The main contention today from the conservative justices is that we should worry more about the harm/threat of politically-motivated prosecutions of ex-presidents than of presidents criminally abusing their power.
It’s just an insanely naive, ahistorical understanding of how political power works.
I dunno, I think it's partly sincere, in that the GOP justices really believe that (white, Christian) conservatives are uniquely persecuted in America. Especially so whenever a Democrat is in the White House.
Justice Ketanji-Brown (IIRC) made a pretty strong closing argument that failing to hold presidents accountable crimes is AT LEAST as concerning as the conservatives' worry-beading about post-presidential, political prosecutions.
I hope (without conviction) today's questions from rightwing of the Court don't reflect the opinions that they'll write. Today, Justices Alito & Thomas functioned as the "Devil's Advocate" in the Catholic sense.
The only thing I know *for certain* about the future is that it has not happened yet.
I strikes me that SCOTUS Justices frequently ask those questions or push the advocates. IMHO, court-watchers always misunderstand this b/c they're looking through a very political lens. But the Justices are generally trying to see the limits of a given argument as it can affect other things. 1/
I make no judgment on Alito's politics or motives. He has a point regardless. Malicious & political prosecutions are not exactly unknown and can have long-term political consequences. (See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_o...) 2/
Yet I don't agree with the premise of the question and sincerely hope it was intended to push the respondent. Acknowledging that in reality Presidents stretch the law and even reshape it (Lincoln is a good example!) we should be extraordinarily careful in saying it simply doesn't apply to them. 3/
Because that's something that legitimately could destroy the American Republic, whether or not it destroys Democracy. But my view is that Democracy without the Republican institutions would be a very, very ugly and worthless thing, because all the worst tyrannies can claim the same status. 4/4
Leaving aside Thomas, who is fully bought and paid for, what I don't understand is why the rest of them would he gambling with their own independence like this - do they seriously think they will maintain meaningful power under the Trump regime?
If your only function is as a rubber stamp, you become expendable, and so if your own ambitions should clash with Trump's (e.g. if you want a bigger payoff than Trump is prepared to offer you), you suddenly have zero leverage. Decency and rectitude need never enter into it.
There is nobody with a (R) after their name in power that is independent. They are all in it together to rebuild the Confederacy socially and economically. People are just super slow to want to believe that about Roberts and his court even though the entire history of his court shows it’s true.
Biden should have red laser pointers directed at justice foreheads to help illustrate the ramifications of allowing a president to do whatever they want
I was kind of shocked that no one, not justices or DOJ raised the prospect of a president simply ignoring all the “checks on power” or appointing those who will ignore them. Because we know that there is at least one person so inclined.
They're at least doing better than we are. I mean why only presidents? We've put a ton of ex-governors in jail. Why isn't that the same concern in our federalist society?
We all learned in 6th grade that (heavenly voice) 'THE FOUNDERS' revolted because of what they deemed to be unlawful acts by King George & then created a government that explicitly didn't have a King. That SCOTUS even heard this argument means we're in the gloaming of the American Republic.
