SCOTUS decisions this week

[El Paisano]

It has been a great week for our republic.

Chevron overturned! HOOAH!
This is the BIG one. I have been waiting for this decision for months and could not have asked for a better decision. The Chevron deferrence doctrine was what allowed the ATF and other alphabet agencies to assume power that they were never given. With the crew that occupies the White House, I expect them to continue to attempt to usurp power until the very last. The doctrine was what allowed the administrative state (aka Deep State) to grow and propser for the last 40 years or so. It was way past time for it to die and the court killed it dead.

Fischer: Undo's the convictions of many of those imprisoned for J6, and takes the air out of many that haven't been tried yet. Uncovers the DOJ scheme to silence dissent and imprison people for political dissent.

Jarkesy: People are entitled to a trial by jury and not simply found guilt by an Administrative action, typically used by EPA, OSHA, MSHA, SEC, and other alphabet agencies to levy fines and enforce their "rules".

[Twist]

Yep, all huge.

I am really a fan of overturning the Chevron decision, not like the others aren’t important or anything, but that one basically puts an end to legislation via bureaucracy.

That should have happened a long time ago and should have several alphabet agencies quaking, the EPA for starters which I’m all for.

[stickerpatch59]

Yep, EVERY RULE that can make you a CRIMINAL should be approved by Congress.

[Killer]

Trump wins again! Thank the good Lord for his three lifetime appointments!

[SaltwaterSlick]

SCOTUS has ruled in favor of Trump‼️ Gutted the trials of the DemoKrauts

[stickerpatch59]

The libs are in total meltdown! 😆

[Artos]

Heads are exploding...from AOC.


The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control. Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.

[tvc184]

This is what I gather from the ruling.

The president has to be immune from actions taken under his constitutional authorities. He has absolutely immunity from those actions.

An easy example is the bombing of Japan by the Doolittle Raiders shortly after the war began. The president authorized it under his constitutional authority as the commander in chief of the military. He can’t be sued or jailed because civilians were killed in Japan.

The president has presumed immunity for official acts. Obviously the president has wide discretion in many areas including some executive orders. It is presumed that he has immunity from any of those actions. A presumption legally is that it is automatically assumed to be true unless evidence can be brought to show otherwise by a preponderance of evidence which basically means, more likely yes than no. So under such a presumption, the person accused has to prove nothing. Trump therefore doesn’t have to prove immunity. The government is burdened with proving that he doesn’t have immunity.

So while the president has wide authority, he can’t as an example, order the removal of a political rival from the face of the Earth. That would certainly not be under an official act.

Any action that is not official in constitutional authority or an official act, he has no immunity. Let’s say that he got drunk and sneaked out past his Secret Service protection. Then he drove while DWI and killed somebody. That is not a constitutional authority or an official act so there is no immunity.

The Supreme Court did not specifically clear Trump of any wrongdoing. They did not hear the case against his. They issued a constitutional ruling on immunity. When an indictment was brought against Trump, his lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the charges based on official acts immunity.

Both the District Court (the trial court) denied that the former president had any immunity. The District Court and the Circuit Court (appeals court) then denied taking immunity into consideration. They simply dismissed it as if immunity wasn’t a debatable issue so the Supreme Court took the case. That is why the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that constitutional authority has absolute immunity and official acts has presumed immunity.

Since this was only an appeal on constitutionality (the trial has yet to be held), the Supreme Court could not clear Trump. What they did was vacate the indictment and told the lower courts that they have to consider whether immunity existed for Trump under the rules that they just set.

They could still seek to indict Trump again but they have to take into consideration the Supreme Court ruling as to whether anything that Trump did was under his constitutional authority or an official act which would give immunity. Previously those lower courts denied even looking at the evidence.

Look for the DOJ to start the process over but now the courts are forced to consider immunity.

IF….. Trump was indicted again and the appeals courts ruled that his actions did not fall under the immunity ruling, and if he was convicted, then this Supreme Court could review the case again and then would have the actual trial transcript to see if their ruling was followed.

To make it short, the Supreme Court ruling does not completely clear Trump. It clears him out of the current indictment and orders to lower courts to consider whether immunity exists, which up until this point, they have denied even considering it.

[tvc184]

The libs are in total meltdown! 😆

I bet. 🤣

[unclefish]

This is what I gather from the ruling.

The president has to be immune from actions taken under his constitutional authorities. He has absolutely immunity from those actions.

An easy example is the bombing of Japan by the Doolittle Raiders shortly after the war began. The president authorized it under his constitutional authority as the commander in chief of the military. He can’t be sued or jailed because civilians were killed in Japan.

The president has presumed immunity for official acts. Obviously the president has wide discretion in many areas including some executive orders. It is presumed that he has immunity from any of those actions. A presumption legally is that it is automatically assumed to be true unless evidence can be brought to show otherwise by a preponderance of evidence which basically means, more likely yes than no. So under such a presumption, the person accused has to prove nothing. Trump therefore doesn’t have to prove immunity. The government is burdened with proving that he doesn’t have immunity.

So while the president has wide authority, he can’t as an example, order the removal of a political rival from the face of the Earth. That would certainly not be under an official act.

Any action that is not official in constitutional authority or an official act, he has no immunity. Let’s say that he got drunk and sneaked out past his Secret Service protection. Then he drove while DWI and killed somebody. That is not a constitutional authority or an official act so there is no immunity.

The Supreme Court did not specifically clear Trump of any wrongdoing. They did not hear the case against his. They issued a constitutional ruling on immunity. When an indictment was brought against Trump, his lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the charges based on official acts immunity.

Both the District Court (the trial court) denied that the former president had any immunity. The District Court and the Circuit Court (appeals court) then denied taking immunity into consideration. They simply dismissed it as if immunity wasn’t a debatable issue so the Supreme Court took the case. That is why the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that constitutional authority has absolute immunity and official acts has presumed immunity.

Since this was only an appeal on constitutionality (the trial has yet to be held), the Supreme Court could not clear Trump. What they did was vacate the indictment and told the lower courts that they have to consider whether immunity existed for Trump under the rules that they just set.

They could still seek to indict Trump again but they have to take into consideration the Supreme Court ruling as to whether anything that Trump did was under his constitutional authority or an official act which would give immunity. Previously those lower courts denied even looking at the evidence.

Look for the DOJ to start the process over but now the courts are forced to consider immunity.

IF….. Trump was indicted again and the appeals courts ruled that his actions did not fall under the immunity ruling, and if he was convicted, then this Supreme Court could review the case again and then would have the actual trial transcript to see if their ruling was followed.

To make it short, the Supreme Court ruling does not completely clear Trump. It clears him out of the current indictment and orders to lower courts to consider whether immunity exists, which up until this point, they have denied even considering it.

Great synopsis.

[Red Letters]

This is what I gather from the ruling.

The president has to be immune from actions taken under his constitutional authorities. He has absolutely immunity from those actions.

An easy example is the bombing of Japan by the Doolittle Raiders shortly after the war began. The president authorized it under his constitutional authority as the commander in chief of the military. He can’t be sued or jailed because civilians were killed in Japan.

The president has presumed immunity for official acts. Obviously the president has wide discretion in many areas including some executive orders. It is presumed that he has immunity from any of those actions. A presumption legally is that it is automatically assumed to be true unless evidence can be brought to show otherwise by a preponderance of evidence which basically means, more likely yes than no. So under such a presumption, the person accused has to prove nothing. Trump therefore doesn’t have to prove immunity. The government is burdened with proving that he doesn’t have immunity.

So while the president has wide authority, he can’t as an example, order the removal of a political rival from the face of the Earth. That would certainly not be under an official act.

Any action that is not official in constitutional authority or an official act, he has no immunity. Let’s say that he got drunk and sneaked out past his Secret Service protection. Then he drove while DWI and killed somebody. That is not a constitutional authority or an official act so there is no immunity.

The Supreme Court did not specifically clear Trump of any wrongdoing. They did not hear the case against his. They issued a constitutional ruling on immunity. When an indictment was brought against Trump, his lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the charges based on official acts immunity.

Both the District Court (the trial court) denied that the former president had any immunity. The District Court and the Circuit Court (appeals court) then denied taking immunity into consideration. They simply dismissed it as if immunity wasn’t a debatable issue so the Supreme Court took the case. That is why the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that constitutional authority has absolute immunity and official acts has presumed immunity.

Since this was only an appeal on constitutionality (the trial has yet to be held), the Supreme Court could not clear Trump. What they did was vacate the indictment and told the lower courts that they have to consider whether immunity existed for Trump under the rules that they just set.

They could still seek to indict Trump again but they have to take into consideration the Supreme Court ruling as to whether anything that Trump did was under his constitutional authority or an official act which would give immunity. Previously those lower courts denied even looking at the evidence.

Look for the DOJ to start the process over but now the courts are forced to consider immunity.

IF….. Trump was indicted again and the appeals courts ruled that his actions did not fall under the immunity ruling, and if he was convicted, then this Supreme Court could review the case again and then would have the actual trial transcript to see if their ruling was followed.

To make it short, the Supreme Court ruling does not completely clear Trump. It clears him out of the current indictment and orders to lower courts to consider whether immunity exists, which up until this point, they have denied even considering it.

I like what Thomas wrote:

President Trump is separately arguing that Jack Smith’s appointment was unlawful in the classified documents case playing out in a Florida court.

Clarence Thomas questioned Jack Smith’s authority because he was a private citizen when he was tapped as a special prosecutor.

“I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President — he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President,” Clarence Thomas said.

“No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding,” Clarence Thomas wrote.

[El Paisano]

I don't know about y'all, but I am feeling a lot better. Of course, look at what is happening in France. Sanity is taking the government back over in France and the left is throwing a hissy fit.
I expect the same thing here. Meanwhile, our enemies are planning their moves and realize that their window of opportunity is closing fast.

[diamond10x]

The fact that the swamp is in total meltdown over the presidential immunity case shows you just how terrified they really are. Talk about showing your hand.

[muzzlebrake]

WH and Biden went off the rails last evening. It is obvious non of them even read the whole opinion especially crying Chuck Schumer. Liberals and their news media are melting down and the tears are flooding the country.

[muzzlebrake]

Poor AOC. She still believes we can land a spaceship on the back side of the sun where it's dark and much cooler.