606
submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 204 points 2 years ago

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

[-] cornshark@lemmy.world 53 points 2 years ago

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

[-] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 28 points 2 years ago

That’s always been the meaning.

[-] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 24 points 2 years ago

Lord Vetinari, from Terry Pratchett's Discworld

[-] modifier@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] huginn@feddit.it 2 points 2 years ago

It all works because it's fantasy my friend

[-] mpa92643@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] NobodyElse@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] kescusay@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago
  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.

[-] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 1 points 2 years ago

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/

[-] Jesusaurus@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

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

[-] ceenote@lemmy.world 115 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago

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

[-] ceenote@lemmy.world 74 points 2 years ago

I think most people actually do.

[-] LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee 41 points 2 years ago

And they should.

[-] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 87 points 2 years ago

I hate this unitary executive bullshit

[-] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 2 years ago

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!

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

Seems people have certainly been trying.

[-] anarchrist@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 2 years ago

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

[-] SulaymanF@lemmy.world 58 points 2 years ago

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

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 20 points 2 years ago

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

[-] credo@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago

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

[-] Marleyinoc@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

Wonder what the kompromat on Roberts is.

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago
[-] RedSeries@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Isn't that only like $20? :one quick google search later: It's like $110k.

[-] Tja@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago

That's not even quality RV money...

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

10M rubles is $109,646.47

[-] AtomicHotSauce@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Awesome! Maybe we should do something about…

Oh yeah, we can’t.

[-] bitfucker@programming.dev 5 points 2 years ago

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.

[-] Gingerlegs@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago
[-] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
606 points (99.5% liked)

News

37724 readers
357 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS