jack
The Legendary Troll Kingdom
Lost in the shuffle of the outrage over the conservative majority Supreme Court's 6-3 decision to hand Donald Trump a get-out-of-jail-free card with their expansive presidential immunity ruling on Monday, was presiding Justice John Roberts sneering attack on the three dissenting judges, Associate Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson in his brief. With Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett also questioning some of Robert's reasoning while joining with the majority, former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance took Roberts to task for his attack on his female colleagues in the dismissive comments he included at the end of his written opinion.
On her Civil Discourse Substack platform, Vance asserted that 69-year-old Roberts was anything but civil when he waved away their concerns about the implications of a ruling that absolves Trump of just about any criminal activities and allows the conservative court to ride to the convicted felon ex-president's rescue in the future. In particular, Vance took exception to Robert's writing that their concerns exhibited "a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today.”
According to the former prosecutor, "The majority opinion closes with a section where the Chief Justice, in a most decidedly uncollegial fashion, criticizes the Justices who dissent," before adding that Roberts was, in essence, telling them: "Sit down, little ladies."
"Roberts tries to downplay what the Court is doing, but essentially, that comes down to saying that all that the Court is doing is saying Trump is entitled to immunity for his attempt to get DOJ to legitimize his efforts to steal the election," she wrote before adding, "Perhaps worst of all is an argument the majority offers as its own that is straight out of Trump’s playbook."
Expanding on that assertion she wrote, "The dismissive language they use towards the dissents is really outrageous," and then pointed at Roberts claiming, "Unable to muster any meaningful textual or historical support, the principal dissent suggests that there is an ‘established understanding’ that ‘former Presidents are answerable to the criminal law for their official acts.’ Conspicuously absent is mention of the fact that since the founding, no President has ever faced criminal charges — let alone for his conduct in office." To which Vance pointed out, "We all know the answer to this one—no president has been prosecuted because no president has ever done what Trump did before. We all believe, or at least have until today, as did the Founding Fathers, that no man is above the law, not even the president. Everyone seems to understand that except for six conservative justices on the United States Supreme Court."
Noting Roberts also wrote, "Our dissenting colleagues exude an impressive infallibility,” Vance shot back with a biting, "It’s a shame he cannot see himself in the mirror."