SCOTUS Issues

[GURPS]

Supreme Court Case ‘Threatens Chaos’ to Immigration System​

A complex upcoming Supreme Court case could weaken a key tool the government uses in immigration law enforcement and throw the system into chaos, legal sources say.

The case at hand deals with the doctrine of “consular nonreviewability,” which is the legal principle that a consular official’s decision to refuse a visa to a foreigner is not subject to judicial review.

Cracking down on the doctrine would harm the immigration system and cripple its ability to conduct business, supporters of the nonreviewability principle say. Opponents, such as those who favor expanded immigration, say relaxing it respects constitutional rights and the institution of marriage.

The doctrine is a judge-made exception to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a federal statute enacted in 1946 that governs administrative law procedures for federal executive departments and independent agencies. The late U.S. Sen. Pat McCarran (D-Nev.) said the APA was “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the federal government.”

Decisions about who gets to enter the United States are vested in the legislative and the executive branches, not the judicial branch.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to create policies about the admissibility of individuals to the United States. At the same time, the legislative branch delegates the power to implement those policies to the executive branch.

On April 23, the Supreme Court will hear Department of State v. Munoz, which concerns spousal sponsorship.

 

[GURPS]

Leonard Leo to Defy Senate Democrats’ ‘Unlawful and Politically Motivated Subpoena’​

“Today, I received an unlawful and politically motivated subpoena from U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin,” Leo said in a statement shared with Breitbart News. “I am not capitulating to his lawless support of Senate Sheldon Whitehouse and the left’s dark money effort to silence and cancel political opposition.”

In Oct. 2023, the Democrat Senate Judiciary Committee announced that they were issuing a subpoena to Leo, in an effort at “reverse court-packing,” despite being told by Leo’s attorney that they have no constitutional authority to punish private citizens.

Durbin and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) have been pushing a so-called ethics bill, known as S.359, or the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act (SCERT), in an attempt to have conservative Supreme Court justices taken off some cases in order to ensure a more liberal decision is made.

Due to being unable to subpoena Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Durbin and Whitehouse have issued subpoenas and demanded personal records from Leo, due to his longtime friendship with both men.

“We have put forward clear and detailed reasons why the Committee’s inquiry is a form of political retaliation in violation of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection component of the Due Process Clause,” Rivkin wrote in an Oct. 19 letter to Durbin. “But, for the most part, the October 5 Letter ignores these points, and, since our last correspondence, the Committee has only expanded the retaliatory campaign it is mounting against Mr. Leo. We also have explained at length why the Supreme Court ethics legislation the Committee has written would violate the separation of powers if enacted, and thus cannot legitimate the Committee’s inquiry.”

 

[GURPS]

Democrat Lawyer HUMILIATED By Supreme Court Over J6 Obstruction Charge, Calls Out TWO TIERED Justice​

 

[GURPS]

 

[StmarysCity79]

Supreme Court Asks Special Counsel to Respond to Trump Presidential Immunity Appeal​

President Trump is asking for the Supreme Court to halt the appellate decision because it incorrectly ruled that presidential immunity didn’t apply to Mr. Smith’s prosecution of him.

His attorney, D. John Sauer, had argued in January that the Constitution required presidents first face impeachment and trial by Congress before they could be criminally prosecuted within Article III courts. A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit unanimously rejected his arguments, stating that” ‘[c]oncerns of public policy, especially as illuminated by our history and the structure of our government’ compel the rejection of his claim of immunity in this case.”

The judges also ruled that “any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as President no longer protects him against this prosecution.”

Two Questions:

2. If Trump did nothing wrong why does he need to have immunity?


2. If Trump should be immune from any consequences for his action after the election of 2020 does the same hold true for Biden going forward?

I would assume Biden could then just cancel the election and announce he is going to to take a second turn and that SCOTUS has ruled he is immune from any prosecution?

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

In Oral Argument, Gorsuch Made an 'Alarming' Allusion to Rep. Bowman (and Other Highlights)​

 

[GURPS]

Justice Clarence Thomas Grills DOJ Lawyer on January 6 ‘Obstruction’ Statute That Could Torpedo Jack Smith’s DC Case Against Trump (AUDIO)​

Justice Thomas pointed out that there have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings (Kavanaugh hearings).

“There have been many violent protests that have interfered with proceedings. Has the government applied this provision to other protests in the past and has this been the government’s position throughout the lifespan of the statute?” Justice Thomas asked the DOJ lawyer.

Justice Thomas asked Prelogar if the government had ever used this provision for other protestors.

Prelogar broke her back trying to explain to the Supreme Court why leftist protestors weren’t prosecuted as January 6 defendants were.







Special Counsel Jack Smith suggested he will ignore the Supreme Court if it reverses the obstruction statute this summer.

Jack Smith suggested he will find a workaround if the Supreme Court reverses two of the charges against Trump.

Smith claims the ‘obstruction’ charges will still stand against Trump because the alternative electoral certificates represent “documents” that were fraudulently used in an “official proceeding.”

These papers weren’t even sent or signed by Trump!

Jack Smith isn’t the only one who is threatening to circumvent the Supreme Court.

 

[GURPS]

 

[GURPS]

Why SCOTUS Will Toss 350 J6 Convictions



t’s unlikely that many Americans sat down with a second cup of coffee and listened to last Tuesday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Fischer v. United States. Nonetheless, it was an edifying tutorial on how the Department of Justice abused a federal law in order to charge J6 rioters with a serious felony. The statute is part of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed in 2002 to prevent corporations from tampering with evidence to obstruct congressional inquiries or other official proceedings. For 19 years, the law was used only for that purpose. Then, in 2021, the DOJ redefined “official proceedings” to mean anything the government does, including certification of Electoral College votes.

This arbitrary revision became necessary because the actual “crimes” committed by most of the J6 defendants amounted to little more than trespassing and disorderly conduct. This obviously conflicted with the narrative being pushed by President Biden, congressional Democrats and the corporate media, all of whom insisted from the beginning that the riot was a “deadly insurrection.” Consequently, the DOJ had to come up with something that would sound more serious to the public than charging a few hundred knuckleheads with misdemeanors. At length they landed on Section 1512(c)(2) of Sarbanes-Oxley, which includes language that was distorted by prosecutors to charge roughly 350 rioters with felonies:

1512(c) Whoever corruptly —
(1) 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; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

 

[GURPS]

Supreme Court Poised to Agree with Trump: Former Presidents Are Immune from Some Prosecutions​

Justice Samuel Alito asked if a president is in a “peculiarly precarious position” due to the nature and consequences of his duties.

“Presidents have to make a lot of tough decisions about enforcing the law, and they have to make decisions about questions that are unsettled, and they have to make decisions based on the information that’s available,” he said. “Do you really, did I understand you to say, well, you know, if he makes a mistake, he makes a mistake; he’s subject to the criminal laws just like anybody else?”

Dreeben pushed back, arguing a president “has access to legal advice about everything that he does.”

“Making a mistake is not what lands you in a criminal prosecution,” Dreeben insisted.

Alito was dubious of Dreeben’s claim that a president enjoys a level of protection because federal grand juries would not indict without evidence. Alito cited the “old saw about indicting a ham sandwich,” continuing to ask, “You come across a lot of cases where the U.S. attorney or another federal prosecutor really wanted to indict a case and the grand jury refused to do so?”

Dreeben acknowledged that, after which Alito quipped, “Every once in a while there’s an eclipse too,” to laughter.

Justice Kavanaugh Asks Jack Smith’s Prosecutor Why Barack Obama Was Never Charged For Drone Strikes Against Civilians (AUDIO)​

At issue before the Supreme Court is whether a US President is immune from criminal prosecution for official (not personal) acts.

Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked DOJ prosecutor Michael Dreeben (former Mueller goon) why Barack Obama was never charged for drone strikes against civilians.

“How about President Obama’s drone strikes?” Kavanaugh asked Michael Dreeben.

Dreeben defended Obama’s drone strikes that killed weddinggoers and innocent civilians.

“So the office of legal counsel looked at this very carefully and determined number one that the federal murder statute does apply to the Executive Branch, but the president wasn’t personally carrying out the strike, but the aiding and abetting laws are broad and determined that a public authority exception is built into statutes and that applied particularly to the murder statute that talks about unlawful killing did not apply to the drone strike,” Dreeben said.

Dreeben could have saved a lot of time and just said that Barack Obama has Democrat privilege.

 

[GURPS]

Justice Kavanaugh said that when presidents are subject to prosecution, history shows that it’s not going to stop.

“It’s going to cycle back and be used against the current president or the next president ... and the next president and the next president after that.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who said that the court is “writing a rule for the ages,” along with Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Kavanaugh all said that their concern was not so much the case against President Trump, but rather the effect of the ruling on future presidencies.

“This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country,” Justice Kavanaugh said.

‘Rule for the Ages’​

Former Deputy Solicitor General Michael Dreeben, who argued for Mr. Smith, said that the framers of the U.S. Constitution never intended for presidents to be above the law.
Mr. Dreeben also said that the crimes President Trump is charged with—including allegedly participating in a scheme to enlist dueling electors in battleground states won by President Joe Biden to cast alternate slates of electoral votes for him—weren’t a part of the president’s official duties.

Attorney D. John Sauer, who argued for President Trump, told the justices that without presidential immunity from criminal charges, the “presidency as we know it” will be changed, contending that the looming threat is that a decision to deny immunity would “destroy” presidential decisionmaking at a time in the nation’s history when it needs to be bold.

Mr. Sauer argued that the impact of the case would have implications far beyond the question at hand, raising the hypothetical prospect of President Biden facing charges of encouraging illegal immigration with his border policies.

Justice Kavanaugh expressed concern about the future implications of the case, warning of the prospect of a vicious cycle of malicious prosecutions that could hamper presidents for years to come.

Justice Kavanaugh Warns of Vicious Cycle of Malicious Prosecutions That Could End Presidency

‘This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country,’ Justice Brett Kavanaugh says.

www.theepochtimes.com

 

[GURPS]

Time flies, when you’re having fun! The salacious Trump “mischaracterized legal expenses” trial will enter its fourth week today. Legal eagles are impatiently waiting to hear back from the Supreme Court on the critical issue of presidential immunity. Corporate media’s headlines over the last few days seem like nothing less than a pack of nervous old ladies arguing about the time the tour bus is supposed to leave or whether they missed it already. Behold the Washington Post’s latest worrisome op-ed:



And then there was the Hill’s op-ed (Saturday):



And, Rolling Stone’s ‘commentary’ (last Wednesday):



What lawyers often say about appellate cases — and the Supreme Court’s immunity case is an appellate case — is that the decisions always pop up in your inbox right when you least expect them. In my experience, that old saw is 100% true.

They’re worried because the immunity decision could possibly wreck several of the current cases against the President.

But don’t you worry, because C&C will keep you posted if anything happens in the Trump cases that you need to know about.

☕️ THE LITTLE MAYOR ☙ Monday, May 5, 2024 ☙ C&C NEWS 🦠

Dems fret about Supreme Court immunity decision; UK’s version of the PREP Act collapsing under spiking claims; Moderna's astonishing sales figures; the next counteroffensive; and a very gooey story.

www.coffeeandcovid.com