CNN's Joan Biskupic reports that Chief Justice John Roberts doesn't understand why people were upset about his presidential immunity ruling earlier this year:
Roberts was shaken by the adverse public reaction to his decision affording Trump substantial immunity from criminal prosecution. His protestations that the case concerned the presidency, not Trump, held little currency.
Is Roberts serious? He invented a sweeping presidential immunity out of whole cloth. It has no basis in either the text of the Constitution, statutory law, or our nation's history. It has never been applied to any of our previous 44 presidents. Every lower court rejected it. Roberts's ruling is so preposterous that it forbids prosecutors from even mentioning conversations a president might have had about committing crimes. And all of this was plainly the work of justices who had bought into right-wing grievances about Democratic "lawfare" against a Republican president.¹
But Roberts is upset that people don't realize it was actually just a modest little ruling that affects all presidents equally? You've got to be kidding me.
¹"Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine."
We think the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court couldn't possibly be that stupid. But maybe he can...
He's not stupid, he's disingenuous. A smooth talking bullshitter with no integrity. No more, no less.
And THAT, sir - is the correct answer.
Yep. Roberts is lying. And clumsily so. He thinks he's so smart that everyone will just fall for his bluff.
👍👍👍👍👍
I am not sure I had time to read it when it came out, but just read it now. First off, I did not really appreciate at the time that this was about "immunity" -- as in, if you have immunity from something its established before trial and there isn't a trial at all (although there would be a finding of immunity) vs. a "defense" which, for a government official, acting in ones capacity is always, I guess, a defense but only comes into play after the trial finds you did the act.
Second off, I did not appreciate the four part structure of the ruling.
1. "Official acts" absolute immunity, here, an allegation that you tried to talk the Justice Department into doing something, and saying he would fire the AG if not, was an official act. Hmmm...... its not shooting someone but fairly close in that you could just ask the Attorney General to shoot them.
2. Attempt to convince Pence to f-up January 6. Oddly, this is only "presumptively immune" I could not figure out why talking to the VP was different than the AG, but is seemed to be, oddly, that the President can fire the AG at will.
3. Pressuring election officials (read, Georgia) to do stuff. Not immune at all if prosecution shows its not official.
4. Tweets and speech on January 6. Not immune at all if prosecution shows its not official.
In many places, Robert's opinion says that there were no lower court findings on whether the acts were official. Presumably, instead of immunity, the argument would have been at end of trial that Trump had a defense.
Thought the crew here might appreciate the distinctions. This is a distinction based crowd. 🙂
The lower courts worked under the assumption that illegal acts are presumptively NOT official acts, therefore immunity wouldn't play a role.
Up until this opinion, I think the record was that "presidential immunity" as such just wasn't a category at all. It could only exist indirectly and in very limited ways through other invented (but with more justification) doctrines like executive privilege and national security exceptions.
Overall I believe that only in national security was there even a remote thought that something could be in the category "illegal but you can't do anything about it." Lower courts in this case certainly seem to have seen it that way.
One wonders if Roberts spends too much time in the Fox bubble. His job is to call balls and strikes, not redefine the strike zone.
Roberts views himself as an ur-constitutional Guardian of the Republic, whom fate and the Will of the People have (somehow) put in the position of (after obscure consultation with his learned brethren in their ivory tower) putting forth Edicts as to What The Law Is And Forever Shall Be. Like a wise but stern shepherd, Roberts ensures that the People shall not stray from the paths that (Roberts determines) are righteous.
Accordingly, he is puzzled when the little people aren't grateful (to their betters) when his Star Chamber issues a fabricated-from-whole-cloth Rule for the Ages conferring royal powers upon a temporary elected official, when all Roberts&Co really needed to do* was decide the easy question of whether or not Trump had some sort of baseless immunity against charges that he attempted a coup, which under existing law he clearly didn't.
____
*Although case in point, the Supremes didn't even have to decide that; they could have simply denied cert and let the lower courts do their job.
He's just calling balls and strikes. AmIright?
Yes but the game he’s umpiring is Calvinball, where it’s unclear what “balls” and “strikes” are, much less what any of the rules of play are… and one side always wins no matter what.
Nah. The game Roberts is "umpiring" is fizzbin. And somehow in every case, he discovers that the right wing MAGA/Republican position holds a royal fizzbin, despite the astronomical odds against getting one. To (slightly) paraphrase Bob Dylan, "They can't help it if they're lucky."
You're showing your age, man. And mine! hahaha
You shouldn't assume, since I am sure that many people (probably nerds) who were born in this century can tell you all about fizzbin. But yes, I was fourteen and a high school freshman when I watched the original broadcast of A Piece of the Action in early January 1968.
I'm pretty sure it is actually Pro Thunderball where there is a gun, but everyone knows not to use it. The problem is that Trump isn't Steve Youngblood. No, Trump is Silky Slim.
Yep, and when a Democratic President is charged, he will find some way to allow it to proceed. And he thinks we can't tell.
That’s why I would really love to see Joe Biden exercise this newly unearthed Executive power as one of his last acts. He could accept a large gratuity in return for pardoning Reality Winner — the pardon power is granted explicitly and exclusively to the President by the Constitution. What could be more official?
Or muse publicly about how if it came out that certain SCOTUS justices were actually enemies of the state, while he himself wouldn't order their arrest and execution, surely if some patriot took it upon themselves to handle the situation, the president would of course pardon them.
he's serious insofar as he's lying very deliberately and seriously. and biskupic is acting as his credulous stenographer. roberts knows exactly what he did, why people are angry and how to run a PR spin game to portray himself as the unjustly injured party. is he self-righteously pissed that he gets blowback for his bullshit? sure. that's just the mindset of pretty much every republican. but never for a second buy this "i'm just a poor public servant trying his best to uphold the republic" crap.
The fact that Biskupic didn’t immediately ask him “what if the next president decides to abduct 6 Supreme Court justices and dump them all at Gitmo? Is that legal now under your ruling, and if not, how exactly are prosecutors supposed to prosecute such a case given all your restrictions in this ruling?” is the tell that Biskupic is just a stenographer.
As I never tire of pointing out, the immunity decision does not make illegal actions by the president into legal actions or prevent the courts from blocking them (both SCOTUS and the lower courts have done so since the immunity decision). It "merely" means that the president has immunity from subsequent criminal prosecution for his/her "official acts." (BTW, even if Harris wins, and Judge Chutkan rules that the indictment includes at least some non-official acts and that the trial can go forward, I am virtually certain that SCOTUS will ultimately rule that none of Drumpf's actions fell outside the scope of his "official acts" or can stand without introducing evidence barred by the Court.)
I hasten to add that this does not mean that the immunity decision is not utterly corrupt and manufactured out of whole cloth in defiance of the Constitution, precedent, statutory law, and history. Or that this Court (which is shamelessly prepared to enshrine each and every one of their political preferences into law) may not ultimately somehow rule that actions of Republican (and only Republican) presidents cannot be blocked by the courts.
It's the last bit that's so infuriating. Memo To All Future Presidents: use official WH email address for planning all crimes.
You are 100% correct, and everyone is incorrectly making that mental switch. But to be fair to everyone, "not illegal" vs "illegal but immune from prosecution" is one of those canonical distinctions without a difference!
Roberts: disengenous hack or lives in a Fox News bubble drinking his own koolaid? Another distinction without a practical difference. I am curious as to which it is, or what combination of both, but kind of like the question "why did Trump say that?", it is not answerable without first becoming his friend, ie not worth it.
It does exactly make illegal actions into legal ones. The pardon power is granted to the President explicitly and exclusively by the Constitution, it is absolutely a core official act. So henceforth any President may conduct auctions for pardons. The performance of an official act for remuneration is defined by this Court as bribery, but the President is absolutely immune for official acts. Yes, the Constitution specifically calls bribery out as grounds for impeachment, and further states that notwithstanding an impeachment and removal, an (ex-)President may be prosecuted for the same act for which s/he was impeached. Square that circle, Mr. Chief Justice.
god forbid she lose access by asking a challenging question.
Why waste time with Gitmo? Just take Air Force One for a ride to international waters, order the Navy to fire six cruise missiles (also from international waters) into six DC-area homes.
He is worried about those kinds of prosecutions becoming routine because that hasn’t been a problem but …..?
The highlighted portion shows how nonsensical Roberts is. Prosecuting presidents for insufficiently enforcing the law? In what planet is that a crime. Yeah he uses the word “broadly”, whatever that means, garbage in-garbage out. Let’s just say the our Chief Justice is not the sharpest tool in the woodshed.
How does that "quickly become routine" when it has never been routine before?
Hmm... I don't know... Maybe... because every Republican accusation is an admission! The Repugs are the only ones who are always nuclear weaponizing everything they can turn on their opponents to cling to power.
"How does that "quickly become routine" when it has never been routine before?"
Do you not see the fiery precipice upon which we stumbled? Yes, our Great Republic has rolled the dice for nearly a quarter of a millenium, and yes, through some miracle of Divine Providence, we have stumbled, blindly, and thus far avoided by chance the pernicious vexation of routine Enterprising Prosecutors pursuing ex-presidents on specious grounds. But are you willing to trust that ~250 years' of luck will hold forever?
Only Roberts hath the wisdom to take what chance has blessed us, and render it permanent, by determining that if the President Does It, It Is No Crime.
I think there is an interpretation that is a bit less awful for Roberts, if not his party.
I think what he is trying to convey, but for obvious reasons cannot say, is that Republicans would go on a prosecutorial rampage against former Democratic presidents in a pretend tit-for-tat frenzy.
We know Don Trump will do it anyway, of course, because Mr. Balls-n-strikes not repeatedly enabled him.
But I think that's how he explains things to himself.
... and of course there would be nobody to stop them, or to hold in contempt prosecutors who bring spurious cases, or to levy other sanctions. I mean, who on Earth could DO that? Truly it is a mystery, even to one so learned in the law as he.
+1
The biggest flaw in the ruling is that the Republicans could still go on a rampage against every other member of the executive. It only grants immunity to the most culpable and powerful person, everyone else is still fair game.
See, eg, Peter Strzok. And no reason to suppose this won't happen again, regardless of whatever Roberts and his buddies pull out from under their robes.
Sure, if he were seriously alarmed that a Republican president could go on a tit-for-tat frenzy, wouldn't he want laws in place holding the president responsible? But instead he holds the president not accountable.
Except that is accountable for any regulations, which the Court can declare unconstitutional on little better grounds.
In the abstract, that is a possibility. But given the particulars, there is really no reason to think this is the case. If you want a more plausible interpretation where Roberts is not an idiot or a complete hack, he may want things this way because the vague and ambiguous reasoning in this ruling ensures that it will be his own institution that gets to decide every specific case in whatever direction "feels" right.
I agree. I think this decision was written specifically so the Group of Six (Coven of Six?) would be able to micro-manage the whole proceeding-- decide on every single charge and every possible bit of evidence. Anything that looks bad for their boy will be disallowed on newly-invented grounds. This current round of briefings and rulings is just the first of many that will eventually reach them, if the voters are smart, the country is fortunate, and the cases proceed after January. And that's how Roberts wants it.
I suppose taken on its face and without any context, it's a reasonable point. Such a thing COULD happen, and it would arguably be bad if it did.
But of course, such a thing has NOT happened (the Orange Guy's facially absurd protests notwithstanding), it is as you observe invented out of nothing at all in the Constitution (and arguably contrary to the Take Care clause!), and worst of all, it will ENABLE an ENORMOUS amount of bad behavior on the part of sitting Presidents (very much including but certainly not limited to the Orange Guy).
Now Roberts is a Made Man from way back, who has devoted his entire life to aggrandizement of Executive power, and he's no dummy, so he knows all this perfectly well. He is, to use the formal legal term, lying out his berobed ass (and I'm pretty sure he doesn't much care who believes him).
I've met Roberts and he is definitely "smooth" and he isn't a dummy. There is something to be said about the "bubble" these people operate in. Roberts has always been a "unitary executive power" guy and this perspective is gospel with the Heritage Foundation. Failing to understand the blank check they were giving the President was bad enough but to do it without consulting the actual facts against the former guy made it possible for them to pretend not to know the consequences of such a ruling. Recent stories say the Justices don't actually have real discussions about these cases prior to oral argument so apparently the Heritage 6 were able to convince themselves that their bubble was reality. Roberts is probably right that Presidents shouldn't be in legal jeopardy over the failure to adequately carry out some law---but of course that claim has nothing to do with what Trump did after the election.
I think you mean "Unitary Republican executive power".
Roberts reminds me of the former supreme court justice Roger Taney. In writing the Dredd Scott decision, Taney's intent was to institutionalize slavery in the U.S. for all time. Instead he triggered the civil war and the end of slavery. I suspect Robert's presidential immunity decision will similarly have unpredictable results.
The ruling that’s going to inspire another civil war was Dobbs. There’s no way blue and red states are going to agree about returning fugitive pregnant women back home to give birth against their will, much less that abortion should be banned nationwide or that insurance shouldn’t cover abortion even when medically necessary or any other complexities that spilled out after Roe was overturned. SCOTUS is going to be hearing abortion cases for the rest of our lives now, until and unless civil war 2 breaks out.
Yeah, any attempt to get "fugitive pregnant women" back to their home states will replay, event for event and word for word, what happened after the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law. Slave catchers then were mobbed, sometimes tarred and feathered, and driven out of free-state communities, and supposed "fugitive slaves" being held for adjudication were freed from jails by mobs.
Same will happen in this case because it would be the same fundamental error-- trying to extend the reach of the most extremist regional factions into lives and communities that don't want that kind of influence where they are.
The harder the regional extremists push it, the more likely they are to bring this on the country. And for now I don't see any willingness not to push it, and I don't see the Roberts court standing in their way.
If I were Roberts, I'd make sure I was never in a room with President Biden now that Biden could legally gun him down in cold blood.
There’s zero chance a Democratic president will ever gun down their rivals in any branch of government. Democrats simply believe in human decency and laws too much to do so.
Only if Joe first issued an official executive order that the Chief Justice be gunned down.
How about a Presidential Finding that he's an immediate and mortally dangerous threat to national security, and then leaving it to a uniformed subordinate to act appropriately? No actual "order" to "kill" anyone, you see.
Will no one rid me of this turbulent Chief?
When you are President you just need to think it and it's official. Isn't that what Trump argued about taking classified documents?
seems to me that republicans will still prosecute a dem president for bullshit reasons, but after 5-7 years of legal harassment, the case would (presumably) get tossed by scotus
with republicans the constant harassment over bullshit is the whole point, and roberts' decision doesn't change that
If it is a popular president it is vote losing, so it is not obvious they will do it.
Even Trump didn't go after Clinton because he felt it is vote losing.
the case doesn't necessarily have to originate in the executive branch/DoJ
elon musk and the texas taliban have been pretty creative with their legal machinations
Administrations are routinely sued for not enforcing some aspect of one law or another. Ex-presidents? I remember the Reagan arms-for-hostages trial....oh wait, that never happened.
Five of the six people in this majority have been trying to make the government safe for Richard Nixon for most of their careers. They (or a parent, in one case) worked in Reagan and Bush executive departments-- some actively working to undermine the legislated purposes of their departments-- and have been suffused with burning resentment that presidents couldn't do just whatever the hell they wanted, whenever they wanted.
This has led them to invent histories that never happened, most profoundly to imagine that the framers were trying to perfect the kind of executive control that the Declaration of Independence accuses George III of lusting after.
At bottom these people are eighteenth-century-style tories and monarchists. In fact I think they're actually Jacobites, more properly, and dissimulation is not a sin for them, but a tool. I expect Roberts is posing here, at best, unless proven otherwise.
They need to be drilled, over and over, on the DC circuit opinion until they understand it. If that's even possible.
I think you've called it right on the Jacobites.
The give away to me was the Court's insistence that Presidents have immunity because they need to be "bold and energetic."
Why?
Could a President not be successful by be diplomatic and establishing consensus? Who are they to decide what kind of President the people can prefer and elect to meet the needs of the moment?
The male justices apparently feel so threatened by Taylor Swift that they have to institutionalize toxic masculinity. Notice that NONE of the women on the court were willing to go all the way with the men in the majority.
they should be "bold and energetic" unless they're using the epa, fda, atf, irs, dept of education (student loans), etc.
but if you wanna steal money never approved by congress to build a wall, by all means, be as bold as you like
and it goes without saying that recruiting a mob to overturn an election that you lost is very bold indeed
Heads of state have been subject to the law going back 800 years starting with the Magna Carta
Easy for an 11-year-old monarch to accede to rebellious barons when the alternative is to let the accursed French despoil the green & pleasant land.
It Trump wins, it is extremely likely that someone Roberts likes (perhaps it will be Roberts himself) will do something Trump dislikes. Trump will publicly call for the person to be taken out, and some MAGA lunatic will take a shot at him. Just imagine how puzzled Roberts will be then!
Without bad faith…
Republicans would have no arguments at all
Roberts is asking a question to which he has already been given the answer, three times. He has the federal district opinion, the federal circuit opinion, and the dissenting opinion in his own court, all explaining why giving the president criminal immunity is both a bad idea and not supported by the Constitution.
Kevin Kevin Kevin. Surely you know by now that this sad & sorry little exercise was nothing but a pull-quote generator. Okay, you fell for it this time. But please, try not to be so credulous next time.
From that CNN article:
All thanks to Roberts himself. He overturned Chevron and Roe, then delayed and protected Trump under the claim that he was protecting the executive office.
Should Biden order the assassination of Alito and Thomas? One can make an ostensible argument that both were J6-adjacent if not outright supporters. Failing to protect the Constitution, they're not just treasonous but also an ongoing threat to democracy -- a clear and present danger amirite?
Roberts is insular such that he can't see the ludicrousness of his decision. If not for a sane person occupying the Oval Office, such a scenario is not just possible, but an eventuality.
John Roberts is full of shit and he knows it.
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution says that when a federal government official is impeached and removed from office, they “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”
Does this include the president? According to Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #69: "The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law."
That shows you what complete and utter bullshit originalism is.
Emphatically! One doesn’t have to be a Constitutional scholar, the text is absolutely clear.
"But Roberts is upset that people don't realize it was actually just a modest little ruling that affects all presidents equally? You've got to be kidding me."
This after refusing Jack Smith's plea to review presidential immunity early enough not to impact the 2024 presidential election, gratuitously intervening in the appeal court's decision, and coming up with a weasel-wordy decision that was guaranteed to offer Trump a reprieve until after the election and likely after it if Trump won, and basically echoing Nixon's "If the president does it, then it is not illegal." Roberts is kidding.
It's a good sign that he's worried about it. He's not like Alito, prone to getting a huge chip on his shoulder - he actually cares about the perceived opinion of the Court. Given that Barrett was also a bit cold on the decision, I wouldn't be surprised if they try and roll it back a bit in a future case (probably with a Democrat in office, of course).
Oh, they'll rediscover criminal liability in a gnat's heartbeat for a D president. But when trump loses, they'll be hearing motions and reviewing evidence on this and the documents case for another three or four years and that'll give them plenty more practice at tailoring their rulings to fit the outcomes they want. As if they need any more practice.
I'm a little more, shall we say cynical, about the Roberts public stance. I used to think what he wants is ultimately to get to about the same place Alito does, but not to move too fast for rando citizens, not get them scratching their heads over what the hell's going on in that building. Last term, though, really got me doubting that and thinking maybe he gave in to temptation and wanted to damn the torpedoes and go full steam ahead, like it was now or never. And now it seems like he set up this story to try reattaching his "reputation of the court" fig leaf.
Public geniality and professed care for reputation can be pretty effective cover for an ideologue, it's just that the stronger the ideological commitment, the harder it can be to maintain the facade. *Especially* on the right.
John Roberts is puzzled that people aren't buying into his bullshit? Clearly he gave his bullshit the proper disguise it required. A sufficient veil of appropriateness. To him the fact that people see through it is not so much puzzling as it is disappointing.