John R. Houk, Blog Editor
July 4, 2024
Frankly, I have not been too pleased with SCOTUS rulings recently then their most recent rulings appear to spark some hope the Conservative majority might be coming to their senses.
The SCOTUS Chevron reversal places a dagger in the heart of Deep State bureaucratic power (3 PERSPECTIVES: HERE, HERE & HERE).
The ruling that currently interests me the most is on Presidential Immunity. Of course Dem-Marxists and their MSM mouthpieces have gone full hysterical with fearmongering deceptive lies (THIS IS where one should recall the fearmongering COVID & mRNA Jab LIES) to brainwash the American gullible and uniformed.
ERGO, I’m cross posting 3 insights to counter the fearmongering beginning with what I consider the most insightful from The Patriot Post which distinguishes America is a REPUBLIC and NOT a democracy.
o SCOTUS Rules Rightly on Immunity: Despite the commonsensical nature of yesterday’s ruling, the hysterical Democrats raced headlong for the fainting couches; By Douglas Andrews; The Patriot Post; 7/2/24
o What Will Supreme Court's Presidential Immunity Decision Mean for Trump Case? By Gary Lane; CBN News; 7/2/24
o Of Death Squads, Dementia, and Desperation: Fueled by the duncery of liberal female judges, Democrats and the media have their newest talking point: Thanks to the Supreme Court, a president can now kill his enemies with impunity: By Julie Kelly; Declassified with Julie Kelly (Substack); 7/3/24
YOU SHOULD really the sane facts to comprehend the DO-ANYTHING to keep Trump out of Office tactics by Dem-Marxists willing to do ANYTHING to maintain their 2020 Election Coup in 2024. Rise up and overcome the installed tyranny by knowing your enemy to Liberty, the Constitution and the Republic fought for by our Founding Fathers.
JRH 7/4/24
PLEASE! I need more Patriots to step up. I need Readers to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100 (one-time or recurring). PLEASE YOUR generosity is NEEDED. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for Liberty:
Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on all social media platforms!
Our Senior Citizen Family Supplements our income by selling healthy coffee products. If you are not a donate-kind-of-individual, buy some healthy, antioxidant, feel-good & taste-great COFFEE (benefits & product INFO – HERE & HERE): https://dianahouk.beneve.com/ (Become Customer or Become Business Influencer [Influencers receive own store link & better discounts])
********************************
SCOTUS Rules Rightly on Immunity
Despite the commonsensical nature of yesterday’s ruling, the hysterical Democrats raced headlong for the fainting couches.
Clown Sotomayor (TPP Photo)
July 2, 2024
The first thing that struck me about yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity was the commonsensical nature of it. Of course a president should have absolute immunity from prosecution for the things he does within his constitutional authority as president. And of course he should be legally accountable for his unofficial and private actions.
No, he can’t be prosecuted when a drone strike goes horribly wrong, or when he opens up a remote Alaskan wasteland for drilling, or when he pursues lawful means to contest an election. But, yes, he can most definitely be prosecuted when he shoots somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue.
A show of hands in a ninth-grade civics class could’ve arrived at this conclusion.
“The President is not above the law,” said Chief Justice John Roberts, stating the obvious for the 6-3 majority. “But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive.”
Again, more common sense here, and that leads to the second thing that struck me about the decision, and it’s far more troubling than the first thing: Why wasn’t the decision 7-2 or 8-1 or 9-0?
And the answer is politics. The Court’s liberal wing — which is far more “progressive” than liberal — couldn’t be seen as giving Donald Trump a legal victory. Because a decision on presidential immunity with one or more crossover concurrences would’ve eliminated all the post-decision hysterics we’re now hearing from the Left. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor incoherently argued in dissent:
When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. … Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
This is nonsense because it ignores the framework of our three coequal branches of government, it ignores the separation of powers, and it ignores the remedies available to those other two branches. We have this thing called “impeachment,” for example, and we have a Constitution that specifically cites bribery as an impeachable offense.
Nevertheless, Sotomayor persisted: “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”
This was a clownish dissent. The president is not above the law, and the chief justice said precisely that in his majority opinion.
It could’ve been worse, I suppose. We could’ve had, say, a sitting congresswoman vow to draw up impeachment articles against those six rogue justices. Oh, wait.
Yes, the same people who were just weeks ago assailing Donald Trump for his justifiable attacks on the deeply conflicted Judge Juan Merchan in New York are themselves now attacking six justices of the Supreme Court.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aside, the stakes of this case were spelled out, as they often are, by Justice Samuel Alito during oral arguments back in April:
Now, if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?
It’s a republic, but whatever. The answer to Justice Alito’s question is yes. The expanded answer is this: Look around you, you fools.
Let’s be clear: The office of the American president is in grave danger if its occupants are continually cowed into making decisions based not on what they think is right but on what they think will keep them out of a courtroom or a prison.
Said a deeply disappointed and perilously positioned Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer: “This disgraceful decision by the MAGA SCOTUS — which is comprised of 3 justices appointed by Trump himself — enables the former President to weaken our democracy by breaking the law. It undermines SCOTUS’s credibility and suggests political influence trumps all in our courts today.”
No, Chuck, it strengthens our constitutional republic by forbidding politically motivated prosecutors from charging former presidents for their official actions while in office. [Blog Editor Bold Text Emphasis] Again, here’s Chief Justice Roberts: “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official.”
Joe Biden also mumbled in via teleprompter last night, past his bedtime, sporting a spray-on tan and having ingested enough drugs to seem less enfeebled. He said the High Court had done “a terrible disservice,” adding, “The American people will have to render a judgment about Donald Trump’s behavior. The American people must decide whether Trump’s assault on our democracy on January 6 makes him unfit for public office.”
This from the guy who’s taken unfitness for office to new heights. From the guy who boasted “They didn’t stop me” when the Supreme Court struck down his student loan giveaway, and he did it again by different means.
CNN’s Van Jones wins the Hyperbole Award for calling the decision “a license to thug,” to which constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley replied, “Well, if you drive through Washington, it seems like everyone is just breathing into paper bags today. … You just want to go up, put your arm around somebody and say, ‘It’s going to be okay.’ We have a Constitution that has survived for a reason.”
That we do. And we have a Supreme Court that peered into the abyss of political weaponization and said, “No, thanks,” not only for the sake of Donald Trump but for the sake of all future presidents, both Democrat and Republican.
Copyright © 2024 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.
The Patriot Post is protected speech, as enumerated in the First Amendment and enforced by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, in accordance with the endowed and unalienable Rights of All Mankind.
SUPPORT The Patriot Post
+++++++++++++++++++
What Will Supreme Court's Presidential Immunity Decision Mean for Trump Case?
By Gary Lane
July 2, 2024
[Blog Editor: This post begins with a roughly 7-minute video which I uploaded to my Bitchute Channel for embed purposes.]
Bitchute VIDEO: What Will Supreme Court's Presidential Immunity Decision Mean for Trump Case
[Posted by SlantRight2
First Published July 3rd, 2024 18:31 UTC
Reactions to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling granting limited immunity to occupants of the Oval Office came swift and strong.
President Biden condemned it as a "dangerous precedent."
Former President Trump called it a "big win for the Constitution."
In addition to its historical impact, the ruling also affects an election interference case against Trump.
For the first time in its 235-year history, the court clarified the issue of presidential immunity, ruling 6-3 that presidents have absolute immunity for official acts and presumptive immunity for official actions taken outside the parameter of the explicit duties of the office.
President Trump brought the case to the high court, contending he had absolute immunity from criminal charges based on his official acts as president on January 6, 2021.
"You're not going to do anything (as president) if you don't have immunity because otherwise, you're going to be prosecuted after you leave office," he said.
A majority of the justices agreed.
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the court's opinion: "The nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."
"The court, in a rather complicated way, carved out various levels of immunity that a president might enjoy," said Claire Wofford, Associate Professor of Political Science at the College of Charleston.
Immediately after the ruling was announced, Trump posted on Truth Social: "Big win for our Constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American!"
In an address to the nation on Monday night, President Biden claimed the ruling means there are no limits on what a president can do.
"This is a fundamentally new principle and it's a dangerous precedent," he said. "Because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even by the Supreme Court of the United States. The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone."
The ruling kicks the January 6th case down to the U.S. federal District Court and it puts the burden on Special Prosecutor Jack Smith to prove the former president acted unofficially and with criminal motivation as a candidate for president.
That will be hard to prove because the Supreme Court said his contacts with the Department of Justice and Vice President Pence to overturn the election took place as official acts within the president's authority.
When Trump's lawyers presented arguments before the court last April, Justice Sonya Sotomayor asked if there should be any limits on presidential actions. "If the president decides his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone else to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?"
Justices Kagan and Jackson agreed with Sotomayor voting against the majority's decision.
In the dissent, Sotomayor wrote: "Today's decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law...the court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more."
Legal experts agree this unprecedented, historic ruling will have far-reaching implications not only for Donald Trump but for future presidents as well.
It also means Jack Smith's January 6th case against the former president will likely be delayed until after the November election.
And President Trump is now citing the ruling in an attempt to overturn his conviction in New York last month, despite those acts being committed before he was president.
WATCH Our LIVE Analysis: Supreme Court Decision on Presidential Immunity
Youtube VIDEO: BREAKING LIVE: Supreme Court Decision on Presidential Immunity | CBN News
[Posted by CBN News
Streamed Live Jul 1, 2024
Gary Lane currently serves as International News Director and Senior International Correspondent for CBN News. He has traveled to more than 120 countries—many of them restricted nations or areas hostile to Christianity and other minority faiths where he has interviewed persecution victims and has provided video reports and analysis for CBN News. Also, he has provided written stories and has served as a consultant for the Voice of the Martyrs. Gary joined The Christian Broadcasting Network in 1984 as the first full-time Middle East Correspondent for CBN News. Based in Jerusalem, Gary produced …More
© 2024 The Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc., A nonprofit 501 (c)(3) Charitable Organization.
CBN News HOMEPAGE
SUPPORT CBN
+++++++++++++++++++++
Of Death Squads, Dementia, and Desperation
Fueled by the duncery of liberal female judges, Democrats and the media have their newest talking point: Thanks to the Supreme Court, a president can now kill his enemies with impunity.
By Julie Kelly
July 3, 2024
Declassified with Julie Kelly (Substack)
Rachel Maddow [Brainwashing] (Julie Kelly Photo)
It all started with what might be the dumbest hypothetical ever presented during any court proceeding in the history of ever.
Barely a minute into oral arguments last January related to the question of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, a judge on the D.C. federal appellate court interrupted the lawyer representing Donald Trump to ask if such immunity would cover an attempt to kill an opponent. “Could a president order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival?” Judge Florence Pan, appointed to the court by Joe Biden in 2021, inquired.
As Trump’s attorney attempted to answer, Pan again cut him off. “I asked you a yes or no question. Could a president who ordered Seal Team Six assassinate a political rival who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?”
The answer, of course, was irrelevant; Pan wasn’t looking
for a legitimate response. The wife
of longtime Democratic Party activist Max Stier, who is working with Joe
Biden’s White House to thwart Trump’s plans to reform the civil service if he’s
elected in November, Pan was doing the bidding of the regime and Trump-hating
media. Her gotcha question resulted in wall-to-wall headlines and praise from
all the people she was eager to please.
But that wasn’t the end of her clickbait hypothetical’s usefulness. Even though Justice Samuel Alito directly challenged the veracity of the Seal Team Six scenario during oral arguments before the Supreme Court on April 25, Pan’s imaginary execution order made it into the court’s landmark opinion that significantly narrows a former president’s exposure for criminal prosecution.
The Insufferable Stupidity of Sonia Sotomayor
In a 6-3 decision issued Monday in Trump v US, the immunity question that originated out of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s four-count indictment against Trump related to the events of January 6 and 2020 election, the court concluded a former president cannot be held criminally liable for “official acts” in office.
The court further held that “presumptive immunity” applies to acts outside of established executive and Constitutional authority but still falls within the purview of presidential privileges.
But, the court continued, “[As] for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.”
The 119-page opinion sounded reasonable enough and represented what many court observers had expected. And far from how the perpetually-perturbed cabal of cable news legal experts have described the matter—anywhere from a “no brainer” to “a slam dunk” to “black and white” that no such immunity exists—the court never before has contemplated whether a former president can be criminally charged.
That’s because prior to June 2023, when Smith handed down his first of three indictments against Trump, no former president had faced criminal charges for any conduct let alone for what he did in the Oval Office.
The majority understood not just the nuances of the existing case but the detrimental impact on the country’s future. “This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote. “We are called upon to consider whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed. Doing so requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. We undertake that responsibility conscious that we must not confuse ‘the issue of a power’s validity with the cause it is invoked to promote,’ but must instead focus on the ‘enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our Republic.’”
But that degree of caution and circumspection evaded the puerile minds of the three liberal harpies on the highest court. Joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke for the minority.
In reading Sotomayor’s frenzied, angst-ridden, and petulant prose, one can easily envision the full-blown tantrum she almost certainly had in her chambers while authoring the dissent. (The 70-year-old Obama appointee recently admitted she sometimes “cries” over court decisions that don’t go her way and how “every loss truly traumatizes me in my stomach and in my heart.”)
Claiming the opinion “effectively creates a law-free zone around the President”—Sotomayor obviously unaware the leader of the free world and commander-in-chief of the military enjoys certain rights denied to every other American—she presented her own list of what she called “nightmare scenarios.”
“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
It’s unclear whether Sotomayor threw her cookie from her highchair after that.
But just as one crying toddler quickly leads to a roomful of copycats, Democrats and their media enablers compliantly followed Sotomayor’s lead by insisting the decision paved the way for a president to murder his enemies with impunity.
Death Squads??? Seriously??
Moments after the opinion posted on the court’s website, MSNBC host Chris Hayes tweeted, “SCOTUS answered the Seal Team Six hypo with…yeah that’s fine?” ABC News Supreme Court contributor Kate Shaw told the network’s audience Monday morning that if a president ordered an assassination in his official capacity, he would be protected from prosecution. “I think the dissent is right on this opinion's own logic. It would be immune, and that is a genuinely chilling implication of this case."
Democrats in Congress also wasted no time in making their own outlandish claims. Serial liar Adam Schiff issued a typically deceitful statement: “Under this ruling, a president can order the assassination or jailing of their political rival, and be immune. They can take a bribe in exchange for an official act, and still be immune. They can organize a military coup to hold onto power and still be immune.”
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, wearing a smile, claimed Biden would be immune from “dispatch[ing] the military to take out the conservative justices on the court.”
Some called for Biden to kill his 2024 GOP presidential opponent. GenZ Democratic influencer Harry Sisson got himself reported to the Secret Service by tweeting that Biden “could send in the military to take out Trump.” A BBC reporter ended up deleting a tweet that implored Biden to “hurry up and have Trump murdered on the basis that he is a threat to America's security.”
But perhaps no one jumped the shark more than Rachel Maddow. “Given that the hypotheticals given over the course of these arguments…included things like, ‘can the president assassinate a rival,’ I think we have to look at the Supreme Court’s affirmative answer to that [is] ‘yes you can,’” she said on July 1.
“I mean, this is a death squad ruling.”
Referring to the nonviolent Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, Maddow went on the say that Trump “activated pro-Trump para-military groups that wear insignia and t-shirts and hold placards celebrating literally right-wing death squads.”
WTAF?
There is simply no way to address that level of insanity. And none of that actually happened; there is no version of Maddow’s account that comes close to the truth.
But she doesn’t care. Maddow knows that millions of braindead Democrats will believe her so no need for further explanation on her part. “ZOMG the Supreme Court just said a president can start using a firing squad!” Chardonnay-fueled cul-de-sac Karens will lament over the Bunco table.
But this is all the Democrat have right now. Saddled with an obstinate dementia patient for president, the best the Left can do is warn the Donald Trump will start offing his enemies if he’s re-elected in November.
The approach is not just cynical but sinister. At a time of heightened fears over the potential for political violence—Supreme Court justices have been harassed at home and in public and at least one has been the target of an assassination attempt—the Democrats continue to enflame the body politic while at the same time insisting Trump and the MAGA movement pose the greatest danger.
Joe Biden’s boosters are as detached from reality as he is.
© 2024 Julie Kelly
Declassified with Julie Kelly HOMEPAGE
SUBSCRIBE/SUPPORT Declassified with Julie Kelly
No comments:
Post a Comment