377

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has been left "shaken" by the unexpected public reaction to his ruling in the Donald Trumppresidential immunity case, a columnist wrote Friday.

Slate's judicial writer Dahlia Lithwick wrote that Roberts was left shocked that Americans didn't buy his attempt to persuade them that his ruling was not about Trump, but instead focused on the office of the presidency. The court ruled that a president was largely immune from criminal prosecution for official actions.

Lithwick referenced a report by CNN's Joan Biskupic. He “was shaken by the adverse public reaction to his decision affording [Donald] Trump substantial immunity from criminal prosecution," she wrote.

"His protestations that the case concerned the presidency, not Trump, held little currency.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 39 points 2 days ago

Roberts was left shocked that Americans didn’t buy his attempt to persuade them that his ruling was not about Trump, but instead focused on the office of the presidency. The court ruled that a president was largely immune from criminal prosecution for official actions.

AND WHICH FUCKING PRESIDENT'S ACTIONS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE, JOHN?

[-] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 26 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Shaken? Right because you weren't being a partisan hack when the special counsel asked to skip straight to proceedings because they knew the court wanted to issue a ruling and you drug your feet buying donald time. Then handed him powers not afforded in the constitution. But keep clutching those pearls.

[-] ATDA@lemmy.world 46 points 2 days ago

Fuck him. Burn in hell fuck face.

[-] sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world 23 points 2 days ago

People like him dont get shaken about the opinions of the commoners. He couldnt possibly care less.

[-] llamatron@lemmy.world 43 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Bullshit.

If he didn't expect it then he's a moron.

He is not a moron.

[-] kmaismith@lemm.ee 5 points 2 days ago

I don’t know, money and position in a stratified social power structure are not strong indicators of intelligence

[-] mPony@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago

This is why The French invented things.

[-] n0m4n@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago

Why is there a presumption of immunity? Even when there is clear self-serving corruption, the presumption of immunity takes precedence. This will go down in history as an abysmally bad decision.

[-] MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk 35 points 3 days ago

Can't a man undermine democracy in peace now?

[-] originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee 213 points 4 days ago

He’s not serious. Roberts is an arch conservative and has been for a long time. This is posturing to try and paint himself as a moderate, like he has been doing since before he was appointed to the bench. Fuck him.

[-] karashta@lemm.ee 92 points 4 days ago

"You mean my radical and insane interpretations of the law are insane and radical?".

Yeah, he fucking knows and is a piece of shit like the rest of these disingenuous monsters

[-] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago

He’s just not as confident in the shoot-the-moon approach that the rest of the fascists are using to try and take/keep power.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 days ago

I would be worried to if I had just given the president immunity for all official acts. Example of a worrisome formula: Biden + official act + seal team 6 + corrupt supreme court judges = no need to pack the court to give it a liberal majority.

[-] leadore@lemmy.world 59 points 3 days ago

Maybe this columnist thinks he's "shaken", but I doubt it. The reason he acted in a more moderate way before was that the Christian Nationalist justices didn't have a strong majority and the ability to impose their agenda with impunity. The minute they had a 6-3 majority, he knew they could do whatever they wanted, and they have.

The only thing we can do about it now is elect as many Dems as possible to the House and Senate and pressure them to impose term limits and expand the Court, things that should have been done a long time ago.

And please, regardless of whether you think your vote for POTUS will count, vote anyway and fill out your full ballot because you have much more influence on your State legislature and local offices, which is where so many things that affect your life are decided.

[-] KnitWit@lemmy.world 26 points 3 days ago

Every single time the SC does something outrageous some version of this article comes out proclaiming his deep held belief in justice and whatever else. And every time it is complete bullshit.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 days ago

pressure them to impose term limits and expand the Court

No amount of voting will implement this pressure. This has been the chronic problem: electoral victories don't translate into pressure for any given policy.

[-] leadore@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Who said electoral victories translate into pressure for a given policy? Voting them into office gets them to where they have power and can then be pressured to wield it for our benefit, which is a different type of political action than an election. Voting in elections is how you try to get people who are closest to the values you're looking for into office--and the primaries are as important as the general for that.

Organizing around an issue, speaking out with meetings, in the media, with protests, etc., calling attention and building up support for a cause--all those things exert pressure on elected officials. Read about movements in American history -- the civil rights movement, women's liberation, etc. and BTW you want to know a movement that was very effective? The fucking Tea Party movement, which led to the maga takeover of the republican party.

For some reason (lack of proper civics education in schools is part of the problem), people have this simplistic idea that all they have to do is go vote for a president every four years, get pissed that they don't like the choices, and assume that the POTUS is supposed to somehow magically fix everything, not understanding the other branches of government involved, and when it doesn't happen fast enough or at all, they get pissed and either vote for someone else or give up and don't vote or fall for a populist conman or get violent or whatever. That's not how it works!

No wonder we're where we are today. I'm sick of even talking about it any more. If people refuse to educate themselves about how our system of government is supposed to work and act accordingly then it's over, and we as a country deserve to fall into the fascism brought to us by the people who did make the effort to figure out how to achieve their agenda and went out and did it.

[-] ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago

I guess what I mean is uncritical votes for Democrats across the House and Senate doesn't guarantee any pressure. Shit that is probably the most viable arena for third party candidates or at least candidates caucusing on a specific policy issue that people get behind, especially during primaries for each and every cycle.

Maybe I'm just being salty because my entire downballot this year is all Democrats running on working with Republicans and Republicans running on working against the Democrats.

One democrat in my old district is literally running on opposing Biden and helping Republicans with the southern border. My state borders Canada.

[-] sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Biden was very specific that he was against expanding the court, and Harris is taking up every single policy position Biden did, so we can probably take this up again in 4-8 years.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 121 points 4 days ago

Unexpected? How the fuck is backlash about a ruling saying the President is above the law unexpected?

[-] Myxomatosis@lemmy.world 67 points 4 days ago

For real. He’s either being completely disingenuous or he’s really that much of an oblivious asshole.

[-] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 37 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Unbelievably, he managed to underestimate the political awareness of the US public to his office. The bar was already on the floor.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] resin85@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

This is a complete sanewashing article... Roberts read all the dissents, he knew exactly what he was doing. Putting Trump above the law.

[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 27 points 4 days ago

Exactly. How can he claim to be shocked when the dissent told him why he's a monster? Dude is a liar.

[-] Omodi@lemmy.world 16 points 4 days ago

He has gotten away with it for along time.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 48 points 3 days ago

You mean the one where he ruled that the United States has a government of men, and not of laws?

[-] tacosanonymous@lemm.ee 90 points 4 days ago

He doesn’t fear enough.

Assuming I believe anything he says in the first place. We are so divided that he won’t see consequences.

Tbh I’m low-key waiting for someone to try taking a shot at one or more members of the Tribunal of Six. They’re so obviously standing in the way of progress in so many ways. They’re only appointed for life, after all. Someone’s going to take advantage of the darker side of that statement at some point. Roberts and his ilk should be scared.

[-] IMongoose@lemmy.world 30 points 4 days ago

Ya, idk why people are surprised about the consequences of one party trying its damnedest to make the last box of liberty the only protected box. Like, what did they expect?

[-] djsoren19@yiffit.net 14 points 4 days ago

It's honestly wild that two people have tried to take a shot at Trump first. Trump's just a useful idiot to these fuckers, the real assholes that are destroying our country are the ones on the Supreme Court.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 96 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

He should be. There is no way that the constitution had immunity in mind for the president. George Washington would be flipping some tables in the supreme court if he was alive.

The fact that the Supreme Court gave themselves the ability to effectively unilaterally write federal laws with Marbury v Madison was already massively overstepping bounds and the concept of checks and balances.

We need to overturn Marbury v Madison.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] EvilBit@lemmy.world 56 points 4 days ago

I don’t want him feeling “shaken”. I want him to know, deep down, undeniably to the very core of his soul, that he is a blight on humanity. He is devoid of honor and value by any moral measure. His existence on earth and in this society has done vastly more harm than good and humanity would have been better off if he had never been born. I want him to wake up every day and feel that more deeply and truly than he can feel his own breathing.

Then the rest of the list, too: Trump, Mitch McConnell, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity. Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Barrett. Gym Jordan, Mike Johnson. Steve Miller, the list goes on and on. Selfish monsters that I only wish knew how little they deserve the lives they live.

[-] sue_me_please@awful.systems 2 points 2 days ago

They know it and get off on being evil.

[-] SARGE@startrek.website 48 points 4 days ago

I really want someone to press one of these people on camera.

"Donald Trump has promised at multiple rallies to end the democratic process by eliminating the need to vote, and this is extremely dangerous to our democracy, therefore it is an official act of the office e of the president to order a hit on DJT, Seal teams 3 and 5 are en-route now. Such an act is official, and necessary for the country to survive therefore Joe Biden is completely immune from any prosecution."

I just want to know for sure what the reaction would be. I'm sure pearl clutching indignation (because someone thought of their idea but flipped the victims around)

[-] quink@lemmy.ml 20 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

It's really a situation that ought to resolve itself. If the justices vote anything as an official act is perfectly legal, then threaten those justices that voted that way with violence, assassination, nothing is off the table apparently as long as it's an official act, and reverse that decision with the remaining justices, done and dusted.

I really don't see the problem here. It's all been declared perfectly legal, nothing is off the table, it sends a strong message that this democracy will be maintained by whatever means necessary, and that as long as the president is Democrat at least, then any attempt at an all powerful king or Führer will automatically undo itself. An abrogation of power done through wielding that very power itself would be a beautiful thing to behold.

In fact, the Supreme Court justices would make a better target than Trump himself even. Trump is a political rival and it could be argued that it's Biden supporting the election of a candidate from his own party. Meanwhile targetting the Supreme Court justices would be defending basic democracy, fighting for the freedom from a despotic tyrant - the very supposed foundation of the country we're talking about, changing the composition of the Supreme Court and weakening the powers of the presidency itself, which definitely sounds like official acts rather than those of a candidate or private individual.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago

Oh he’s shocked everyone else doesn’t suck trump dick?

[-] Myxomatosis@lemmy.world 42 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Boo hoo, fucking cry baby. Corrupt SCOTUS is too insulated from their terrible decisions.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 33 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Good. He deserves all of it for making such an obviously partisan and foolish ruling.

If anything he should be saying this more often, considering some of the other terrible decisions that have come out of his court.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 23 points 4 days ago

Shaken?

And?

He will forget about it quickly. Until it comes back to haunt him. Then he will engage in mental gymnastics to justify it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 14 points 3 days ago

What this says to me is that he and other members of his majority live in a kind of bubble.

What this says to me is a veteran reporter covering the SCROTUS is just now realizing this.

[-] NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 20 points 4 days ago

I'm kind of okay with it. Nobody is doing more to advocate for and bring awareness to the need to expand the Supreme Court right now than this fucking guy.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 13 points 3 days ago

Won't somebody think of the oligarchy!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
377 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19043 readers
3351 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS