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.
I hope the founders come and pace around his room every night, haranguing him endlessly about his betrayal of the foundational principles of the Constitution and the general shredding thereof. I hope they haunt him until the end of his life.
