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.”

  • Billiam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    6 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?

  • Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Shaken? Right because you weren’t being a partisan hack when the special counsel asked to skip straight to proceedings because they knew the court wanted to issue a ruling and you drug your feet buying donald time. Then handed him powers not afforded in the constitution. But keep clutching those pearls.

  • n0m4n@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    6 days ago

    Why is there a presumption of immunity? Even when there is clear self-serving corruption, the presumption of immunity takes precedence. This will go down in history as an abysmally bad decision.

  • collapse_already@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 days ago

    I would be worried to if I had just given the president immunity for all official acts. Example of a worrisome formula: Biden + official act + seal team 6 + corrupt supreme court judges = no need to pack the court to give it a liberal majority.

  • Awesomo85@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    88
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Remember folks: political violence is totally justified and not authoritarian a long as it’s not against a Democrat!

    Democrats are the chosen political party! They are better than you! They know what’s best for you! Fuck you for having any ideals that go against their infallible ideology!

    You’re a stupid piece of shit if you aren’t a Democrat! So you deserve violence against you!

    It’s not terrorism, it’s “fuck you, you aren’t a Democrat so you deserve it!”

    • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      99% of political violence in this country is from your side, but its a classic republican move to attempt to blame everyone else with the charges of the stuff your side is actually doing itself. So you’re just a tired and not very original liar/troll. Arent there snowflake/safespace threads you should be on? You might get your feelings hurt here or god forbid, talk to a female and that would be a real tragedy because you might go hurt someone because of it. Or kick/kill an animal seems to be the thing your side prattles on about lately isnt it.

      But yes, boohoo you’re a victim and dems are violent. message received.

      • Awesomo85@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        35
        ·
        6 days ago

        " your side".

        See, people just assume that if you don’t agree with the general ideology, you are an enemy.

        I tend to agree with most socially “left” ideas, but because I don’t want tax money to go toward wars or abortion as a form of birth control, I am a totalitarian piece of shit.

        There is no nuance anymore. It’s always: “you are either with us or against us” mentality. And there is absolutely NO WAY you can tell me that’s not the case (at least on social media).

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          6 days ago

          See, people just assume that if you don’t agree with the general ideology, you are an enemy.

          You’re the one that came in with “Democrats bad”. This was about “of course presidents shouldn’t have immunity FFS.”

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

          that is an interesting observation. The idea of coalitions has seemingly broken down and its as you said now for everyone-- you’re onboard with whatever the dems or repubs say and do, or you are labeled as supporting the enemy and a memebr of their camp. And no one puts forth a platform or plans like they used to. What a time to be alive eh.

          I do wonder if this is the end of the American government. It sounds alarmist and a little crazy but also plausible. Fundamental architectural peices of our government are breaking down-- like when the supreme court ruled that presidents are not legally unaccounatble and presumed acting legally no matter what they do. Its not just problematic its broken. So now we inevitably get to watch that break spectacularly., standing here with our genitals in our hands. Does that mean seal team 6 shooting Americans like the news said was possible? I dont know. But its legally allowed now, so…?

    • morphballganon@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      6 days ago

      Do you feel the same way about medicine and food?

      Democracy, medicine and food all have the same goal, making life better.

      Being against democracy is like criticising someone for eating or using antibiotics.

      Are you just admitting to being a complete moron here?

      • Awesomo85@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        22
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        I feel that the product of someone else’s labor is not a right just because you want the product but don’t want to go through the process of learning how to create that product. Just because it’s a specialized trade doesn’t mean you automatically have a right to it!

  • originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    220
    ·
    8 days 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
      93
      ·
      8 days 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
        ·
        6 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
      ·
      8 days 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
        ·
        8 days 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
    ·
    8 days ago

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

    • resin85@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

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

    • Myxomatosis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      68
      ·
      8 days 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
        38
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days 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
        7 days 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
      ·
      8 days 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
        ·
        6 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.

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 days 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
        7 days 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
          ·
          7 days 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
            7 days 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
              ·
              6 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
    8 days 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
      ·
      8 days 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
    93
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 days 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
      51
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 days 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.

      • sorval_the_eeter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 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.

      • djsoren19@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        8 days 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.

  • Wrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days 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
      ·
      7 days 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.