roberts’ reasoning is fundamentally (lower-case “r”) anti-republican. i know we dunk on the framers here but roberts has issued a rebuke of the revolutionary assumption that concentrated, unaccountable power is a fundamental threat to liberty.
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.
roberts essentially ignores the purpose of separation of powers, which was not to create entirely separate spheres of action but to prevent the emergence of unchecked authority. instead, he says, separation of powers *demands* unchecked authority.
In Roberts' defense: if Congress is immune from any repurcussions for their actions because of the speech and debate clause; and the Court is immune from any repurcussions because they say so; it's only fair to also make the President immune from any repurcussions.
This was anticipated. It does affect some, no denying that, but it doesn't protect what doesn't happen in congress. The evidence here related to favors done as a rep. They are getting the story in indirectly.
NJ guy here, following the trial.
