John Roberts made Trump's authoritarianism possible. He could still save his own legacy Steven Greenhouse

[Uncle Joe]

The supreme court judge has emboldened and enabled Trump, but the president’s second term must surely have him worried

(snip)

Ever since Roberts became chief justice in 2005, two of his main objectives have been clear: to boost corporate America and to help Republicans consolidate power. Roberts didn’t seem to mind that several of his key court rulings, especially Citizens United, were turning the US into a plutocracy, with the rich and corporations having huge, undue power. But he must feel very uncomfortable that second-term Trump is quickly transforming the US into an authoritarian state, as Trump and Elon Musk steamroll the constitution and federal law while the president seeks retribution against perceived enemies and fails to fully comply with several judicial decisions.

Citizens United and several rulings that flowed from it – rulings that let corporations and wealthy individuals spend unlimited money on political campaigns – have played a key role in enabling Trump, in a mere few weeks, to create the most authoritarian presidency in US history. Thanks to those rulings, Musk was able to give more than $250m to help elect Trump and with that money, seemingly purchase unprecedented power by becoming Trump’s unelected chief operating officer and hatchet man.

Citizens United was dangerously myopic. Not only did it fail to see that income inequality was rapidly worsening, but also failed to foresee that super-rich individuals would someday give gargantuan amounts – like Musk’s $250m-plus and Miriam Adelson’s $100m – that would go far to overwhelm the voices of average Americans. What’s more, having the world’s richest man at his side has supercharged Trump’s ability to act in authoritarian ways. Republicans in Congress have grown terrified of opposing Trump, whether on his stabbing Ukraine in the back, his wholesale firings of federal employees or his trashing agencies that Congress funded, because they know that Musk can singlehandedly bankroll a primary challenge against them (and use his X account, with more than 200 million followers, to pummel them and sic the mob on them).

(snip)

Crucially for Roberts and the nation, it might not be too late for the chief justice to do something meaningful to rescue his legacy, and our democracy. But doing something might not be easy because of the rightwing’s 6-3 supreme court supermajority and because Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas seem eager to serve as Trump’s lap dogs.

(snip)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/18/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump

[hlthe2b]

1. I'd like some constitutional scholars (Roberts followers) to speculate on how he could (theoretically)

revisit the immunity decisions. I suppose he can quietly put out the word that certain tangential cases might be considered (which might give him a chance to expand and do some court legislating), but... ?

[Uncle Joe]

2. I'm not a constitutional scholar, but

it seems to me the Attorney General has no such immunity.

(snip)

Last July, in another dangerously myopic decision, Roberts shocked the legal world with his broad presidential immunity ruling. In that case, Trump v United States, Roberts was so eager not to hamstring a president’s powers that his majority decision gave huge immunity to presidents when they take actions that would normally be seen as breaking the law. Roberts even laid out a roadmap for presidents to pretty much do whatever they want without having to fear prosecution – just consult with your attorney general before taking an action to ensure it is viewed as an official action and therefore qualifies for immunity, no matter how much it violates the law.

(snip)

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/18/supreme-court-john-roberts-trump

[cilla4progress]

3. He issued a statement this morning

rebuking tsf.

Chief Justice John Roberts is pushing back against President Donald Trump’s call to impeach judges who’ve ruled against the administration.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” Roberts said Tuesday in a rare and brief statement issued just hours after Trump publicly joined demands by his supporters to remove judges he called “crooked.”

It’s the most intense public conflict between Trump and Roberts since 2018, when the chief justice came to the defense of federal judges who’d ruled against Trump policies.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/18/john-roberts-donald-trump-impeach-federal-judges-00235742

[markpkessinger]

8. Yes, but . . .

. . . as David Graham notes in the Atlantic, Roberts' statements is just as notable for what it doesn't say:

The chief justice is right. Trump’s attack on Boasberg is juvenile, civically illiterate, and perilous to the rule of law. (It was also just an echo of his sidekick Elon Musk’s recent rants about courts.) But the statement is notable for what it leaves out: any acknowledgment of the substantive dispute in the case, which is whether Trump is defying court orders. Roberts seems more concerned about rhetorical attacks on the personal integrity or employment status of judges than he does with systemic attacks on the judiciary as a whole.

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2025/03/trump-justice-roberts-impeachment-judge/682087/

[Blues Heron]

4. His legacy is that he destroyed this country. He might be more demented than trump

[BigDemVoter]

5. Yes. He has no excuses.

[eppur_se_muova]

6. No he can't.

He shat in his own bed, let him be buried in it.

[hatrack]

7. What legacy? His legacy squats and fills its diapers in the White House.

.