The Supreme Court was hit by a flurry of damaging new leaks Sunday as a series of confidential memos written by the chief justice were revealed by The New York Times.

The court’s Chief Justice John Roberts was clear to his fellow justices in February: He wanted the court to take up a case weighing Donald Trump’s right to presidential immunity—and he seemed inclined to protect the former president.

“I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” Roberts wrote to his Supreme Court peers, according to a private memo obtained by the *Times. *He was referencing the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to allow the case to move forward.

Roberts took an unusual level of involvement in this and other cases that ultimately benefited Trump, according to the Times— his handling of the cases surprised even some other justices on the high court, across ideological lines. As president, Trump appointed three of the members of its current conservative supermajority.

    • Furbag@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Why take a bribe from John Oliver, who would immediately turn around and disclose that Thomas accepted it on his television program, when he could just go ask Daddy Harlan Crow for an identical RV and then not disclose it?

      The Supreme Court is corrupt to the core. There’s an inability to hold them accountable for anything. The system of checks and balances functionally doesn’t exist for this “apolitical” branch.

      • YtA4QCam2A9j7EfTgHrH@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 days ago

        I think Oliver also offered him $1 million a year from Oliver’s personal moneys. Which is not an insignificant amount of money for a justice who isn’t corrupt.

        • nul9o9@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          In the past, he signaled he’d retire because he wasn’t getting paid enough, meaning he needed to be bribed to keep a conservative justice on the SCOTUS.

          If you take it at face value, then he should have jumped at John Olivers’ offer.

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    “I think it likely that we will view the separation of powers analysis differently,” Roberts wrote to his Supreme Court peers, according to a private memo obtained by the Times.

    That’s all the Times is gonna give us? One sentence of a memo relating to one of the most questionable Supreme Court decisions of all time? The voters should know everything about how they got to this decision.

    • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Yeah that’s not even enough for me to know if it’s controversial. I, also, think SCOTUS will have different opinions on separation of powers.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Term limits won’t help with systemic corruption, because replacing corrupt judges with new corrupt judges would be the natural response.

      Enshrining impeachment as a regular and viable strategy for actual corruption would be.