"Chief Justice John Roberts, writing in his majority opinion, appeared to argue that the liberal justices overreacted to the court's decision in their dissents. 'As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today,' Roberts wrote."
"Chief Justice John Roberts, writing in his majority opinion, appeared to argue that the liberal justices overreacted to the court's decision in their dissents. 'As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today,' Roberts wrote."
Rather ironic and telling that Chief Justice Roberts shows more concern over the tenor of dissents from his liberal justices, and not a single solitary chirp ever about the rampant ethics and appearances of impropriety, from some of his conservative justices....
And he wonders why Americans have lost faith in both him and this court....
Unfortunately I can show you millions of rabid Americans who just gained newfound respect and admiration for the Sinister Six (a moniker I would've found a bit hyperbolic prior to this morning's ruling).
Criticizing another opinion in the same case is as normal as it gets for the Supreme Court. Criticizing another justice for what they have done outside of the court is unheard of. Plus, Roberts is not their boss. They are answerable only to the Congress, which has impeachment power.
Here's the problem. The guy explicitly says that his conversations with DOJ cannot even be used as *evidence* against him. This is where ACB smacked him down, but of course, that wasn't enough (as an aside, I've been kind of impressed with her lately).
Anyway, it's one thing to declare something like this when it's all just hypotheticals. But he says this *knowing* that his conversations with DOJ contain *clear evidence* of corrupt intent, and that removing them would eliminate a key piece of evidence. So apparently, even though policing state elections has absolutely nothing to do with a president's constitutional responsibilities, and even though the conversations include evidence of him stepping outside the boundaries of his duties, that stuff is unadmissable.
Which, apparently, means that any discussions he has with officials regarding taking action which, for anyone else, would be a clear violation of the law, are inadmissible as evidence against a President.
So it seems to me that Jack Smith's mission, should he be allowed to continue, is clear: prosecute *everyone else* to the hilt. Show the American people the Trump sized hole in the law where a President would be answering to the people if his corrupt jurists hadn't bailed him out. Let everyone know that if you help a president commit a crime, it will be *your ass* on the line, while he can play with house money.
Of course, then there's the Presidential pardon to worry about ...
I suppose Roberts is thinking that "official acts" is sufficiently narrow and no one would ever challenge the difference between an official and unofficial act.
For those of us in the normal universe, we understand that sleazy expresidents will litigate it until the court rules that the Constitution didn't clearly spell out the difference, so everything is an official act. We just got there about 10 years earlier than him...the mook.
He's lived through the past 8 years and witnessed everything we have. I cut him zero slack. The Federalist Society believes in a Unitary and all-powerful Executive, and they have put forth the justices for nomination that will support that....
"Chief Justice John Roberts, writing in his majority opinion, appeared to argue that the liberal justices overreacted to the court's decision in their dissents. 'As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today,' Roberts wrote."
Rather ironic and telling that Chief Justice Roberts shows more concern over the tenor of dissents from his liberal justices, and not a single solitary chirp ever about the rampant ethics and appearances of impropriety, from some of his conservative justices....
And he wonders why Americans have lost faith in both him and this court....
Unfortunately I can show you millions of rabid Americans who just gained newfound respect and admiration for the Sinister Six (a moniker I would've found a bit hyperbolic prior to this morning's ruling).
Criticizing another opinion in the same case is as normal as it gets for the Supreme Court. Criticizing another justice for what they have done outside of the court is unheard of. Plus, Roberts is not their boss. They are answerable only to the Congress, which has impeachment power.
Here's the problem. The guy explicitly says that his conversations with DOJ cannot even be used as *evidence* against him. This is where ACB smacked him down, but of course, that wasn't enough (as an aside, I've been kind of impressed with her lately).
Anyway, it's one thing to declare something like this when it's all just hypotheticals. But he says this *knowing* that his conversations with DOJ contain *clear evidence* of corrupt intent, and that removing them would eliminate a key piece of evidence. So apparently, even though policing state elections has absolutely nothing to do with a president's constitutional responsibilities, and even though the conversations include evidence of him stepping outside the boundaries of his duties, that stuff is unadmissable.
Which, apparently, means that any discussions he has with officials regarding taking action which, for anyone else, would be a clear violation of the law, are inadmissible as evidence against a President.
So it seems to me that Jack Smith's mission, should he be allowed to continue, is clear: prosecute *everyone else* to the hilt. Show the American people the Trump sized hole in the law where a President would be answering to the people if his corrupt jurists hadn't bailed him out. Let everyone know that if you help a president commit a crime, it will be *your ass* on the line, while he can play with house money.
Of course, then there's the Presidential pardon to worry about ...
It's breathtaking.
I suppose Roberts is thinking that "official acts" is sufficiently narrow and no one would ever challenge the difference between an official and unofficial act.
For those of us in the normal universe, we understand that sleazy expresidents will litigate it until the court rules that the Constitution didn't clearly spell out the difference, so everything is an official act. We just got there about 10 years earlier than him...the mook.
He's lived through the past 8 years and witnessed everything we have. I cut him zero slack. The Federalist Society believes in a Unitary and all-powerful Executive, and they have put forth the justices for nomination that will support that....
A king.
And so, also a dynasty.
"I hearby declare Don Jr will be the next POTUS." Or even, "President Trump's last official act was to declare Florida independent of the U. S."