The Repercussions of Trump v. United States May Finally Be Hitting Roberts

[berg80]

When one party is firmly in charge of two branches, Executive and Legislative, and the Judicial decides that its mission is to stop the will of the voters

It's mission is to enforce the law. A candidate's electoral victory does not give him or her license to break the law.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's mission is to enforce the law. A candidate's electoral victory does not give him or her license to break the law.

Yes, they should get back to that, and stop making up reasons to try to STOP TRUMP.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The Supreme Court’s decision last year in Trump v. United States gave the president of the United States criminal immunity for “official acts,” defined as anything that could involve or plausibly extend to the president’s core duties.

Critics of the ruling, such as the constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar, were quick to note that the court’s formulation had no basis in the text, structure or history of the Constitution. The dissenting justices in the case, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, warned that the ruling would, in effect, make the president a king.

“The court,” Sotomayor wrote, “effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding.” When the president uses his official powers in any way, she continued, “he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune.”

Opinion | The Repercussions of Trump v. United States May Finally Be Hitting Justice Roberts

What is the chief justice getting at?

www.nytimes.com

trump's insulation from overtly corrupt acts goes beyond legal accountability. It extends to the political realm as well.

Trump Pardons Criminal Whose Mom Attended Mar-a-Lago Fundraiser​

MSN

She was right. In his second term as president, Donald Trump has claimed royal prerogative over the entire executive branch. His lieutenants, likewise, have rejected judicial oversight of his actions, blasting individual judges for supposedly usurping the authority of the president.

House Budget Bill Would Gut Federal Courts’ Ability to Enforce Orders

Buried in the House’s budget reconciliation bill — now pending in the Senate — is a legislative provision that takes aim at the federal judiciary. Section 70302, titled “Restriction on Enforcement,” would undermine federal judges’ authority to enforce court orders by limiting their ability to hold government officials in contempt, a key tool for compelling compliance with court orders.

Budget Bill Would Gut Federal Courts’ Ability to Enforce Orders

The legislation would make it harder for judges to hold defiant parties, including government officials, in contempt.

www.brennancenter.org

Republicans seek impeachment of 2 more judges who stymied Trump​

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-seek-impeachment-2-more-judges-who-stymied-trump-2025-03-24/

Congressional Repubs are seeking to reorient the judiciary's power to enforce the law against a lawless admin when they should be looking for ways to reign in trump's uncontrolled lust for power.

Nothing seems to give pause to his loyal flock. Not even this frightening declaration of sovereignty.

“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”

Surely they knew exactly what they were unleashing at the time of their ruling.

 

[kyzr]

It's mission is to enforce the law. A candidate's electoral victory does not give him or her license to break the law.

Not breaking any law, the appeals courts generally side with the president, which proves that leftist partisan district judges' "lawfare" needs to be ignored. Only the USSC is co-equal to. the president.

 

[SweetTea]

Never during a time when liberals had a majority on the SC did they make up something out of legal "whole cloth" to empower a Dem prez so he was immune from the law.

With Roe v Wade, for example, the 4 liberals voted lockstep. It took 3 of the 5 conservative justices to break apart for this to pass. Democrats ALWAYS vote lock step. They don’t interpret the law, they twist the law to fit the Democratic narrative. Much like Democrats in Congress and the average Democratic voter, they are lemmings.

 

[berg80]

Yes, they should get back to that, and stop making up reasons to try to STOP TRUMP.

Enforcement of the law and following precedent are the reasons. Stop pretending otherwise.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Enforcement of the law and following precedent are the reasons. Stop pretending otherwise.

Disagree.

Impeachment of Federal Judges is in THE LAW. So, you should be happy when Congress applies it.

 

[berg80]

Surely they knew exactly what they were unleashing at the time of their ruling.

Personally, I don't think they fully contemplated the consequences. It's worth noting the exact ramifications of the ruling aren't known yet in the sense of what will eventually be defined as an official act. Their more immediate desire was to give the guy on their team a path to re-election.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Personally, I don't think they fully contemplated the consequences. It's worth noting the exact ramifications of the ruling aren't known yet in the sense of what will eventually be defined as an official act. Their more immediate desire was to give the guy on their team a path to re-election.

Wait, I thought your claim was that judges enforce THE LAW in an apolitical way.

NOW you are saying that they act out of political motivation?

You're all over the board, my guy.

 

[berg80]

Disagree.

Impeachment of Federal Judges is in THE LAW. So, you should be happy when Congress applies it.

Roberts disagrees that impeachment should be used as a tool to remove judges who rule against the prez.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

 

[Seymour Flops]

Roberts disagrees that impeachment should be used as a tool to remove judges who rule against the prez.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

He can disagree if he wants. In fact, every time the president makes a speech laying out policy, Chief Roberts is allowed to make his own speech laying out his own policy.

That doesn't change THE LAW. Impeachment of federal judges is done by Congress not the president.

You know what else is THE LAW?

Deporting illegal aliens.

 

[berg80]

Wait, I thought your claim was that judges enforce THE LAW in an apolitical way.

NOW you are saying that they act out of political motivation?

I asserted that the conservatives on the Roberts court sought to clear the way for trump's re-election. Your juvenile efforts in trying to poke holes in the thread by misrepresenting what I wrote are as predictable as they are annoying.

 

[berg80]

That doesn't change THE LAW. Impeachment of federal judges is done by Congress not the president.

You don't think Roberts understands that? What he knows, but you apparently don't, is House Repubs do Dotard's bidding. Unless you believe it's a coincidence that following his petulant post directed at the judiciary Repubs picked up the mantle of impeachment. Why are all your arguments so weak and easily refuted?

 

[Nostra]

The Supreme Court’s decision last year in Trump v. United States gave the president of the United States criminal immunity for “official acts,” defined as anything that could involve or plausibly extend to the president’s core duties.

Critics of the ruling, such as the constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar, were quick to note that the court’s formulation had no basis in the text, structure or history of the Constitution. The dissenting justices in the case, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, warned that the ruling would, in effect, make the president a king.

“The court,” Sotomayor wrote, “effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding.” When the president uses his official powers in any way, she continued, “he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune.”

Opinion | The Repercussions of Trump v. United States May Finally Be Hitting Justice Roberts

What is the chief justice getting at?

www.nytimes.com

trump's insulation from overtly corrupt acts goes beyond legal accountability. It extends to the political realm as well.

Trump Pardons Criminal Whose Mom Attended Mar-a-Lago Fundraiser​

MSN

She was right. In his second term as president, Donald Trump has claimed royal prerogative over the entire executive branch. His lieutenants, likewise, have rejected judicial oversight of his actions, blasting individual judges for supposedly usurping the authority of the president.

House Budget Bill Would Gut Federal Courts’ Ability to Enforce Orders

Buried in the House’s budget reconciliation bill — now pending in the Senate — is a legislative provision that takes aim at the federal judiciary. Section 70302, titled “Restriction on Enforcement,” would undermine federal judges’ authority to enforce court orders by limiting their ability to hold government officials in contempt, a key tool for compelling compliance with court orders.

Budget Bill Would Gut Federal Courts’ Ability to Enforce Orders

The legislation would make it harder for judges to hold defiant parties, including government officials, in contempt.

www.brennancenter.org

Republicans seek impeachment of 2 more judges who stymied Trump​

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-seek-impeachment-2-more-judges-who-stymied-trump-2025-03-24/

Congressional Repubs are seeking to reorient the judiciary's power to enforce the law against a lawless admin when they should be looking for ways to reign in trump's uncontrolled lust for power.

Nothing seems to give pause to his loyal flock. Not even this frightening declaration of sovereignty.

“He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”

Yeah, let’s lock up a President for performing his official duties.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I asserted that the conservatives on the Roberts court sought to clear the way for trump's re-election.

With no evidence, whatsoever.

Your juvenile efforts in trying to poke holes in the thread by misrepresenting what I wrote are as predictable as they are annoying.

You just said that there are "conservatives" on the current supreme court. If that is true than the USSC is as political as the Republican Caucus in the HOR.

Fine. But then they should get no special deference from other politicians based on their purported "non-political" application of THE LAW.

You know what else is the law? Expedited Removal in lieu of lengthy future court hearings that about 90% of illegals never show up for.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Critics of the ruling, such as the constitutional scholar Akhil Reed Amar, were quick to note that the court’s formulation had no basis in the text, structure or history of the Constitution. The dissenting justices in the case, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, warned that the ruling would, in effect, make the president a king.

Which is what Republicans want: the president as despot and dictator, an autocrat checked by neither Congress nor the Constitution.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You don't think Roberts understands that? What he knows, but you apparently don't, is House Repubs do Dotard's bidding. Unless you believe it's a coincidence that following his petulant post directed at the judiciary Repubs picked up the mantle of impeachment. Why are all your arguments so weak and easily refuted?

House Repubs are in charge of the House, because your Party lost an election. That's THE LAW.

Trump runs the executive, because your Party didn't really even run anyone in the most recent presidential election. That's THE LAW.

If the judicial tries to usurp the executive or the legislative powers vested in Repubs by the voters, those Repubs can impeach those judges. That's THE LAW.

Of course Roberts doesn't like that. Shoplifters don't like to see laws against petty theft enforced. Too bad.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

House Budget Bill Would Gut Federal Courts’ Ability to Enforce Orders

Buried in the House’s budget reconciliation bill — now pending in the Senate — is a legislative provision that takes aim at the federal judiciary. Section 70302, titled “Restriction on Enforcement,” would undermine federal judges’ authority to enforce court orders by limiting their ability to hold government officials in contempt, a key tool for compelling compliance with court orders.

Budget Bill Would Gut Federal Courts’ Ability to Enforce Orders

The legislation would make it harder for judges to hold defiant parties, including government officials, in contempt.

www.brennancenter.org

Republicans seek impeachment of 2 more judges who stymied Trump​

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/re...t-2-more-judges-who-stymied-trump-2025-03-24/

Congressional Republicans are as much enemies of the Constitution and rule of law as Trump; Republicans facilitate Trump’s fascist authoritarianism.

Indeed, they have the power to stop Trump’s lawlessness – instead, they join Trump in destroying our democratic institutions.

 

[berg80]

With no evidence, whatsoever.

Except their unprecedented action, not based on any text found in the Constitution, did exactly that. Not to mention the unusual delay in making the decision prevented either of the two federal trials from going forward before the election.

 

[22lcidw]

Never during a time when liberals had a majority on the SC did they make up something out of legal "whole cloth" to empower a Dem prez so he was immune from the law.

They are Progressive Socialist Communist women. The death of the west.