Isn't this the same idiot that ruled Trump could just overrule the law, whenever he felt like it? Pick a lane, dumbass.
this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
166 points (100.0% liked)
News
29507 readers
1797 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's not what the ruling says and repeating that false interpretation only helps Trump.
It's says that he cannot be held to task for acts he has taken in official capacity. So everything trump is doing, even his personal life, is being done through presidential powers.
It was a ridiculous and bad ruling that set up trump for this. Roberts is culpable.
At this point I'm not sure that's as important as it should be, because Trump is, in effect, doing whatever he wants -- including ignoring the courts.
Of course it matters. States and laws work the way the general consensus says they work. One of the reasons Trump can get away with 90% of what he does is because public servants got fed the idea that the president of the US is above the law.
Shouldn't laws be (almost) immutable? As in the only way they can be altered is through the courts or by Congress?
If that isn't the case, and things being as they are, the law is meaningless when it comes to Trump. He ignores rulings he doesn't like, outright disobeys court-ordered actions, lies to the court (through lawyers) and lies to Congress and Americans all the time.
In theory yes. In practice like all social conventions they change based on what most people believe they are.
The ruling was made to retroactively protect Trump and only Trump is the kind of slime bag that would use it in the future.
What did it say?
It says that the president of the US has immunity for official acts which fall within their "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority". This aligns with the executive privileges in other democracies.
And what "official acts" were being referred to in that case? Just to be clear...
Whatever the Supreme Court says is an official act. Even paying off a stripper that he slept with using campaign funds from before he was ever president is considered an official act by the president.
I don't know why everyone is downvoting you. You're right. I was just being sarcastic.
Good thing you crowned Trump last summer you asshat.
The Supreme Court has enabled the descent into fascism for decades. From treating corporations as people, to Citizens United to shielding presidents from any kind of scrutiny.
And now this guy comes whining about being sidelined?
And choosing Bush over Gore.
When they write the history of the US's decline into fascism and irrelevance, Roberts and his court will have at least a chapter.
Right up there with Taney.
You kind of gave away judicial independence when you started sucking his dick, John.
You are THE failure of American democracy
Cool, why did you give it up then?
If only shame still existed.
Feeling shame indicates someone has a conscience and I'm not sure all 9 justices do.
Getting a little tired of acting as Chief Fleshlight of the God Emperor you created, huh?
No he’s just lying.
“Judicial independence is crucial,” Roberts, the leader of the Supreme Court and the entire federal judiciary, said at a gathering of judges and lawyers in his hometown. He described the creation of three co-equal branches of government as the Constitution’s one innovation. “That innovation doesn’t work if the judiciary is not independent,” he said.
Journalist: "What do you think about Western Civilization?"
Gandhi: "I think it would be a good idea."
Judicial independence for me but not for thee
This show is getting boring.
In this thread people who haven't read one CJ Roberts opinion in its entirety. That fault lies square only Congress and ourselves. The role of the judiciary is not the draft bill or pen amendments to the Constitution. It is to decide cases based on the law Congress made.
We also had precedence for previous rulings, and where is that now?
Your question is vague and it would be hard to give you an apt response, if you rephrase it with more clarity I'll get back to you.
I was not talking about case law. I was talking about text. But if you want my thoughts on prior precedents let me know which ones.
Congress did not write the Constitution.
Who do you think called for and commissioned the Constitutional Convention? Who do you think proposes amendments under Article V? Pick up a book.
You don’t seem to realize that you just agreed with me that Congress didn’t write the Constitution but rather by the Constitutional Convention. Further, the Constitutional Convention was endorsed by the Confederation Congress, a body which no longer exists.
You need to do more than pick up a book. You need to actually read it.
Well it was Madison if you want to know who held the quill, but upon the consent and order of the Confederation Congress which our current Congress acts in the continuity of. See Art. XI Clause I (proclaiming the debts of the Confederation's Congress maybe held just as valid under the Constitution's Congress).
Welcome to the new dark ages.
Edit: So I’m an idiot and didn’t read the article and assumed something else. My bad! Read the article, kids!
~~Can someone explain to me why it needs to be independent?~~ Their entire job is supposed to be independent interpretation. It doesn’t matter if it’s part of a cohort or separate, it’s a job that requires exactly what it requires. Just fucking do it.
Because they literally cannot do their job if it's not independent? Trump has shown that he will do whatever he can to meddle, and if he had any control whatsoever over the judicial branch, this shit would have been officially over on Jan 20.
I see. So this is my fault for not reading the article because I was assuming they meant independent from what they are NOW, like separated from the branches of government. I made an edit to my original post above.
Thank you for reminding me to do the basics.
Clearly.