Chief Justice John Roberts on Thursday declined an invitation to meet with Democratic senators to talk about Supreme Court ethics and the controversy over flags that flew outside homes owned by Justice Samuel Alito.

Roberts’ response came in a letter to the senators a day after Alito separately wrote them and House members to reject their demands that he recuse himself from major Supreme Court cases involving former President Donald Trump and the Jan. 6 rioters because of the flags, which are like those carried by rioters at the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a member of the Judiciary panel, had written Roberts a week ago to ask for the meeting and that Roberts take steps to ensure that Alito recuses himself from any cases before the court concerning the Jan. 6 attack or the Republican former president’s attempts to overturn his 2020 election defeat.

  • Arghblarg
    link
    fedilink
    166 months ago

    I’ll say it again: since the SCOTUS intends to slow-walk a decision on presidential ‘absolute immunity’, Biden needs to announce RIGHT NOW that he’s dissolving the SCOTUS effective 2 weeks from the time of the announcement, at midnight, intending to appoint an all-new roster of his choosing, as well as replacing all state-level judges, also of his administration’s choosing.

    If the SCOTUS, on the other hand, suddenly finds they do have the time to make a decision on presidential immunity before that deadline, well maybe Biden won’t do it, after all.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      136 months ago

      While the president can’t dissolve the court, according to the majority, the president can order them assassinated and be covered by presidential immunity.

      • @FireTower
        link
        46 months ago

        There hasn’t been an opinion dropped on Trump V. US yet. The arguments were only just over a month ago.

      • Arghblarg
        link
        fedilink
        26 months ago

        Exactly. Maybe I didn’t propose the “right” action – the entire point is that if the SCOTUS won’t rule a president does not have absolute immunity, and is subject to the law of the land, then really ANYTHING is possible isn’t it?

    • @FireTower
      link
      -1
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      This demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the fundamentals of US governance. The President can’t dissolve SCOTUS. He hasn’t been granted that power.

      • Argongas
        link
        fedilink
        36 months ago

        No, but if he the president does have absolute immunity Biden could just have seal team 6 kill Trump and some of the justices.

        Not that he would, but imagined the surprised Pikachu face on the GOP if Biden called their bullshit.

        • Arghblarg
          link
          fedilink
          06 months ago

          Exactly. The Democratic party needs to push the issue and make the GOP see that the Leopards can eat their face too.

      • Arghblarg
        link
        fedilink
        3
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        But Trump is currently asserting in court that he does have that power! Absolute immunity remember? Who are you to say, peon, that the POTUS cannot dissolve the SCOTUS? He has absolute immunity, remember? That means he has absolute power to do anything!

        What I was trying to say is that Biden should call the bluff, and force the SCOTUS to decide right now. Why not? If the POTUS really does have absolute immunity, why not? Do you see the insanity this road leads down?

        • @FireTower
          link
          16 months ago

          Who are you to say, peon, that the POTUS cannot dissolve the SCOTUS?

          Just your average joe who is able to read a few paragraphs. The federal government doesn’t have any power not explicitly granted to them.

          What I was trying to say is that Biden should call the bluff, and force the SCOTUS to decide right now.

          It not a bluff it’s an important case. They should write an actually well founded opinion that doesn’t set up terrible case law for future generations.

          Why not? If the POTUS really does have absolute immunity, why not? Do you see the insanity this road leads down?

          You’re operating under the presuppositions that it does have absolute immunity and I don’t believe he does. As I said, the case hasn’t had an opinion. And I didn’t mention it previously but the state judge thing you’d mentioned earlier is also not in the power of the president.

          https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/

          Article 2 is the bit to read.

          • Arghblarg
            link
            fedilink
            36 months ago

            I would like to say, for the record, that I wrote that late at night, and my phrasing probably came across incorrectly.

            It wasn’t my intention to call you personally ‘a peon’. I was trying more to adopt the voice, for argument’s sake, of what an imagined President, using this supposed absolute immunity, might say to their critics – ‘who are you (out there, the people) to question my power?’

            My apologies for it coming out the way it did.

            • @FireTower
              link
              36 months ago

              I wasn’t taking that personally, my point was that in America the sovereign power rests in the people (vs England in the crown). We hold the authority under which the government exists.

              • Arghblarg
                link
                fedilink
                26 months ago

                As it should be! I hope in the long-term, that is proven to be true.