Here is a NYT article on Roberts' role is the SCOTUS efforts to help re-elect TFG. Roberts actions in these cases are really sickening and show that Robert and the other five conservatives have been actively attempting to help TFG in his legal issues. I have had issues with Roberts since the Shelby County case where Roberts gutted the voting rights act. Robert has now confirmed that he is a partisan hack.
This a NYT article that has some good facts. I think that the facts in this article show that Roberts is a partisan hack. The NYT does not go that far but provides enough facts to show that control of the SCOTUS is a key issue. This immunity ruling needs to be either overturned by adding more justices to the court or with the Presidential Immunity Act which contains a provision divesting SCOTUS with jurisdiction over this issue. The naked partisanship of the SCOTUS needs to be addressed if VP Harris wins and the Democrats have control over the Senate and the House.
https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/onboarding-offer?EXIT_URI=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.nytimes.com%252F2024%252F09%252F15%252Fus%252Fjustice-roberts-trump-supreme-court.html%253Funlocked_article_code%253D1.K04.mC2X.k9K6vnKaQdt6%2526smid%253Dem-share&auth=login-google1tap&campaignId=7JFJX&login=google1tap
Last February, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sent his eight Supreme Court colleagues a confidential memo that radiated frustration and certainty.
Former President Donald J. Trump, seeking to retake the White House, had made a bold, last-ditch appeal to the justices. He wanted them to block his fast-approaching criminal trial on charges of attempting to overturn the 2020 election, arguing that he was protected by presidential immunity. Whatever move the court made could have lasting consequences for the next election, the scope of presidential power and the court’s own battered reputation......
The chief justice wrote the majority opinions in all three cases, including an unsigned one in March concluding that the former president could not be barred from election ballots in Colorado.
Another case involved a highly unusual switch. In April, the chief justice assigned Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to write a majority opinion saying that prosecutors had gone too far in bringing obstruction charges against some Capitol rioters. But in late May, the chief justice took it over.
I read the immunity opinion and was shocked at how poorly reasoned such opinion was. This opinion looked like it was written by a non-lawyer like Stephen Miller. Robert's analysis was really weak. I am happy to see that I was not the only lawyer who was truly offended by Roberts' reasoning in the immunity opinion
In his writings on the immunity case, the chief justice seemed confident that his arguments would soar above politics, persuade the public, and stand the test of time. His opinion cited “enduring principles,” quoted Alexander Hamilton’s endorsement of a vigorous presidency, and asserted it would be a mistake to dwell too much on Mr. Trump’s actions. “In a case like this one, focusing on ‘transient results’ may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic,” he wrote. “Our perspective must be more farsighted.”
But the public response to the decision, announced in July on the final day of the term, was nothing like what his lofty phrases seemed to anticipate.......
“It’s a strange, sprawling opinion,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and a former clerk to the chief justice. “It’s hard to tell what exactly it is trying to do.”
Others said the ruling was untethered from the law. “It’s certainly not really tied to the Constitution,” said Stephen R. McAllister, a law professor at University of Kansas and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.
Roberts has shown himself to be a partisan hack. The immunity ruling was really poorly reasoned and has the effect of making the POTUS into a king as noted by Justice Sotomayor
Chief Justice Roberts’s language in the opinion seemed intended to stay above the fray, extending protections to “all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy or party.” But in a withering dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the majority opinion gave Mr. Trump “all the immunity he asked for and more.” It also, she wrote, protected “treasonous acts,” transformed the president into “a king above the law” and ultimately caused her to “fear for our democracy.”
The court’s leader shot back that the liberal justices “strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the court actually does today.”
There at least two proposals pending to undo the immunity ruling that need to be addressed. Roberts proving himself to be a partisan hack makes control of the SCOTUS a key issue this cycle.
= new reply since forum marked as read
