissed and either vote for someone else or give up and don’t vote or fall for a populist conman or get violent or whatever. That’s not how it works!
No wonder we’re where we are today. I’m sick of even talking about it any more. If people refuse to educate themselves about how our system of government is supposed to work and act accordingly then it’s over, and we as a country deserve to fall into the fascism brought to us by the people who did make the effort to figure out how to achieve their agenda and went out and did it.
I guess what I mean is uncritical votes for Democrats across the House and Senate doesn’t guarantee any pressure. Shit that is probably the most viable arena for third party candidates or at least candidates caucusing on a specific policy issue that people get behind, especially during primaries for each and every cycle.
Maybe I’m just being salty because my entire downballot this year is all Democrats running on working with Republicans and Republicans running on working against the Democrats.
One democrat in my old district is literally running on opposing Biden and helping Republicans with the southern border. My state borders Canada.
Biden was very specific that he was against expanding the court, and Harris is taking up every single policy position Biden did, so we can probably take this up again in 4-8 years.
Every single time the SC does something outrageous some version of this article comes out proclaiming his deep held belief in justice and whatever else. And every time it is complete bullshit.
It’s like some journalists fucking fanfic desperately wishing that these people’s consciouses are eating them up inside. Meanwhile they go home to their mansions and continue to happily live their comfortable lives. It’s not even that they know they won’t face consequences for their actions (which they won’t), it’s that they think they have done nothing wrong at all. They believe themselves to be morally in the right.
“Shaken”? Don’t kid yourself. He’s as content and happy as a pig in shit.
Shaken? Right because you weren’t being a partisan hack when the special counsel asked to skip straight to proceedings because they knew the court wanted to issue a ruling and you drug your feet buying donald time. Then handed him powers not afforded in the constitution. But keep clutching those pearls.
Bullshit.
If he didn’t expect it then he’s a moron.
He is not a moron.
Either stupid or lying… possibly both but definitely at least one or the other.
Why is there a presumption of immunity? Even when there is clear self-serving corruption, the presumption of immunity takes precedence. This will go down in history as an abysmally bad decision.
Good. He deserves all of it for making such an obviously partisan and foolish ruling.
If anything he should be saying this more often, considering some of the other terrible decisions that have come out of his court.
Can’t a man undermine democracy in peace now?
I would be worried to if I had just given the president immunity for all official acts. Example of a worrisome formula: Biden + official act + seal team 6 + corrupt supreme court judges = no need to pack the court to give it a liberal majority.
People like him dont get shaken about the opinions of the commoners. He couldnt possibly care less.
Oh he’s shocked everyone else doesn’t suck trump dick?
He’s an out of touch rich asshole. I’m less surprised at his shock than I am surprised by him giving a fuck.
He wasn’t shocked and he doesn’t give a f***. The article is just an attempt for him to garner sympathy.
I really want someone to press one of these people on camera.
“Donald Trump has promised at multiple rallies to end the democratic process by eliminating the need to vote, and this is extremely dangerous to our democracy, therefore it is an official act of the office e of the president to order a hit on DJT, Seal teams 3 and 5 are en-route now. Such an act is official, and necessary for the country to survive therefore Joe Biden is completely immune from any prosecution.”
I just want to know for sure what the reaction would be. I’m sure pearl clutching indignation (because someone thought of their idea but flipped the victims around)
It’s really a situation that ought to resolve itself. If the justices vote anything as an official act is perfectly legal, then threaten those justices that voted that way with violence, assassination, nothing is off the table apparently as long as it’s an official act, and reverse that decision with the remaining justices, done and dusted.
I really don’t see the problem here. It’s all been declared perfectly legal, nothing is off the table, it sends a strong message that this democracy will be maintained by whatever means necessary, and that as long as the president is Democrat at least, then any attempt at an all powerful king or Führer will automatically undo itself. An abrogation of power done through wielding that very power itself would be a beautiful thing to behold.
In fact, the Supreme Court justices would make a better target than Trump himself even. Trump is a political rival and it could be argued that it’s Biden supporting the election of a candidate from his own party. Meanwhile targetting the Supreme Court justices would be defending basic democracy, fighting for the freedom from a despotic tyrant - the very supposed foundation of the country we’re talking about, changing the composition of the Supreme Court and weakening the powers of the presidency itself, which definitely sounds like official acts rather than those of a candidate or private individual.
About the only silver lining to Trump’s inevitable re-attempt to steal the election is that he won’t be President during the election. If he wins he won’t make the same mistake of appointing people with even a shred of ethics. He’ll rig it to give himself a 3rd term or be kingmaker for the next gen of American dictators.
That is the correct interpretation of the law. We could punish the Seal Team and their chain if command for following the order. But punishment of Biden himself would require him to be impeached.
And frankly that’s how it should be.
Obama killed that 16 year old in Yemen. He isn’t liable for that. Bush spied on Millions of Americans without warrants he isn’t liable for that. You can argue they should be; but that’s not how our system is designed.
Shaken?! SHAKEN?
Like like the women of America were shaken when their rights to bodily autonomy were taken from them?
Or like when the American people were shaken when they discovered that our nation’s checks and balanced were completely corrupted? That they will do nothing to stop a dictatorship and the end of democracy?
Or shaken by the knowledge that the highest court in the country is colluding with the lower courts to bring specific cases through the appeals systems so they can make predetermined rulings, effectively writing their own laws and subverting the basic foundation of law in our country?
Shaken. Yeah, go fuck yourself Roberts.
When I hear shaken I think of a teenage fanfic author when someone disregards the potential of the hypothetical love triangle they invented between characters the author clearly intended not to be in one.
