"... calling it inadequate and poorly reasoned. On one key point, he complained, the lower court judges 'failed to grapple with the most difficult questions altogether.' He wrote not only that the Supreme Court should take the case — which would stall the trial — but also how the justices should decide it. 'I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently' from the appeals court, he wrote. In other words: grant Mr. Trump greater protection from prosecution."
From "How Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak/Behind the scenes, the chief justice molded three momentous Jan. 6 and election cases that helped determine the former president’s fate" (NYT)(reporting based on hearing from "several people from the court who saw the document").
September 16, 2024
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
Kagan. Again.
Nothing sacred.
..."The chief justice responded by deploying his authority to steer rulings that benefited Mr. Trump, according to a New York Times examination that uncovered extensive new information about the court’s decision making...."
Oh look, it's almost like Cause & Effect the way we put it, now isn't that nice? No mention of that whole 'letter of law' thingie.
"...Although the judgment was 9 to 0, the justices had not reached true agreement...." ?? Ok, then. USSC decisions are not decisions until everbody reaches true agreement ! Please refer to our Style Guide on the strictly controlled uses of the word 'Unanimous'.
So "several people from the court who saw the document" eh? Clerks. Lawyers. Sneaky lawyers who leak, lie* and smear. I'm sensing a theme today.
*If they failed to tell CJ Roberts what they were doing they are lying by omission and by violating their duty to the court.
Shorter NYT: "Who is this Donald Trump and why does he think he's entitled to a speedy and fair trial?"
"reporting based on hearing from 'several people from the court who saw the document'"
SCOTUS is quite the leaky ship, isn't it?
The Supreme Court's entire email and document database has been stolen by Democrat insiders and provided to the NYTimes.
That is unfathomable election interference by Democrat Party operatives within the court.
The WSJ lead editorial today does a great job of taking this hit piece down. Their finger seems to point to the wise latina.
I'm confused. It is supposed to be some sort of scandal that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court "shaped" a SC opinion and analyzed the merits of the case to "shape" that opinion?
Oh noes...anyways
Another leak from SCOTUS. When Trump wins, expect way more leaks, or outright lies characterized as leaks, by the NYT.
"I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently" from the appeals court, he wrote. In other words: grant Mr. Trump [and all presidents] greater protection from [politically motivated] prosecution.
Kagan is doing this.
As the court split 6 to 3, conservatives versus liberals, Justice Sotomayor started work on a five-alarm dissent warning of danger to democracy.
There's that term again, danger to democracy.
'I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently' from the appeals court, he wrote. In other words: We are going to consider the full scope of the question beyond the target in this case.
Fixed it for you.
Battle prep for an overhaul of the USSC
Frankly I fail to see how this is supposed to be a hit piece for scotus. Rather it exposes the inferior court as lacking judicial competence at least, or is politically corrupt at worst.
Yes, I suppose all the old ladies who lack standing on the abortion issue are gnashing their teeth at this wishing someone would help remove the backlog from Trump assassins for another assignment…
I guess handling these recurring leaks in-house, with no disclosure of investigatory findings and no firings or prosecutions, is letting us all enjoy a Glorious New Communications Future, Comrade.
Roberts failed the nation when he voted with the majority not to hear Texas vs PA. He probably "shaped" that cowardly opinion as well, and legitimized absentee voter fraud. We can never get back to pre-2020 elections.
If only there was an explanation why this particular judge has been on the wrong end of every major decision compared to American Christians.
“In his writings on the immunity case, the chief justice seemed confident that his arguments would soar above politics, persuade the public, and stand the test of time. His opinion cited “enduring principles,” quoted Alexander Hamilton’s endorsement of a vigorous presidency, and asserted it would be a mistake to dwell too much on Mr. Trump’s actions. “In a case like this one, focusing on ‘transient results’ may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic,” he wrote. “Our perspective must be more farsighted.”
But the public response to the decision, announced in July on the final day of the term, was nothing like what his lofty phrases seemed to anticipate.”
Roberts seemed to be untethered to today’s world. Did he seriously think that the majority of Americans wouldn’t see his decision as one that gives the Executive branch an unequal amount of power? Naive? Or corrupt?
Seems to me that the Democrats feel like they're going to lose.
See also Josh Blackman's analysis at The Volokh Conspiracy - https://reason.com/volokh/2024/09/15/the-trump-leaks-are-far-worse-than-the-dobbs-leak/
They're couching a Supreme Court justice convincing his colleagues to vote a certain way on a case as "meddling." And claiming it's some sort of controversial tactic requiring secret leaks.
Talk about wearing your L's.
If it is true that the majority of Americans now see the Executive branch as having an unequal amount of power, there is a very straightforward process to correct that: amend the constitution. 2/3rds of house and senate, 3/4 of the states. Over half of the electorate being in favor would give a good impetus to the amendment... if it were actually true that that is how a majority of the electorate thinks. Color me doubtful on that point.
This would explain a lot, since the United States isn't a Democracy. You would think a Constitutional lawyer would know that. But then again, you'd think they could define a word as simple as "woman," too I guess. Doesn't seem that there's too much smarts on the DEI side of the Supreme Court.
I find it hard to believe the justices not leaking aren't furious about the actions of the one who is. This is incredibly reckless.
Roberts' failure to the nation began when he ruled ObamaCare was a tax.
They are not acting like Harris has a 4-point lead over Trump, that's for sure. They wouldn't still be trying to murder him.
Is there only ONE who is leaking? Can there not be multiple justices all leaking?
Somebody seems to have stumbled across a legitimate point. Roberts does seem naive about the intellectual bankruptcy and radicalism of today's Democrat party.
I hope they are beefing up personal security details for SCOTUS members.
You don't need court leaks, you could have just asked me about the structural issues. That is, it's obvious.
Bingo
calling it inadequate and poorly reasoned.
Because that's what it was.
On one key point, he complained, the lower court judges 'failed to grapple with the most difficult questions altogether.'
And he was correct
He wrote not only that the Supreme Court should take the case — which would stall the trial — but also how the justices should decide it. 'I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently' from the appeals court, he wrote.
Because the appeals court blew it for partisan political reasons, and that was obvious to anyone reading their screed (calling it an "opinion" gives it too much credit).
When one side is pure partisan hackery, on the other side will be everyone honest, as well as all the other side's partisan hacks.
I am shocked, shocked that the NYT only hires writers who can not even conceive of someone approaching a question honestly. They are all partisan hacks, so everyone else must be a partisan hack, too.
It can't be that Roberts' memo correct discussed teh glaringly obvious problems with a garbage decision, it must be he's just a partisan for the other side.
Roberts is the Establishment tool who often voted 5-4 with the Left to illegitimately strike down legitimate Trump Admin decisions (see DACA repeal). Attempting to claim he's some sort of Trump partisan is the ne plus ultra of stupidity
It's Kagan. She or one of her staff attorneys is the leaker.
But the public response to the decision, announced in July on the final day of the term, was nothing like what his lofty phrases seemed to anticipate.”
Bullshit.
The Left's response was whiny. No one else cared.
As can be seen by the reality that Trump is winning the election
The decisions had to go as they did. If Trump wins, he’ll have every reason to retaliate against Biden and Obama for what they’ve done to him, but the decisions will protect them as well.
"I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently' from the appeals court, he wrote. In other words: grant Mr. Trump greater protection from prosecution."
Alternatively, it has been clear from Day 1 of this New Soviet Democratical orangeman-bad-is-the-only-reason-we-need lawfare that blatantly unconstitutional lower court actions are.....blatantly unconstitutional.
Inga and her russia russia russia collusion hoax lunatics hardest hit.
If it ever looks like it is certain that Trump is going to be elected a second time, I would be very, very cautious if I were a SCOTUS justice with the name of Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Barrett, or Gorsuch for the next 4 months.
Yes, everything about Roberts' past, including his appointing President suggest that he is likely a Trump devotee./s The most disturbing thing about leftmedia domination of the national conversation is that they are stupid and/or evil.
As the WSJ notes, "also leaked is an account of the private conversation among the Justices after an oral argument." Who but a Justice could do that? And this is of course the ultimate threat to the deliberative process. So either Kagan or Sotomayor is gladly blowing up the SCOTUS in the name of her partisan agenda. Sadly, no surprise there.
Joe Biden BRAGGED about not following Supreme Court decisions in the school loan case. They have figured out we won't shoot them no matter what they do.
Meanwhile ... no word on who leaked the Dobbs abortion decision draft ...
just three
I stick with my theory: Sotomayor gave a copy of Alito's draft to the white house as a heads up, and they leaked it to politico because they were desperate for some change to the news cycle.
That was a historic error.
Now we have Inga the law professor.
Hum. The mere fact that Robert's opinion was unpersuasive to you doesn't tell one anything about what people who read or think about SCOTUS decisions thought about it. It does confirm for us that you are incapable of transcending your partisan biases.
The fact that the biggest squish (possibly excepting ACB) felt so strongly about the issue ought to be a hint.
I'm old enough to remember that Roberts was going to leave no stone unturned to get to the bottom of it, and find and punish the Dobbs leaker.
And did nothing.
Not a surprise that nobody seems to be too scared of the consequences of leaking anymore.
So the fat, cigar smoking liberal justice is a criminal?
Signs and wonders… signs and wonders…
David-2 is correct:
"See also Josh Blackman's analysis at The Volokh Conspiracy - https://reason.com/volokh/2024/09/15/the-trump-leaks-are-far-worse-than-the-dobbs-leak/"
as is robother
"Kagan. Again."
Post a Comment