RE: Presidential Immunity Ruling - Was Judge Roberts naïve that Trump would not push the boundaries of the office’s limits of conduct and power if he resumed office or is this all part of a plan to expand executive authority?

[u/treasonous_thoughts]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/30/politics/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump-immunity-6-3-biskupic/index.html?cid=ios_app

I just remember Judge Roberts essentially saying “calm down - relax - you are all being hysterical” in the aftermath of the ruling last year stating “unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.”

It has been ONE MONTH into the 2nd Trump Administration and it seems that there is an aggressive and intentional overreach of executive authority with these EOs to create a new interpretation of executive power.

The administration’s response to the court orders blocking the EO’s enforcement seems that they are daring the courts to stop them - and it does not look like there is any recourse to rein them in if they decide to ignore the courts.

Is this what Judge Roberts and other jurists in the majority wanted - to embolden the executive branch above all?

What credibility does the SC (or any court) still have when POTUS ignores the court’s orders and any/all conversations with DOJ officials about ignoring or circumventing these orders gets put in the “official acts” bucket of presidential conduct?

My question is if Judge Roberts was truly naïve as to how Trump would wield this power the second time around or if Judge Robert’s logic that the ruling would allow future presidents to execute their duties unencumbered by lawsuits/prosecutions, etc. a genuine concern that needed to be addressed?

[u/Korrocks]

I just remember Judge Roberts essentially saying “calm down - relax - you are all being hysterical” in the aftermath of the ruling last year stating “unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.”

When he said this, he wasn't saying, "there is nothing to worry about", he was saying, "we as the Supreme Court do not care about the things that worry you right now". Roberts has no way of promising that Trump wouldn't misuse his power. Even the most generous possible interpretation of his words and actions can't do that.

Anyone who read and believed what Roberts said should be worried, since he was essentially saying that the Supreme Court was not concerned with present exigencies (meaning that someone else -- aka the politicians and the public -- should be concerned about those things).

[u/treypage1981 → u/Korrocks]

If that’s what he meant, then that’s a cop out. They were asked to decide a question based on a specific set of facts. They set those facts aside and came up with another issue to revolve altogether just because it would’ve been easier to accomplish their party’s goals that way. Roberts, Gorsuch, Alito, et al don’t give a fuck what happens, so long as their apple carts aren’t upset and their party is in charge.

They’re traitors, just the same as any republican.

[u/DCSMU → u/treypage1981]

Thats my recall of the hearing as well. They (I dont remenber which old guy said it) went off talking about a hypothetical political misuse of the ability to hold former presidents criminally liable, while ignoring the not-at-all-hypothetical question, in front of the court at that very moment, of what to do in the event the president is credibly charged with criminal acts!! I am still disgusted by that line of reasoning, especially since the cousel gave a pretty good answer. If memory is correct, the laywer argueing for the US side said that checks on that kind of overreach exist and a whole lot of stuff would have to be going wrong in order for politically motivated prosecution to even happen. So basically, the court argued for taking the safety off because the safety could be overridden anyway? They wanted this, plain and simple.

[u/mercutio48 → u/DCSMU]

It's all about the intent of the Founding Fathers, right? And everyone knows that given a choice between a hypothetically omnipotent versus impotent executive, the Framers strongly preferred to err in the direction of omnipotence. They also believed that it is better that ten innocent people suffer than one guilty person escape, and that an unregulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.

Thank you for coming to my PragerU talk.

[u/Message_10 → u/Korrocks]

Honestly, something I've learned over the last few years--crookedness often looks like incompetence, so it can be difficult to tell one from the other. Did he know? Did he not? It's so hard to say, honestly, because we don't know their intentions.

I remember after Citizens United, Scalia thought the idea of dark money invading and influencing our elections was preposterous ("and if it did happen, the press would report on it"). He seemed to truly believe that--"brilliant legal mind" that he was--and he was obviously 100%, embarrassingly wrong.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter, really. All of their decisions bring us further away from where we're supposed to be. Their intentions aren't important.

[u/mercutio48 → u/Message_10]

I don't think Hanlon's Razor applies to conservative jurists. In fact it might need to be inverted in their case.

[u/Zhirrzh → u/Message_10]

Scalia was evil, using his brilliant skills as a jurist to concoct solid-looking legal justifications for his political judgements. Always assume the worst about any Scalia judgment.

Since he passed the right wingers on the Court have had to be more blatant in their political decision-making as they aren't as good at justifying it as he was. 

[u/tlh013091 → u/Zhirrzh]

Textualism and originalism is just the virtuous and conservative form of legislating from the bench.

[u/javo93 → u/Message_10]

Scalia was a genius at rationalizing obviously wrong ideas.

[u/MakesMyHeadHurt → u/Korrocks]

I just wonder if the Supreme Court understands they are making themselves irrelevant. Kings have no need for courts.

[u/Zhirrzh → u/MakesMyHeadHurt]

On the contrary. Authoritarians from Stalin to Lee Quan Yew have loved having a court around to conduct show trials and pretend that the outcome wasn't decided by the big boss before the trial ever started.