competing theory of john roberts from @stevenmazie.bsky.social: maybe roberts is still trying to play the institutionalist game but has lost his read on how the court is perceived by the public x.com/stevenmazie/...
I used to believe this but that immunity decision was so batshit that I can no longer give him any benefit of the doubt. That was not written by a man who cares about his country.
Could not agree more. They absolutely knew how lawless that ruling is. It’s why it came on the last day and they disappeared in a cloud of gold dust.
I think Roberts, like most Republicans, have seen how no one holds them accountable for extremism. No fight. No media pushback. Nothing.
The dreadful immunity decision has me rethinking NFIB v. Sibelius and the reported logroll between Roberts and Kagan over the individual insurance mandate and Medicaid expansion
When the stakes are at their highest Roberts seems to get a case of the yips and go off the rails
The thing is, I think he really *does* love his country, it’s just that his idea of what that means and mine have diverged so far they no longer inhabit the same universe. He’s way down into the alternate universe where this decision is righteous, and people like me just don’t understand the truth.
How did Roberts think the public would perceive the President being declared a king with divine right by the SCOTUSt? By a court full of judges who claim they adhere to the framers' original intent, no less (which the decision demonstrates clearly to both expert and layperson that they do not).
The immunity decision reeks of YOLO to me, and the only silver lining is that they dropped it 4 months before the election, thus allowing plenty of time for the backlash to build.
I think (hope) they shot themselves in the foot worse with this one than with Dobbs.
I sure hope that the guy who dismantled the administrative state, reproductive rights, voting rights and key safeguards against fascist presidential misconduct is perceived fairly.
How can you read a ruling that creates new immunity not in the text of the constitution and against the intent of the framers other than as judicial activism to save a felonious former president?
The ruling is neither originalist, restrained, nor small "c" conservative. But it is corrupt.
Information about how unpopular the court is has been there at least since Citizen's United. And since Dobbs it's been at a fever pitch. This simply can't be true unless Roberts is the dumbest person in Washington. (Which, frankly, I'm willing to believe.)
The thing is that the Alex Bickel passive virtues stuff was always about husbanding the Court's institutional capital for the stuff that really matters
I think we're seeing what really matters to Roberts
Roberts' hand was forced by Trump's legal situation. That's it. He wrote an opinion that made it impossible for him to be tried prior to the election (or, very likely, to be tried at all). That is the only consideration that went into it.
I have a similar theory about Thomas: he resents being a puppet so thoroughly that his opinions deliberately go far, far beyond the wishes of his sponsors.
"You want to restrict voting rights? OK, how about let's get rid of voting, period?"
I don't feel this accounts for why the immunity ruling is something Roberts would WANT to do. What is the institutionalist-in-his-own-mind telling himself when he writes that? The opinion only seems consistent with someone harboring MAGA sentiments.
I took an instant dislike to the man when he was first appointed CJ. Nothing he has done since has improved my opinion.
I think he liked being thought of as an institutionalist, but he likes more getting his way.
