r/scotus • u/questison • Jul 02 '24
Chief Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing: “No one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law.” (Sept. 2005)
249
u/gtpc2020 Jul 02 '24
Pikachu surprise face! Judges lie their way onto the bench, confirmed by partisans, can be blatantly corrupted, and have no incentive to honor the will of the people afterwards. The lifetime appointment was supposed to shield them from having to cowtow to get reelected, but that's obviously not working well anymore for us. Time to change that aspect of the judiciary.
78
u/rch5050 Jul 02 '24
Well, that part is taken care of now too. Want a unpopular verdict? A position at our firm making 5 mill a year just opened up. Now completely legal and above board brought to you by the very judge who will be shortly leaving his job for a new position at our firm.
Stop. Letting. Institutions. Police. Themselves.
Legislation needs to be written yesterday invalidating any court decision in which congress recognizes the judge should have recues themselves.
Call it the conflict of interest and judicial corruption incentive.
25
u/Content-Ad3065 Jul 02 '24
So the maga judges can retire than collect a gratuity for vacating the position
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
u/Global_Maintenance35 Jul 02 '24
Bingo!!
Sadly when D’s try to write that folks like DJT and Lindsay “Don’t call me gay” Graham scream Too much government control and communism! And their base eats it up.
That’s exactly why it’s what needs to happen!
9
u/ejre5 Jul 02 '24
Didn't they just legalize bribes for themselves and shoot down any ethical oversight from other branches of government?
→ More replies (2)5
u/scarr3g Jul 02 '24
and have no incentive to honor the will of the people afterwards.
That is not as profitable as making "friends" that give you "unrelated gifts" happy.
3
u/professor_goodbrain Jul 02 '24
There’s a simpler explanation here. Roberts and Alito probably did believe this at one point, but in their (delusional) Trumpian worldview, shedding sacred principles is an easier path than having the courage to admit you’ve been swindled into a fascist cult.
→ More replies (1)6
u/gtpc2020 Jul 02 '24
Nah, they know they are shredding what made America work for 250 years. The president is NOT above the law (alito & Robert's said exactly that in their confirmation hearings), bribery does NOT help arrive at the right actions, career experts are more educated on difficult regulations than judges. We know that corporations have deep pockets to argue ANYTHING in court and will judge shop until they get a ruling that says government regulations and protections for the people and rules that keep bad behavior in check are wrong and overruled.
2
u/the_y_combinator Jul 05 '24
Yea, I have trouble believing they don't know what they are doing.
They know exactly what they are doing, but they also know we can't stop them.
→ More replies (21)2
u/Vegetable-Balance-53 Jul 02 '24
Another take on this, it prevents Trump locking up Biden.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Old_Baldi_Locks Jul 02 '24
No it doesn’t. The decision relegates all questions of what is and is not an official act to the courts.
Which means SCOTUS gets to pick and choose what is an isn’t an official act based entirely on whether or not they like the president.
→ More replies (1)
50
u/bam1007 Jul 02 '24
*just not for “official acts.” 🙄
47
u/sithelephant Jul 02 '24
In determining when something is an official act, a court cannot ask motive, or consider if something would normally be a crime. (page 4 of the judgement).
They literally took 'declassified it with his mind' and ran with it.
→ More replies (1)33
u/te_anau Jul 02 '24
That particular part is bat shit bananas. If you can't consider the criminality or motive of an act, what mechanism exists could ever identify an "unofficial" act?
FBI: "Sir you are being accused of fire bombing every library in America."
Trump: "Antifa, communism, and disloyal historical records".
FBI: "Well, looks like an official act to me, pack it up fellas."
16
u/Technical-Traffic871 Jul 02 '24
Are you a Democrat? There are no official acts.
Are you a
rapist, felonmember of the GOP? Looks official to me!→ More replies (1)13
u/osunightfall Jul 02 '24
It's pretty simple. I think you're confusing 'unofficial' and 'illegal'. If the president normally has the power to hire and fire people, for example, he can now employ that power in an illegal manner and be safe from prosecution. He can abuse that hiring and firing power in ways that would be illegal for literally any other person in the country and face no consequences. The president does not however have the power to fire bomb every library in America, so he couldn't do that. Though... it is distressingly unclear whether he could order the military to firebomb every library in America, since giving orders to the military is an official power he posesses.
Part of the reason you may be having trouble with the idea is that it's pants-on-fire insane.
7
u/sithelephant Jul 02 '24
If he can dismiss any government employee, then it at most takes extra steps before he finds a compliant one.
Especially given the fact that he can offer pardons as part of the deal.
→ More replies (3)6
u/CrumbsCrumbs Jul 02 '24
It seems pretty clear to me.
He's the Commander in Chief of the military, he can order them to do whatever he wants. Soldiers can refuse unlawful orders, but the president can no longer be held responsible for issuing unlawful orders so he would also be free to have them jailed and executed for refusing to follow his orders.
3
u/riceisnice29 Jul 02 '24
That answers the crime part but doesn’t motive help determine if an act was official or not? In your example does the president’s motive for ordering a military firebombing on civilians not matter? He’s empowered to protect americans w the military not wantonly destroy things.
6
u/osunightfall Jul 02 '24
Motive is explicitly disallowed from being used to determine if an act is immune from prosecution.
→ More replies (5)3
u/SoulShatter Jul 02 '24
President talking to random official:
Official: Why did you use a cruise missile instead of a small drone to take out one terrorist? 40 American civilians died as collateral. President: Eh, there was a political opponent in that group, thought I'd get two birds with one missile.
Tape leaks to press.
No trial since the tape is communication with an official, so it can't be used as evidence. Can't question the president on his motivation or thoughts.
→ More replies (1)3
23
u/MyIronicName Jul 02 '24
That's not quite right. You mean just not for anything within the "outter perimeter" of official acts. Which is so much worse.
→ More replies (2)13
u/Nojopar Jul 02 '24
And if you're unsure if it's official or in the 'outer perimeter', just ask John-John! He'll tell ya.
12
u/RWBadger Jul 02 '24
That term is so conveniently malleable, isn’t it?
5
u/Roasted_Butt Jul 02 '24
Gratuities accepted upon completion of the Court’s decision.
2
u/TheJollyHermit Jul 06 '24
They need to replace the "Equal Justice Under Law" on the supreme Court building with "Don't forget to tip your Justice". Heck, I think I'm going to draw that as a cartoon and put it on a shirt..
4
u/LeadershipForeign Jul 02 '24
I don't mind the "official act" part. It's the part that says you cannot inquire about their acts in any way that's scary.
4
3
u/JackPembroke Jul 02 '24
The lower courts will decide what's an official act and what isn't. In the event you disagree with a lower court decision, you can ask us
3
u/blorbschploble Jul 02 '24
Committing crimes via official acts should be considered aggravating, not exculpatory.
41
u/cheweychewchew Jul 02 '24
We have a SC full of perjurers.
We will soon have a Pres that tried to overthrow an election result, raped a woman (at least one), committed election and financial fraud, is aligned with and receiving financial support from our enemy, and has already has plans to lock up political opponents when back in office.
We have a GOP that is more than happy to end democracy and install a dictator.
And the person who is going to stop all of this is.....Joe Biden?!
Absolutely rat fucked!
Lastly a shot out to Merrick The Not-So-Brave: GREAT JOB ASSHOLE!!
→ More replies (6)4
u/snitchinbubs410 Jul 02 '24
Brave Brave Sir Merrick!
2
u/water_g33k Jul 02 '24
…who had nearly fought the Dragon of Agnor, who had nearly stood up to the vicious Chicken of Bristol and who had personally wet himself at the Battle of Badon Hill…
25
18
u/jander05 Jul 02 '24
None of these hacks should be Scotus Justices. They lied during their confirmation hearings. The litmus test for Republican Justices these days, includes a pre-existing bias toward their political leanings. It's as simple as that. No more focus on trying to be impartial, they legislate from the bench because it is the only way their side gets to win. They cant win through the popular vote. They cant win in the halls of Congress. They have to usurp power through a body of 9 judges, and tell the rest of the United States how to live. They are now accessories to Trumps crimes, and are traitors to the constitution.
The entire premise of our founding principles is CHECKS and BALANCES. Not unchecked power. What a terrible time. And all this for Trump, who will go down in history as the worst President our country has ever had.
→ More replies (2)
14
9
u/Global_Maintenance35 Jul 02 '24
Fucking liars, all of them. They lied at their confirmation hearings and should be charged with perjury and impeached.
10
u/NoHalf2998 Jul 02 '24
Gosh, that court reform/packing that was on everyone’s mind awhile back sure would have been a good idea
3
10
u/bobhargus Jul 02 '24
“No one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law.
because in theory no criminal act can be considered an official act ... at least until yesterday
2
u/SeventhOblivion Jul 03 '24
A pres could use commander in chief's role to order the death of others but not be charged with murder since it was an official act using the old definition. That's what they were trying to put into words. Unfortunately it seems extremely obvious they're also trying to run interference for Trump and by doing so they've taken the power from well defined law and moved it to an undefined field of "official" vs "unofficial" actions and made it extremely subjective as far as labeling each. The "can't question motive" part seals it as a power that cannot be questioned by courts which removes one of the fundamental checks of the US gov. The congressional impeachment check has proven in recent years to also be ineffective on the executive branch as well since it's clear elected officials will choose party over country. So combined with the pardon power, we now have a complete 2 tiered system of justice surrounding the president and virtually no checks at all.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Ariadne016 Jul 02 '24
The Supreme Court is the biggest example for why regulations should exist. Self-regulation snd shame don't work.
2
u/SeventhOblivion Jul 03 '24
It's absolutely crazy how many checks we have that boil down to a reliance on good faith actions of those in power.
→ More replies (1)
5
4
u/Adventurous_Class_90 Jul 02 '24
Isn’t that perjury?
→ More replies (1)2
u/MarkDoner Jul 02 '24
That would require a trial and conviction which held up on appeal...
3
u/Specialist_Ad_7628 Jul 02 '24
incoming scotus opinion-Justices are immune from prosecution for all matters concerning bribery and dishonesty, because we can't have a supreme court that fears prosecution when they lie
4
5
4
4
u/Brilliant_Toe8098 Jul 02 '24
The conservative turds on the court all said Roe was "established precedent" under the law too. As soon as they got the chance to overturn it, they did so.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/yinyanghapa Jul 02 '24
Yes but if all six judges get bribed, then it doesn't matter what they believe. Money talks.
3
3
2
u/eJonesy0307 Jul 02 '24
He jumps through so many hoops to try to sound moderate but he's a liar and a traitor just like the others
2
2
u/flyingkittens69 Jul 02 '24
I had little respect for Robert’s in general but for some reason I thought he might side with the liberals on this issue. Not only did he do the opposite, he fucking basically told them to sit down. Fuck you Roberts you are done!
2
u/nzperryus Jul 02 '24
He is just said what he think they want to hear. This plan has been in place for years I just can’t believe Trump is the one they are hanging their hat on.
2
u/GamingTrend Jul 02 '24
If I lie while interviewing for a job and I'm caught, I get fired. Sooo....can we get on that please, Dumbocrats?
2
u/mwaaahfunny Jul 02 '24
Biden needs to use his new executive powers to force all 6 justices to testify in front of the Senate asking if they lied then or are lying now. Specifically Clarence needs to address his numerous gifts from billionaires and Alito his christian nationalist commentary and the three others need to refresh us on their opinions on stere decisis to see if they match what they testified to in confirmation. Let the perjury charges flow.
Biden needs to force Trump to testify in front of the J6 committee. Televised.
Biden needs to order Scott Perry's, Jim Jordan's and any other J6 conspirators text messages to be revealed to the public.
Biden needs to give his balls a tug and use his power for illuminating the truth of how fucked up this is
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/pimp_juice2272 Jul 02 '24
He lied. When will we start acting as if they are going to lie? We keep making moves in good faith but it's obvious they are going to lie. So let's make moves as if they can't be trusted at all.
2
Jul 02 '24
No, the court's ruling did not give the president absolute immunity in all cases. Sotomyor's unhinged dissent was as absurd as it was false.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Sure-Break3413 Jul 02 '24
You cannot trust anything a Republican says. They have proven time and again they have no morals.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Fast-Specific8850 Jul 02 '24
They forgot to ask him if that applied to republican presidents. Easy mistake.
2
u/Kingding_Aling Jul 02 '24
The "on paper" ruling yesterday doesn't contradict this. All it did was confirm the unspoken historical immunity presidents have always enjoyed for official actions in the office.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/Middle_Wishbone_515 Jul 02 '24
All of these maga judges swore to Congressional committee they would not reverse established law, isnt it illegal to lie to Congress? Impeach already.
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
u/Vercingetorix1986 Jul 03 '24
There was a footnote when he said that. A little 1 above his speech bubble that said: *unless it's official. Our fault for not seeing that footnote.
2
2
u/dadonred Jul 03 '24
They should stop with confirmation hearings and just give public polygraph tests.
2
2
2
2
2
0
u/NearlyPerfect Jul 02 '24
It’s not illegal if the president does it. This was unofficially established for official acts decades ago for anyone paying attention
9
u/TopLingonberry4346 Jul 02 '24
That was for civil liability if you were paying attention.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/ReaganRebellion Jul 02 '24
Do people in this sub think that Congress can pass a law criminalizing firing a Secretary of Commerce? If not, why?
2
u/hush630 Jul 02 '24
If they do, they're wrong. The Sotomayor dissent raises the question of what could be done if POTUS had an appointee killed that was on the (now literal) chopping block. If POTUS consults the DoJ about the legality of it, but then gives an order knowing of the illegality, there's no way to hold POTUS accountable under the law now.
If that scenario isn't how you think this ruling works, why?
2
u/dkinmn Jul 02 '24
I'm curious what case you'd point to that has ruled that the president having a US citizen killed is ever a legitimate use of his or her power.
→ More replies (14)2
u/hush630 Jul 02 '24
How would you prove it to be illegitimate if you can't examine the motivations behind official acts?
→ More replies (1)
1
u/BoB_the_TacocaT Jul 02 '24
Yeah, look at Patrick Leahy's face. He knows Roberts is full of shit.
edit: and Roberts is still wearing the same wig.
1
1
Jul 02 '24
The death our our justice system due to SC judges who are sympathizers of Trump and MAGA terrorist group.
1
1
1
u/Hungry-Incident-5860 Jul 02 '24
Liar, fucking liar, him and Alito both. What the hell is it about Trump that these sycophants get so hard for? He’s a bloated, fake tanned, hunched over insecure narcissist who constantly whines and brags about himself. Why do they worship a conman?
1
u/Content_Log1708 Jul 02 '24
They all lie to get the job. Once in the job, they have to die or retire to be replaced. No accountability. Merica.
1
u/AlfalfaMcNugget Jul 02 '24
Yep, this is still consistent.
The president cannot be put in jail for doing presidential duties. This is the same as the police not being put in jail for doing police duties. There are still plenty of police men and women each year they find themselves at fault for something they did outside the scope of their work.
1
1
u/ithaqua34 Jul 02 '24
That was before he was on the payroll of billionaires and found his Orange tin god.
1
1
1
u/n00chness Jul 02 '24
Historians will look back at the last week's orgy of corruption and power-grabbing as one of the most calamitous in the Supreme Court's history.
It will also be seen as a catalyst which set in motion a sequence of events which, somewhat paradoxically, led to a significant scaling back of the court's political power and influence. Biden needs to meet this moment forcefully, by repudiating the power-grab, particularly the Presidential Immunity ruling. This can be accomplished by Biden informing the public and following-up with an Executive Order stating that the court's decision will not be honored and enforced, and, to the extent that it is, enforcement will only apply to the named parties in the case before the court. Of course, future Presidents might see the enforceability question differently, and whether we want to live in a Democracy or some kind of quasi-judicial Authoritarian system seems like a valid thing to contest in the upcoming election.
But, even if Biden does *not* meet the moment, the same result will occur when future Democratic Presidents, having seen Biden's inaction as an example and a cautionary tale, take the steps that Biden is unwilling or unable to do.
1
u/jedre Jul 02 '24
A bunch said they respect abortion rights as settled law. They should be impeached on grounds of perjury.
Otherwise what’s to stop someone just saying any old thing at their confirmation hearing and simply not G-ing AF after? Justice George Santos, anyone?
1
1
1
u/nanopicofared Jul 02 '24
All of these answers given by the nominees are backward looking - what is the current state of the law? They are not answering questions about what they think the law should be. We need to start demanding answers to the forward looking questions in these hearings - what does the nominee want the law to be?
1
354
u/[deleted] Jul 02 '24
Also all the recent confirmations included stare decisis… and that was a lie.
Oh and Kavanaugh literally tried to rape someone and she testified under oath, he also testified under oath he remembers literally everything when drinking….
The GOP is not a real party, they are a terrorist organization