Chief Justice John Roberts doesn't want to lead. He is, though, carefully setting up a path to allow the right-wing court to respond to whatever comes its way in 2025.
Dems need to attack the Court as it is. Full court confrontation with a bill to expand the court and kill the filibuster if necessary. The Court has become the court of the rich and along with its cellar ethics has abandoned most of the people in this country. All just like we declared our independence from England. The Dem ticked needs to lead this attack and hammer it everyday.
That's the thing, though -- I don't think it *is* the money. Like, they're without a doubt the sickest, most corrupt 2/3rds of a court we've ever had. But they'd do this *for free.* They're true goddamn believers. (Except Amy Coney Barrett, astoundingly) It reminds me of 2004(?) when Seymour Hersch said (heavy paraphrasing) "everyone says, invasion of Iraq is all about the oil. I *wish* it was the oil, then you could talk them out of it rationally. They're true believers.")
The “spineless” actions of Chief Justice Roberts is classic passive-aggressive behavior. He seems to give absolute authority to Trump … yet the final word is always his own (as he tries to reassert his Chiefdom).
What beguiles me is that Donald Trump - the compulsive liar, the epitome of crude and crass, the sexual abuser - has been set up as Master of the Master Race …
and Roberts, the behind-the-curtains puppeteer, as genial, bemused daddy.
Is this the best Republicans can do? Prop up a buffoon king? Is there no one on the right who can command - or even deserve - respect?
If I remember correctly, Roberts' wife has made millions at a law firm whose clients have greatly financially benefited from his choices and rulings. Appreciate any specifics or clarifications to check out for upcoming CNI psych profiles of this illegitimate court that will destroy America if we let it.
Federal judges cannot be fired. Impeachment is the removal mechanism. However, should King Biden use official acts of his office to have them removed in other matters, he would not be subject to criminal prosecution for doing so, only impeachment.
I wouldn't confuse Robert's guile with a lack of courage (or "spinelessness"). His goal has been virtually the same as the other conservatives on the court. But he is a far better politician than the other justices, and he has incomparable skills as a lawyer. He knows how far he can lead the court at any moment, and he knows when to smuggle a minor premise into an apparently balanced opinion that can be used with far more effect at a later time...
Roberts doubtless knows that this is a epoch-making point of inflection for the possible triumph of a conservative revolution (I won't argue the terminology: radical, right-wing, whatever.). He has set out a clear path. If Donald Trump wins, we know the probable result. If there is a disputed election, however, look for the court to once again intervene to tip the scales, no matter how flimsy the pretext.
I think Democratic governors need to begin organizing informal committees of correspondence in anticipation of the January 2025 results.
I think Roberts is a very smart and very conservative lawyer. I think he also could be a principled leader. He is doing one, but not so much the other any more. To that, I say, “spineless.”
Wait for the next round of SCOTUS razing democracy. Starbucks, Amazon and Trader Joe's have sued to have the National Labor Relations Board declared unconstitutional. Is there any doubt how they'll rule? When Labor is set back to before the Great Depression, hell, all the way back to Haymarket Riot days, maybe the serfs will be sufficiently aroused to raise hell. Our Oligarchy is clearly in control of the Republican Party and the SCOTUS, two important halves of trifecta already. From my perspective unless the Dems dump Biden for someone who can fight and shake up the feckless "leadership" of their Party, we are doomed.
The only institution between the people and tyranny is the courts. Aside from the kinds of issues already mentioned, there’s the overarching matter of whether we’ll be living in an unaccountable police state, with paramilitaries running rampant, pervasive surveillance, dissidents cowed into silence, or worse.
Yes, it's past time for the American people to consider what permits and enables that kind of state to exist, and what breaks it. Because we need the latter.
I had more respect for Roberts before the Court added 3 more Conservatives. He seemed more of a centrist back then. Alito and Thomas are in the forefront now.
I’m not sure he is evil. He’s no fan of voting rights, and that bothers me. I hear what you say about Citizens United, although I thought Anthony Kennedy wrote that decision. Roberts was in the majority.
Based on his actions and inaction, he is either stunningly ignorant or deeply evil. I seriously doubt he’s dumb, so I’m leaning towards evil.
Clearly ethically bankrupt and cowardly, and most likely, deeply evil (and in the end, traitorous due to undermining the Constitution and founding documents of the country (while claiming “Originalism”).
I’m not happy with the immunity decision. They disregarded the Constitution.
My problem with Roberts is that he’s a poor leader. A better Chief could have privately leaned on Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves on that case. A better Chief would have testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and not hide behind “separation of powers “.
In two major cases, Roberts did not show much leadership.
The insurrection & immunity cases were greatly divided with Justice Barrett refusing to go along with the majority all the way in either. When Chief Justice Burger makes you look bad ...
The conceit of the immunity decision was not going to get you more than six votes. The insurrection case is somewhat different. The liberals rejected the challenge (to their shame in my view). There was a possible unity middle path. Somehow, though it isn't clear exactly, it was not found.
Roberts could have showed up for questions at the Senate to address ethics.
Chief Justice Hughes was willing to put his neck out against court expansion. Roberts was a coward like when they didn't even show up to hand down the insurrection ruling. I know some didn't take that as seriously as I but that was a low point for me. Unsigned and not showing up. Work of cowards.
I have a question that none of the legal substacks I've read have answered. Can't someone like Chutkan rule that an act of a certain type--overturning the election or conspiring to, inciting an insurrection--cannot by its very nature impact the executive functions because nowhere is the power to do these acts to be found in the Constitution or any law of Congress? Purely legal matter--no discussion of trump.
If such acts are thus "private," for any president at all, then the prohibition of evidence to prove an act is private isn't breached. But the court has only forbidden that evidence in cases of SHOWING THERE IS NO IMMUNITY. Once lack of immunity has attached, then I can't see anything that keeps a court form hearing evidence just as it would in any old case. Still the burden is on the prosecution. Nothing changes in the normal procedure.
Can you tell me what flaws there are in this reasoning?
The majority opinion says that there is much that is fact intensive to analyze in determining what is official and what is not official. Likewise for the presumptive immunity of certain acts. So it is very possible that a federal judge can hear arguments from the prosecution and defense and make a determination that many of these actions were unofficial and have no immunity. To the extent that those are factual determinations, they are subject to an abuse of discretion level of deference. Those decisions would of course be appealed. So it’s quite possible if not likely that Trump v United States 2 will be a case whose opinion we await throughout July 2025.
this is true, and it is interesting that the opinion seems to want to have a judge decide fact questions is a CRIMINAL trial, where that is the job of the jury.
I think if the judge chooses the "action" correctly it will be self-evidently unofficial. The president nowhere has the power to overrule a state election result. NO president does. No one can argue with that. Thus, trying to overrule it is trying to do an unoffficial act. NOW look at trump himself, not presidents in general and And Bingo, that phone call gets into evidence.
I agree that we may not see the end of this for YEARS as trump appeals over and over at each step and we get the court tying itself into more and more intricate pretzels to agree with him. But the wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind exceeding small.
If trump wins it is all over anyway. He just has to fire AGs who won't dismiss the cases till he finds one who does.
Blowback- the New World Disorder has been gangster since the incubator babies in Kuwait created the poster child in Iraq of policies that bounce the rubble and bomb into the Stone Age without consequences, in Powell words, you own what you break in the China shop.
Good piece, Chris. I’ve been surprised by his turn to the right considering his history of institutionalism and concern about the perception of the Court’s image (dating back to NFIB). It’s very scary.
Dems need to attack the Court as it is. Full court confrontation with a bill to expand the court and kill the filibuster if necessary. The Court has become the court of the rich and along with its cellar ethics has abandoned most of the people in this country. All just like we declared our independence from England. The Dem ticked needs to lead this attack and hammer it everyday.
Someone should follow the money and that might explain his behavior.
That's the thing, though -- I don't think it *is* the money. Like, they're without a doubt the sickest, most corrupt 2/3rds of a court we've ever had. But they'd do this *for free.* They're true goddamn believers. (Except Amy Coney Barrett, astoundingly) It reminds me of 2004(?) when Seymour Hersch said (heavy paraphrasing) "everyone says, invasion of Iraq is all about the oil. I *wish* it was the oil, then you could talk them out of it rationally. They're true believers.")
Adding: And this applies to Roberts as well. He finally feels free, terrifyingly, to show his true colors.
Thank you for your perceptiveness.
The “spineless” actions of Chief Justice Roberts is classic passive-aggressive behavior. He seems to give absolute authority to Trump … yet the final word is always his own (as he tries to reassert his Chiefdom).
What beguiles me is that Donald Trump - the compulsive liar, the epitome of crude and crass, the sexual abuser - has been set up as Master of the Master Race …
and Roberts, the behind-the-curtains puppeteer, as genial, bemused daddy.
Is this the best Republicans can do? Prop up a buffoon king? Is there no one on the right who can command - or even deserve - respect?
It's very McConnell of him, when you put it like that.
If I remember correctly, Roberts' wife has made millions at a law firm whose clients have greatly financially benefited from his choices and rulings. Appreciate any specifics or clarifications to check out for upcoming CNI psych profiles of this illegitimate court that will destroy America if we let it.
Can the newly immune King Biden fire the corrupt and unethical SCOTUS justices and replace them?
Federal judges cannot be fired. Impeachment is the removal mechanism. However, should King Biden use official acts of his office to have them removed in other matters, he would not be subject to criminal prosecution for doing so, only impeachment.
King Biden wouldn’t commit crimes even to rid us of some really meddlesome priests 🤣
I wouldn't confuse Robert's guile with a lack of courage (or "spinelessness"). His goal has been virtually the same as the other conservatives on the court. But he is a far better politician than the other justices, and he has incomparable skills as a lawyer. He knows how far he can lead the court at any moment, and he knows when to smuggle a minor premise into an apparently balanced opinion that can be used with far more effect at a later time...
Roberts doubtless knows that this is a epoch-making point of inflection for the possible triumph of a conservative revolution (I won't argue the terminology: radical, right-wing, whatever.). He has set out a clear path. If Donald Trump wins, we know the probable result. If there is a disputed election, however, look for the court to once again intervene to tip the scales, no matter how flimsy the pretext.
I think Democratic governors need to begin organizing informal committees of correspondence in anticipation of the January 2025 results.
Enh. I could quibble with what you wrote here, like you did with me, but we don’t disagree on the bottom line, so I’m not going to debate this out.
I'd be interested in your point of view! Not to debate...
I think Roberts is a very smart and very conservative lawyer. I think he also could be a principled leader. He is doing one, but not so much the other any more. To that, I say, “spineless.”
As a nation we are looking to see whether there are any principles among conservatives anymore. After eight years of purging I'm not optimistic.
Wait for the next round of SCOTUS razing democracy. Starbucks, Amazon and Trader Joe's have sued to have the National Labor Relations Board declared unconstitutional. Is there any doubt how they'll rule? When Labor is set back to before the Great Depression, hell, all the way back to Haymarket Riot days, maybe the serfs will be sufficiently aroused to raise hell. Our Oligarchy is clearly in control of the Republican Party and the SCOTUS, two important halves of trifecta already. From my perspective unless the Dems dump Biden for someone who can fight and shake up the feckless "leadership" of their Party, we are doomed.
The only institution between the people and tyranny is the courts. Aside from the kinds of issues already mentioned, there’s the overarching matter of whether we’ll be living in an unaccountable police state, with paramilitaries running rampant, pervasive surveillance, dissidents cowed into silence, or worse.
Yes, it's past time for the American people to consider what permits and enables that kind of state to exist, and what breaks it. Because we need the latter.
You do realize you're already living in that world, right?
The odd thing, really, is that everyone seems to have gotten the message except for Roberts himself.
I had more respect for Roberts before the Court added 3 more Conservatives. He seemed more of a centrist back then. Alito and Thomas are in the forefront now.
Behind the bland exterior and anodyne name is a truly evil man. He built this plutocracy starting with Citizens United.
I’m not sure he is evil. He’s no fan of voting rights, and that bothers me. I hear what you say about Citizens United, although I thought Anthony Kennedy wrote that decision. Roberts was in the majority.
Based on his actions and inaction, he is either stunningly ignorant or deeply evil. I seriously doubt he’s dumb, so I’m leaning towards evil.
Clearly ethically bankrupt and cowardly, and most likely, deeply evil (and in the end, traitorous due to undermining the Constitution and founding documents of the country (while claiming “Originalism”).
Scumwad pretty well sums it up.
I’m not happy with the immunity decision. They disregarded the Constitution.
My problem with Roberts is that he’s a poor leader. A better Chief could have privately leaned on Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves on that case. A better Chief would have testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and not hide behind “separation of powers “.
It should be war from here on out!
It always was.
In two major cases, Roberts did not show much leadership.
The insurrection & immunity cases were greatly divided with Justice Barrett refusing to go along with the majority all the way in either. When Chief Justice Burger makes you look bad ...
The conceit of the immunity decision was not going to get you more than six votes. The insurrection case is somewhat different. The liberals rejected the challenge (to their shame in my view). There was a possible unity middle path. Somehow, though it isn't clear exactly, it was not found.
Roberts could have showed up for questions at the Senate to address ethics.
Chief Justice Hughes was willing to put his neck out against court expansion. Roberts was a coward like when they didn't even show up to hand down the insurrection ruling. I know some didn't take that as seriously as I but that was a low point for me. Unsigned and not showing up. Work of cowards.
I have a question that none of the legal substacks I've read have answered. Can't someone like Chutkan rule that an act of a certain type--overturning the election or conspiring to, inciting an insurrection--cannot by its very nature impact the executive functions because nowhere is the power to do these acts to be found in the Constitution or any law of Congress? Purely legal matter--no discussion of trump.
If such acts are thus "private," for any president at all, then the prohibition of evidence to prove an act is private isn't breached. But the court has only forbidden that evidence in cases of SHOWING THERE IS NO IMMUNITY. Once lack of immunity has attached, then I can't see anything that keeps a court form hearing evidence just as it would in any old case. Still the burden is on the prosecution. Nothing changes in the normal procedure.
Can you tell me what flaws there are in this reasoning?
The majority opinion says that there is much that is fact intensive to analyze in determining what is official and what is not official. Likewise for the presumptive immunity of certain acts. So it is very possible that a federal judge can hear arguments from the prosecution and defense and make a determination that many of these actions were unofficial and have no immunity. To the extent that those are factual determinations, they are subject to an abuse of discretion level of deference. Those decisions would of course be appealed. So it’s quite possible if not likely that Trump v United States 2 will be a case whose opinion we await throughout July 2025.
this is true, and it is interesting that the opinion seems to want to have a judge decide fact questions is a CRIMINAL trial, where that is the job of the jury.
I think if the judge chooses the "action" correctly it will be self-evidently unofficial. The president nowhere has the power to overrule a state election result. NO president does. No one can argue with that. Thus, trying to overrule it is trying to do an unoffficial act. NOW look at trump himself, not presidents in general and And Bingo, that phone call gets into evidence.
I agree that we may not see the end of this for YEARS as trump appeals over and over at each step and we get the court tying itself into more and more intricate pretzels to agree with him. But the wheels of justice grind slow, but they grind exceeding small.
If trump wins it is all over anyway. He just has to fire AGs who won't dismiss the cases till he finds one who does.
Craven behavior for any judge. Abominable and unpardonable behavior for Roberts.
Blowback- the New World Disorder has been gangster since the incubator babies in Kuwait created the poster child in Iraq of policies that bounce the rubble and bomb into the Stone Age without consequences, in Powell words, you own what you break in the China shop.
Good piece, Chris. I’ve been surprised by his turn to the right considering his history of institutionalism and concern about the perception of the Court’s image (dating back to NFIB). It’s very scary.