The Supreme Court was hit by a flurry of damaging new leaks Sunday as a series of confidential memos written by the chief justice were revealed by The New York Times.

The court’s Chief Justice John Roberts was clear to his fellow justices in February: He wanted the court to take up a case weighing Donald Trump’s right to presidential immunity—and he seemed inclined to protect the former president.

“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” Roberts wrote to his Supreme Court peers, according to a private memo obtained by the *Times. *He was referencing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to allow the case to move forward.

Roberts took an unusual level of involvement in this and other cases that ultimately benefited Trump, according to the Times— his handling of the cases surprised even some other justices on the high court, across ideological lines. As president, Trump appointed three of the members of its current conservative supermajority.

16 points

I say…“And?”

Like anything will come of it.

permalink
report
reply
12 points

Damn. Maybe time to revisit whether Marbury v. Madison was wrongly decided.

permalink
report
reply
44 points
*
Removed by mod
permalink
report
reply
-1 points

Bro, please stop. It’s a bad look, it’s morally and ethically wrong, and it hurts our chance at never having to hear Trump’s name ever again.

You should be banned and your comment should be deleted. If you want to be a dumbfuck, please do it into the mirror like your apparent role model, Travis Bickle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Maybe politicians should think about violence when they destroy so many peoples lives for their corporate overlords.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

You could have made the same point without being disgusting by saying impeach.

I understand your frustration. I really, really do. But the trouble with political violence is that it doesn’t end there. Look at our justice system - it isn’t about making people whole, it’s about getting even. That’s what the other 40% of America will do. I don’t want a civil war in my lifetime.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

We the people cannot impeach.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points

Imagine how much worse off we would be if that kid actually had manage to not miss Trump. We would likely still have Biden running for president against God knows what.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Based and extra-points-for-Thomas pilled.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

Realistically killing john roberts would save american lives, who can say if good or bad.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

no.

we don’t want their side becoming martyrs. this is a bad idea.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

its more of a trolley problem thought exercise.

The overturn of roe alone has probably lead to several deaths. Who are you or I to say his life is more valuable than others,

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I could say but won’t because I like getting news from Lemmy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
102 points

“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” Roberts wrote to his Supreme Court peers, according to a private memo obtained by the Times.

That’s all the Times is gonna give us? One sentence of a memo relating to one of the most questionable Supreme Court decisions of all time? The voters should know everything about how they got to this decision.

permalink
report
reply
5 points
*

this would be very “study shows parents more tired than non parents” energy

We all know what they had very stupid reasoning, the only question here is “how stupid?”

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Yeah that’s not even enough for me to know if it’s controversial. I, also, think SCOTUS will have different opinions on separation of powers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

When Thomas said he thinks they will have different views, he wasn’t saying “we” as in the various supreme court justices. That may be a more reasonable statement.

Thomas said “we” the Supreme Court will have different views than both Chutkin and the DC appeals courts. He was saying SCOTUS will probably overturn the two lower courts.

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

While I agree we need more, this may not sound like much to you or me… but a SCOTUS judge saying it basically states he already has made up his mind about where he stands before even taking the case. They are supposed to be impartial at all times

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Exactly. This is a conservative-majority SCOTUS saying, “We decided long ago what we were going to do about this issue and many others. Nothing you can say will change our course. This conversation is over.”

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

Are they going to vigorously investigate these leaks just long enough to find out it was one of the conservatives and then drop the whole thing?

permalink
report
reply
3 points

It wasn’t a conservative, it was probably some random clerk.

And they deserve a fucking medal.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
  1. That’s what they said last time.

  2. At this point the majority has moved so far right they are beyond conservative and well into autocratic and flirting with authoritarian.

That is to say there may be conservatives who are willing to blow the whistle to try to keep this stink off of themselves.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

That’s what they said last time.

Last time it was to force a vote they wanted to go right, which it did.

This one is actually embarrassing to the court.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 7K

    Posts

  • 123K

    Comments