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.”
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.
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.
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.
cover for the next batch of heinous shit they’re gonna pull
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.
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.
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.
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.
Term limits are defined by the Constitution and require an Amendment. See the 22nd:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
We are currently too divided to pass any Amendment right now.
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.