Worth your read: www.boldtypebooks.com/titles/lisa-...

But I think you might find the full read illuminating :)

Lisa Graves did excellent explainer of John Roberts & who he's been for decades on Court of History

youtu.be/5Vkm6sO27o8?...

Roberts is correct here on persistence, in this speech he gave to the private boarding school he attended.

John Roberts is following this advice. Let us do so too.

@brucebartlett.bsky.social has also written clearly on this topic. /10

(Emphasis mine on “orchestrated”)

We are going to have to get dark money out of politics and that means overturning Citizens United and Buckley. We just cannot have the richest man in the world buying our presidential elections if we want the US to be a democracy.
/8

“That tsunami of cash has been deployed to distort the ensuing elections, epitomized by the actions of the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, who spent $288M to procure the presidency for Donald Trump (and an unelected copresidency for a while) in 2024.”

That’s true. Musk bought this election.

Side note: while some legal watchers believe Cit U v FEC was correctly decided, I also think its arguments are erroneous. It is a somewhat new, very libertarian, laissez-faire view of the First Am that “free speech” means money is speech.
I’d say the Buckley-Cit U line of reasoning is incorrect.

“The result in Citizens United vs FEC was *orchestrated* by the Roberts Court, which ordered an out-of-season oral argument” in time to affect the 2010 midterms.

To close watchers like Ms Graves, it’s long been obvious Roberts and his co-partisans on the court are carrying out a political plan.

Yes. The superficial way Roberts’ decisions have been described has hurt us — the reactions to decisions like Burwell have made it hard for those who are not immersed in politics or law to understand what Roberts is really doing.

/5

“Kicking millions of Americans off of health insurance could have caused the GOP even bigger losses in 2012, and embracing the dubious legal theories against Obamacare would have undermined power to enact tax policy that favors the rich.”
/4

This is one of the most important and little-understood facts about Roberts: while he got credit for saving Obamacare, that looks like a longterm play to help his party: “his occasional nods at moderation allow him to more effectively realize his long-term agenda”

That’s why you don’t have to read the Economist piece. There’s no creative lawyering to be done about this. There’s no “one weird trick we found in an old book”. None of it matters.

Sky is blue, bear shits in the woods, Trump can’t get elected president a third time.

The 22nd Amendment to the US Constitution says “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice…”

There is no loophole.

Any lawyer who tells a court Trump is eligible for a third term should be disbarred.

Any judge who rules he’s eligible should be off the bench.