I sort of agree with this. But the second “thing” (that the Court has been willing to check Trump a few times) does not apply at all to Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, or Kavanaugh. Those four seem to be loudly and proudly in the rubber-stamp camp.
Also, the decisions in Trump v. United States, Louisiana v. Callais, and the four dissents in Trump v. Barbara were so atrocious that they drown any of the Court’s decisions checking the Trump administration. This Court deserves no praise whatsoever.
I am less sanguine than Alex. I count the opinion in Trump vs. United States (2024) as the beginning of the decline in the Supreme Court’s credibility. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about immunity. The Supreme Court made that up by relying on an equally bad opinion in Nixon vs. Fitzgerald (1987).
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #69 that a president would be “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of the law”.
The 13 states had just overthrown by revolution a tyrannical and corrupt government. Does anyone seriously think for a moment that the Constitution would have been ratified if Hamilton or any other key figure in the drafting of the Constitution had said that the chief executive, the president, would be immune both civilly and criminally from prosecution for crimes committed during his presidency? Of course not!
This Supreme Court’s use of “originalism” is nothing more than a fig leaf to cover the naked power grab.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the "proper role" (not sure there is one) of judicial philosophy. Is judicial philosophy anything more than a set of fancy or intelligent sounding words to justify Justices reaching their desired results or policy outcomes? I often think it is not anything more. Doesn't their choice of a judicial philosophy to use predispose a set of desired policy outcomes? And why is it better to come to the same outcome from a judicial philosophy than a pure policy choice or "this is the outcome I want" approach? Seems like form over substance.
I wish the Justices would just own their desired policy outcomes and be honest about what they are. We'd get shorter and cleaner opinions, and we wouldn't all be speculating so much. Under this approach, the Dobbs, Cook, Slaughter, Trump Immunity and so many other majority opinions could have been just a couple of pages.
The Four Horsemen of the Constitutional Apocalypse (TAGK) each laid it out for all to see in their dissenting opinions in Barbara. Nothing but disingenuous sophistry. Roberts is a chameleon. During oral arguments in Barbara, in response to the SG’s appeal to changed circumstances, he CORRECTLY said “Circumstances may have changed but it’s the same Constitution,” but in Trump v. U.S. he essentially based his decision on present circumstances.
Agreed. The Court has issued a handful of decisions that are so bad, so egregious, so law-free and so politics-full that I struggle (but barely still manage) to view it as a legitimate institution.
I sort of agree with this. But the second “thing” (that the Court has been willing to check Trump a few times) does not apply at all to Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, or Kavanaugh. Those four seem to be loudly and proudly in the rubber-stamp camp.
Also, the decisions in Trump v. United States, Louisiana v. Callais, and the four dissents in Trump v. Barbara were so atrocious that they drown any of the Court’s decisions checking the Trump administration. This Court deserves no praise whatsoever.
I am less sanguine than Alex. I count the opinion in Trump vs. United States (2024) as the beginning of the decline in the Supreme Court’s credibility. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about immunity. The Supreme Court made that up by relying on an equally bad opinion in Nixon vs. Fitzgerald (1987).
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #69 that a president would be “liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of the law”.
The 13 states had just overthrown by revolution a tyrannical and corrupt government. Does anyone seriously think for a moment that the Constitution would have been ratified if Hamilton or any other key figure in the drafting of the Constitution had said that the chief executive, the president, would be immune both civilly and criminally from prosecution for crimes committed during his presidency? Of course not!
This Supreme Court’s use of “originalism” is nothing more than a fig leaf to cover the naked power grab.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the "proper role" (not sure there is one) of judicial philosophy. Is judicial philosophy anything more than a set of fancy or intelligent sounding words to justify Justices reaching their desired results or policy outcomes? I often think it is not anything more. Doesn't their choice of a judicial philosophy to use predispose a set of desired policy outcomes? And why is it better to come to the same outcome from a judicial philosophy than a pure policy choice or "this is the outcome I want" approach? Seems like form over substance.
I wish the Justices would just own their desired policy outcomes and be honest about what they are. We'd get shorter and cleaner opinions, and we wouldn't all be speculating so much. Under this approach, the Dobbs, Cook, Slaughter, Trump Immunity and so many other majority opinions could have been just a couple of pages.
The Four Horsemen of the Constitutional Apocalypse (TAGK) each laid it out for all to see in their dissenting opinions in Barbara. Nothing but disingenuous sophistry. Roberts is a chameleon. During oral arguments in Barbara, in response to the SG’s appeal to changed circumstances, he CORRECTLY said “Circumstances may have changed but it’s the same Constitution,” but in Trump v. U.S. he essentially based his decision on present circumstances.
Agreed. The Court has issued a handful of decisions that are so bad, so egregious, so law-free and so politics-full that I struggle (but barely still manage) to view it as a legitimate institution.
Amen to this!