Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has been left “shaken” by the unexpected public reaction to his ruling in the Donald Trumppresidential immunity case, a columnist wrote Friday.

Slate’s judicial writer Dahlia Lithwick wrote that Roberts was left shocked that Americans didn’t buy his attempt to persuade them that his ruling was not about Trump, but instead focused on the office of the presidency. The court ruled that a president was largely immune from criminal prosecution for official actions.

Lithwick referenced a report by CNN’s Joan Biskupic. He “was shaken by the adverse public reaction to his decision affording [Donald] Trump substantial immunity from criminal prosecution," she wrote.

"His protestations that the case concerned the presidency, not Trump, held little currency.”

  • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    216
    ·
    1 month ago

    He’s not serious. Roberts is an arch conservative and has been for a long time. This is posturing to try and paint himself as a moderate, like he has been doing since before he was appointed to the bench. Fuck him.

    • karashta@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      92
      ·
      1 month ago

      “You mean my radical and insane interpretations of the law are insane and radical?”.

      Yeah, he fucking knows and is a piece of shit like the rest of these disingenuous monsters

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        30 days ago

        He’s just not as confident in the shoot-the-moon approach that the rest of the fascists are using to try and take/keep power.

    • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      How could he possibly have been surprised by the response? They are with 9 judges. Three vehemently disagreed with the ruling and even Barret partially disagreed. It’s not like he was looking for some compromise ruling that all judges signed onto. Pathetic reporting.

      • krashmo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        None of that is true in any way. They are a relevant, useful, very much still in use, tool for conservatives to undermine democracy. I don’t understand why you chose a single one of those descriptors.

  • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    125
    ·
    1 month ago

    Unexpected? How the fuck is backlash about a ruling saying the President is above the law unexpected?

    • Myxomatosis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      ·
      1 month ago

      For real. He’s either being completely disingenuous or he’s really that much of an oblivious asshole.

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Unbelievably, he managed to underestimate the political awareness of the US public to his office. The bar was already on the floor.

      • Vanon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I can only imagine the kind of impenetrable bubble this extremely small, privileged group of people live in. Especially after a decade or more.

        Making up (increasingly unprecedented) rules that 1/3 of a billion people must live by. With no possible repercussions for corruption, incoherence, anything. We should’ve been very careful who we added to this court. Extremist christian fascists using a useful idiot to replace over 1/3 of court (so far!) is a nuclear bomb waiting to explode.

    • Zombiepirate@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 month ago

      Exactly. How can he claim to be shocked when the dissent told him why he’s a monster? Dude is a liar.

      • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        30 days ago

        Trump was an epiphany for the right wingers that no one is really held to account and our checks and balances systems barely work at all, while also shielding government officials from public lawsuits. The Leahy laws are being broken to the extreme right now and no one cares in congress, which is the only body empowered to question the president’s actions in any way. and you can do crazy crimes in congress and you wont get voted out. Your own party will always clear you of it.

    • resin85@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      This is a complete sanewashing article… Roberts read all the dissents, he knew exactly what he was doing. Putting Trump above the law.

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Because every 8th grade civics course says the same thing. You punish Presidents with impeachment.

      • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Yeah, no. That’s an 8th grade understanding of the concept where you never learned anything after.

        Impeachment has nothing to do with whether actions are legal or illegal, and has nothing to do with criminal charges. Impeachment is a political process with the ultimate result being removal from office.

        Impeachment and removal from office does not mean they would go to jail, it is not a criminal trial. It literally just removes the person from office.

        Prior to this decision, Presidential acts could still be prosecuted if they were criminal, DOJ policy just meant that a sitting president wouldn’t be charged.

        This Supreme Court decided that anything the President does, even if it is clearly and overtly illegal, but done as part of the Presidential duties, is inherently immune from prosecution.

        • mwguy@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Impeachment is a political process with the ultimate result being removal from office.

          And potentially the removal of that person’s ability to ever run for office again.

          Impeachment and removal from office does not mean they would go to jail, it is not a criminal trial.

          Yes, that’s the design. Because it’s not an “impartial” process but a political one. And because only 40 or so people have been given that protection, it makes perfect sense.

          That’s an 8th grade understanding of the concept where you never learned anything after.

          The 8th grade understanding is the correct one. As confirmed by SCOTUS.

          Remember the DOJ reports to the President. A process where you’re either suppose to investigate your boss or investigate your Boss’s political allies/opponents would be way to open for abuse.

          Trump can be prosecuted for what he did before the Presidency (as is being done in New York) and for what he has and will do after the Presidency (should he run back J6 part deuce). But for crimes committed while President impeachment is counterbalance.

          • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            The 8th grade understanding is the correct one. As confirmed by SCOTUS.

            The SCOTUS that made that decision via a majority run by a political party actively trying to speedrun a fascist takeover of the country. The decision was made specifically to protect a twice impeached Republican who stole thousands of classified documents when he left office.

            The current SCORUS is clearly filled with partisan hacks and they’ve thrown out any attempt at hiding that fact now.

            Clearly that wasn’t the thought process decades ago before this hyper partisan court. Nixon was explicitly pardoned to avoid prosecution for his crimes. So obviously the idea that the President had blanket immunity wasn’t a fucking thing.

            • mwguy@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              30 days ago

              Nixon was explicitly pardoned to avoid prosecution for his crimes.

              Congress didn’t have to stop the impeachment of Nixon. They chose too because Nixon agreed to never run for office again.

              If we want that to change we need an Amendment that established an Independent, non-partisan Prosecutor whose job it is to prosecute Presidents and former Presidents.

  • MyOpinion@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    98
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    He should be. There is no way that the constitution had immunity in mind for the president. George Washington would be flipping some tables in the supreme court if he was alive.

    • Refurbished Refurbisher@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      The fact that the Supreme Court gave themselves the ability to effectively unilaterally write federal laws with Marbury v Madison was already massively overstepping bounds and the concept of checks and balances.

      We need to overturn Marbury v Madison.

  • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    92
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    He doesn’t fear enough.

    Assuming I believe anything he says in the first place. We are so divided that he won’t see consequences.

    • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Tbh I’m low-key waiting for someone to try taking a shot at one or more members of the Tribunal of Six. They’re so obviously standing in the way of progress in so many ways. They’re only appointed for life, after all. Someone’s going to take advantage of the darker side of that statement at some point. Roberts and his ilk should be scared.

      • djsoren19@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s honestly wild that two people have tried to take a shot at Trump first. Trump’s just a useful idiot to these fuckers, the real assholes that are destroying our country are the ones on the Supreme Court.

      • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        30 days ago

        funny thing, it doesnt say explicitely in the constitution that justices are lifetime appointments. Its more of a tradition. Biden or Harris could tell the Office of personnel that theres a madatory retirement age for all federal employees, and see if it gets overthrown. The justices cant be plaintiffs and judge in their own case.

  • Wrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Shaken?! SHAKEN?

    Like like the women of America were shaken when their rights to bodily autonomy were taken from them?

    Or like when the American people were shaken when they discovered that our nation’s checks and balanced were completely corrupted? That they will do nothing to stop a dictatorship and the end of democracy?

    Or shaken by the knowledge that the highest court in the country is colluding with the lower courts to bring specific cases through the appeals systems so they can make predetermined rulings, effectively writing their own laws and subverting the basic foundation of law in our country?

    Shaken. Yeah, go fuck yourself Roberts.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      When I hear shaken I think of a teenage fanfic author when someone disregards the potential of the hypothetical love triangle they invented between characters the author clearly intended not to be in one.

  • leadore@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Maybe this columnist thinks he’s “shaken”, but I doubt it. The reason he acted in a more moderate way before was that the Christian Nationalist justices didn’t have a strong majority and the ability to impose their agenda with impunity. The minute they had a 6-3 majority, he knew they could do whatever they wanted, and they have.

    The only thing we can do about it now is elect as many Dems as possible to the House and Senate and pressure them to impose term limits and expand the Court, things that should have been done a long time ago.

    And please, regardless of whether you think your vote for POTUS will count, vote anyway and fill out your full ballot because you have much more influence on your State legislature and local offices, which is where so many things that affect your life are decided.

    • KnitWit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Every single time the SC does something outrageous some version of this article comes out proclaiming his deep held belief in justice and whatever else. And every time it is complete bullshit.

      • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s like some journalists fucking fanfic desperately wishing that these people’s consciouses are eating them up inside. Meanwhile they go home to their mansions and continue to happily live their comfortable lives. It’s not even that they know they won’t face consequences for their actions (which they won’t), it’s that they think they have done nothing wrong at all. They believe themselves to be morally in the right.

        “Shaken”? Don’t kid yourself. He’s as content and happy as a pig in shit.

    • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Maybe this columnist thinks he’s “shaken”, but I doubt it.

      cover for the next batch of heinous shit they’re gonna pull

    • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      pressure them to impose term limits and expand the Court

      No amount of voting will implement this pressure. This has been the chronic problem: electoral victories don’t translate into pressure for any given policy.

      • leadore@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        Who said electoral victories translate into pressure for a given policy? Voting them into office gets them to where they have power and can then be pressured to wield it for our benefit, which is a different type of political action than an election. Voting in elections is how you try to get people who are closest to the values you’re looking for into office–and the primaries are as important as the general for that.

        Organizing around an issue, speaking out with meetings, in the media, with protests, etc., calling attention and building up support for a cause–all those things exert pressure on elected officials. Read about movements in American history – the civil rights movement, women’s liberation, etc. and BTW you want to know a movement that was very effective? The fucking Tea Party movement, which led to the maga takeover of the republican party.

        For some reason (lack of proper civics education in schools is part of the problem), people have this simplistic idea that all they have to do is go vote for a president every four years, get pissed that they don’t like the choices, and assume that the POTUS is supposed to somehow magically fix everything, not understanding the other branches of government involved, and when it doesn’t happen fast enough or at all, they get pissed and either vote for someone else or give up and don’t vote or fall for a populist conman or get violent or whatever. That’s not how it works!

        No wonder we’re where we are today. I’m sick of even talking about it any more. If people refuse to educate themselves about how our system of government is supposed to work and act accordingly then it’s over, and we as a country deserve to fall into the fascism brought to us by the people who did make the effort to figure out how to achieve their agenda and went out and did it.

        • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          30 days ago

          I guess what I mean is uncritical votes for Democrats across the House and Senate doesn’t guarantee any pressure. Shit that is probably the most viable arena for third party candidates or at least candidates caucusing on a specific policy issue that people get behind, especially during primaries for each and every cycle.

          Maybe I’m just being salty because my entire downballot this year is all Democrats running on working with Republicans and Republicans running on working against the Democrats.

          One democrat in my old district is literally running on opposing Biden and helping Republicans with the southern border. My state borders Canada.

      • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        30 days ago

        Biden was very specific that he was against expanding the court, and Harris is taking up every single policy position Biden did, so we can probably take this up again in 4-8 years.

      • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        30 days ago

        Yes, but the proposal is to implement a senior status, benching (heh) justices after a period of time, calling them up in case a starter recuses or is otherwise incapacitated.

        Technically still appointed, and composition is done by law not the constitution.

        Only flaw is the body that decides if this approach is constitutional is the one being curtailed.

  • EvilBit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I don’t want him feeling “shaken”. I want him to know, deep down, undeniably to the very core of his soul, that he is a blight on humanity. He is devoid of honor and value by any moral measure. His existence on earth and in this society has done vastly more harm than good and humanity would have been better off if he had never been born. I want him to wake up every day and feel that more deeply and truly than he can feel his own breathing.

    Then the rest of the list, too: Trump, Mitch McConnell, Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity. Alito, Kavanaugh, Thomas, Barrett. Gym Jordan, Mike Johnson. Steve Miller, the list goes on and on. Selfish monsters that I only wish knew how little they deserve the lives they live.

  • Miles O'Brien@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I really want someone to press one of these people on camera.

    “Donald Trump has promised at multiple rallies to end the democratic process by eliminating the need to vote, and this is extremely dangerous to our democracy, therefore it is an official act of the office e of the president to order a hit on DJT, Seal teams 3 and 5 are en-route now. Such an act is official, and necessary for the country to survive therefore Joe Biden is completely immune from any prosecution.”

    I just want to know for sure what the reaction would be. I’m sure pearl clutching indignation (because someone thought of their idea but flipped the victims around)

    • quink@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      It’s really a situation that ought to resolve itself. If the justices vote anything as an official act is perfectly legal, then threaten those justices that voted that way with violence, assassination, nothing is off the table apparently as long as it’s an official act, and reverse that decision with the remaining justices, done and dusted.

      I really don’t see the problem here. It’s all been declared perfectly legal, nothing is off the table, it sends a strong message that this democracy will be maintained by whatever means necessary, and that as long as the president is Democrat at least, then any attempt at an all powerful king or Führer will automatically undo itself. An abrogation of power done through wielding that very power itself would be a beautiful thing to behold.

      In fact, the Supreme Court justices would make a better target than Trump himself even. Trump is a political rival and it could be argued that it’s Biden supporting the election of a candidate from his own party. Meanwhile targetting the Supreme Court justices would be defending basic democracy, fighting for the freedom from a despotic tyrant - the very supposed foundation of the country we’re talking about, changing the composition of the Supreme Court and weakening the powers of the presidency itself, which definitely sounds like official acts rather than those of a candidate or private individual.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 month ago

      About the only silver lining to Trump’s inevitable re-attempt to steal the election is that he won’t be President during the election. If he wins he won’t make the same mistake of appointing people with even a shred of ethics. He’ll rig it to give himself a 3rd term or be kingmaker for the next gen of American dictators.

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      That is the correct interpretation of the law. We could punish the Seal Team and their chain if command for following the order. But punishment of Biden himself would require him to be impeached.

      And frankly that’s how it should be.

      Obama killed that 16 year old in Yemen. He isn’t liable for that. Bush spied on Millions of Americans without warrants he isn’t liable for that. You can argue they should be; but that’s not how our system is designed.

  • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 month ago

    You mean the one where he ruled that the United States has a government of men, and not of laws?

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 month ago

    He’s an out of touch rich asshole. I’m less surprised at his shock than I am surprised by him giving a fuck.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      30 days ago

      He wasn’t shocked and he doesn’t give a f***. The article is just an attempt for him to garner sympathy.

    • kmaismith@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      30 days ago

      I don’t know, money and position in a stratified social power structure are not strong indicators of intelligence

  • Billiam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    30 days ago

    Roberts was left shocked that Americans didn’t buy his attempt to persuade them that his ruling was not about Trump, but instead focused on the office of the presidency. The court ruled that a president was largely immune from criminal prosecution for official actions.

    AND WHICH FUCKING PRESIDENT’S ACTIONS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE, JOHN?