[E. Pluribus Unum]

Political lawfare junkies don't like it when you interfere with their political lawfare.

"Show me the man and I will show you the crime" is their motto.

[nwrep]

Roberts is our institutional stalwart, and, the best defense against Democrat party tyranny.

[MtnClimber]

Roberts is a linguini spine wuss.

[Carry_Okie]

If Kamala Harris is elevated to the Presidency imagine how she might use that immunity if she loses the election narrowly.

This could be interesting.

[Rockingham]

The Leftist leakers (Sotomayor and company is my guess) are at it again, hoping to set Roberts and the Court up to get hammered if Harris wins. The Court of Appeals opinion at issue was badly reasoned and came on the heels of an unusually shallow and biased DC District Court ruling. The combination was so bad as to virtually require Supreme Court intervention.

[Nateman]

Roberts. What a disappointment! I much rather Thomas was the chief judge!

[Hebrews 11:6]

The Chief Justice has exactly one of the four votes needed to grant certiorari.

[MinorityRepublican]

We may not like Roberts but he's been pretty assertive lately.

The Democrats have been trying to dominate the Supreme Court and Roberts basically told them "no".

In response, they want to pack the court so they can get their way with the court.

[FLT-bird]

Of course, what the racist NY Times failed to mention is that if the SCOTUS had not recognized the presidents immunity from prosecution for his official acts as president, then any of America's 30,000 DAs could have brought charges against him.....even years later. Some of those districts are in extremely partisan areas on each side.

The result would have been an endless series of tit for tat prosecutions of every president - and thus the neutering of the presidency.

Personally I think they should have held that the correct procedure for any official illegality by the president is impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate and that only upon his conviction by the Senate can a president be charged criminally. Impeachment by the House and trial by the Senate is actually provided for in the Constitution.

But of course the NY Times isn't remotely interested in that. Their mantra is "get Trump at all costs.....damn with the consequences".

[FlingWingFlyer]

Jodi and Adam got it all figured out.

[Republican Wildcat]

Oh, right. John Roberts is in the tank for Trump.

Give me a break.

What absolute nonsense. The ruling on immunity was actually very minimalist in its approach. It made no declaration on Trump’s actions one way or the other. It did, however, correct the lower court’s flawed ruling that basically said the President is protected from unjust prosecution because he is being prosecuted.

[Colorado Doug]

Actually, I think that it was some guys like Franklin, Madison, Hamilton and others that shaped Trump’s SCOTUS winning streak.

[Repealthe17thAmendment]

I always got a sense that Roberts does not like Trump much. But he might view the actions of the Democrats to be harmful to the Executive branch long into the future.

[daniel1212]

And who is leaking such confidential memos?