John Roberts put a thumb on the Trump Immunity Ruling scale

[adrina]

John Roberts’ Secret Trump Memo Revealed in Huge SCOTUS Leak​

The Supreme Court was hit by a flurry of damaging new leaks Sunday as a series of confidential memos written by the chief justice were revealed by The New York Times.

The court’s Chief Justice John Roberts was clear to his fellow justices in February: He wanted the court to take up a case weighing Donald Trump’s right to presidential immunity—and he seemed inclined to protect the former president.

“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” Roberts wrote to his Supreme Court peers, according to a private memo obtained by the Times. He was referencing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to allow the case to move forward.

Roberts took an unusual level of involvement in this and other cases that ultimately benefited Trump, according to the Times—his handling of the cases surprised even some other justices on the high court, across ideological lines. As president, Trump appointed three of the members of its current conservative supermajority.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/john-...evealed-in-huge-scotus-leak?ref=home?ref=home
https://archive.ph/0zwxT#selection-1317.0-1317.60

How Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak​

Behind the scenes, the chief justice molded three momentous Jan. 6 and election cases that helped determine the former president’s fate.

The chief justice’s Feb. 22 memo, jump-starting the justices’ formal discussion on whether to hear the case, offered a scathing critique of a lower-court decision and a startling preview of how the high court would later rule, according to several people from the court who saw the document.

The chief justice tore into the appellate court opinion greenlighting Mr. Trump’s trial, calling it inadequate and poorly reasoned. On one key point, he complained, the lower court judges “failed to grapple with the most difficult questions altogether.” He wrote not only that the Supreme Court should take the case — which would stall the trial — but also how the justices should decide it.

“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently” from the appeals court, he wrote. In other words: grant Mr. Trump greater protection from prosecution.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/15/...s-share&referringSource=articleShare&ngrp=mnp

 

[Lazaran]

Now imagine if a "liberal" majority on the SCOTUS and a "liberal" Supreme Court chief justice had conducted themselves the same way to favor a Democratic President, etc.

 

[HisArpy]

Yeah, mention how Roberts sent a memo around instead of focusing on the leaking of said memo in an effort to undercut the court and its members.

Sometimes people amaze me with how stupid they can be. With no courts we have no law. Without law all we have is anarchy. With anarchy there's no one to rely on to protect YOU.

And YOU gave up your guns because someone told you to...

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Sounds like the Daily Beast and NYT are upset with the Chief Justice for writing a memo.

 

[Yarglenurp]

The dems should grow some balls the next time they have power and expand the court to 13. It’ll be the only way to fix the problem and keep it fixed.

 

[TastySuckToy]

Naw, judge rulings can't be questioned and can't be wrong.

Just ask the lefties about the rulings against Trump by judges.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The left loved Roberts when he wrote the opinion on Obamacare

 

[HisArpy]

The left loved Roberts when he wrote the opinion on Obamacare

And when the court refused to hear Trump's claims of election interference.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

WSJ editorial board correctly puts the NYT story in context.

The story in the Times is part of a larger progressive political campaign to damage the credibility of the Court to justify Democratic legislation that will destroy its independence. That this campaign may have picked up allies inside the Court is all the more worrying. We are at a dangerous juncture in American constitutional history, and Mr. Trump isn’t the only, or the greatest, risk.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/john-ro...4b5da?st=FECkJt&reflink=article_copyURL_share

 

[schism666]

Sometimes people amaze me with how stupid they can be. With no courts we have no law. Without law all we have is anarchy.

now do election deniers and those who think trump was railroaded with felony convictions for fraud and adjudicated sexual assault.

sometimes i am amazed at how anti american the can be

 

[Bray123]

The chance of CJ John Roberts caring that everyone knows he applies a different standard to Trump than to any other person in America is slim.

 

[icanhelp1]

WSJ editorial board correctly puts the NYT story in context.

The story in the Times is part of a larger progressive political campaign to damage the credibility of the Court to justify Democratic legislation that will destroy its independence. That this campaign may have picked up allies inside the Court is all the more worrying. We are at a dangerous juncture in American constitutional history, and Mr. Trump isn’t the only, or the greatest, risk.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/john-ro...4b5da?st=FECkJt&reflink=article_copyURL_share

THIS;

"But the Court had little choice after Democrats used the legal system against Mr. Trump. The Court was obliged to take the cases as they marched up the appellate chain. Democrats politicize the law against a candidate of the opposing party, and then they claim to be shocked because the Supreme Court does its duty to rule on the legality of what they are doing."

 

[RoryN]

Blah blah blah

***

The would-be shooter voted for Trump.

"In a post on X in June 2020, Routh indicated he had voted for Trump in 2016..."

Thank you for confirming.

 

[Yarglenurp]

Anyone who supports Trump is a traitor to the US and should be treated as one.

 

[icanhelp1]

***





Thank you for confirming.

Confirm this! You seem to be short on memory.


"In a post on X in June 2020, Routh indicated he had voted for Trump in 2016, but had since become disillusioned with the billionaire politician. In many recent posts, he has expressed support for President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris."

 

[SimonDoom]

The immunity decision is disturbing, but how bad it is depends on how broadly the Supreme Court ultimately interprets the president's "official acts." As of right now, that's still open-ended. As long as the Court does not interpret "official acts" too broadly, then it's not too bad a decision. But if it interprets Trump's actions attempting to interfere with the election results and with taking official documents as official acts, then it's one of the worst and most disturbing Supreme Court decisions in American history. It leaves the president shockingly unaccountable to the law and the Constitution. It also makes no sense from the standpoint of traditionally conservative jurisprudence, because it's not based on the text of the Constitution, or on the original understanding of the text, or on stare decisis. It's based on an ahistorical and disturbingly authoritarian view of the powers that the president should have, a view completely contrary to what the founders intended.

Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic.

 

[schism666]

THIS;

"But the Court had little choice after Democrats used the legal system against Mr. Trump. The Court was obliged to take the cases as they marched up the appellate chain. Democrats politicize the law against a candidate of the opposing party, and then they claim to be shocked because the Supreme Court does its duty to rule on the legality of what they are doing."

the dems called to prosecute an alleged criminal who was later charged and found guilty on all counts.

 

[Yarglenurp]

The immunity decision is disturbing, but how bad it is depends on how broadly the Supreme Court ultimately interprets the president's "official acts." As of right now, that's still open-ended. As long as the Court does not interpret "official acts" too broadly, then it's not too bad a decision. But if it interprets Trump's actions attempting to interfere with the election results and with taking official documents as official acts, then it's one of the worst and most disturbing Supreme Court decisions in American history. It leaves the president shockingly unaccountable to the law and the Constitution. It also makes no sense from the standpoint of traditionally conservative jurisprudence, because it's not based on the text of the Constitution, or on the original understanding of the text, or on stare decisis. It's based on an ahistorical and disturbingly authoritarian view of the powers that the president should have, a view completely contrary to what the founders intended.

Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic.

The issue is that the interpretation is going to be left to a judge, most of whom are corrupted by the Federalist Society or are working in fear of it. They simply need to declare any act of a Dem president to be unofficial while declare any act of a Republican president to be official. There are no actual guardrails.

 

[icanhelp1]

the dems called to prosecute an alleged criminal who was later charged and found guilty on all counts.

You’re right, DEMS called to persecute an alleged innocent till proven guilty citizen. Nothing less than a political hit job. Lavrentiy Beria “show me the man I’ll find you the crime”

 

[HisArpy]

The immunity decision is disturbing, but how bad it is depends on how broadly the Supreme Court ultimately interprets the president's "official acts." As of right now, that's still open-ended. As long as the Court does not interpret "official acts" too broadly, then it's not too bad a decision. But if it interprets Trump's actions attempting to interfere with the election results and with taking official documents as official acts, then it's one of the worst and most disturbing Supreme Court decisions in American history. It leaves the president shockingly unaccountable to the law and the Constitution. It also makes no sense from the standpoint of traditionally conservative jurisprudence, because it's not based on the text of the Constitution, or on the original understanding of the text, or on stare decisis. It's based on an ahistorical and disturbingly authoritarian view of the powers that the president should have, a view completely contrary to what the founders intended.

Unfortunately, I'm not optimistic.

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.

In every country, the leader of that country enjoys immunity for their decisions as the leader of the nation. EVERY country.

Including ours. This was formally bolstered by the immunity decision.

Further, the "Trump won't be accountable" narrative is BULLSHIT! Under the US constitution, In addition to Treason, the President can be impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Crimes for which corruption would be covered. These acts would constitute conduct outside his official acts as President and, under the immunity decision, would be acts not covered by Presidential immunity.

Basically, everything you posted is false. It's based on the anti-Trump narrative spread by the DNC and anti-Trump stooges.

 

[schism666]

You’re right, DEMS called to persecute an alleged innocent till proven guilty citizen. Nothing less than a political hit job. Lavrentiy Beria “show me the man I’ll find you the crime”

lol i suppose his bankruptcies and infidelities are also the dems fault. so much for the party of personal responsibility.

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.

In every country, the leader of that country enjoys immunity for their decisions as the leader of the nation. EVERY country.

Including ours. This was formally bolstered by the immunity decision.

Further, the "Trump won't be accountable" narrative is BULLSHIT! Under the US constitution, In addition to Treason, the President can be impeached for High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Crimes for which corruption would be covered. These acts would constitute conduct outside his official acts as President and, under the immunity decision, would be acts not covered by Presidential immunity.

Basically, everything you posted is false. It's based on the anti-Trump narrative spread by the DNC and anti-Trump stooges.

prove it.

 

[SimonDoom]

This is ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.

In every country, the leader of that country enjoys immunity for their decisions as the leader of the nation. EVERY country.

Prove it. Cite authority for this.

There are plenty of examples of the leaders of countries being prosecuted or investigated for actions while they were in office.

Fujimora, leader of Peru.

Sarkozy, president of France.

Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, currently being prosecuted for corruption.

Kirchner, former president of Argentina.

Park Geun-hye, South Korea.

Pinochet, Chile.

Why would you WANT a national leader to be absolutely immune? How can that possibly be justified? If presidents break the criminal law, they should be prosecuted. Just like everybody else.

I'll repeat: there's no text in the Constitution that clearly gives the president immunity. If you think otherwise, cite the language.

 

[Lazaran]

Why would you WANT a national leader to be absolutely immune? How can that possibly be justified? If presidents break the criminal law, they should be prosecuted. Just like everybody else.

Yeah, “they should be prosecuted just like everybody else”, and if convicted, they should be punished more harshly than anybody else.

 

[stxjimmy]

Yeah, mention how Roberts sent a memo around instead of focusing on the leaking of said memo in an effort to undercut the court and its members.

Sometimes people amaze me with how stupid they can be. With no courts we have no law. Without law all we have is anarchy. With anarchy there's no one to rely on to protect YOU.

And YOU gave up your guns because someone told you to...

So sayeth the man who belies jan 6th was a good ol’ boys day trip!

 

[Lazaran]

WSJ editorial board correctly puts the NYT story in context.

The story in the Times is part of a larger progressive political campaign to damage the credibility of the Court to justify Democratic legislation that will destroy its independence. That this campaign may have picked up allies inside the Court is all the more worrying. We are at a dangerous juncture in American constitutional history, and Mr. Trump isn’t the only, or the greatest, risk.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/john-ro...4b5da?st=FECkJt&reflink=article_copyURL_share

BabyBoobs citing opinion pieces in the Rupert Murdoch owned WSJ is the equivalent of BabyBoobs presenting their used toilet paper for consideration.



BabyBoobs