John Roberts has done what the Founders never could have imagined
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
excerpt
John Roberts’ opinion in Trump v. United States at first seems to empower the executive branch with its declaration that “official acts” taken within the president’s “core constitutional functions” have absolute immunity from prosecution. But while the decision elevates the president and inoculates the office from accountability, Trump v. U.S. nevertheless siphons power away from the executive branch broadly toward the judiciary. In doing so, Roberts at times treats the presidency as utterly separate from the machinery that acts with the executive’s authority, producing a yawning gap between the office of the president and the rest of the executive branch’s functions.
Bear in mind that federal prosecutors in the cases against Trump are doing so as the enforcement mechanism of the executive branch, acting through the president’s authority. This relationship is why it was absurd for Trump to attempt to cite executive privilege during the Department of Justice’s investigations, as it exists on the same side of the separation of powers as the White House. The immunity decision likewise stressed that the president has “exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials.” And yet that same ruling has bound those officers of the executive from enforcing federal laws at the highest level when the president is acting with the greatest amount of power at his disposal, and thus the greatest opportunities for criminality.
Then there are the acts on the “outer perimeter” of the president’s role where “presumptive immunity” exists, meaning the standard of proof falls on the prosecution, not the defense, to overcome it. Notably, there is no indication in Roberts’ opinion that Congress could overturn this standard by passing laws that strictly delineate what counts as unlawful behavior from the president. I can only assume that Roberts would likely see this as another violation of the separation of powers if it were attempted. Instead, it is again only through the courts that this immunity can be rebuked and a prosecution allowed to proceed.
We are left then with a Congress unable to act as a check on the Supreme Court due to self-imposed restrictions, both on its legislative role via the filibuster and hyperpartisanship, and as part of a similar unhealthy fetishization of the separation of powers that dissuades it from conducting oversight. On the other hand, we have a presidency where it is only the better angels of the officeholder’s nature that prevent tyranny from taking root. Roberts seems confident in the courts’ ability to hold off this fate, but to paraphrase a likely apocryphal quote , I would like to know how many army divisions the justices command.
There is no reason that the courts should have accrued this much power, an imbalance completely antithetical to the role the founders envisioned the third branch playing. It is also ironically a more dangerous form of “lawmaking from the bench” that the conservative legal movement once accused liberals of pursuing. Through its decisions, the Roberts court has gone far beyond what the early adherents of that movement, with its backlash to the liberalism of the Warren court, could have plotted.
It also feels fitting that this is the fate of a campaign that began as a call for judges to follow “originalism” and “textualism” in their decisions. Rather than merely being content to erase their predecessors’ gains, Roberts and his fellow conservatives have now rewritten the Constitution’s words to map out their own power-hungry ideology. In doing so, they have eliminated any check that the other branches might have over them, and deeply imperiled the country in the process.
Tags
Who is online
773 visitors
For a party that loves to abuse the legal process; judges that legislate from the bench; and that law means and applies only to how they say and for/against those they say it does- Democrats are doing a lot of pearl clenching over a Supreme Court ruling that actually forces lower courts, and especially judges, to actually do their damn jobs and figure out if a president was acting within the scope of his powers.
Sorry leftists, no more faux charges like in New York, lead by TDS driven leftist judges conducting a kangaroo court.
WTF is this author pissing and moaning about? Are we supposed to believe that the John Roberts court is as bad as the SCOTUS under Chief Justice Roger Taney that handed down the Dred Scott decision? Are we really supposed to believe that a conservative court limiting the autocratic authority of government, particularly the executive branch, is bad for the country? Is that really what Democrats are trying to tell us?
You know, the history of liberal courts (typically favoring Democrats) hasn't been that great for the country. Liberal courts have protected chattel slavery, protected Jim Crow, protected segregation. A clear-eyed look at history suggests that when Democrats begin complaining about SCOTUS then Democrats are planning to screw the country.
We can not have a one-sided justice system. We can not abide it. It simply will not work. The Supreme Court is taken upon itself to carve out paths to supreme power over the citizenry by a future 'dictatorial' president and his 'Court.' We must act.
And not so long ago Roberts was a a great justice that saved ObamaCare
Of course on that one he was deciding on the side of the left, but that's a small detail
Apples and oranges. Comparisons tend to break down as its set gauge moves across its spectrum . For instance, "Sunny skies" are on the same spectrum with " Tornadoes" and "Hurricanes."
And all things being equal, 'nobody' gets infatuated with tornadoes or hurricanes.
What does this passage mean to you?:
Even if a PotUS is impeached and convicted for "high crimes and misdemeanors" the CotUS states that the PotUS is still liable for indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to the law.
This text, not surprisingly, expresses the principle that "no man is above the law".
The SCotUS just contradicted the CotUS and diluted the principle that "no man is above the law". That is a concern for me. Does it concern you?
Are any of these recent decisions unconstitutional or against the law?
Read article 1 §3 clause 7 and explain how the SCotUS immunity rulings are consistent with that clause. It is the ‘no man is above the law’ clause.
What Justice Roberts did with a 'stroke' of an opinion. . .he is prepared to sit on both hands when it, ObamaCare comes up to the court again (oh, circa 2025 court session):
Project 2025
They're baaaackkkkkkkkk. . . . . !
"Specially' scented words (above) that hide the stench of misery, sickness, and ultimate death that will be unleashed in torrent on millions who are dependent on life-saving medicines and procedures which they can only afford through ObamaCare exchanges and its networks of doctors.
Conservatives will never let "you' —the collective you, rest with ObamaCare or any other medical program that saves 'you' money which "you" can not spend out of miserly savings. "You" will eventually sell 'everything' and likely be destitute in the end as a result. AT which time, "you" will meet an 'expectant' fate "you" fought so hard to avoid.
Wow - I merely pointed out that Roberts has voted with the left leaning and the right leaning on different matters.
I did not say that I agreed with the latest decision (I DO NOT BY THE WAY) and oh by the way I think affordable health insurance for all is a pretty good idea.