The Meidas Touch just posted a video that brings up an interesting point that relates to this case.
At the debate, Trump said that he has no responsibility for the J6 attacks because he was solely there to give a speech.
Doesn’t that undermine his claim for immunity in this case, since by his own admission, he wasn’t there in any official presidential capacity?
As I understand it, the immunity exists for something that the president does in his official capacity. It seems like he’s admitting to this not being in the scope of his official duties.
Of course, with this SCOTUS, that argument may not hold water.
Is this a bombshell like it seems or not? Seems a big deal to me although I don’t think anything can be done about it:
The Supreme Court was hit by a flurry of damaging new leaks Sunday as a series of confidential memos written by the chief justice were revealed by The New York Times.
The court’s Chief Justice John Roberts was clear to his fellow justices in February: He wanted the court to take up a case weighing Donald Trump’s right to presidential immunity—and he seemed inclined to protect the former president.
In his writings on the immunity case, the chief justice seemed confident that his arguments would soar above politics, persuade the public, and stand the test of time. His opinion cited “enduring principles,” quoted Alexander Hamilton’s endorsement of a vigorous presidency, and asserted it would be a mistake to dwell too much on Mr. Trump’s actions. “In a case like this one, focusing on ‘transient results’ may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic,” he wrote. “Our perspective must be more farsighted.”
But the public response to the decision, announced in July on the final day of the term, was nothing like what his lofty phrases seemed to anticipate.
Both conservatives and liberals saw it as an epic win for Mr. Trump.
I feel the same but I am pretty sure he is immune from consequence.
I once read that Roberts did care about his court’s legacy but I no longer think that at all. He has power and an agenda and he will work for his own agenda. Supreme Court legacy be damned.
The longer the Roberts court continues, the greater my impression that whatever his level of intelligence as a reasoner of legal opinion, outside that narrow context he’s really kind of a dummy.
I hate how Discourse does this, that when you quote a quote from within a quote, it attributes the quote to the person who made the post rather than leaving it as a quoted part of a post.
But exactly, that part of Roberts’ ruling is so stupid.
I literally just had this happen to me. I quoted someone in another thread that was quoting Vance. Imagine my horror when I realized I almost put Vance’s words in another doper’s mouth.
You know, it could be both. I’m of the opinion (and only that) that he did, historically care about the court and legacy, but as all things touched by Trump, he turned to shit. I think a large part of his care for legacy was the pre-Trump/MAGA Republican idea that it was better to make slower, incremental changes because “certainly the idiots at the base won’t support it” but as Trump proved that not only would they (against their own interests in many cases) they’d do it with enthusiasm as long as they felt it was hurting their enemies.
And so, he and his ilk felt less and less accountable to legacy or the future, and are increasingly pushing hard to force their agenda through.
TL:DR - both points aren’t mutually exclusive, just that the motivations and opportunities have changed as Trump has changed (for the worse) the expectations of the electorate.
I put the extra “>” to indicate that it was a quote within your quote. I could have added more text to further clarify (sometimes I do), but I thought this was clear enough. I’m okay with the way Discourse handles this.
Sorry, but as someone who watches the Supreme Court very closely, I must disagree. Virtually every ruling made since he’s been on the bench furthers the objectives of Project 2025 and the Federalist Society, starting with Citizens United and McCutcheon. He sometimes dialed it back when Dems were in charge (ACA ruling, e.g.), but on the whole, he’s done exactly as he was programmed to do.
Let’s not get too far into this in this thread as a matter of general discussion. If you want to start a separate thread to go deeper, please do.
Oh, I don’t blame you in the least for Discourse’s idiosyncrasies. It’s just one of those things that drives me nuts. People do get confused. Very hard to fix, too.
(Quote was from NYT, reproduced in Aspenglow’s post)
There was another chief justice who thought very similarly about a case that his court took up - who thought that by taking up a contentious case, they would be writing a “law for the ages.” So he went further in his decision than the law and the case before him required.
That chief justice was Roger B. Taney. The case was Scott v. Sandford. And it went very bad for him, and for the court, and for the country.
Former Mesa County clerk Tina Peters was sentenced to nine years in prison for leading a security breach of the county’s election system after being inspired by false and baseless claims of voting fraud.
Peters was convicted for giving an individual affiliated with MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell, an ally of former President Donald Trump, access to the election software she used for her county. Screenshots of the software appeared on right-wing websites.
My favourite quote: “ I’m not a criminal and I don’t deserve to go into a prison where other people have committed heinous crimes," Peters said.
