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.
It's not the worst of it, but what I may be actually angriest about (right now) is Roberts' smarmy smugness and dismissiveness in the final two paragraphs of section IV and the whole of section V. "Fear mongering," "extreme hypotheticals," "our perspective must be more farsighted," and this.
Let’s be real, though. They didn’t conclude the biggest threat to liberty is powerful people being subject to the rule of law.
They concluded that they like Trump, and want Trump to be above the law.
If this had been a D former President coming up, no shot they would’ve given them this.
Also, saying the 'hypothetical scenario' that a leader may use their powers to further their own ends while ruling on a case where a leader used their powers to further their own ends and coming to the conclusion that such a thing could never happen seems a little disingenuous too.
I've made a bit of a hobbyhorse out of Nikolas Sarkozy's criminal prosecutions, and the multiple dimensions by which a similar case would be impossible in the US
I now have a new overarching grounds to add (president = god-emperor)
bsky.app/profile/saba...
Sarkozy’s 2nd trial wouldn’t get anywhere in the US—
•he was accuse of rerouting unused campaign cash post-election
•was accused of exceeding the statutory spending cap of €22.5 million and covering it up
•lax mens rea requirement (govt needn’t prove knowledge or intent)
www.bbc.com/news/world-e...
Especially when it is all projection. The current Republican party would indeed try to frivolously prosecute a former president, Dems would send a sternly worded letter
On the evening of Thursday 6/27/24 Trump clearly stated at the CNN debate that he INTENDED to frivolously prosecute a former president. Two former presidents, in fact, because he indicated he would prosecute both Joe Biden AND Barack Obama.
So yeah.
It’s just the ridiculous 9/11 era “torture the captured terrorist to find the ticking nuclear bomb under Manhattan” scenario. They live in terror that in an imaginary hypothetical the most powerful man in the world might be too selfish to make what they think is the obvious decision.
They do act like scared little school boys a lot of the time, as with their rulings shielding police and expanding criminal prosecutions. It's like they get mugged each day when they leave the court.
I really don't know how people aren't seeing the writing on the wall that Biden isn't going to win because even if he does win, SCOTUS is going to say he doesn't.
Like when we all said this guy’s project since he was at the justice department under Reagan was to take down the VRA.
Or Gorsuch & EPA?
Or Alito & reproductive care?
Or Thomas on being a decent human being?
