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.
He accuses the dissent of "extreme hypotheticals," then, instead of recognizing Trump as uniquely corrupt and criminal, speculates that the charges against him portend a future in which presidents "cannibalize" one another with criminal charges -- despite two centuries of that not happening.
"Whether it's Democrats opening a legitimate prosecution of a corrupt criminal ex-president who promised to jail his political opponents, or Republicans opening their promised illegitimate prosecutions of their enemies, you must admit both sides could vex each other with prosecutions."
