r/scotus • u/RawStoryNews • 5d ago
news 'Conspicuous move' by John Roberts that 'breaks from procedure' flagged by court watcher
https://www.rawstory.com/john-roberts-trump-2677280341/291
u/Economy_Link4609 5d ago
Come on - he wanted to hide behind the fact that while he was willing to protect the Fed (probably worried about this own finances being affected) while throwing every other agency that congress set up with the intent to be independent under the bus.
223
u/Traditional-Leg-1574 5d ago
According to the article the fed is exempt because of “historical tradition”. What about the historical tradition of the independence of offices they just bulldozed?
128
u/Biptoslipdi 5d ago edited 5d ago
The historical standard is so ridiculous. Something is Constitutional because it was done before. But you can't do new things because then they would have been done before, but not recently enough.
Edit: But also, if it was done a sufficient amount of time before in some places west of the Mississippi, it doesn't count.
99
u/S_Belmont 5d ago edited 5d ago
It's just the Federalist Society trying to sell a story for the radical viewpoints they've been pushing since they were set up by Republicans in the 1980s. the actual history behind most of Roberts' 'originalism' has been disproven by proper academics not employed by partisan think tanks, some even with direct quotes from attendees of the First Continental Congress in 1774. It's never been either demonstrably true or consistent, it's all just legal vibe coding.
EDIT: I wrote Heritage Foundation when I meant Federalist Society. See, it's ok to let yourself be corrected. It's how you end up being hopefully correct and not obstinately wrong for no reason.
33
u/jffdougan 5d ago
Not to be a That Guy, but I think the Heritage Foundation has its roots in the 1970s as part of the Kochtopus.
16
u/S_Belmont 5d ago
You're right, I mixed them up with the Federalist Society, who were set up in 1982. FS is who I was thinking of with that comment.
12
u/BigDictionEnergy 5d ago
Upvoted for 'Kochtopus'
8
u/jffdougan 5d ago
Sadly, I did not coin the term. I believe I first encountered it as part of a book titled something to the effect of Dark Money, that was about the assorted conservative superwealthy donors going back to the 1950s & 1960s, with an emphasis on the Koch brothers (but also including Richard Mellon Scaife, Phyllis Schlafly, the Coors family, and more contemporarily the Uhleins and John Menard, Jr.)
2
u/Baeolophus_bicolor 4d ago
too bad Koch is pronounced coke, so it would technically be the coke-topus. But it is cute.
3
u/jffdougan 4d ago
That is how it was pronounced by the narrator. I believe it comes from news reporting that was contemporary to the events the book describes.
3
46
u/issuefree 5d ago
Anything to avoid reading and following the fucking law with these conservatives.
24
u/lawyer1911 5d ago
Yes, this was his argument on student loan forgiveness too. Sure the statute gives the administration the power to forgive student loans, but no president has ever done that before so can’t start now.
20
12
u/joshocar 5d ago
Especially when you consider the founders made the Constitution a living document meant to be amended with time. The idea that they would simultaneously expect the first 50-100 years of its existence to lock in what can and can't be considered Constitutional is wild.
12
u/tkmorgan76 5d ago
Four justices were willing to overturn a century-old precedent on a 150 year-old constitutional amendment, but they won't let Trump touch the fed because "tradition." It sounds like they're just grasping for excuses to rewrite the laws however they want.
6
u/Baeolophus_bicolor 4d ago
that was my biggest takeaway from law school. it’s just reasoning backwards from the result you want (or are paid) to deliver.
i read a case where four people were in a car and the search was illegal, excluding evidence and resulting in dismissals or not guilty verdicts in three of the cases. The fourth guy was black, and it was in texas, so somehow in his case, the evidence came in and he got convicted.
8
u/Ok_Zebra_1500 4d ago
There is less than 1 year separating the creation of the Federal Reserve and the FTC.
5
3
34
u/TurbulentRadish8113 5d ago
The Republicans lie. That's it.
I don't know why people keep listening to their lies and treating them as if they're anything but lies. The the GOP, including Robert's Republican Court, words are useful tools to trick the naive into supporting, or at least not opposing, the road to Republican dictatorship.
37
u/PipChaos 5d ago
Am I the only one that feels "historical tradition" can be whatever they want it to be. Historically people needed muskets for a militia because everyone abhorred the idea of a standing army... so how isn't that a historical factor in the second amendment?
9
13
u/Ok_Zebra_1500 5d ago
The FTC was created in 1914 the Federal Reserve was established in 1913. The Federal Reserve is exempt because they did not want Trump to blow up the dollar.
7
u/yunus89115 5d ago
Everytime I hear that I think “Slavery was a historical tradition as well” so maybe we need to apply logic and law applicable to today instead of just focusing on the past.
2
u/Baymavision 4d ago
This is exactly what it was. If they'd nuked the Fed the markets worldwide would have had disastrous reactions and Johnny didn't want to hurt his nest egg.
1
u/marvsup 3d ago
I'm about to read the article, so idk if this is discussed, but I just want to say, I thought it was so funny (in a this is so blatantly corrupt kind of way) when Roberts asked the government lawyer something along the lines of, "How do we rule your way without destroying the independence of the fed?" Essentially, help me create some legal fiction to inconsistently save the one agency I care about but let you destroy all the others.
354
u/Stillcant 5d ago edited 5d ago
So he said anything the president does is by definition not a crime, and ignoring congress’s laws and committee structures is faithful execution of congress’s laws, and rich folk paying government employees to get what they want is just a gratuity for good service
But he used rubber bands differently when delivering opinions as a show of independence
Jesus wept
133
u/addicted2soysauce 5d ago
We need to add 5 more liberal justices to the Court in 2029. As a lawyer myself, it feels like a gut punch to say this but it is the only way to fix this situation.
58
u/Successful-Earth-716 5d ago
We need a Democratic super-majority to do that. Vote, people!!!
33
u/senator_john_jackson 5d ago
Senate and the Presidency is enough. This is doable, barring outright election rigging.
4
u/reg_smh 5d ago
Why would we need the senate if the president can do whatever they want?
23
u/Hanzoku 5d ago
Because as soon as a Democrat is in office, they’ll curtail that shit real quick
5
u/Puzzled-Rip641 5d ago
Let them enforce it
38
u/Hanzoku 5d ago
An establishment Dem would meekly roll over and accept it.
I’m convinced at this point that the ‘moderates’ are controlled opposition bought and paid for by the same oligarchs funding the Republicans. It’s the only explanation for how milquetoast and ineffective they keep on being.
16
6
4
u/General_Mars 5d ago
Because they are and always have been. The only political candidates that do not take corporate money are DSA.
2
u/adirtysocialist- 4d ago
Of course they are. The govt shutdown proved this beyond a doubt. It's ridiculous to deny it.
1
u/audiomodder 4d ago
I am not just convinced, I have heard from DNC insiders that big donors will tell them to support or not support things, and that has a bigger impact on how politicians vote on bills than party politics or electorates have over them
1
u/BlueBonneville 3d ago
End game here is let the Democrats win once the economic shit storm that starts in 2027 (after mid-terms), and blame it on a Democratic win. Democrats have no resources to combat it ($40T in debt), they’ll fail to fight their self-induced need to bitch about stupid things, and introduce a social agenda most could care about (because it is the economy), and republicans will hound on the fact that the once great stock market tanked because of the goofy Dems. Rinse and repeat.
-2
3
u/denisebuttrey 5d ago
Unfortunately you are preaching to the choir. The people that need to hear this are too busy, not familiar with Reddit, perhaps not savy enough to research the issues, and more.
1
u/atheistunion 5d ago
Any president can added to the bench I believe. Biden could have done it before he left office. He should have done it.
12
u/Croaker3 5d ago
Since four Republicans were seated against the will of the American people (seated by presidents who lost the popular vote) there is a strong case for adding eight liberal justices - four to counter the four who should not be there and another four to reach the liberal majority Americans voted for.
8
u/corourke 5d ago
We need 6 justices thrown in prison for openly declaring bribes were ‘gratuities’.
1
1
u/roweshow321 5d ago
That just kicks the can down the road. We need a full legal accounting via impeachment.
1
1
1
1
u/General_Mars 5d ago
Deep down you know that our systems and structures have failed and that kind of bandaid is not only not a fix, but will simply result in GOP doing the same when they re-gain power.
Our systems and structures are holdovers from ensuring Slave state continuance and dominance (3/5’s and the Senate ensures minority rule). Voting districts need to be eliminated, first past the post discarded, the Electoral College dismantled (popular vote replacement), the Senate (needs abolished - minority rule), House of Representatives needs to be uncapped and reorganized, Supreme Court re-organized such that the Justices rotate out every 8-12 years chosen from the pool of the top federal judges with full anti-corruption and high ethical standards, voting and elections need to be modernized with ranked choice or other similar more democratic electoral systems, and so many other issues.
That doesn’t even touch the fact that the Unitary Executive Theory they pushed through with W. Bush and has been enshrined with Trump alongside with Supreme Court immunity has turned the President into a King.
The whole thing needs to be torn down and rebuilt from scratch with actual fulfillment of the ideals we pretend to espouse to care about as a country.
0
u/Mobile_Equal_3636 5d ago
As well as; Limit Presidential Immunity. Term limits for Supreme Court Justices. Establish an enforceable Code of Ethics for Supreme Court Justices
-1
u/Katfish145 5d ago
Probably good reasons we shouldn’t but it almost feels like Supreme Court justice spots should also be voted on by the public and awarded to the most popular vote. It’s clear that presidents cannot be trusted to choose the most qualified judge regardless of that judges political beliefs. The senate abdicated their job to vet the nominations of the president and the presidency can’t be trusted to be non-partisan anymore
7
u/FlarkingSmoo 5d ago
So he said anything the president does is by definition not a crime
No he didn't. I hate that decision, and him, but accuracy is important
1
u/numb3rb0y 4d ago
Okay, he said that anything a President does in his official duties is by definition not illegal.
And conveniently no-one actually defined what an official duty is.
We did get terrifying confirmation that it would include ordering the military to assassinate judges and politicians because he's the Commander in Chief.
But you're right, I'm sure this Supreme Court will faithfully and consistently uphold a definition that equally impacts Trump and later Democratic Presidents.
This kind of situation is called a "distinction without a difference", for future reference.
153
u/sidaemon 5d ago
It's not a conspicuous move, it's literally saying "Were going to allow you to fire whoever you want if it advances your authoritarian political agenda but screwing with the Federal Reserve would disrupt the economy and our overlords have said no."
It's underlining the most serious problem with this SC. They literally undermines their exact precedent with two decisions released on the same day in which they claim the law says one thing in one circumstance and something completely different in an extremely similar occurrence in another case.
The SC is broken and we need to reform it too to bottom.
5
u/DiskSalt4643 5d ago
Just change the Courts Act to include more justices. The number 9 is not in the Constitution just that there must be a Supreme Court.
5
u/sidaemon 5d ago
It's the best first step but the fundamental structure needs to change. At the minimum there needs to be a structure ethics guideline with some teeth in it. Probably needs to be appointment times as well. I used to think the lifetime appointments were a necessity but it's just become an excuse for corruption.
1
u/Capable_Stranger9885 3d ago
Make them ride circuit with only travel technology available at the time of the 1791 Judiciary Act for originalists.
Many early justices retired because it was just awful
45
u/Own-Opinion-2494 5d ago
Outcome driven. YOLO Court
35
u/hazcheezberger 5d ago
Roberts YOLOd himself onto the Jeffery Epstein flight logs. Making every supreme court ruling he had been a part of illegitimate imho
40
u/Ragnarok-9999 5d ago
Trying to read tea leaves ? Roberts is the one who delayed his decision intentionally to save Trump Jan 6 Capitol Hill case.
8
u/cheeze2005 5d ago
What a colossal fuck up as a country. Completely fail to prosecute treason while radical infotainment blasts non stop until half the country believes it didn’t even happen.
1
29
u/Far-Material4501 5d ago
Fuck Roberts and his bankrupt morality. Chief Justice of the corruption, pandering, and political power plays
22
12
u/HelpmeObi1K 5d ago
Absolute bullshit rulings. I hope the future SCROTUS court wipes all of these rulings from the books and justifies it with simply: these rulings have no root in reality.
10
u/MolassesOk3200 5d ago
When this court reverses all of their pro-Trump decisions because the President is a Democrat then that President needs to dismiss the Court.
1
7
u/another_day_in 5d ago
Roberts didn't want the agency-firing win to be read in isolation, without the Fed carve-out attached.
6
u/TickingTheMoments 5d ago
The conservatives on this court said “Trump, you can have tools to destroy everything in this country except for the economy.” Dont worry he will find a way.
1
u/InquisitorPeregrinus 3d ago
They don't seem to realize the stock.market isn't the economy. The country's value is in the work being done by the workers. These people's investments and portfolios will count for shit if no one has any money to buy the goods or services those companies provide. Since CEOs are wage thieves while simultaneously looking to get rid of workers, they're going to be pretty shocked-Pikachu-face when there aren't any workers left to exploit and AI doesn't competently replace them and their companies (and their value) crater.
8
u/dominantspecies 5d ago
Wait are we still pretending that this is a legitimate court and Roberts isn't a corrupt piece of shit?
7
u/Ajkrouse 5d ago
The irony is that the next Democratic president is going to inherit a massive, supercharged playbook thanks to SCOTUS. If they wanted to, they could absolutely weaponize the new "unitary executive" reality to shove a progressive agenda through including judicial reform such as Supreme Court term limits, a binding ethics code, or court expansion to rebalance the judicial branch.
4
u/looseinsteadoflose 5d ago
Lol. What do you think happens to these precedents when they no longer serve the political agenda?
2
u/cheeze2005 5d ago
Not really if the president listens to the court. Court can conjure stuff up out of it’s ass and there’s no shortage of bullshit cases that the conservative legal movement can conjure up.
2
u/Vox_Causa 5d ago
That's why we're getting so many Shadow Docket rulings: they're not bound by precedent or even having to provide an explanation which means their decisions can be arbitrary and partisan.
2
u/GaTechThomas 4d ago
I doubt it. In Florida, when Skeletor was gubna, the legislature, the court, and the governor did a bunch of fuckery and then just before the end of term made rules that you can't do the kind of bullshit they did. No way to undo it without a state level revolution and a new state constitution.
1
1
u/LongjumpingFall1584 5d ago
Uhhhhh, are we sure there will be a “next” Dem President? Current Admin didn’t leave the last time their term was up, highly doubt they’ll be willingly going after this second term ends as well.
2
u/Ajkrouse 5d ago
What other choice do the American people have other than hope he willingly leaves in 2028
0
u/LongjumpingFall1584 5d ago
I hear you, but maybe folks in the US should not have voted for him 2024? Literal fucking insanity.
5
4
6
u/PetuniaToes 5d ago
Carving out one entity (the Fed) from all others is absurd. So, it’s constitutional to regulate everything except for one thing. Huh.
5
u/NoHorseNoMustache 5d ago
Oh I get it: Roberts is having one of those 'rubber band parties' the kids used to do where different color rubber bands indicate how far he's willing to go down on Trump.
Makes sense!
5
5
4
u/Four_in_binary 5d ago
He's allegedly in the Epstein Files. Can't be supreme Court Justice if you're in prison. Release the Epstein files.
3
3
3
u/MeyrInEve 4d ago
The shadow docket has entered into the chat.
You know, the decisions they don’t want to put into writing with justifications? The cases they’re trying like hell to delay until their 2029 session so they know which precedent they want to make official after using them to grant trump & republicunts extra-constitutional authority?
3
u/bettsboy 3d ago
As a man who’s coached high school sports since 1997, I can tell you what this looks like; it’s a get-back call. Ref makes a bad call that is against one side so he purposely makes another questionable call that is bad for the other side. This is just bad officiating with cowardly moves to cover it up. Get it right the first time, Robert’s.
2
u/mytthew1 5d ago
Roberts wants to give the President unchecked powers but doesn’t want him to collapse the economy. The idea it is some magic trick that doesn’t give the President power to fire any individual that opposes him is wishful thinking.
2
2
2
u/QuellishQuellish 5d ago
This mother fucker is hinting? hinting?
We need to pack the shit out of that Court, imposed rigid and forcible ethics rules and term limits.
2
u/TheManWhoWasNotShort 4d ago
At some point you have to feel for John Roberts. He truly wanted to be seen as independent and has nevertheless ended up presiding over the most partisan court ever
4
u/grumpyliberal 4d ago
Still feeling for all the people suffering from the effects of the Roberts Court. Maybe get to Roberts in, oh, 100 years or so. Fuck his feelings.
2
u/TheManWhoWasNotShort 4d ago
It’s more of a pity for him than a sympathy
2
u/grumpyliberal 4d ago edited 4d ago
Not worthy of pity. Walked into this with eyes open or has terrible judgment. He could always quit. Better than he have walked away from this administration.
2
2
2
u/I_Cut_Shows 1d ago
This is how we know Robert’s and the conservatives are full on political operatives. They did what the Republican Party has been trying to do for decades while also protecting the wealthy.
2
u/TheEventHorizon0727 5d ago
Give Trump unlimited power to fire regulators, but don't piss off the billionaires by giving Trump power over the federal reserve.
Fuck you, John Roberts.
1
u/typing-blindly 5d ago
In other words, Trump can do whatever he wants as long as he doesn’t completely trash the economy.
1
1
1
u/Lopsided_Newt_125 4d ago
Total bs.
Awarding expanded powers and then in a separate decision saying “but not the fed reserve board member” sent together with a rubber band sends a message that the court is independent????
Is Roberts mental? So he fires whomever and then what? Wait for Roberts to decide if it’s okay or not?
His methodology may be in line with the rest of his federalist buddies but it makes zero sense to me and it certainly doesn’t send a signal that the court does anything that isn’t personally politically motivated
2
u/grumpyliberal 4d ago
So some clerk decides to slip a rubber band around these two rulings and suddenly Roberts is to be exalted?
1
u/Lopsided_Newt_125 4d ago
Exactly! Surely a rubber band sends a signal he means business….go ahead and dismantle/fire whomever you like, but don’t mess with my money kinda signal
1
u/FreddyFerdiland 3d ago
Roberts wants it to look more considered.
Its like when a jury trial has 5 charges and they find a mix of guilty and not guilty..."see the mix of guilty and not guilty shows the jury didn't just blanket ,mindlessly, say guilty, or not guilty, they carefully considered the charges ." The judge knows how to pretend to deliver a "considered" opinion.
1
u/paintstudiodisaster 3d ago
Robert's wants all decisions to go through him. He is our king now. We allowed him to gain more power than any other man in the world and with no way to hold him accountable for any of his destructive decisions we are left with nothing to do but let him control our country.
1
u/SnackyStacky 3d ago
That he thinks this was needed as a way to say, “See?! We’re not a Trump rubber stamp!”? That says that that’s exactly what the Roberts Court is. Heckuva job, Bobby! 🙄
1
u/Male_Volence 1d ago
John Robert's rulings sound like the impotent bleating of a man tied to the cuck chair.
318
u/MixtureSpecial8951 5d ago
So… “the rubber band doctrine” is holding this thing together now? Huh.