Arrogating decisions to yourself whenever your evening dose of Fox News convinces you that Trump needs protecting isn’t “statesmanship;” it’s being functionally pro-Trump.
If you're a law professor and you can't say this one is just egregiously dangerous anti-democratic ruling nobody should take you seriously in this country.
It's obvious this was an awful decision, nobody should be mixing words. The three part test is there to fool everyone.
“It’s impossible that Roberts could be pro Trump, Trump attacked him.” Is an argument that someone whose job depends on reasoning actually typed out and put their name against.
...and it's corrupt
...and it severs a foundational principle of the republic in an irreparable manner.
SCOTUS has gone well beyond interpreting laws and now is inventing rules out of whole cloth, all in the name of protecting a criminal from facing just legal consequences of his actions.
