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

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.

  • kescusay@lemmy.worldEnglish
    200·
    3 days ago

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

    • mpa92643@lemmy.world
      16·
      2 days 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·
        2 days 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.

  • ceenote@lemmy.world
    114·
    3 days 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.

  • bitfucker@programming.dev
    5·
    2 days 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.

  • The Pantser@lemmy.world
    2·
    3 days ago

    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?

    • noneya@lemmy.worldEnglish
      61·
      3 days ago

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

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        3 days ago

        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

          • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
            2·
            2 days ago

            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.

      • The Pantser@lemmy.world
        1·
        3 days ago

        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.

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          13·
          3 days ago

          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.