The Supreme Court is making decisions that flatly contradict the Constitution’s text and ideals
Akhil Reed Amar writes: In a quid-pro-quo bribery case—money for a pardon—[Chief Justice John] Roberts apparently would allow evidence of the quid (the money transfer) and evidence of the quo (the fact of a later pardon) but not evidence of the pro: evidence that the pardon was given because of the money, that the pardon was motivated by the money. This is absurd. In the oral argument this past April, one of the Court’s best jurists posed the issue well:…