Trump vs. John Roberts: A 2020 battle for the Supreme Court's reputation

[babylonsister]

Trump vs. John Roberts: A 2020 battle for the Supreme Court’s reputation
Between the impeachment trial and a series of cases about presidential power, Roberts will struggle to keep the high court out of the political muck.
By DARREN SAMUELSOHN
12/20/2019 05:05 AM EST

snip//

Enter Roberts, who won Senate confirmation back in 2005 after promising to act more like a baseball umpire than a baseball player as a justice. He’s an institutionalist at heart, people who know him say, and his primary aim is to ensure Americans trust the Supreme Court to undergird American democracy. In 2020, that’s going to be a tall order.

“I don’t think he has a choice,” Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. “It’s just one of those things in life. Look, I don’t want to be in these hearings that the Judiciary Committee has forced upon the country right now for impeachment. But I’ve got to be there because I’m the ranking member. And we’re going to forcefully fight for what we think is right. Justice Roberts will do the same. He’ll do his job. And he’ll also do his job in those cases.”

But Roberts doing his job has different connotations for the right and the left, putting him in an almost impossible bind. Conservatives already distrust Roberts for his decision in 2012 to side with the court’s four liberal justices on a narrow 5-4 ruling upholding a central element of President Barack Obama’s health care law. They’re expecting him to defer to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell during the Trump trial while a few months later leading the court’s new conservative majority to back the president’s refusal to comply with the subpoenas.

Conversely, Trump critics and those on the left say that a Roberts failure to check the president’s authority could cause the court to be seen as a rubber stamp for conservatives.

“The court needs to not side with Trump on these subpoenas,” warned Richard Painter, a former ethics attorney in the George W. Bush White House and frequent Trump critic. “If they do that they destroy the credibility of the court. The chief justice knows that. The credibility of the court is gone. We could easily have a situation where we start adding justices. It really could get very bad for John Roberts, and he knows it.”

more...

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/20/trump-john-roberts-supreme-court-reputation-088287

[kentuck]

1. What role do you think Roberts will play?

He seems like a fairly deep thinker with deep respect for the law, in my opinion. However, that must be considered in the deep partisan divide we are now experiencing.

He could make some rulings that the Republicans and Trump might not like?

[lark]

2. The true test is coming, and I fear it's already been failed.

SCOTU could have and should have refused to intervene in any of the subpoenas cases - drumpf is wrong under the law and it's 100% evident. That they took it up, with no expedited hearing, means they've already put their thumbs on the case for Herr Further. They have shown their hands and they are not on our side, nope, not at all.

Yes, there is still a vanishingly small chance that Roberts actually gives a shit about the constitution, but so far he hasn't shown that. He's reflexively right wing down the line and will almost certainly rule against the law and for PUtin's puppet. Forget what he writes in OP's - thats just self serving drivel. Watch how he's actually ruled and it's an ugly set of facts.

Increasing the size of SCOTUS would be really hard - we'd have to control all 3 branches first and will the country's identity be destroyed long before we can fix it?

[jcgoldie]

3. I hope Roberts is concerned more with justice than partisanship...

Then again all the discussion about how he will stand up to Trumpism for the integrity of the courts without any actual commentary on any of it from Roberts himself sort of reminds me unfortunately of the trust we all placed in another silent republican Robert Mueller...

[tblue37]

4. He is a Federalist Society ideologue, and he was pushed for the SC by the Federalist Society. nt

[secondwind]

7. I think Mueller did the best he could under the circumstances.

Let’s not forget that his report said they would have found evidence against Trump if folks had obeyed subpoenas.

[jcgoldie]

8. I disagree

I'm no expert but it seemed to me he tried very hard to not interject himself into the matter, so much so that he was understated and ineffective even in his personal testimony. He left it on Congress to follow the evidence... we see how that has worked out.

[Farmer-Rick]

5. Nope, first and foremost Roberts is a RepubliCON

Consider......Citizen United, AND evisceration of civil rights law with thread bare ruling with Shelby County vs Holder, his rewriting of Medicare laws with his ruling on Obama care, willfull rights violation by the prosecution's office approved by Robert's court ruling in Connick vs Thompson. The courts approval of unfair forced arbitration in violation of California law....... His willingness to take on Dumpy Trump's kingly decisions that lower courts have already ruled fairly on.

I could go on. Roberts is a partician hack and he will bow to his master Dumpy Trumpy.

Don't expect him to conduct a fair trial.

[Girard442]

6. Roberts' reputation as an impartial jurist...

...springs from people’s wishful thinking —not from any actual things he’s been seen doing.

[kairos12]

9. Get the Senate back. Plus the Presidency. Equals add justices. Start with M. Garland.