keneci
News • Science & Tech • Comedy
Supreme Court's Rulings In Trump Immunity, Jan 6, Chevron Cases Deal Heavy Blows To Biden Admin's Partisan Prosecutors, Bureaucrats
July 02, 2024
post photo preview

In several major rulings in the past week, the supreme court of the United States, SCOTUS dealt heavy blows to President Joe Biden administration's political prosecution of Donald Trump and his supporters, and the corrupt government bureaucracy or so-called deep state.

In a 6-3 decision on the Trump v. United States case Monday, the Court ruled that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

In the Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal election interference case, he charged Trump with conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding; obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding; and conspiracy against rights. The charges which were widely criticized, stem from his months-long investigation into whether the former president was involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot and any alleged interference in the 2020 election result.

Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges and argued he should be immune from prosecution from official acts done as president of the U.S.

"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the 6 justices in the majority ruling. "The President is not above the law. 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. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party."

Justice Clarence Thomas penned a separate concurrence to the majority opinion "to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure" -- the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel.
"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," Thomas wrote. "But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires. 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. [T]here are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed. We must respect the Constitution’s separation of powers in all its forms, else we risk rendering its protection of liberty a parchment guarantee."

The Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, to go back to the drawing board and find out whether or not Trump's actions qualify as official in his capacity as president. However the Court gave clear baselines which legal experts say, suggest a high burden of proof placed on the Special Counsel.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by her fellow left-wing Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, claiming the decision "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law."

"Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for ‘bold and unhesitating action’ by the President … the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more," she wrote for the minority in the dissenting opinion. "Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent."

Reacting to the ruling Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social: "THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IS A MUCH MORE POWERFUL ONE THAN SOME HAD EXPECTED IT TO BE. IT IS BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN AND WISE, AND CLEARS THE STENCH FROM THE BIDEN TRIALS AND HOAXES, ALL OF THEM, THAT HAVE BEEN USED AS AN UNFAIR ATTACK ON CROOKED JOE BIDEN’S POLITICAL OPPONENT, ME. MANY OF THESE FAKE CASES WILL NOW DISAPPEAR, OR WITHER INTO OBSCURITY. GOD BLESS AMERICA!"

Respected law professor Jonathan Turley speaking to Fox News said the court ruling is a major victory for Trump and joked that he couldn't see how the decision doesn't induce heart attack to the special counsel Smith.

SCOTUS also handed down three major rulings on Friday.

The court narrowed the statute that Biden administration's zealous left-wing prosecutors have relied on in their widely criticized 'obstruction of an official proceeding' cases against hundreds of Trump supporters who took part in the January 6, 2021 Capitol protests.

The 6-3 ruling in Fischer v United Statesstems from the conviction of Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer, who took part in a "stop the steal” rally on the morning of January 6 before outside the Capitol.

Fischer was one of about 350 people federal prosecutors charged under a federal statute, 18 USC section 1512(c)(2), which says any person who “otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so” can be fined or punished with up to 20 years in prison. The 350 people charged with the crime represent about a quarter of all those charged in connection with the January 6 protests.

The central question in the case was what kind of conduct exactly the language prohibited. The previous section of the law, 18 USC section 1512(c)(1), is more specific, saying anyone is guilty of a crime who “alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding.”

“Complex as subsection (c)(1) may look, it simply consists of many specific examples of prohibited actions undertaken with the intent to impair an object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding: altering a record, altering a document, concealing a record, concealing a document, and so on,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “Guided by the basic logic that Congress would not go to the trouble of spelling out the list in (c)(1) if a neighboring term swallowed it up, the most sensible inference is that the scope of (c)(2) is defined by reference to (c)(1). To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so.”

SCOTUS sent the opinion back to the court of appeals for the District of Columbia circuit for further consideration. The ruling could have profound implications for the January Capitol protesters and could also affect the case against Trump.

In another major decision Friday, the court in a 6-3 decision overturned one of its precedents, the Chevron deference, delivering a major blow to the regulatory powers of unelected bureaucrats in federal agencies. The court’s 1984 opinion in Chevron USA Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council, had required the courts to defer to the knowledge of government bureaucrats in their reasonable interpretation of ambiguous laws passed by congress.

Friday's decision was delivered in two combined cases, Relentless Inc v Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimondo. The cases were hung on a complaint from fishing companies over charges they were required to pay to cover the costs of conservation monitoring. The National Marine Fisheries Service, required fishing boat owners to pay $710 a day -- a demand that the fishing companies argued was an overreach of federal agency power.

Writing the opinion, Chief Justice Roberts stated that the Chevron precedent “is overruled.” He slammed the legal theory laid out in the 1984 ruling, claiming it “gravely erred,” and calling it “misguided” and “unworkable.”

“The constitution assigns to the federal judiciary the responsibility and power to adjudicate cases and controversies,” Roberts wrote. “Agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.”

The supreme court on Friday, also ruled 6-3 that cities in the US west can criminalize unhoused people sleeping outside even when they lack access to shelter. The ruling is a victory for Grants Pass, Oregon, which in 2019 passed ordinances prohibiting sleeping and camping in its public parks and on its streets, banning unhoused people from “using a blanket, pillow, or cardboard box for protection from the elements.”

Critics have called on local officials to take advantage of the ruling in tackling homeless camps and filth rampant in cities across the country run by left-wing Democrats.

Also earlier last week, SCOTUS rejected Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy settlement plan, stripped the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of a major tool in fighting securities fraud, and put a hold on an attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce harmful air pollution that drifts across state lines.

Here are supreme court's opinions in Trump v. United StatesFischer v United States, and the combined cases, Relentless Inc v Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimond.

community logo
Join the keneci Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
0
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
SpaceX Starlink Internet Satellites

With Starlink internet, data is continuously being sent between a ground dish and a Starlink satellite orbiting 550km above. Furthermore, the Starlink satellite zooms across the sky at 27,000 km/hr! MORE VIDEOS ON KENECI NETWORK RUMBLE CHANNEL: https://rumble.com/c/Keneci

00:28:08
Elon Musk, DOGE Speak On Waste And Fraud

US Department of Government Efficiency Services (USDS) led by Elon Musk speak on the "mind-boggling" fraud and waste in UInited States federal government

00:00:45
January 17, 2025
SpaceX Launches Starship 7th Test Flight

SpaceX successfully executed its second-ever “chopsticks” catch of a Super Heavy booster (or Booster 14) using the “Mechazilla” launch tower on Thursday(Jan. 16), during the seventh uncrewed test flight of the company's 123-meter Starship rocket. However, the megarocket's upper stage(or Ship 33) was lost approximately 8.5 minutes into the flight in a “rapid unscheduled disassembly(RUD)” or explosion

00:10:30
Welcome to Keneci Network!

Join the conversations!

September 17, 2024
Charges Against Sean 'Diddy' Combs In Grand Jury Indictment

The rapper was charged with racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, and transportation to engage in prostitution in the indictment unsealed Tuesday(Sept. 17)

Combs-Indictment-24-Cr.-542.pdf
"Dear husband"

A Dubai princess took to social media to announce she's divorcing her husband who's worth $40B.

She claims the billionaire is busy with his "other [female] companions"

post photo preview
post photo preview
Elon Musk, Trump 'Big Beautiful Bill' Feud Fallout

The feud between U.S. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk escalated Thursday, with Musk accusing Trump of having ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and criticizing Trump's "big, beautiful" spending bill. Musk alleged that Trump is in the Epstein files, which is why they have not been made public, and suggested that Trump would not have won the election without him.

The White House's Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, calls Musk’s claim “an unfortunate episode” driven by his dissatisfaction with the bill’s lack of EV subsidies. A source notes Trump banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago and references the February 2025 release of flight logs mentioning Trump.

The conflict began when Musk criticized the "big, beautiful" tax and spending bill, calling it an "abomination" and urging to keep electric vehicle (EV) and solar incentives while removing wasteful spending Trump responded by expressing disappointment in Musk, stating that he was "surprised" by Musk's criticism.

During a meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Thursday, Trump addressed Musk’s criticism publicly, saying he’s “very disappointed” in Musk, who “knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody.” Trump claims Musk’s objections stem from the removal of the $7,500 EV tax credit, which he says Musk knew about for months. He suggests Musk may have “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

Trump also mocked Musk’s appearance, referencing a recent black eye (attributed to Musk’s son) and questioning why he didn’t cover it with makeup.

In a social media post, Trump threatened to cancel Musk’s government contracts, including those for SpaceX and Tesla, stating, “The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.” He also claimed he asked Musk to leave DOGE because he was “wearing thin.”

Escalating the feud Musk responded by saying SpaceX would begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft, indicating a potential withdrawal from government contracts.

Musk then took to X to make his accusations about the Epstein files. He wrote, "Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out."

oMI-YMPaKR1qGVLoLQtxaxqzj8LmpgYKPh7sJ8DfmjdkhNZ428Qf3P8NNZiykZzprloLt_pxavtxt9ZGMrilT738j_5rvJgFpXjgFA6OCFsMxKUWJ3SAHFoyH6aYxyJ1Nw=w1280

The White House and Trump's supporters defended Trump, with the White House press secretary describing Musk's comments as "unfortunate" and suggesting that Musk was unhappy with the bill's content. Trump also suggested that Musk was upset about the removal of EV subsidies and mandates, which could affect Musk's Tesla business.

Despite the heated exchanges, Trump downplayed the situation to reporters and instead referenced his policy implementations, saying, "Oh it's okay, it's going very well, never done better."

Throughout the day, Musk's net worth dropped significantly, losing approximately $27 billion, although he remained the world's richest man with a net worth of around $388 billion.

Speaking to reporters by phone Friday, Trump said in response to reports of possible phone call with Musk, "I'm not even thinking about Elon. He's got a problem. The poor guy’s got a problem....No. I won't be speaking to him for a while I guess, but I wish him well."

“Honestly I’ve been so busy working on China… working on Russia… working on Iran.. I’m not thinking about Elon musk .. I just wish him well....,“ Trump later told reporters. "I hope he does well with Tesla."

Read full Article
post photo preview
Trump Announces Travel Ban, Restrictions On 19 Countries

President Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Wednesday, restricting travel to the United States from 12 countries and imposing partial restrictions on 7 others. The countries fully banned from entering the U.S. are Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

Countries subject to partial restrictions include Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

The ban takes effect on June 9, 2025.

The proclamation includes exemptions for lawful permanent residents (green card holders); existing visa holders (visas issued before June 9, 2025, will not be revoked); Afghans eligible for Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) who assisted the U.S. government; diplomats, athletes (e.g., for the World Cup or Olympics), and dual nationals with passports from non-restricted countries and individuals whose entry serves U.S. national interests, evaluated case-by-case.

The ban is subject to revision if countries improve vetting or security cooperation, and additional countries could be added if new threats emerge.

These restrictions aim to enhance national security and counterterrorism efforts by addressing deficiencies in the information needed to assess potential security threats posed by nationals of these countries.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Dave Portnoy Had A Meltdown In Heated Debate With Cohost About 'Jew Jokes,' Free speech

Barstool founder Dave Portnoy had a heated back and forth with his podcast's cohost Kirk Minihane over 'Jew jokes.'

Portnoy faced backlash recently on social media, after firing two waitresses and taking further action against some college students involved in an incident at his Barstool Sansom Street bar in Philadelphia, where a sign that read "Fuck the Jews," was displayed.

"Shut the fuck up you bald fuck" Portnoy screamed at Minihane during a recent The Unnamed Show episode after Minihane criticized Portnoy's approach to 'Jew jokes.'

Minihane argued that Americans and especially comedians have a right to free speech and to make jokes. While Portnoy suggested that given the war in Gaza and public anti-Israel sentiment online, 'Jew jokes' should not be allowed and offenders must be prosecuted.

"Shut up!... You work for me!" Portnoy screamed at Minihane who responded "Sure. You bet. For now..."

"Quit! I'll save $500,000." Portnoy said.

Minihane then asked "Is this a show or not a show? We can't have a conversation?"

"You're an idiot. You're literally saying people should be allowed to make Jew jokes whenever they want." Portnoy shot back.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals