Originally published at: One Awful Part Of Supreme Court Immunity Decision Proves Bridge Too Far For Barrett
Justice Amy Coney Barrett broke with her conservative peers Monday on a part of the majority opinion that will kneecap prosecutors’ ability to make criminal cases against former presidents. The parts she joined with already made that task very difficult: The majority, including Barrett, walled off conduct umbrellaed under a president’s ill-defined “core constitutional powers”…
Under the Supreme Courts ruling, what restrains President Joe Biden from having Trump shot?
Just saying.
10 Likes
My anxiety is off the charts today.
18 Likes
I used to think Roberts was the most likely of the fascists to side with the honorable three justices on occasional issues (his legacy, you know). I no longer think that. Surprisingly it’s the handmaiden who seems to have the integrity to make admittedly infrequent ventures into judicial sanity.
20 Likes
Chief Pirate Roberts, no matter how much he loves to pretend (in the full sense of the word) to high-minded impartiality, has taken the low road of partisan political advantage over and over and over again. His legacy is really no longer up for serious debate at this point. He is the Roger Taney of our time.
ACB taught constitutional law at Notre Dame, and it’s just possible that she might actually know (and care) about it, at least a bit.
9 Likes
“Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.
13 Likes
But she’s a member of a religious cult, and she was elevated to her position by that cult, in coordination with the giant Kochtopus conspiracy, to advance that cult’s goals.
Given that the bedrock principles of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are about freedom of conscience, which is universally regarded as an impediment to the spread of cults, she won’t be our ally.
A king of the right religion is better than a tolerant President, in their view.
9 Likes
I think this is what you could call the judicial equivalent of an evidentiary Catch-22. Its crazy-making and its designed on purpose to be laden with trip wires should any prosecutor try to submit material that points to proof of guilt. Seems to me that the evidence could even be thrown out of court by a not so impartial judge sympathetic to the accused. In other words, its ties the hands of prosecutors to carry out their case against a president accused of a criminal act, and reduces it in some cases to supposition and hearsay without the supporting documents or witnesses. Just an awful decision from start to finish.
10 Likes
AKA : bad faith right out in the open.
they have a fascist wish list all queued up. we are really in for it now. we have been in for it for a long time but now it’s undeniable.
something I don’t remotely understand: what does this mean that Biden has rein for at the moment, that he didn’t before, and will we see him use this?
7 Likes
The Constitution has always meant what five Justices say it means, nothing more, nothing less. The only difference is this Court has really perverse interpretations, overly broad in some contexts (e.g., the free exercise of religion; right to bear arms), exceedingly narrow in others (e.g., no implied right of privacy), all tailored to fit its political ideology. The comedy hit of the year, "this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” closed after its opening night off-Broadway.
9 Likes
Nailed it.
These jerks were hired because they favor perverse interpretations but were willing to pretend for decades that they had mainstream views.
They are sleeper agents, properly so-called.
4 Likes
Several other Justices are commonly suspected to be members of the cult known as Opus Dei, so Barrett has fellow travelers in her divine quest for the right theocracy.
3 Likes
She’s too smart for the role that she’s been put in, and this will cause her no end of mental anguish. I almost feel sorry for her. I don’t, but I almost do.
4 Likes
Republicans don’t want to live in a Republic
6 Likes
Rich people don’t like how America turned out – too many rules against predation.
They decided to burn it all down so they can start over on their terms.
They don’t care about all the other people – hapless marks – who live here. They bought a handful of stooges to set fire to the place, and promised them room on the lifeboat.
13 Likes
He was that for a whiie, sometimes (even if only for his “legacy”). It feels like, since the Dobbs ruling was leaked (to bring him in line?), he’s stopped.
3 Likes
Chief Pirate Roberts! Well, he does wear black…
He seemed to try to fig-leaf or “moderate” the rulings at times, I think honestly for his future image. But this has all reminded me that he headed up the execrable Citizens United decision, which in substantive ways brought us to where we are today. That should be his “legacy.”
12 Likes
I have the impression that the cult hampers her on some issues (abortion! “Just do your nine!”) more than others. But even if that’s true, it doesn’t help a lot. Kate Riga suggests this divergence might provide a little hope for Jack Smith – but it’s hard to tell, what with all the deliberate murkiness.
1 Like
My anxiety has left our solar system and is chasing Voyager.
10 Likes
I think we can all agree, though, that Mitch McConnell needs to burn in hell.
21 Likes