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.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    29
    edit-2
    7 months 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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    17 months ago

    Shaken?

    And?

    He will forget about it quickly. Until it comes back to haunt him. Then he will engage in mental gymnastics to justify it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    57 months 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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    67 months 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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    1
    edit-2
    7 months 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!”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      27
      edit-2
      7 months 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        37 months 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).

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          97 months 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.”

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          17 months 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…?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      167 months 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?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        7 months 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!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    147 months 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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    8
    edit-2
    7 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      47 months 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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    97 months ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      07 months ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        7 months 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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          07 months 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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            7 months 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              17 months 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      17 months ago

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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      77 months ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        7 months ago

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

      • vvvvan
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        7 months 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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      47 months ago

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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        27 months 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.

  • Billiam
    link
    fedilink
    427 months 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?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    107 months ago

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

  • Media Bias Fact CheckerB
    link
    fedilink
    07 months ago
    CNN - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for CNN:

    MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
    Wikipedia about this source

    Raw Story - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for Raw Story:

    MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
    Wikipedia about this source

    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://www.rawstory.com/trump-news/
    https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/08/politics/john-roberts-donald-trump-biskupic/index.html
    https://www.rawstory.com/roberts-immunity-ruling/
    https://www.rawstory.com/supreme-court/
    https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/takeaways-trump-immunity-scotus/index.html
    https://www.rawstory.com/justice-john-roberts-bubble/

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support