For my part, less out of thinking the Court wasn't grossly political--I think that's been clear for a long while--but more just "they just don't need to" and I thought they would play at least some small amount of lipservice to it not just being a straight power-grab.
what I don't understand is that Roberts is not a full MAGA guy; he is, as everyone likes to say, an ~institutionalist.~ does he think this preserves the institution somehow (or does this fit with in the imperial roberts court per lemley, as kbj suggests in dissent)?
Everyone likes to say a lot of things, but is it correct? Like, Roberts hasn't really given a great reason to think that he's not also fully committed to the Republican project as it has been revealed to be, just more frog-boiling about it?
I don't know that Roberts knows what he is anymore. He clearly understood the political and philosophical ramifications which is why it was held to the last possible moment.
My guess is that Roberts is as he's always been: a weathervane on a rightward tilting pole.
I think it’s helpful to adopt the approach that Roberts is an institutionalist only insofar as it increases the judiciary and specifically the Supreme Court’s power.
Is this something where he knew there were 5 votes for something even worse but he agreed to write the majority opinion in a way that would at least *seem* to leave room for presidential prosecutions? Like there were 5 votes to dismiss the prosecution outright and this was his compromise?
But that's the thing, it will *seem*, to plenty of people, that this leaves room for prosecutions, which will mean that Trump skating by will *seem* to those people to be a just result. Roberts' words are there to make fascism look like a reasonable goal to the "centrists." They HELP the other 5.
Yes, that’s what he’s there for. It isn’t that he’s MAGA or anti-MAGA, he’s just conscious (ish) of how the rulings look to non-ideologues. He’s willing to let crazy things happen, but he’d rather it not be blatant. Mostly because he finds blatant partisanship gauche.
True. A narrow split, though, and again, maybe Thomas or Alito was willing to write something more extreme and Roberts felt the need to write the argument his way. It’s the only argument I can see, but who knows why they do anything. Certainly not love of the law!
I don't think so, because ACB actually had a much narrower concurrence vs the majority, similar to 14th amendment case. In that case ACB agreed with the outcome (dismissing the case) but disagreed with the remaining 5 conservatives on the scope of the 14th amendment.
In light of this as well as all of his voting rights decisions, perhaps time for those who assumed Roberts was an institutionalist and not a nakedly partisan Republican to re-examine that premise.
Yeah all I can figure is maybe there was an unreleased draft Alito or Thomas opinion that was a contender for the controlling opinion and this somehow is a less extreme 6-vote compromise from that? But even then, it’s an extreme opinion, and the hectoring about the tone of the dissent… I don’t know.
It doesn't really matter if he is full MAGA or not. He's allowed partisan gerrymandering. He's neutered the Jan 6th trials. He's legalized bribery. He's overturned Chevron, Dobbs, VRA, etc.. People forget too easily he was part of the legal team that won Bush v Gore. The SC was his reward.
It’s not simply information bubbles - it’s that anyone is corruptible given enough money on the table and promises of great power. I think the question for these judges should be “what do you think your role will be in a post democratic society?”
Almost makes one wonder what horrors were contained in previous drafts if THIS is the version he signed onto.
I say “almost”, because—and I say this the decorum required when speaking of the Chief Justice—fuck that guy.
That they didn't need to is really important - if the goal was to delay the trial past the election, they could have achieved that with an opinion that stopped far short of where this goes. This is an explicit expression of their view on how a president may use executive authority and it's ugly.
Right, I assumed they wouldn't be able to get Roberts and at least one of the other "non-crazies" (heavy quotation marks on that now) to do more than just delay the trial under the pretense of applying a new, fact-specific test. Instead he *writes the opinion* saying Watergate was legal!
it's honestly really shocking that they're not even trying to present the illusion of "we're not trying to give Trump total immunity to consequences for convenience" that saying no to this would have done.
You would think that these people who pretend to be so dignified and above it all would PREFER to get their way without having Donald Trump around to make it all as crass as possible. I will never again believe anyone who says that the conservative establishment hates him.
I assumed it was going to be something like 7-2 or 8-1 against. I would have bet a lot that they wouldn't go this route. It turns out that my extreme cynicism may not have been extreme enough to be right.
I thought it would be a "Trump has no immunity (wink wink, we gave him immunity and you idiots didn't notice)" decision, but they decided to do a "haha fuck you Presidents are Kings now, suck it up libs" decision instead
"He isn't immune but we'll delay it long enough that if he's President he can make it go away" is what I expected. What we got is "He's immune and can never be prosecuted because 'Unofficial Acts' will be a category so small as to be meaningless."
Both POTUS and Congress have relevant powers to draw on in cases of extreme official corruption, sedition, or terrorism (which Jan. 6 was). Rather than write a policy paper for moderates to nitpick, I'll say keep protest demands broad & maximal: "Trump judges must go." "Clean up the courts now."
