this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2024
599 points (99.5% liked)

News

23310 readers
3549 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Chief justice reportedly took unusually active role in three recent supreme court decisions centering on Trump

John Roberts Jr used his position as the US supreme court’s chief justice to urge his colleagues to rule quickly – and in favor – of Donald Trump ahead of the decision that granted him and other presidents immunity for official acts, according to a New York Times investigation published on Sunday.

The new report provides details about what was happening behind the scenes in the country’s highest court during the three recent supreme court decisions centering on – and generally favoring – the Republican former president.

Based on leaked memos, documentation of the proceedings, and interviews with court insiders, the Times report suggests that Roberts – who was appointed to the supreme court during Republican George W Bush’s presidency – took an unusually active role in the three cases in question. And he wrote the majority opinions on all three.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 204 points 1 month ago (4 children)

"Small government!" cries the Republican party, while trying to grant the president unprecedented levels of power.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 month ago (2 children)

In fairness, one single person seems like a pretty small government

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago

That’s always been the meaning.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lord Vetinari, from Terry Pratchett's Discworld

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah but arguably only works cos they've got a Vimes though aven't they?

You've for your Vetinaris, sure, but it all only really hangs together -only works- because you've got your Vimes too, see. And Dibblers, probly.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

It all works because it's fantasy my friend

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The pardon power is explicitly given to the president by the Constitution. Therefore it's a core power with absolute immunity.

The president is also given the clear authority to direct his subordinates in the executive branch as the "chief Executive." The SCOTUS has ruled that the president has almost unfettered power to hire/fire/order anyone in the federal government to do just about anything he wants with no restrictions.

So logically:

  1. The president can order an agency head to issue a new rule that's probably unconstitutional.
  2. Someone sues in a district court to block it.
  3. A court issues an injunction preventing its enforcement.
  4. The agency head ignores the court order and enforces it anyway.
  5. The court finds the agency head and/or other employees of the agency in contempt for violating the injunction.
  6. The president pardons anyone subject to the injunction (and this pardon power is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution or investigation).
  7. The rule goes into effect and gets enforced despite being enjoined by a federal court.
  8. We now have a constitutional crisis because courts no longer have any way to check on the Executive because the president can simply neutralize any criminal penalties with a pardon even if that pardon is clearly issued as part of a conspiracy to violate a court order.

I guarantee this is not what the Framers envisioned or wanted, but this is what "conservative" judicial extremists on the SCOTUS have given us. Although I would be entirely unsurprised if they decided to roll this power back somehow if ever a Democratic president were to wield it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I would argue that this sort of logical path wouldn’t be too shocking for the founders and they would just count on civility or elections to keep this from happening. The executive pardon itself is a fairly indefensible and corruption-facilitating loophole in the justice system.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  1. The president orders the Attorney General to enforce rules that favor his re-election. The rules are clearly unconstitutional.
  2. Someone sues in a district court to block it.
  3. ...

You can see where this goes. Sadly, the founders weren't nearly as clever and cynical as they needed to be to spot these exploits.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

My guess is they figured if someone got to far out of line president would be forcibly removed and the constitution ammended. At the time 1 person didn't have the ability to command armys across the world. Communications were by horse. You could likely take out the president with minimal effort if you wanted as the secret service didn't exist yet either.

Send a boat out to deliver people to attack a fort in oppenents land. 2 days later an emissary delivers a surrender... Oops, you can't catch the boat nor notify them on any other manner, weeks after a peace treaty is signed, people are are attacked by the people they surrendered too.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

They did. They just had too much faith in people in government doing the right thing.

I didn't think you could even pardon contempt, but apparently Trump pardoned Arpaio's criminal contempt charge, and it stuck. There's a long discussion with a bunch of history here: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/in-print-2/volume-18-number-1-winter-2020/can-a-presidential-pardon-trump-an-article-iii-courts-criminal-contempt-conviction-a-separation-of-powers-analysis-of-president-trumps-pardon-of-sheriff-joe-arpaio/

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Though, he's got small hands so what could he possibly do? /s

[–] [email protected] 115 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Since the Roe v Wade verdict was leaked, I feel like the media has been glossing over the revelation that there's just as much wheeling and dealing in the Supreme Court as in any of the other branches.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It's still just humans. Did you really expect otherwise?

[–] [email protected] 74 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think most people actually do.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 month ago

And they should.

[–] [email protected] 87 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I hate this unitary executive bullshit

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yeah but if you unify the government into one person, you could then technically drown that person in a bathtub, q.e.d. small government. Checkmate libruls!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Seems people have certainly been trying.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

Yeah latest guy seems like a "don't tread on me" libertarian based purely on vibes, so that checks out

[–] [email protected] 58 points 1 month ago

“We fight tyranny!” Republicans say while giving presidents immunity.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago

So what you're saying is that Roberts is the orange idiot's little butt boy?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

Did he at least get an ~~RV~~ motor-coach out of it?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Wonder what the kompromat on Roberts is.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Isn't that only like $20? :one quick google search later: It's like $110k.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

That's not even quality RV money...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

10M rubles is $109,646.47

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago

Awesome! Maybe we should do something about…

Oh yeah, we can’t.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

Oh, is this the same guy that gives the commencement speech "I wish you bad luck"? I quite liked that speech but not so on this decision.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago