Chief justice reportedly took unusually active role in three recent supreme court decisions centering on Trump

John Roberts Jr used his position as the US supreme court’s chief justice to urge his colleagues to rule quickly – and in favor – of Donald Trump ahead of the decision that granted him and other presidents immunity for official acts, according to a New York Times investigation published on Sunday.

The new report provides details about what was happening behind the scenes in the country’s highest court during the three recent supreme court decisions centering on – and generally favoring – the Republican former president.

Based on leaked memos, documentation of the proceedings, and interviews with court insiders, the Times report suggests that Roberts – who was appointed to the supreme court during Republican George W Bush’s presidency – took an unusually active role in the three cases in question. And he wrote the majority opinions on all three.

  • The Pantser@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    38
    ·
    3 days ago

    Seems like maybe we don’t pay these judges nearly enough if they can be bought so easily. Why don’t we just give them an unlimited spending account. Basically make them never want for anything so they can be immune to bribery. It’s a lifelong appointment to serve the country why should they be bound by a paycheck?

    • noneya@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      61
      ·
      3 days ago

      Maybe we start with an enforceable code of conduct instead of…you know… a blank check?

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        But, they’d choke on that!

        In any case, I’m not sure Robert’s did this for a bribe. I think he might be a True Believer™️, maybe not in trump but in all the conservative bullshit trump enabo

      • thefartographer
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 days ago

        And instead of paying them, pay 500 toddlers $2 each to kick them in the shins their entire career

          • wolfpack86@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 days ago

            Maybe not always, but there are plenty of senators who are fundamentally there for life (McConnell).

            This also means theres a lower chance for those who truly can’t be bought, because running a nationwide campaign is expensive. They will all need money–most of it from corporate. Could you imagine Citizens United being decided by an elected court?

            The one advantage would be that the court would more rapidly match the public’s views, and not take decades to move along with the country… But we still elected a raving lunatic like trump.

            I think Bidens proposals strike a reasonable balance; a 5-7 year elected term I fear forces more money into the equation and doesn’t give any opportunity to fix the thing.

      • The Pantser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        3 days ago

        He’s a fool and not a natural born citizen, also his brain is broken.

        I feel we would win a fight to pay the justices more, more easily than it would to change their appointments.

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          3 days ago

          Pay them unlimited, yeah that wouldn’t attract the wrong people, like at all, no no not the slightest, only incorruptible well meaning people for sure.