Conservative 
Search
Trending
Current News
We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.
An election season Supreme Court leak primed another wave of bashing the “conservative” judiciary as memos suggested Chief Justice John Roberts influenced decisions on the former president.
Well over two years since Justice Samuel Alito’s draft decision that led to the overturn of Roe v. Wade became a driving force for leftists heading into the midterm election, the New York Times obtained confidential writings shared between Roberts and his peers.
Referencing three cases relating to former President Donald Trump and Jan. 6 under the headline, “How Chief Justice Roberts Shaped Trump’s Supreme Court Winning Streak,” the newspaper steered away from constitutional arguments in favor of political implications.
The focus on Trump v. Anderson, Fischer v. United States, and Trump v. United States as questions about presidential immunity and challenges to ballot access were being deliberated zeroed in on a Feb. 22 memo where Roberts weighed in on taking the immunity case.
Referencing the lower court decision, Roberts’ memo gave a “scathing critique” and reportedly said, “As I read it, it says simply a former president can be prosecuted because he’s being prosecuted.”
“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” the chief justice detailed while he appealed to the importance of a unanimous decision. “In a case like this one, focusing on ‘transient results’ may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic. Our perspective must be more farsighted.”
The Times reporting on Anderson contended, “So could Colorado kick Mr. Trump off the ballot in its Republican primary, creating an obstacle for his presidential campaign? From the start of the justices’ private discussions of the case…it was clear that the court was going to say no, according to several people at the court familiar with the conversations.”
“This time, Chief Justice Roberts told his colleagues he wanted the decision to be unanimous and unsigned. In any politically charged case, agreement among the justices made the decision more authoritative. He even said he would consult individually with everyone to discuss what they would accept — a rare step,” detailed the outlet.
Reacting to the leaked memos, Josh Blackman argued in a piece for Reason that the severity far outweighed the leak in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as they “are systematic and thorough.”
“We have insights and confidential memoranda, detailed conversations at conferences, [Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s] changed vote, Justice [Samuel] Alito losing the Fischer majority, and information about many Roberts clerks were working on the case,” he wrote. “This tapestry would require insights from so many different people.”
Blackman continued, “Moreover, all of this comes after the Dobbs leak when Chief Justice Roberts (apparently) put strict limitations on access to Court information. What did all of those measures accomplish? Apparently not much.”
On Fisher, the Times reported on how Roberts had taken the lead from Alito around the time the justice was getting smeared by corporate media over a flag his wife displayed on their property and how Jackson siding with the majority used that “leverage” to “send the cases back to the lower courts to be reconsidered.”
Meanwhile, in Trump v. United States, the Feb. memo was described to have “radiated frustration and certainty” as he described the D.C. Circuit court ruling as “inadequate and poorly reasoned.”
By the chief justice’s reasoning, the panel had “failed to grapple with the most difficult questions altogether.”
Native of Brooklyn, NY, Kevin Haggerty is a graduate of Hunter College where he studied Cultural Anthropology and Geography. An avid reader and truth seeker, he currently resides in Texas with his wife and their dog and, when he isn’t researching current events and their impacts, you’ll find him spending time with friends and family or working on his next novel.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
