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.
The use of the mocking "infallibility" is particularly galling. The Framers were fixated on human fallibility as a problem for democratic forms of government. That is why they would have never authorized presidential immunity. It is Roberts who foolishly assumes "infallibility" by a President.
