Yup. I almost feel compelled to remind everyone that this is yet another consequence of the reckless immunity decision, which is the gift that keeps on giving. bsky.app/profile/cris... - ThreadSky

cristianfarias.com • 3 days ago

Yup. I almost feel compelled to remind everyone that this is yet another consequence of the reckless immunity decision, which is the gift that keeps on giving. https://bsky.app/profile/cristianfarias.com/post/3lpyochvgi226

Reposted from Cristian Farias

Notch another one for John Roberts’s immunity decision:

Empowering all-powerful executive who can order the Justice Department to remove protections for members of the judicial branch.

Exemplary work.

Comments

alexkingsbury.bsky.social•3 days ago

Fear not: Robert’s will find plenty of limits on executive authority if a democrat is ever elected president again.

cabinloon.bsky.social•3 days ago

And a Dem POTUS won't challenge those limits in ANY similar way in the first place.

drrealcheepadvice.bsky.social•3 days ago

"Reckless"? Surely you mean "lawless".

skymogul.com•3 days ago

As a law-curious layperson, I want to understand the immunity decision better. I thought it was a *presumptive* immunity that *could* be pierced so long as doing so would not interfere with the normal functioning of the executive branch. Why is it treated as absolute?

cristianfarias.com•3 days ago

The reason the immunity decision is bad has nothing to do with criminal immunity from prosecution, but so-called dicta—language that’s not necessary to resolve the case—that allows the president to basically bring the entire executive branch under submission.

Even then, that’s only part of it:

moipolloi.bsky.social•3 days ago

It wasn't reckless, he knew exactly what he was doing. He knew Biden wouldn't abuse his powers, so it wasn't for him. Did Roberts know what the outcome of the election would be? Whatever happens now, happens. He can live with that for the rest of his life. But he probably doesn't give a shit.

maisiepubblechook.bsky.social•3 days ago

He and his wife have grifted enough that they feel secure; their wealth can protect them even if their prestige among their elite class fails.

ryangermann.bsky.social•3 days ago

So if a future president says "Open Season on {identified group} and I'll pardon anyone who {commits federal crime}"

That would be legal now? The "founding fathers" meant it to be this way?

omicron416.bsky.social•2 days ago

Maybe, but the President can only pardon federal crimes, state laws are out of reach -- see Derek Chauvin for an example.

omicron416.bsky.social•2 days ago

And the founders almost certainly did NOT intend that.

shademar.bsky.social•3 days ago

Popcorn waiting for the day Trump decides to pull JRob's security detail or have him arrested and we find out how independent the SC Marshalls really are.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply