He’s the driving force behind all the Trump decisions last term
Any thoughts anyone ever had that Chief Justice John Roberts was the moderate consensus builder on the court should be thrown right into the rubbish bin. According to a new shocking NY Times expose, it is Roberts who pushed the three big decisions protecting Trump from accountability for his crimes.
It’s long but I urge you to read the whole thing. Here is a gift link.
An excerpt:
Last February, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sent his eight Supreme Court colleagues a confidential memo that radiated frustration and certainty.
Former President Donald J. Trump, seeking to retake the White House, had made a bold, last-ditch appeal to the justices. He wanted them to block his fast-approaching criminal trial on charges of attempting to overturn the 2020 election, arguing that he was protected by presidential immunity. Whatever move the court made could have lasting consequences for the next election, the scope of presidential power and the court’s own battered reputation.
The chief justice’s Feb. 22 memo, jump-starting the justices’ formal discussion on whether to hear the case, offered a scathing critique of a lower-court decision and a startling preview of how the high court would later rule, according to several people from the court who saw the document.
The chief justice tore into the appellate court opinion greenlighting Mr. Trump’s trial, calling it inadequate and poorly reasoned. On one key point, he complained, the lower court judges “failed to grapple with the most difficult questions altogether.” He wrote not only that the Supreme Court should take the case — which would stall the trial — but also how the justices should decide it
“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently” from the appeals court, he wrote. In other words: grant Mr. Trump greater protection from prosecution.
In a momentous trio of Jan. 6-related cases last term, the court found itself more entangled in presidential politics than at any time since the 2000 election, even as it was contending with its own controversies related to that day. The chief justice responded by deploying his authority to steer rulings that benefited Mr. Trump, according to a New York Times examination that uncovered extensive new information about the court’s decision making.
The Times got access to “private memos, documentation of the proceedings and interviews with court insiders, both conservative and liberal” who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Roberts wrote the majority opinion in all three cases including the unsigned order that forbade Colorado from removing Trump from the ballot. And apparently he gave took the majority opinion in Fischer (the one that said prosecutors couldn’t bring obstruction charges against some of the J6 insurrectionists) to from Alito after it was reported that his wingnut wife Martha Ann had been flying an upside down flag after January 6th. My God. (Oops, I misread that part originally. It’s still weird.)
And Roberts insisted, over the objections of even some of the conservatives, that the immunity case be held before the election, siding with the liberals. But once he got the vote he basically told the liberals to pound sand, There would be no compromise with them to try to form a consensus which partially explains the level of anger in Sotomayor’s dissent.
He seems to be a tad delusional:
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.
WTF??? He really thought that heinous opinion would persuade the public? Good lord, these people are in a more secure bubble than even the most delirious Fox News viewer.
Despite the chief justice’s reputation as a methodical craftsman, many experts, both conservative and liberal, say he produced a disjointed, tough-to-interpret opinion.
“It’s a strange, sprawling opinion,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and a former clerk to the chief justice. “It’s hard to tell what exactly it is trying to do.”
Others said the ruling was untethered from the law. “It’s certainly not really tied to the Constitution,” said Stephen R. McAllister, a law professor at University of Kansas and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.
But inside the court, some members of the majority had complimented the chief justice even as they requested changes. Two days after the chief justice circulated his first draft in June, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh responded to what he called an “extraordinary opinion.”In a final flourish, he wrote, “Thank you again for your exceptional work.” Soon afterward, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch added another superlative: “I join Brett in thanking you for your remarkable work.”
Sounds like a Trump cabinet meeting.
Read the whole thing, It’s clear that the Chief and his five wingnuts are just going for it. It’s worse than we thought.