Althouse: "At some point, presumably, the justices will draw the line...."

February 24, 2025

"At some point, presumably, the justices will draw the line...."

"In any consequential ruling, Chief Justice Roberts will likely be tempted to narrow his reasoning, soften his tone.... For Chief Justice Roberts, unanimity will be hard — even impossible — to achieve in most cases concerning Mr. Trump’s actions as president... Of course, Mr. Trump might defy the court.... Without the support of federal marshals, who answer to Mr. Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, the court cannot enforce its order.... The court will stand alone, abandoned; and Chief Justice Roberts, it is safe to assume, will not escalate a conflict his institution has already lost. He will, however, have one last tool in his arsenal: his voice.... If Mr. Trump flouts a court ruling, the nation will need its chief justice to explain what is happening — and why the executive branch, for all its prerogatives, must be bound by the Constitution...."

Writes Jeff Shesol, in "John Roberts Is on a Collision Course With Trump" (NYT).

54 comments:

n.n said...: Democracy is suffocated with JournoListic privilege.; 2/24/25, 9:30 AM
robother said...: Legal news from the future. When it comes to speculating on things that might possibly happen, the NYTimes is my go-to source. They have out-competed the tarot card and chicken entrail readers and own the niche.; 2/24/25, 9:32 AM
Gusty Winds said...: Why would the Supreme Court protect wasting taxpayer dollars, fraud, and money laundering? Is Roberts that compromised? We have a once in a lifetime reset opportunity here. I don't think the Supreme Court will pass this up. Except for the three liberal justices of course.; 2/24/25, 9:32 AM
Aggie said...: "..on a collision course with Trump !" the writer said, hopefully.

I skimmed the article and found no reason to read more closely, as it is full of dramatic, lurid prose and triggering words about coming confrontations - a 'gathering storm clouds' story with no details, just clouds. The dogs bark.....; 2/24/25, 9:34 AM
Dave Begley said...: Who is Jeff Shesol? When did he become an expert on predicting the future? What's up with all the speculation?; 2/24/25, 9:34 AM
Gusty Winds said...: Jeff Shesol is a former Clinton speech writer. Maybe he should concern himself with his former boss and the upcoming release of the Epstein client list.; 2/24/25, 9:35 AM
Kate said...: Roberts' pretzel logic around Obamacare made it clear that protecting the Court and not the law is his priority. He doesn't have the backbone to confront Trump head-on. I predict (because that's what we're doing here) that Roberts will continue to pretzel if he must to keep the Court in the happy middle.; 2/24/25, 9:36 AM
rehajm said...: No free link but is the expectation Roberts is king justice and will act unilaterally rather than allowing the other conservatives on the court to rule following the law and allow Trump to use his constitutionally granted powers as the executive? I expect this essay is a Kamala-sized word salad slathered with with jargon and hopium dressing not on the side; 2/24/25, 9:37 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: YouTube: What could they do to Trump that hasn’t already been tried? link to video; 2/24/25, 9:40 AM
gilbar said...: "Without the support of federal marshals, who answer to Mr. Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, the court cannot enforce its order.."
As Some FASCIST Republican President once said..
"John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

oh, WAIT! that wasn't said by a FASCIST Republican..
That was said, by the Founder of the Democrat Party; 2/24/25, 9:41 AM
RideSpaceMountain said...: "Who is Jeff Shesol? When did he become an expert on predicting the future? What's up with all the speculation?"

He became an oracle around the same time James Carville did, which was roundabouts last week.; 2/24/25, 9:42 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: After Trump nominates a catholic pope, a new pope, Trump is going to be untouchable.; 2/24/25, 9:42 AM
Paul Zrimsek said...: Trump has already passed up numerous opportunities to defy the courts, and will likely continue to do so no matter how much they long for it on 8th Avenue.; 2/24/25, 9:44 AM
Breezy said...: One could argue that Trump reveres the Constitution more than Roberts does.; 2/24/25, 9:50 AM
RCOCEAN II said...: So to Roberts, the whole problem isn't out-of-control District judges acting like they are President instead of Trump, and issuing nation-wide injuctions at the drop of a hat. Sometimes on the most minute adminstrative actions.

No, the problem is that Trump might assert that the POTUS is a co-equal to the courts and not a subordinate branch. Again, more gaslighting and upside-down black is white reasoning.

But I'm sure Roberts does hate trump and does think the courts are there to overrule congress and the POTUS. His joining the leftist Judges to strike down Trump's cancellation of Obama's DACA order was insane (go read the scathing dissent) and so was his stopping Trumps administration from asking for legal status in the 2020 Census.

Roberts is another Bushie. Unlike his father who gave us a Souter (after campaigning as a social conservative) Bush couldn't push through another Liberal Democrat, so he gave us Roberts as the next best thing.; 2/24/25, 9:50 AM
RCOCEAN II said...: Luttig was labeled for years as the "heir to scalia". Another Bushie judge. Fortunately, once he got passed over for the SCOTUS he retired. He's now on MSNBC every week sreeching about Trump being a fascist.; 2/24/25, 9:52 AM
gilbar said...: " For Chief Justice Roberts, unanimity will be hard — even impossible — "
Serious Queston: what does the writer Mean, by "unanimity"?
and WHAT does that have to do, with court decisions?

Websters say it is: " the quality or state of being unanimous"
so, we HAVE to have a 9-0 decision? since WHEN??

I'm ASSUMING that he mean un-amity; that is how it ties into 'soften his tone'?

Opinions? WHAT is unanimity doing in this article?; 2/24/25, 9:52 AM
RCOCEAN II said...: As for defying the courts, Trump has a lot of things on his plate, and he'll probably wait till the Judges become so obnoxious and insane in their desire to run the Executive branch that even "moderates" will agree they have to be defied.; 2/24/25, 9:53 AM
Quayle said...: It wouldn't surprise me if the Trump team isn't sitting back and purposely collecting the evidence of judicial overreach, to build a slam dunk case in the higher court.; 2/24/25, 10:02 AM
Wilbur said...: In fairness to GHW Bush, he had to get a Supreme Court candidate through a Democrat-controlled Senate. He chose Souter as a "stealth candidate", in that his judicial record was rather sparse. Not surprisingly, he turned out to be something other than Robert Bork.; 2/24/25, 10:05 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Fucking media and their "pre-reporting" on events they hope will happen. What assholes.; 2/24/25, 10:05 AM
Rocco said...: gilbar said...
"so, we HAVE to have a 9-0 decision? since WHEN??”

I agree; a minimum of 5 votes is the threshold.

Curious about the answer, I did some quick duck duck go’ing, and found this article. Key quote:
“9-0 rulings are the most common types of Supreme Court rulings, year after year. While 5-4 rulings attract the most attention from the public and the media, there’s a good chance that a larger number of cases you never heard about were decided on a unanimous basis.”

https://www.wral.com/story/fact-check-how-rare-are-9-0-supreme-court-rulings/19755107/

I have heard other people say that Roberts tries to steer the court towards cases that he believes are more likely to have a clear majority rather than a narrow split.; 2/24/25, 10:12 AM
mezzrow said...: A dream is a wish your heart makes
When you're fast asleep
In dreams you will lose your heartaches
Whatever you wish for, you keep

Have faith in your dreams and someday
Your rainbow will come smiling through
No matter how your heart is grieving
If you keep on believing
The dream that you wish will come true; 2/24/25, 10:16 AM
Kevin said...: "John Roberts Is on a Collision Course With Trump"

This must be true if Trump is acting outside the bounds of his office, right? Thus we see how the cult members of Progressivism reach conclusions.; 2/24/25, 10:19 AM
Wince said...: Sounds like Shesol yearns for a repeat of FDR's fractured history with the Supreme Court.

Except this conservative court is more aligned with the current president. Moreover, what's stopping Trump from taking-up the Democrats on their professed goal to expand the Court?

Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court 1st Edition (2010), by Jeff Shesol

Beginning in 1935, in a series of devastating decisions, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority left much of FDR’s agenda in ruins. The pillars of the New Deal fell in short succession. It was not just the New Deal, but democracy itself, that stood on trial. In February 1937, Roosevelt struck back with an audacious plan to expand the Court to fifteen justices―and to “pack” the new seats with liberals who shared his belief in a “living” Constitution.

The ensuing fight was a firestorm that engulfed the White House, the Court, Congress, and the nation. The final verdict was a shock. It dealt FDR the biggest setback of his political life, split the Democratic party, and set the stage for a future era of Republican dominance. Yet the battle also transformed America’s political and constitutional landscape, hastening the nation’s march into the modern world.

This brilliant work of history unfolds like a thriller, with vivid characters and unexpected twists. Providing new evidence and fresh insight, Jeff Shesol shows why understanding the Court fight is essential to understanding the presidency, personality, and legacy of FDR―and to understanding America at a crossroads in its history.; 2/24/25, 10:20 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Shesol is in for a world of hurt when none of this happens. Of course, he will continue to write as if history started just that morning.; 2/24/25, 10:27 AM
hombre said...: Dumbass Democrat projection. The Lightbringer and Biden both defied court orders (Gulf drilling, student loans). Nevertheless, Trump will prevail in the courts on the issue of Art. II powers. He is neither a pretender to the Presidency like Biden, nor the last President. At SCOTUS, two of the “three weird sisters” will dissent, but Kagan may still have some integrity. Meanwhile, the leftmediaswine are beggars looking for a ride.; 2/24/25, 10:27 AM
Mr. T. said...: Roberts is a classic textbook narcissist and socialist. Like Souter, he thinks that ex officio, he is superior to his fellow humans. He loves being in the spotlight so long as nothing challeneges his cushy, overbearing position. Even during the show trials against Trump, you could see his smug, crooked half smile as was enjoying all the attention he was getting whilst reading all the procedural impeachment quackery.

After spending 8 years of being the point man for performing legal rimjobs on Obama(right behind Holder and Perez), Roberts wants to screw Trump but only if he thinks the majority goes that way. Otherwise he'll pretend to be a voice of reason and issue one of his wishywashy pedantic diatribes that do nothing to address the matter . He will go whichever way lets him keep his cushy, lazy ass in the good life, with as much adoration he can. He wants the limelight, but he won't rock his goverment subsidized yacht either.; 2/24/25, 10:38 AM
chuck said...: More like the Democrats are in a collision course with the Supreme Court. If the court doesn't take up the fight, Trump will.; 2/24/25, 10:44 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: “Roberts' pretzel logic around Obamacare made it clear that protecting the Court and not the law is his priority. He doesn't have the backbone to confront Trump head-on. I predict (because that's what we're doing here) that Roberts will continue to pretzel if he must to keep the Court in the happy middle.”

I disagree somewhat. The basic issue is the power of the Deep State versus the power of the President, having the Executive power of the US government. Roberts’ arithmetic is three strong Republican (Trump) votes and two more who owe their jobs to him. As is the case in big cases like this, his primary job here is keeping them onboard for his pretzel logic. If he doesn’t, then he loses the power to write the opinion to Justice Thomas, who seems incapable of writing pretzel logic opinions, and instead, writes with broad strokes and bright lines.; 2/24/25, 10:46 AM
chuck said...: Supreme Court’s conservative majority left much of FDR’s [fascist] agenda in ruins. FDR wanted a fascist state (NRA), the court didn't give it to him.; 2/24/25, 10:47 AM
Third Coast said...: What's more susceptible to following a laser light, a cat or a New York Times reader?; 2/24/25, 10:53 AM
planetgeo said...: "... the nation will need its chief justice to explain what is happening — and why the executive branch, for all its prerogatives, must be bound by the Constitution...."

Wrong. What the nation desperately needs, and the Supreme Court has obstinately refused to do, is to rein in the JUDICIAL branch to be bound by the Constitution. Perhaps they are so embarrassed by their goofball Hawaiian judges and batshit crazy NY and DC judges or simply realize that there is very little comprehension there of the actual Constitution. DOGE should come up with pop quizzes on that to weed out the judges that don't.; 2/24/25, 11:08 AM
planetgeo said...: "...what's stopping Trump from taking-up the Democrats on their professed goal to expand the Court?"

Wince, you magnificent bastard you. That's pure, Trumpian genius.; 2/24/25, 11:21 AM
Jupiter said...: Oh, he's writing in the NYT? I see.; 2/24/25, 11:23 AM
JIM said...: Haven't 3 of the TRO's been set aside because the Court's determined there wasn't an Executive Branch overreach?
NYT writers live in a weird world between fiction and the reality they desire.
I think a case can be made that District courts have exceeded their authority when they impose nationwide injunctions.; 2/24/25, 11:27 AM
Gusty Winds said...: Remember how Roberts protected the "whistleblower" at Trumps first sham impeachment trial in presiding over the Senate? Roberts is not to be trusted.; 2/24/25, 11:37 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

Interesting back story there. The case was US v Georgia (or the opposite), and it essentially allowed the state of Georgia to steal the land belonging to the Cherokee, etc, and sold it to Whites. The state then forcibly evicted the tribes, starting them on their Trail of Tears to OK.

In any case, CJ Marshall’s even more famous case was Marbury v Madison, the seminal case on Judicial power. We can blame him and that decision for establishing Judicial Power, and the Judiciary as a third branch of government. The problem is that while the Constitution gives the President his Article II powers as the Executive, Commander-in-Chief, etc, and Congress its Article I powers to make laws, etc, it didn’t explicitly give the Judiciary the power to declare laws and actions void as unconstitutional. Marshall just assumed that power, in Marbury, and the Judiciary has just built on it slowly over the last two centuries.

What the Judiciary has is the Soft Power of its reputation for fairness, as well as two centuries of the other two branches mostly respecting it. But that also means that an aggressive President can effectively threaten that power by threatening to ignore the Court. Worse, for them, is one, like Trump who knows how to use the Bully Pulpit effectively. And Roberts knows this, and more than many of his predecessors as Chief Justice, sees a good part of his job maintaining this soft power by the Judicial Branch.

Making his job harder are the various leftist District Court judges issuing nationwide weird stays, TROs, Preliminary Injunctions, and maybe even Permanent Injunctions against Trump and his energetic assertion of his Article II Executive Power. He desperately needs to shut this down hard. It effectively delegitimizes his own Court, and, thus, the power of the Judicial Branch. Esp egregious, of course, was the judge stalling the freezing of USAID disbursements by a judge whose family was raking them in.; 2/24/25, 11:44 AM
AZ Bob said...: The court slapped down Biden’s student loan forgiveness and Biden said he will do it anyway. The media applauded.; 2/24/25, 12:00 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Someone mentioned packing the Supreme Court. Republicans don’t have enough votes for it - yet, just as the Dems didn’t in the last Congress. Nevertheless, it wouldn’t surprise me if Trump and his people trot it out if CJ Roberts sits on his hands too much. They have a 6-3 majority, so I don’t expect for them to push it very hard, but maybe a bit to put a bit more pressure on CJ Roberts. It’s just the way that Trump negotiates.; 2/24/25, 12:02 PM
TreeJoe said...: Biden waives student debt outside of his powers and in violation of court orders = celebrated

Trump fighting court orders with a long history of operating within court-established boundaries = Trump is going to violate court orders; 2/24/25, 12:24 PM
Mason G said...: "Trump fighting court orders with a long history of operating within court-established boundaries = Trump is going to violate court orders"

At some point, aren't you running the risk of Trump saying to himself "What the fuck? If I'm going to keep getting criticized for things I'm not doing, I might as well do them."; 2/24/25, 12:31 PM
Interested Bystander said...: “Constitutional crime spree!”
Another delusion Lefty screaming at the clouds. Go lie down and rest.; 2/24/25, 12:44 PM
RCOCEAN II said...: In unfairness to George Bush II - he had a sold R majority in the Senate and didn't have to give us Roberts. As for Bush I, he refused to fight for the SCOTUS nominees because he didn't give a Good Goddamn about social issues. He only pretended to on the campaign trail. We got Thomas because (1) he was black and (2) Danforth assured Bush he could get him confirmed without a struggle.

Souter was the worst example of slipping in a liberal Democrat ever, ever. He was presented to the Republican base as an obscure NH Judge but conservative as hell. Why Sununu vouched for him! In fact, Souter was actually a liberal/leftist - and everyone who knew Souter knew that. That's why the D's didnt oppose him much.

bush II tried to pull another Souter, by giving us Harriet Miers. Its still not clear what judicial philosophy Miers had. But she certainly wasn't a Rightwing Republican.; 2/24/25, 12:53 PM
Interested Bystander said...: Mr. T. said:

…. legal rimjobs ….

Now that’s funny.; 2/24/25, 12:56 PM
mccullough said...: No one gives a shit what Roberts says. Biden ignored him. Obama ignored him. Roberts knows Trump will ignore him too.; 2/24/25, 1:02 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: Reality check:
Article II
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

All Roberts has to do is actually follow the written US Constitution, and he'll have no problems with Trump

And if he doesn't, Trump will simply ignore him and the Court, destroying the "institution" that Roberts supposedly cherishes.

The guy who decided that "ObamaCare is a tax, despite what its defenders say" is now going to have to roll over for Trump. Not in anything illegitimate, it's just that his class hates what Trump is doing; 2/24/25, 1:05 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: “No one gives a shit what Roberts says. Biden ignored him. Obama ignored him. Roberts knows Trump will ignore him too.”

I disagree. I think that Trump, at least right now, is trying to be seen painting inside the lines. He potentially has the Supreme Court on his side, with 3 strong Republicans and 2 others who owe their jobs to him, probably giving him a working majority. And these aren’t issues that CJ Roberts wants to be in the Dem dissent on. So, maybe a reluctant 6th vote, on the subject of Executive Power, and a strong 6th vote for reining in the lower courts.; 2/24/25, 1:12 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: Yes, Bruce is correct.

Trump has appointed 3 members of SCOTUS. If he does a competent job this term he and JD will have 12 years to replace Sotomayor (diabetes), Alito, Roberts, and Thomas.

He WANTS SCOTUS to be a force, which is why he's playing the games right now.

But if two of Roberts, ACB, and Kavanaugh decide that "No, the President does not have the power to run the executive branch", then he WILL ignore them.; 2/24/25, 1:58 PM
Wince said...: Recognize that we are observing the early stages of the Deep State psyops campaign against Trump. Whether the subject is Europe, the Supreme Court or James Carville saying the Trump administration is polling poorly and "will collapse in 30 days."

Shesol is a connected partisan propagandist by profession, not a lawyer. He's a partner at "West Wing Writers." From their website.

Develop Your Message
We help you shape your story—your argument, your narrative, your truth.

Express Your Idea
We help you share it—memorably, persuasively, in service of your vision, strategy, and objectives.

Amplify Your Voice
And we help you maximize its reach and impact—to move your audiences and mobilize them.

We write books about history and politics, contribute op-eds and essays and humor to newspapers and online outlets, and publish our poems and stories in literary magazines.; 2/24/25, 2:33 PM
Drago said...: Lem Vibe Bandit: "After Trump nominates a catholic pope, a new pope, Trump is going to be untouchable."

What an awesome comedy sketch that could be.; 2/24/25, 2:45 PM
Drago said...: Wilbur: "In fairness to GHW Bush, he had to get a Supreme Court candidate through a Democrat-controlled Senate. He chose Souter as a "stealth candidate", in that his judicial record was rather sparse. Not surprisingly, he turned out to be something other than Robert Bork."

John Sununu personally and strongly vouched for Souter as a conservative......because of course he did.

And what has his son been up to over the last year? Explaining why everyone should vote against Trump.; 2/24/25, 2:47 PM
Drago said...: Bruce Hayden: "As is the case in big cases like this, his primary job here is keeping them onboard for his pretzel logic."

Disagree.

Robert's primary job, as he has demonstrated clearly over 10 years now, is to make sure he can drag either Kavanaugh or Barrett over to the lefties and then Roberts writes an opinion so narrow that it doesn't really answer the question AND allows the lawfare to continue full steam ahead.

Remember what Roberts did to the Colorado baker.; 2/24/25, 2:50 PM
James K said...: If Mr. Trump flouts a court ruling

Insinuating potential actions by Trump based on no past behavior by Trump. Only Biden actually did that. Yet Trump might!!! All they've got is projection.; 2/24/25, 3:04 PM