Posted on 07/01/2024 6:33:16 AM PDT by CFW
LoL
“Fox News reporting that AOC says she’s filing impeachment charges against SCOTUS “when she gets back,” whatever that means.”
I hope AOC enjoys herself LOL!
In other court news:
Phil Holloway ✈️
@PhilHollowayEsq
·
21m
BREAKING 🚨🚨
The #FaniWillis v #YoungThug judge realized he’s been checkmated
He finally follows the law and transfers motions to recuse to another judge as required by law
He saw the handwriting on the wall, probably after colleagues weighed in.
When she gets off her back, perhaps. She's a complete loon, which is nice, she makes Dems look like fools.
From the Opinion: (LOL)
“As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today—conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General,and then remand to the lower courts to determine “in the first instance” whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged “
AND
“The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” “
In spades. Enjoy the panic over the next 4 months as their ship slowly sinks. I for one like that this pain will linger until they lose in November, in a landslide.
This Twitchy thread is pretty funny!
“’Straight Up Bats**t’: Justice Sotomayor’s Dissent on Trump Immunity Is Like an Audition for MSNBC”
LOL!
Another criticism of the lower court and of the dissenting justices:
___
From the opinion:
“Finally, the principal dissent finds it “troubling” that the Court does not “designate any course of conduct alleged in the indictment as private.” Post, at 27. Despite the unprecedented nature of this case, the significant constitutional questions that it raises, its expedited treatment in the lower courts and in this Court, the lack of factual analysis in the lower courts, and the lack of briefing on how to categorize the conduct alleged, the principal dissent would go ahead and declare all of it unofficial. The other dissent, meanwhile, analyzes the case under comprehensive models and paradigms of its own concoction and accuses the Court of providing “no meaningful guidance about how to apply [the] new paradigm or how to categorize a President’s conduct.” Post, at 13 (opinion of JACKSON, J.).
It would have us exhaustively define every application of Presidential immunity. See post, at 13–14. Our dissenting colleagues exude an impressive infallibility. While their confidence may be inspiring, the Court adheres to time-tested practices instead—deciding what is required to dispose of this case and remanding after “revers[ing] on a threshold question,” Zivotofsky, 566 U. S., at 201, to obtain “guidance from the litigants [and] the court below,” Vidal v. Elster, 602 U. S. 286, 328 (2024) (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment).”
Keep it up, All Out Crazy and Dems!!
This is too good! 🍿
Justice Thomas rightfully asks under what authority was Smith appointed to his role? He wasn’t appointed by approval from Congress. It was Merrick Garland running amok.
Yep. From Thomas’ concurring opinion:
“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. 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.”
BOOM
Solution: John Eastman should be Trump's next SCOTUS pick! It would be nice if he were a bit younger, but he's plenty vigorous and battle tested. Plus he would explode more liberal heads than any other possible pick.
BOOM!
And a very delightful BOOM! it was!
Remember, this was in a concurring Opinion and not a dissent. Thomas words basically give Judge Cannon in Florida a clear pathway to take in the documents case.
Here is Amy Howe’s write-up on the Immunity case Opinion from today. Remember, all attorneys at scotusblog lean left so take that in consideration when reading articles at the site. Although I do think they do a reasonable job in trying to not slant their articles.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/justices-rule-trump-has-some-immunity-from-prosecution/
Excelent points
😆😆😆👍
Has Merrick Garland ever yet responded to the question of why his appointment of Jack Smith as special prosecutor was valid and how?
Or has he, just by saying, trust me, it was ok for me to do that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.