377 Comments
User's avatar
Christopher Sheahen's avatar

Maybe Roberts and the Court need to start reigning Trump in. In all good faith, I can’t imagine the Justices would help facilitate an authoritarian. I know they don’t like to meddle in politics, but they need to study what the founders resolved and protect our Constitution.

tamar's avatar

they created this monster....

HarrisWalz FTW 2024's avatar

Not on their own, but they certainly helped, especially with their "Get of Out of Jail Free" card ruling.

Cissna, Ken's avatar

And the Citizens United decision too.

Ruth Sheets's avatar

Ken, I think Citizens United is even more powerful than the immunity nonsense. It has permitted a jerk like Musk to buy elections, even the presidency which has then permitted him to do enormous damage to our government, our nation, and is continuing with little change. It is disgusting, but who is going to stop it?

HarrisWalz FTW 2024's avatar

Between those two rulings, they certainly made the path to this way too easy.

Steve Muratore's avatar

WE the PEOPLE will put a stop to it. When there's a MARCH, join it. When there's any other NONVIOLENT action/struggle, JOIN it.

I LOVE YOU and stand with you.

Jeannie Scott's avatar

Too old and infirm to march - damit, but will continue to support where I can and hammer away here.

Bonnie Sue Miller's avatar

No, his parents created this monster, but yes, SCOTUS has facilitated his criminal activities — shameful and disgusting!

Dirk  Faegre's avatar

His parents and Roy Cohn also. One of the very worst lawyers this country has ever seen. And he was involved by Donald Trump's lawyer from early on (as Cohn worked with Donald's father, Fred). That duo formed Donald.

Sophia Demas's avatar

No, God created this monster to show his earthly children just how stupidly they use their free will....

Russ Wiecking's avatar

Same with Hitler, I suppose.

Bill Katz's avatar

To Joyce: I’m afraid you are placing too much faith in the three branches of government. Joyce, this is already in process of total destruction. The tyrant is not listening to the judiciary. What makes you think he would listen to the houses of congress? Of course he won’t. I’m sorry but I see no choice but an armed revolt. Hopefully parts or most of the military will take the side of the constitution. But life as we have known it has ended. Of course anyone can go about their business. Go out and run for exercise in the morning. Off to work. Running off to Costco to buy food preserves. Go off to church or temple if you are a believer. And if you keep your mouth shut and do as your told, life goes on as usual. However, nothing is as usual anymore. There are two universes. One the pretend universe in which everything goes on as usual. The other is 1984. Watch out.

Pull the wool away from your face, Joyce. I’m afraid things are just not what they were just a few short months ago. And we are no where complete with The New Trump Speak which will soon be on every screen everywhere; TV, computers, cell devises. Everywhere. The local bus will show Trump Talk until you exit the bus. All cabs will have installed screens. Even houses of worship will have installed Trump Speak as you receive holy communion.

Russell John Netto's avatar

No Bill. First instance judges are making many rulings against the administration, overturning Trump's arbitrary use of executive orders and DOGE's illegal disruption of federal agencies. Trump has been influenced by all this judicial activity. In an interview yesterday with Fox News' Laura Ingraham when pressed on whether he would defy a court order he said: “No, I never did defy a court order...you can’t do that,” an obvious lie given his recent tirade against judge James Boaberg. And despite that admission he couldn't resist adding: We have very bad judges and these are judges that shouldn’t be allowed. I think at a certain point, you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a rogue judge? The judge that we’re talking about. Look at his other rulings, I mean rulings unrelated, but having to do with me: he’s a lunatic.”

Bill Katz's avatar

I’m just joking don’t listen to me. Hum…. But am I?

Ted H.'s avatar

I seldom listen to you and take what you say as less than a grain of salt. You can be funny even when you sound stupid.

Bill Katz's avatar

I always try and sound as stupid as I can. You would love my stand-up.

ROY WALLACE's avatar

Doesn't sound stupid to me. At most, over dramatized. I am educated. Obtained a JD at age 47, and practiced for 30 years. Remember, "it can't happen here"? Sorry, but it has.

Ellen McKenzie's avatar

Much of what you say is frighteningly possible. Today I love these strong judges and am as thankful as I’ve ever been in my life.

MaryPat's avatar

ESPECIALLY houses of worship.

Dirk  Faegre's avatar

Our July 14th 1789 is here.

Question is which side are you on?

Bill Katz's avatar

Do you mean do I support the slave-owning Thomas Jefferson or do I support the slave-owning George Washington?

Sophia Demas's avatar

Exactly! On one hand they grant him immunity, then they tell him what he can't do. Good luck....

Bryan Sean McKown's avatar

Some Very Good News Reinstating Federal Employees in 18 Agencies:

Education Dept.

FDIC, Federal DepositInsurance Corp, A 2009 Financial Collapse Savior

Commerce Dept.

Health & Human Resources

Interior Dept

Labor Dept

Agriculture Dept

GSA, General Services Administration

Small Business Administration, Loans for Small shops & start-ups

U.S. Treasury Dept., Tax Refund anyone?

EPA, Environmental Protection

CFPB Consumer Protection Bureau, Senator Warren's Baby, Saved Consumers Billions

Homeland Security, Post 9/11 Stalwart

HUD, Housing & Urban Development Dept.

U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID, Get sback All including its Building

********************

Got that right tamar. See, Trump vs. United States 603 U.S. 593 (2024). The Monster created John Roberts + 5 Justice. So it was 6-3 to allow the Orange Monster to run amok.

He Chief John, why not put a qualifier on Donald?

How about civil & criminal immunity for acts but, only within any presidents' "CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY." No? What ... you could not get 9 votes for that?

Listen up John, how about immunity for "CORE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTIES".

No? Not even a footnote? ... 'Not allowed to shoot someone on 5th Ave'.

Well, the Monster 👑 is going run wild in the Village.

Bill Katz's avatar

Isn’t that a wish fulfillment, Bryan?

M Apodaca's avatar

The Heritage Foundation has been at this since at least the 1970s.

Ginni Simpson's avatar

If they don't like to meddle in politics, why did they give a president almost unlimited power to do what he wants without consequence? Short-sighted, to say the least. Sotomeyer was correct: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

Cats 🐈🐈‍⬛'s avatar

Followed by Clarence “I like to vacation on someone else’s dime” Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Daniel Solomon's avatar

Ask every lawyer in Congress on the record whether “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

https://clerk.house.gov/documents/Lawyers.pdf

pts's avatar

I can _easily_ imagine five or six justices supporting an authoritarian. Look at recent history, in particular at the egregious presidential immunity decision. Roberts has been a staunch conservative his whole career, including his time at SCOTUS; any faith in him to start acting like an impartial, fair-minded jurist is faith misplaced.

SCOTUS's job at this point is to somehow get most of the toothpaste back into the tube. That it got out on Roberts's watch will be the stuff of his legacy, which he is keen on repairing before retirement. His weak-kneed response today isn't too encouraging but is, I guess, better than silence.

David Skoglund's avatar

I’m not a fan of John Roberts but his legacy is probably weighing on him. After all, history will always refer to this as the “Roberts Court”.

James Coyle's avatar

History is not weighing hard enough on him. The Roberts court, in terms of its damage to the United States, ranks even below the Taney court (Dred Scott).

Susan Stone's avatar

I'm sorry if this seems nit-picky, but I need to point out a spelling error, which really makes a difference in how one reads your comment. What I'm sure you meant to say was reining trump in. like the reins used on horses. IMHO, the court is the reason trump is reigning, as in trying to be a monarch. Sometimes spelling really is important.

Christopher Sheahen's avatar

Agreed on the spelling. Missed that. Thanks

Naomi Siegel's avatar

Christopher, of course "reign" is what we're all thinking about when we think about what Trump would like to do. It's perfectly understandable that you'd use that spelling!

Jaws's avatar

sincerely, the courtesy displayed above in the back & forth over spelling is warming - pleasure to read - thank you all

Christopher Sheahen's avatar

I thought about the spelling as I was typing, and I chose one of the options shown in my app. Glad you noticed it as I’m usually good on spelling.

Potter's avatar

Reign, as in King George the 3rd... lately in "Hamilton".

Carthago Delenda Est's avatar

Orange has proudly proclaimed that he's never seen 'Hamilton'. After all, how could he possibly relate to a ragtag bunch of revolutionaries rising up to overthrow an authoritarian, autocratic king?

Betsy J. Miller's avatar

MAYBE?! You can't imagine? Well the majority of the Court has been doing just that.

Maui Wahine's avatar

I believe Alito and Thomas will facilitate authoriatarianism because they both have huge chips on their shoulders and want to lash out against those who they feel have aggrieved them (just like Trump). Hopefully the remaining justices will hold the line.

Jeannie Scott's avatar

They have been "liking to meddle in politics" all too much lately.

Jan Dorsett's avatar

Perhaps they can “rein” him in. He’s already “reigned” himself in.

Harry D. Barr's avatar

I do NOT TRUST ROBERTS and his REPUBLICAN INJUSTICES to follow the CONSTITUTION and REIGN in FELON TRUMP, POTUS MUSK and their THUGS and GOONS!!

Ruth Sheets's avatar

Christopher, you are right that the justices should be standing for our democracy, but there is little evidence of it in the past couple of decades.

suzc's avatar

Four or five of them do nothing but meddle in politics. As partisan as possible.

Christopher Sheahen's avatar

At times they do. I keep hoping there’s a limit to their meddling. I try to believe they have, or had, some respect for the rule of law as we citizens understand it.

suzc's avatar

There is no limit to Alito or Thomas or gorsuch and very little to Roberts and kavanaugh. They have no respect for the constitution or the rule of law.

Christopher Sheahen's avatar

Your point is valid. I just don’t think they are as evil and narcissistic as Trump. They won’t support a dictator. That’s what I hope. You got to have hope!

suzc's avatar

I hope you are correct.

I see no evidence to support it. Hubris is as dangerous as evil when it is unaccountable and unleashed.

RLT's avatar

I do not trust this SCOTUS. I think that they absolutely like to meddle in politics. After their decision in Trump v. U.S., I will not give them the benefit of the doubt.

They knew what they were doing in the immunity ruling. They know who Trump is and how they thought that he’d never “eat their faces” is a perfect example of their hubris.

Will their cognitive dissonance allow them to rule against Trump to protect the Constitution, their holy grail? Only time will tell. Let’s hope that Trump hasn’t decided to get rid of them the way he did with the DoE, and other agencies, his jack-booted loyalists showing up at the SCOTUS building & locking them out.

Christopher Sheahen's avatar

For the moment, I have to believe at least a majority of the Court respects the Constitution. Let’s see how this plays out.

RLT's avatar

Fair enough. I’m glad that others have hope because I’ve lost mine, as far as SCOTUS.

Lance Khrome's avatar

I believe that this is CJ Roberts signaling that he - and Justice ACB- will be part of a 5-4 majority vote finding against tRump's depredations of our Constitution, and perhaps even dialing back - ever so slightly - the "Get Out of Jail Free" card confected in *tRump v United States*.

One lives in hope.

Patty Mooney's avatar

If they don't, then they will be defanged and no longer necessary as a branch of government.

Lance Khrome's avatar

I have to believe that Roberts senses this, and that in fact the judiciary is locked into existential combat with a lawless regime is swaying his apperception of tRump 2.0.

Commonsense's avatar

I totally agree with you, Lance. I think for a while yet, his DOJ may still show up in court but they're getting pretty defiant at producing judge-requested witnesses to come to hearings and not complying with judge's orders. They're using the most childlike reasons to disobey court orders (have to obey written orders, not verbal ones - or take your pick). It sounds to me like they're seeing the court system like it's a joke to them - gradually phasing out compliance with judicial orders and court appearances. They act like they can't find out judge-requested facts, like who musk answers to, or is he making the firing decisions himself? A judge can't rule against DOJ if they refuse to provide the facts and witnesses. No penalty for them. It's intentional, passive noncompliance. DOJ knows noncompliance prevents an adverse ruling. The judges know what DOJ is doing but can't figure out how to compel compliance or how to penalize the DOJ for their repetitive, passive willfulness. I'm so tired of seeing them simply be requested to attend yet another hearing for the same issue. So why not disbarment? Enough is enough.

I'm wondering if trump will even bother with the effort to call up reluctant congressional members for the usual intimidation to vote for judges' impeachments, and instead just cut to the chase and stop responding to the judicial branch altogether. So, what detriment does he get for that course of action? That's the problem, that a bad actor "President" can't be punished if he can intimidate the people who would punish him.

Since he commands the military and its muscle, he can just ignore whatever a judge or SCOTUS justice says. Someone that's close to his "Resolute" desk will see the light - that there's no reason to even go to the hearings since they aren't going to do what the judges say anyway, there's no consequence for them, and disregarding judges is a more efficient enhancement of trump's sole "authority". I think he sees his still-good poll numbers and feels he hasn't lost much at all in them (so what if he sees 52% of Americans don't approve of him, it's not 60% or higher). For right now it seems, he can keep up, or enhance, his "King" program, going around Congress and now the Courts. I wonder what hidden leverage that will catch his attention - there's always a key somewhere...

Patty Mooney's avatar

Why do you think they gave T such power? And why didn't Biden take advantage of it?

Cissna, Ken's avatar

Very thin line of hope here, I’m afraid.

Lance Khrome's avatar

It's the best we have in a worsening "rule of law" environment, however limited at first glance the Roberts statement is.

Sherry Bellamy's avatar

Why? I believe he’s sending a message that any trump appeals will be greeted with open arms by this far right version of SCOTUS we have now.

Paula B.'s avatar

I've been wondering if this is a watershed moment. What will Trump's reaction be? Will he turn on Roberts and will that cause the Court, or at least enough of it, to come to its senses? I am anxious to see what happens now because I think this could be a turning point.

Becca's avatar

Nope! The only Branch of our 3 part equally powered Federal Government able to enforce the laws, decisions of the US Supreme Court is trump's Executive Branch.

The only people able to stop trump are in the Legislative Branch with IMPEACHMENT.

2 times for very valid reasons and fact based prosecution by the US House Dems, the GOP refused to Impeach and Remove trump 1.0.

We the People are they only ones to push the Legislative Branch to Impeach and Remove trump. But, if trump refuses to leave who will enforce the IMPEACHMENT. JD Vance could be declared POTUS but he could appoint trump to a Musk-like special employee at large.

Get the idea! We the People have to force our will upon GOP/trump/Musk by peaceful civil disobedience in large numbers and with devastating effects and massive news coverage.

It is totally in our hands! Do you want to RESIST? I did it in the 60's, 70's and 80's for female rights, civil rights, voting rights and always stay an informed, rational voter-"I won't get everything I want but what is good for democratic, majority rules us ALL, fair, equitable law/order, compassionate republic.

I can no longer travel long distances, march endlessly-I need facilities, water, food, rest more than I used to SO younger people better get educated, aware or get their "ox gored" so they pay attention and RESIST.

I volunteer every election to help wherever I can, donate what I can, boycott, RESIST, take personal risks of coming to someone's attention for retribution, harassment but young people HELP USA!

Betsy J. Miller's avatar

Becca,

When you (and I) did our marching and protesting post Vietnam, we had had the benefit of strong public education, so we understood why we were doing those things. That is no longer true: 77 million people are so ignorant of even the basic principles of democratic government that they elected Donald Trump AGAIN--more even in 2024 than in 2016. You can't count on them to resist if they don't understand why they would.

Paula B.'s avatar

I agree with that too.

Louise Yanuck's avatar

I've been saying this for months. Schools don't teach Civics, Geography, Current Events or History beyond the 1960s, especially in Middle Schools. They haven't for years. The result? We end up with a "blissfully" ignorant and intellectually lazy population that spends no time reading, watching, or listening to the real news. They haven't a clue what it means to live in an oligarchy or an authoritarian state or under fascism. All they want is "bread and circuses" (to be fed and entertained).

Paula B.'s avatar

I agree. But I do think this moment with Roberts is significant. The justices don't normally reprimand the president, especially these justices. This feels big to me.

Linda Glassman's avatar

I’m with you Becca. I don’t understand how uninvolved most young people are. In the 70s when I was a student at UF, everyday I attended a peaceful

Gathering to end the Viet Nam war. Other then the Muslims opposing Netanyahu, I haven’t heard of any gathering opposing the Hateful, misguided Trump

Regime. We need the younger people of this country to organize peaceful marches all across America. That’s the only way we can stop Trumps fascist behaviors. I’m so afraid, about the similarities between Hitler in 1933 and Trump now

Pat Hodge's avatar

Yes, we must resist. My husband and I marched recently in DC and will again against the current administration and the growing threat to our freedoms and liberties. We need young people to join in our demonstrations or they will lose the rights they cherish.

David J. Sharp's avatar

Come to his senses? WHAT senses? Trump wants a constitutional crisis; the question is whether he will obey a judge’s decision he doesn’t like. Or just thumb his regal nose

Rhonda's avatar

That is my fear/thought, that trump and the Republicans will simply say "make me".

Betsy J. Miller's avatar

I think with the deportation of the Venezuelans after the judge ordered them to turn the planes around, they already did.

Paula B.'s avatar

I suspect they will, but I don't think the Court will stand for that. And my understanding is that there are ways to enforce a contempt citation.

Megan Ross's avatar

They're already saying "Make me"!

Paula B.'s avatar

No, not Trump. He doesn't have any senses to come to. I was just wondering if some of the justices might finally see what they've wrought, now that their profession is the one being threatened. Wondering, not certain at all.

David J. Sharp's avatar

Nor am I certain. The six conservatives—they don’t have to worry about being personally affected. They’re rich, likely live in gated communities, don’t breathe our air. Ethics? They passed. And then there’s the promise of being a protected member of the Trump Court.

Cissna, Ken's avatar

Paula wrote “come to its senses”—the Court’s.

David J. Sharp's avatar

Right you are! Still, WHAT senses? The court already gave Trump his get out of jail card. The real question is how far they are willing to protect themselves … not us, so far below these celestial creatures.

Paula B.'s avatar

Exactly. When *they* are being threatened, they might actually do something.

David Skoglund's avatar

Hey Roberts. Reverse your horrible immunity ruling. What the hell were you thinking?!

Theda DeBacker's avatar

Can this be done? I think it's the only way to salvage our democracy. Could the blue AGs bring a suit on behalf their citizens whose lives are ruined [Medicaid recipients, vets who depend on the VA, etc.].

Lance Khrome's avatar

Any ruling can be undone by this crowd..."Chevron Doctrine", "Roe", "Shelby County", for starters upsetting decades of "settled law"...so sure, *tRump v US* could also be dialed back, but who is the fifth Justice? Roberts, with buyer's remorse?

David Skoglund's avatar

I think that could be done, Theda.

Amy's avatar

They came for the immigrants and I said nothing.

They came for the universities and I said nothing.

They came for federal workers and I said nothing.

They came for the journalists and I said nothing.

They came for law firms and I said nothing.

They came for the scientists and I said nothing.

They came for the judges, and I realized there was a problem.

LYNN COOK's avatar

Shades of Pastor Niemoller's Lament, Amy!

Your rendition is so beautifully worded for cogent application in these chaotic times.

Well and truly spoken, dear lady.

Elizabeth's avatar

First they came for the women.

Amy's avatar

I cannot disagree. They have come for so many with such force that it is overwhelming.

Patricia Allyn Mechare's avatar

Now let's do something about it!

Happy Valley No More's avatar

Amy, you should send this one to the extreme court…maybe each individual justice by name.

gretchen's avatar

I don’t know how you do it. This administration is a f-ing disaster filled with felons, criminals and corrupt officials that’s being cheered on by Russian. I just want to scream most of the time.

Janet Gillis's avatar

And Musk. He holds the purse strings in the current administration. Why nothing is being done about him is beyond me.

Patricia Thayer's avatar

Yes! It’s so hard. We must stand together. Hang on tight to one another: It’s going to be a bumpy ride. (Apologies for the paraphrasing, Bette Davis!)

Wendy Stewart's avatar

Me too. I want him to go away so badly that at this point I don’t care how it happens.

suzc's avatar

It seems like this crew is backing the country into a corner from which the only option is Second Amendment Solutions (as some Republican put it some years ago, possibly when Palin was putting targets on people). It seems like that is what they are pushing for. Insanity.

Richard House's avatar

Roberts has stoked Trump’s lunacy and did the groundwork for his rise in Citizens United and Shelby, not to mention getting him literally out of jail with his hallucinatory immunity finding. He may not be too late, but this is way too little.

Theda DeBacker's avatar

Can the tRump immunity ruling be over turned? Could the blue AGs bring a suit on behalf their citizens whose lives are ruined [Medicaid recipients, vets who depend on the VA, etc.].

Pam Birkenfeld's avatar

A new case with similar facts would have to come before the court and it would have to decide that with some nuance that affects the previous ruling, but there’s no such thing as it overturning it. But as in Roe v Wade they can nuance it out of existence. But it would have to be a very similar case which is unlikely I think given how political it is.

Elizabeth's avatar

He does draw the line.

Marcia Battin's avatar

I would like to point out to the deranged felon that Elon Musk did not ‘win’ anything either. This sordid deportation gambit has the fingerprints of SMiller all over it. Disgusting, disgraceful.

Swbv's avatar

Wouldn't it be a blessing for the rest of us if Trump would stop lying about his "Mandate"? He won a Plurality, not a Majority.

Democratic Kamala Harris 75,019,230 48.34%

Republican Donald J. Trump 77,303,568 49.81%

Various Others 0 0 % 2,878,359 1.85%

Last update: 12/31/2024

The fact that the Electoral College gave him the Oval Office is an entirely different matter.

DarE's avatar

And chose not to vote: 89,278,948

Bill Corbett's avatar

The blessing would be if he just dropped dead now. The cruelty of these people is unbearable.

Elizabeth's avatar

Vance comes next . Appointed by Theil?

Wendy Stewart's avatar

He can’t spell plurality let alone use it in a sentence.

Betsy J. Miller's avatar

That's the least of our problems and the least of his delusions.

Swbv's avatar

Except...... he keeps repeating his Huge Mandate. And most of his Fox viewers believe him.

Betsy J. Miller's avatar

He repeats all his nonsense, and they believe it all, and the fact that he tells them he has a mandate is WAY less important than the fact that, for example, he tells them that judges who rule against him should be impeached.

Swbv's avatar

Or that Michael Flynn is worthy of being on the Board of West Point. Or that he is worthy of being Chairman of the Kennedy Center.

James Quinn's avatar

Needless to say, Trump apologists are rushing to smear Judge Boasberg in various ways even as some of them are hesitantly coming around to the concept that they’ve been supporting and enabling a man who has no concept of the rule of law unless he can use it to his own advantage.

I wish I had faith in Justice Roberts and his conservative cohorts. Like any other human beings, however, admitting error is at best hard, all the more so if it has to happen in the public eye. At some point they are going to have to come face to face with the fact that in attempting to arbitrate the general case instead of focusing on Trump in Trump v USA, they helped immensely in opening this Pandora’s box

Betsy J. Miller's avatar

Five of them have. The other four--women--have been fighting every step of the way.

James Quinn's avatar

I’d say that Amy Barrett is somewhere slightly to the right of center. She clearly thinks for herself, but she was pretty much all in on Trump v USA.

Susan Stone's avatar

I need to point out, from experience, that when you make a mistake, reach out to people to tell them you were wrong, and what the correct answer should be, that results in people trusting you. Clearly, this was my job, talking to individuals, but when I took the initiative to correct my mistakes as soon as I realized I'd been wrong, it was always a positive experience. If CJ Roberts wants his court to have a better image, maybe they should try being like I was.

Cats 🐈🐈‍⬛'s avatar

They didn’t just help open that Pandora’s box, they gave him the freaking key.

Patricia Allyn Mechare's avatar

Heard on a newscast today, that the next one DJT goes after is Justice Amy Barrett. We'll see what happens - she and Justice Roberts broke with the other consevatives on some recent rulings.

Annie Weeks's avatar

It was never in any judge’s job description to be “political”. I noticed the media began to define judges in this way about five or so years ago. Am I correct in this view?

Theda DeBacker's avatar

Can SCOTUS overturn the tRump immunity ruling? Could the blue AGs bring a suit on behalf their citizens whose lives are ruined [Medicaid recipients, vets who depend on the VA, etc.].

Cathy 98280's avatar

And yet, it was perfectly alright with all these rightwing peeps that DISTRICT JUDGE Matthew Kaczmaryk issued an order from his Northern District Texas bench that mifepristone should be banned for usage in all abortions. And it was meant to be obeyed across the entire country.

patricia's avatar

yeah, and why do we still have dick drugs advertised on TV....

Thomas D. McConnell's avatar

"unflagging commitment to the Constitution"

While I agree with the sentiment, Justice Sotomayor was closer to the truth. The Roberts court has a vision, one that takes the Constitution, shreds it, then uses the pulp to create a new document that they want to call the "Constitution." I'm troubled by the call to impeach judges, I think what bothers me more is when judges who desperately deserve to be removed (and some who should have never been seated) are the ones writing about how you shouldn't use impeachment.

Brenda Reiss's avatar

I so enjoy you writing and explanations of the legal rulings. These are truly hard times and your takes are refreshing.

Mary Farrell's avatar

Thank you for this news Joyce. Even a little glimmer of hope helps us push forward with the work of saving our democracy. We’re so glad you’re here.

Stephen Herbits's avatar

Let's not forget Roberts' decision to permit unlimited dark money in elections, gutted the Voting Rights and permits excessive gerrymandering to keep Republicans in power

Notes On Useful Beauty's avatar

I would hope that Justice Roberts looks in the mirror every morning, recalls how he chose to vote on Citizens United, and the Trump immunity ruling, and realizes that he is the one man who single-handedly enabled the dismantling of democracy in the United States. This is his legacy. I doubt there is anything he can do at this point to forestall the catastrophe he has set in motion.

suzc's avatar

I hope he looks in the mirror and vomits. Ditto Mitch MC Connell.

Either could have prevented this multiple times.

Chris's avatar

I agree, there are many who could have been effective against the felon. We need to get tough and focused now.

suzc's avatar

I truly think it is too little too late now. I see no way for regular people to stop it. The rich and powerful have vested interests and do not see their own destruction in it. The path forward closed in November imho.