I expect you're right that Roberts is no fan of the current president, nor an adherent of the garbled set of resentments we call MAGA. Ditto for his reactionary agenda around corporate interests. Yet I'm troubled an additional feature of his jurisprudence: his apparent fondness for absolutism, even if that fondness may not extend to the absolute ruler he has been helping create. The presidential immunity decision, after all, fulfills the textbook criterion for absolutism: "princeps legibus solutus est" since that monstrous decision -- which is just the claimed status that got Charles I into such trouble after 1632. The decision on executive officers just issued amplifies absolute rule in administrative as well as personal terms: if Congress cannot shield any executive officer from removal if he does not follow the instructions of the absolute ruler, Congress loses all but its most extreme constraints on that executive: all that's left is impeachment. Otherwise, the ruler, personally immune for his actions as president, able to dismiss any subordinate who does not hew to his will no matter what the law says, and possessed of an unlimited power to pardon his subordinates who violate the law at his behest, is virtually without constraint. And 40 years of studying political history has convinced me of the sad wisdom of Acton's plaint: power corrupts, and absolute power does indeed corrupt absolutely. I fear we will be seeing this in action far too often in the next few years. If Roberts imagines that his court will stand as a remaining constraint on the current absolute ruler, he is likely to receive a rude awakening, based on the growing prevalence of direct defiance of Federal courts his administration is demonstrating.
I should have added that if so, it were an admirable such, and I'd urge that it be retained, struck-out and followed by the 'kind' originally intended.
Robert’s is pursuing a Reaganite agenda and always has been. I think that’s mostly true of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett as well. The degree of overlap between that agenda and Trump’s doesn’t surprise anyone on the left. But they aren’t identical.
On the "mean" thing, I think Trump just really likes to fight, argue, and yell and "his" contractors yell back. Makes stiffing them so much more fun.
Its a hobby of mine to search for a through-line in the Roberts Court decisions, and spare a thought for poor John having to keep the Thomas and Alioto kittens in the legal box. I think I agree with you, my take is that enabling Project 2025, essentially the Republican platform at this point, is the main goal. The exception seems to be anything that could destabilize Republican control of government, like ending birthright citizenship. Dobbs seems an exception to the exception, other than it didn't have that destabilizing effect and it was such a White Whale to Republican activists. Giving the opinion to Alioto is kind of a tell there.
And yeah, pleasing Trump is not a priority to Roberts. I think Robert's view is the party's view, that Trump is a wrecking ball not a leader or ally. He's useful as long as he can deliver his voters and they can occasionally aim him at the right targets. Everything else is just operating costs someone else will have to pay.
If wishes were fishes… We all want Trump to go away, but We The People are the only ones of all those with the power who will act in our own need for self-preservation.
I expect you're right that Roberts is no fan of the current president, nor an adherent of the garbled set of resentments we call MAGA. Ditto for his reactionary agenda around corporate interests. Yet I'm troubled an additional feature of his jurisprudence: his apparent fondness for absolutism, even if that fondness may not extend to the absolute ruler he has been helping create. The presidential immunity decision, after all, fulfills the textbook criterion for absolutism: "princeps legibus solutus est" since that monstrous decision -- which is just the claimed status that got Charles I into such trouble after 1632. The decision on executive officers just issued amplifies absolute rule in administrative as well as personal terms: if Congress cannot shield any executive officer from removal if he does not follow the instructions of the absolute ruler, Congress loses all but its most extreme constraints on that executive: all that's left is impeachment. Otherwise, the ruler, personally immune for his actions as president, able to dismiss any subordinate who does not hew to his will no matter what the law says, and possessed of an unlimited power to pardon his subordinates who violate the law at his behest, is virtually without constraint. And 40 years of studying political history has convinced me of the sad wisdom of Acton's plaint: power corrupts, and absolute power does indeed corrupt absolutely. I fear we will be seeing this in action far too often in the next few years. If Roberts imagines that his court will stand as a remaining constraint on the current absolute ruler, he is likely to receive a rude awakening, based on the growing prevalence of direct defiance of Federal courts his administration is demonstrating.
>Is he trying to send some king of message to somebody?
Freudian slip?
yipes I guess so
I should have added that if so, it were an admirable such, and I'd urge that it be retained, struck-out and followed by the 'kind' originally intended.
Robert’s is pursuing a Reaganite agenda and always has been. I think that’s mostly true of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett as well. The degree of overlap between that agenda and Trump’s doesn’t surprise anyone on the left. But they aren’t identical.
I think you're giving Roberts too much credit!
On the "mean" thing, I think Trump just really likes to fight, argue, and yell and "his" contractors yell back. Makes stiffing them so much more fun.
Its a hobby of mine to search for a through-line in the Roberts Court decisions, and spare a thought for poor John having to keep the Thomas and Alioto kittens in the legal box. I think I agree with you, my take is that enabling Project 2025, essentially the Republican platform at this point, is the main goal. The exception seems to be anything that could destabilize Republican control of government, like ending birthright citizenship. Dobbs seems an exception to the exception, other than it didn't have that destabilizing effect and it was such a White Whale to Republican activists. Giving the opinion to Alioto is kind of a tell there.
And yeah, pleasing Trump is not a priority to Roberts. I think Robert's view is the party's view, that Trump is a wrecking ball not a leader or ally. He's useful as long as he can deliver his voters and they can occasionally aim him at the right targets. Everything else is just operating costs someone else will have to pay.
If wishes were fishes… We all want Trump to go away, but We The People are the only ones of all those with the power who will act in our own need for self-preservation.