Posted on 06/14/2024 6:10:11 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court issues opinions this morning at beginning 10:00 from cases from the October 2023 term.
After yesterday's opinions there are now twenty-seven cases remaining to be decided.
Of note is the Trump vs. U.S. immunity case, the Chevron deference cases(Relentless and Loper Bright), and the Fischer case regarding charges related to the January 6, 2021 protests.
There is also the Cargill case where at issue is whether a bump stock device is a “machinegun” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). Another 2nd Amendment case is U.S. v. Rahimi where the question is whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face.
Another important case is Moore v. US, a case regarding taxation of unrealized gains.
There is also a couple of First Amendment cases, one Murthy v Missouri regarding government censorship and social media. The issues are whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.
There is also an abortion case, Moyle v. U.S., and a EPA case in Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency, so there are a lot of cases of importance to conservatives still awaiting decisions from the Court.
You can find a list of all the cases from this term at:
Attorneys from scotusblog will be in the press room at the Supreme Court and "live-blogging" the opinions of the court as they are released.
You can follow along here: Scotusblog.com
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
That’s what I was thinking sidebar I think they where willing to grant limited immunity but it seems like after what Alvin Bragg pulled they are going with an opinion that gives the President more latitude. As somehow this guy made himself FEC commissioner as well.
A 3rd grader could have told them it DID NOT.
SOMEONE NEEDED TO TAKE SOTOMAYER TO A GUN RANGE & DEMONSTRATE the bump stock for her.
I'd guess they will release the most controversial opinions the last day as they leave town.
I remember that about Roberts last minute thing. Good memory.
Your words to God’s ears.
It's not the deciding that takes time. The decisions have to be written. They are complex documents and go through revisions.
They all vote on the final draft, so, even after the CJ assigns the opinion, and drafts are circulated, things can change.
This is the nature of being the sole elected official of the executive branch. The President can't "punch a timeclock" every time he starts doing an "official" act and then punch out when he's done with that act. Then next whisper in his ear might be a national emergency, whether he's giving a speech on the Mall or having dinner with donors.
Rahm Emanuel famously told Obama to "never let a crisis go to waste." What's going to happen when the Democrats and the LAAP-dog media figure out how create a crisis by entrapping the President into "non-core" acts and then begin harassing him over his liabilities due to those acts?
I would like to see SCOTUS close that door forever by declaring the President's existence in office as being "core" to the job.
-PJ
;-)
Exactly right.
That’s why I’ve always maintained that Trump’s evidence as for the need for broad immunity is — Alvin Bragg.
I would have agreed with you — until Bragg himself made the case for broad immunity.
You just can’t have 2,500 DAs filing charges against ex-presidents. Think of the potential for extortion.
Yes. I'm saying the Supremes will likely rule that the question is not ripe for them YET.
He will jump on that ASAP given that Cannon in Florida is stymying Smith in the documents case.
-PJ
The Supremes are not ruling on Bragg. They will issue a narrow ruling on process at this point, eating up the clock with the trial court being forced to flesh out the immunity arguments on the record. THEN the appeal will come back to SCOTUS.
This is excellent. Every legal "expert" dismissed Trump's position that he had immunity out of hand. But the Supremes are forcing courts to take Trump's arguments utterly seriously.
Yes. I'm saying the Supremes will likely rule that the question is not ripe for them YET.
Another point...
The window of opportunity that SCOTUS has is the impeachment clause "...but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
If SCOTUS rules that a President has broad immunity in perpetuity for all acts undertaken while President unless impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, we might see Congress motivated to take impeachment much more seriously.
If Congress really REALLY wants to prosecute a President for something, they must impeach and convict him first, otherwise he has lifetime immunity for all acts undertaken while President, just as Congress has immunity for all acts undertaken while on the floor of their chamber, and when traveling to and from Congress. Impeachment in the House must lay out all the charges that are prosecutable; impeachment and conviction cannot make a President an open target for any prosecution whatsoever when removed from office.
That's what I would like SCOTUS to rule.
-PJ
Good ruling.
I hope President Trump learns from this and stays in his lane.
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.