It's just hilariously disingenuous. Imagine looking at, say, ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY and concluding that the biggest threat to liberty isn't abuse of power, but powerful people refraining from sufficiently wielding their authority out of fear that they might one day be held accountable.
It's not the worst of it, but what I may be actually angriest about (right now) is Roberts' smarmy smugness and dismissiveness in the final two paragraphs of section IV and the whole of section V. "Fear mongering," "extreme hypotheticals," "our perspective must be more farsighted," and this.
Also, saying the 'hypothetical scenario' that a leader may use their powers to further their own ends while ruling on a case where a leader used their powers to further their own ends and coming to the conclusion that such a thing could never happen seems a little disingenuous too.
