If appealed, I think it is likely that the SCOTUS will deny certiorari. California and Hawaii will continue to restrict citizens from carrying in public and it seems likely that state legislatures, hostile to the 2nd Amendment will deem more areas “sensitive” making concealed carry permits almost useless in some states.

What has been constantly and conveniently ignored by state legislators and courts in California and Hawaii is that citizens who take the time and effort to get a concealed carry permit aren’t abusing it – or shooting people in public without good cause.

And criminals don’t apply for concealed carry permits because - they are criminals. //

Black Magic
an hour ago
Thank God I live in PA which has extremely good concealed carry regulations, though I still question why the other Constitutional Rights are not so encumbered, i.e., I don't think there should be such encumbrances on our Constitutional Rights.

Having said that, I am still anticipating when it is finally adjudicated and approved by the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to halt my concealed carry rights at the state line and I am still wondering why it is that, I believe it is the 14 Amendment (which ensures equal protection), insures interstate cooperation in licensing driving for instance, but stops my ability to defend myself when I leave my state.

Trump has previously said he felt this should be addressed and corrected and I look forward to that.

This using the United States Supreme Court to litigate elections should never have become a thing. We can blame former Vice President Al Gore for opening that door to that. Norah O'Donnell and the Brown Jackson are assuming the 2024 election will be contested and that SCOTUS will be the deciding factor. So rich. They are setting the narrative and the playing field.

when it comes to Roe v. Wade, for example, what did the court decide? Decided that we the people should answer that question, not nine people sitting in Washington, D.C. //

GARRETT: How about affirmative action?

GORSUCH: Much the same thing. What did we decide? We decided that all people are created equal, that it’s not acceptable in this country to discriminate on the basis of race. //

GARRETT: And, for those who would say but I feel something’s been ripped away from me, you would say?

GORSUCH: I would say that we’re taking it back to you. In a democracy, you’re in the driver’s seat. You’re the sovereign. Those famous three first words of the Constitution empower you. Do you really want me deciding everything for you?

GARRETT: And for a woman in a state where she no longer has the rights she once relied on, is that cold comfort?

GORSUCH: Major, all I can say is I don’t know better than you do on these questions. And that most major western democracies have decided these questions through the ballot box. //

part of me just wants to call Vladimir Duthiers an imbecile and leave it at that. His reasoning is so ridiculous as to be worthy of nothing but mockery. Would he say the same about the precedent that once allowed segregation of schools? What about the precedent that once restricted personhood for black Americans? The idea that a precedent is untouchable simply because it exists is moronic. What matters is proper legal interpretation of the law. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the end, what this Gorsuch interview shows is that Democrats have no actual argument. They are simply emoting at any given point, wrapping themselves in contradictions to garner the political outcome they want in the moment. The Supreme Court stands in the way of that, and that's why they are trying to destroy it.

. How does the court feel about potential changes — term limits, ethics codes that are enforced by someone in ways that it isn't now?

GORSUCH: Shannon, you're not going to be surprised that I'm not going to get into what is now a political issue during a presidential election year. I don't think that would be helpful.

I have one thought to add: It is that the independent judiciary means — what does it mean to you as an American? It means that when you're unpopular, you can get a fair hearing under the law and under the Constitution. If you're in the majority, you don't need judges and juries to hear you and protect your rights — you're popular.

It's there for the moments when the spotlight's on you, when the government's coming after you. And don't you want a ferociously independent judge and a jury of your peers to make those decisions? Isn't that your right as an American? And so, I just say, "Be careful."

Joe Biden's Defense Department approved a plea deal Wednesday for three of the conspirators behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and Walid Bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi will enter pleas before the military commission at Guantanamo Bay next week. //

The Pentagon announcement Wednesday didn’t include details, but a person familiar with the deal said that it involved a life sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. Prosecutors had been seeking the death penalty, but the torture of the defendants while in Central Intelligence Agency custody had clouded proceedings for years. //

President Biden learned of the plea bargain Wednesday, a National Security Council spokesman said.

“The president and the White House played no role in this process. The president has directed his team to consult as appropriate with officials and lawyers at the Department of Defense on this matter,” the spokesman said. //

The only reason we are going through this is because of a direct usurpation of congressional power by a crazed Anthony Kennedy and four fellow travelers. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 specifically placed review of the act outside the purview of the Supreme Court as allowed by Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution: "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The actions of the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush should have resulted in Bush telling Kennedy to take a long walk on a short pier, and impeachment proceedings should have been brought against every federal judge who agreed to touch the case. But, alas, that would have required courage.

So, the final curtain is coming down on 9/11 and the Global War on Terror. Thanks to the Defense Department's total lack of transparency, it looks like that curtain will go down with as much controversy as when it came up.

The plan has three components:

1) The No One Is Above the Law constitutional amendment (lol) prohibiting criminal immunity for ex-presidents.

2) Supreme Court term limits that permit each president to appoint a justice every two years for an 18-year term.

3) Supreme Court Code of Conduct.

The first item is just a sop thrown to Biden's supporters to act as a soothing balm for their raging case of butthurt over being unable to put Trump in prison. //

As with the rest of this "reform," it is a monumentally unserious proposal. There is no national outcry to make this happen, and there aren't the votes in the House and Senate to pass it even if Chuck Schumer and Mike Johnson decide to take it seriously. //

NightTwister
29 minutes ago
I always say the same thing when anyone proposes a constitutional amendment: "Name the 38 states." //

Watch-tower
an hour ago edited
Net worth of the top 10 richest people in Congress (meaning 525 people are not listed): 2,059,900,000.
That's right, just 10 people; over 2 BILLION Dollars.

Net worth of all 9 Supreme Court Justices: 64,000,000.
Yep 64 million dollars divided by 9 people. Chief Justice Roberts accounts for 40% of that total.

We are more in need of reform in Congress than the Supreme Court. //

mopani Corn Pop 2 minutes ago

This does not come from Joe Biden, this comes from the Democrat Deep-State, gaslighting popular opinion on the structure of the Federal Government by treating SCOTUS as an inferior court, as if SCOTUS is subject to Congress.

It may be an unserious proposal, but it is another chip at the foundations of our Constitutional Republic, and as such deserves to be dealt with seriously.

I want to see it debated and destroyed on the House floor. A serious debate on the Senate floor would help too. It needs sunlight and to be dealt a death-blow.

Congress must defend SCOTUS as a co-equal branch so that SCOTUS can continue to do likewise. Failure to do so will ultimately result in an Imperial Executive.

These type of attacks should not be dismissed as unserious. They need to be curb-stomped as the destructive attacks that they are. Failure to deal with them in a serious way will allow them to be used as attack fodder against Republican or conservative candidates who want to preserve our Constitutional Republic.

The court decided what it did expressly because there's no way to make this system work if we don't elect people to do what's right. //

On Tuesday’s edition of the Times’ “Daily” podcast, Barbaro and Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak mulled over the ruling, and at the very end of the episode, Barbaro had his epiphany. “Another way to think about this ruling if you step way back,” he said, “is that it’s kind of the Supreme Court saying that when you elect a president, you have to accept, dear American people, that the Constitution gives them a tremendous amount of power and legal latitude to kind of do what they want …” //

He continued his revelation. “And we, the Supreme Court, are going to make it pretty hard to hold that president criminally responsible for their actions,” he said, “so, voters need to think really carefully about who they want to possess this level of immunity.” //

Immediately after the ruling, holding that a president carrying out his constitutional responsibilities can’t be held criminally liable for it once out of office (duh), Democrats and leftist triflers scurried to the Internet where they obnoxiously claimed the court had just given American presidents the authority to murder babies and rape nuns.

Hmm … Not seeing anything in Article II about that. Maybe I’m missing something. //

In short, anyone wanting to press charges against a former president for things he did while in office is going to have to prove with great certainty that it’s for a good reason and not because, say, they’re mad.

This was more or less implied and accepted for the last 230 years. Then 2016 happened and because Democrats refused to accept the results of an election, they decided it was time to see how far this country can bend before it snaps. You know, just like the true vanguards of decency and democracy that they are.

The court decided what it did expressly because there’s no other way to make this system work if we don’t elect people we trust to do the right thing to keep it going. To even flirt with the belief that it would be the right thing to criminally prosecute a former elected official — let alone a U.S. president — for challenging the results of an election, tells you a lot about who’s in power right now. And that their response to the ruling wasn’t, “Yeah, maybe we took it too far,” but, “So we can legally assassinate Trump, right?” says the rest.

They either don’t understand it, or they’re ready to end it.

This case has taken 13 years to conclude. Billions of dollars were lost to consumers in what will ultimately be seen as excess fees.

With Loper Bright opening the door to challenging agency regulations and Corner Post removing a six-years-from-rule-finalization statute of limitations, many regulations that should be tossed out will no longer have the shield of Supreme Court precedent and a lapsed statute of limitations to hide behind. This is the beginning of an Administrative State that is modest and chastened, and it remembers that it works for the people, not for the post-retirement careers of the bureaucrats writing rules to favor industries.

Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a mixed bag of a ruling on presidential immunity. In my view, they took what could've been a straightforward and elegant decision — the president is immune from prosecution for acts committed in office unless he has been impeached for those acts — and turned it into a dog's breakfast of angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin litigation about what constitutes official and unofficial acts. //

What has passed with remarkably little notice is Justice Clarence Thomas's concurrence. Justice Thomas says the Court is putting the cart before the horse. The first question that needs to be answered is not whether acts were official or unofficial. The critical first question is whether this prosecution is legal at all. Thomas's comments begin on the 44th page of the linked document.

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.

...

Even if the Special Counsel has a valid office, questions remain as to whether the Attorney General filled that office in compliance with the Appointments Clause. For example, it must be determined whether the Special Counsel is a principal or inferior officer. If the former, his appointment is invalid because the Special Counsel was not nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, as principal officers must be. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. Even if he is an inferior officer, the Attorney General could appoint him without Presidential nomination and senatorial confirmation only if “Congress . . . by law vest[ed] the Appointment” in the Attorney General as a “Hea[d] of Department.” Ibid. So, the Special Counsel’s appointment is invalid unless a statute created the Special Counsel’s office and gave the Attorney General the power to fill it “by Law.”

Whether the Special Counsel’s office was “established by Law” is not a trifling technicality. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to unilaterally create and then fill that office. Given that the Special Counsel purports to wield the Executive Branch’s power to prosecute, the consequences are weighty. Our Constitution’s separation of powers, including its separation of the powers to create and filled offices, is “the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government” and the liberty that it secures for us all. Morrison, 487 U. S., at 697 (Scalia, J., dissenting). There is no prosecution that can justify imperiling it.

Minister of War
2 hours ago
"the president is immune from prosecution for acts committed in office unless he has been impeached for those acts"

Bingo!

Period.

End of story.

Close the book.

John Roberts is an idiot once again & the conservative justices are required to roll their eyes & go along with his stupidity just because that was the only way to get even a partial victory.

To be clear, assassinating your political opponent, or destroying the Supreme Court through EO or violence, is not a part of a President's enumerated powers. Biden can't just go offing people he doesn't like or that are inconvenient to him under this SCOTUS ruling, and it's stupid to think so...but look at who we're talking about here.

But the point I want to make here is that the Democrats have been harping on about how the villain Trump would utilize the military to take over the country and enact absolute rule, banning abortions, murdering LGBT peoples, and terminating the rights of anyone who isn't white and male.

Yet these same people have turned around to seal clap over the idea of Biden utilizing the military to become a supreme dictator and murdering people the left doesn't like, securing his power in office, and God knows what else.

Don't also let it get past you that if given the chance, these people will actively and openly call for violence against you and celebrate it happening. The same party that calls for tolerance and acceptance. The same party that believes it's the adults in the room.

These people are as hypocritical as they are idiotic, and proof that the Democrat Party has become a radicalized mess.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Donald Trump’s favor in the presidential immunity case, complicating at least two prosecutions against the 45th president.

“Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the high court’s majority opinion. “And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.” //

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent.

“Today’s decision to grant former presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the presidency,” Sotomayor argued. “It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.” //

Among the most well-known post-2020 election controversies involved Trump attempting to pressure then-Vice President Mike Pence to stall or reverse a joint session of Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory. The high court remanded the question of Trump’s immunity on this back to the district court to further clarify.

“Whenever the president and vice president discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct,” the majority says. “Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the vice president.”

Courts no longer owe deference to an administrative agency's interpretation of its ambiguous statutory mandate. //

The Court held that the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs the operations of administrative agencies,

requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.

Thomas agreed with the Court’s decision but wrote separately “to underscore a more fundamental problem: Chevron deference violates our Constitution’s separation of powers, as I have previously explained at length.”

The violation, Thomas elaborated, stemmed from Chevron‘s mandate that judges surrender their judicial responsibility “to exercise . . . independent judgment in interpreting and expounding upon the laws.” //

The challengers also argued that Chevron is an abdication of judicial responsibility because courts have the duty to interpret the law, but Chevron deference substitutes the agency’s interpretation. The challengers criticized Chevron for “upend[ing] basic principles of constitutional due process of law” because it required deference to an agency’s interpretation when that agency is a litigant before the court. //

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | June 28, 2024 at 1:04 pm

Chevron is overruled.

Most important decision in decades … 4 decades, precisely.

And courts in the future need to keep in mind, in addition to this, that Congress is disallowed from delegating any of its Constitutional authority to any other entity unless specifically allowed to do so in the Constitution. To do so is to, de facto, amend the Constitution.

The past week has been the legal equivalent of the firebombing of Dresden for the administrative state.

In short order, many of the reasons we gradually, like a frog in a pot of boiling water, transformed from citizens into subjects have been demolished.

In the 6-3 majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that Chevron "defies the command of" the Administrative Procedure Act (the law governing federal administrative agencies) "that the reviewing court--not the agency whose action it reviews--is to decide all relevant questions of law and interpret ... statutory provisions. It requires a court to ignore, not follow, the reading the court would have reached had it exercised its independent judgment as required by the APA."

Roberts noted: "Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption" (that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations of authority by Congress to federal agencies) "is misguided, because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."

Roberts added that this decision does "not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases that specific agency actions are lawful--including the Clean Air Act holding of Chevron itself--are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite our change in interpretive methodology." //

Jman98 Laocoön of Troy
an hour ago
Congress always had the power, they simply refused to use it. Congress could have always been specific in the language used in any given piece of legislation they wrote and passed. They purposely weren’t because specificity leads to responsibility and they’re not about that. By leaving things to someone else, bureaucrats in the Executive branch, they could then complain about how their purposely ambiguous legislation was badly implemented and dodge responsibility for what they’d done. How many times have they written in legislation “the Secretary shall” so as to punt all responsibility for what happens next? Hundreds, sometimes in the same piece of legislation. This is telling Congress to do their job right the first time. //

Minister of War Laocoön of Troy
an hour ago
I agree that the power should be returned to the people & their elected representatives. But Iam hesitant when I hear that the Court thinks that courts know better than anyone else. The SCOTUS may have just granted itself & the rest of the judiciary more power that they shouldn't have to do what amounts to writing laws.

Laocoön of Troy Minister of War
an hour ago
No...they've just thrown down the gauntlet and have warned the Executive to not play so fast and loose with regulation or the courts will take away even more power from them. This entire decision is an unmitigated, magnificent result.

I suspect that the lazy and cowardly Congress will end up forced by their donors and political supporters to stop at least some regulation overreach.

Bottom line: Congress can amend §666 to make it clear that acts like what Snyder did are illegal. What will come of this is bad faith actors pointing at the court and claiming that Snyder is another example of the high court defending corruption. Rather, it is SCOTUS defending liberty and requiring Congress to define criminal statutes with clarity and specificity.

 The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a part of President Trump's 2017 'Tax Cuts and Jobs Act' that levied a tax on capital appreciation is constitutional. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

The court ruled 7-2 that the mandatory repatriation tax, or MRT, is constitutional under the taxation regimes defined in Article I and the 16th Amendment. In short, the MRT imposed a one-time requirement for US citizens and companies to repatriate money held overseas. //

The Moores had earned $0 from their investment, but the value of their investment had increased because the business they invested in was successful. Because their investment was successful, that unrealized gain, which could totally disappear in a few months if things went pear-shaped, was taxed.

Why is this important?

The lodestar of the far left is "income inequality." They want everyone to be poor but them. Where their policies are defeated is by frugality and investment. //

The wealth tax's strategy is to prevent the accumulation of intergenerational wealth and penalize those who work hard, save, and invest in favor of those who consume. Every time your stock portfolio or home increases in value, a wealth tax would make that gain taxable, even if you didn't cash out. //

FreeWilledThinker
an hour ago
I just read the opinion and, even though I am a Constitutionalist and favor strict construction, I would have voted with the majority on this one. The reason why is due to the pass-through nature of the company. Every LLC in the U.S. works this way, where you get a K-1 and get taxed, even where not a cent has come into your bank account.

I think the muddy water comes from the ownership mechanism. As a shareholder, the Moore's wish to treat the pass-through as though it is not taxable on the owned company's income, but it would be were it based in the U.S. and did not pay any tax on the base income. //

Buckeye kamief
18 minutes ago
But that interest would be taxable if NOT in an IRA -- which is the crux of this. These folks were catching gains on a foreign corporation NOT in an IRA, yet because of reinvestment, they weren't paying any taxes. Compare to US tax code in existence -- if you have a stock and it's in a dividend re-investment program, which is effectively exactly what they were doing, you DO PAY TAXES on those dividends, even though you chose to re-invest. That's another reason I agree with the USSC on this one. Their Indian corporation was making money, but not calling it a "dividend", and they kept putting it back in....sorry that's basically tax evasion by US code.

 JSobieski
3 hours ago edited
This is nothing new and it is nothing bad.

Scalia and Thomas, while they voted more similarly than any other two justices during their shared tenure, actually had a BIG philosophical difference in how they approached the job. Barrett is kind of taking of making the Scalia-esque point, but because people see things almost exclusively through a political lens, they miss the bigger picture and context for the disagreement.

Justice Thomas is someone who subscribes to the concept of "natural law". A snarky liberal might call this concept the right-wing version of substantive due process, although natural law has a pedigree older than the US. https://www.thepublicdiscou...

Justice Scalia in contrast was a strict textualist. This approach is often referred to as "legal positivism". Scalia is famous for ignoring things like legislative history for example. https://www.cmc.edu/salvato... .

These two men agreed on the outcome the vast majority of the time, but their approaches to that outcome were actually quite different. Thomas was called Scalia's lapdog by people who looked at things through a political lens, but philosophically, they were in some ways very very different.

Barrett is apparently Scalia's intellectual heir... at least in this particular dispute.

Tolly JSobieski
2 hours ago
'Justice Scalia in contrast was a strict textualist.'

Agreed. Where some go sideways, I believe, is that some believe "textualism" equates to "originalist". There are distinctions. Those distinctions are many times found whenever the text of an Act are at issue, in the first instance, and when the provisions of the Constitution are in question, in the second.

etba_ss JSobieski
2 hours ago
Well said.

And Thomas' philosophy is superior.

JSobieski etba_ss
2 hours ago
Maybe. It depends on how much your prioritize self government.

There is some validity to the argument that "natural law" is just the right-wing version of "substantive due process", i.e. a doctrine that is sufficiently malleable to reach whatever outcome is desired.

When I was in law school, I agreed with you. But now as a seasoned lawyer and a long time follower of politics, I think strict textualism is the best way to constrain the judiciary. Of course, constraining the judificiary may then in fact enable Congress to overreach---so it is a pick your poison kind of thing.

There is a lot to be said for legal positivism.

Scholar JSobieski
2 hours ago
The question is the preference whether constraining judiciary or the legislature. The Founders preferred the latter as they are the representatives of the people. If Common Law was not so outdated we didn't have to have this dillema.

Tolly JSobieski
2 hours ago
Don't you mean constraining the legislators? If legislation was enacted that respected what the judiciary has already achieved by substantive due process, what then is the need for any other argument than precedent?; or "pedigree rather than principle", as Justice Barrett argues?

JSobieski Tolly
an hour ago
I mean constraining the legislature---the collective action of legislators. I guess you could call taht constraining legislation, but it is more common to think of constraining people. Separation of powers is typically said to constrain the branches of government, not the outputs created by the three branches of government. Same with respect to the constraining impact of federalism (prior to the income tax and New Deal expansion of the Commerce Clause).

Mrs. Alito, in my opinion, is quickly approaching legend/thug life status in my book for how she's responded to the nontroversies, unapologetic while poking a gigantic needle in all the leftist stereotype balloons about supposedly meek and subservient conservative wives.

But beyond that, her remarks have indeed undercut the central argument behind the New York Times' flag hit pieces and the corresponding blowback from left-wing critics and other various and assorted hacktivists. She indeed is the one who flew the flags, not her husband, who she also confirmed is not a flag aficionado at all.

The unanimous court in Vullo held that the National Rifle Association (NRA) had sufficiently alleged a First Amendment claim against the New York superintendent of financial services. While the vindication of free speech rights is the top-line takeaway from Thursday’s 9-0 decision, there is much more to glean from the 20-page opinion and two concurrences. Here are five key points.

1. The Decision Focused Solely on Government Coercion //

2. Some Great Language for Lovers of Free Speech //

“The Constitution does not distinguish between ‘comply or I’ll prosecute’ and ‘comply and I’ll look the other way,’” the Supreme Court explained, stressing whether something is “analyzed as a threat or as an inducement,” is irrelevant—“the conclusion is the same,” namely the communications are “coercive” and thus violate the First Amendment.

This judicial gloss to “coercion” provides a fulsome protection of free speech rights by allowing “coercion” to be established by either “a threat” or “an inducement.” The court’s unanimous opinion includes additional broad language further protecting American rights to freedom of speech. //

3. The Disinformation Industry Are The Baddies at Protecting Democracy

In ruling in favor of the NRA, the Supreme Court stressed that “at the heart of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is the recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.” That passage provides an important reminder to Americans of the value of diverse viewpoints in the marketplace of ideas and a warning that suppressing disfavored speech is inherently destructive to a sustained democracy.

Coordinated attacks on SCOTUS’s integrity, led by Democrats and their allies in the corporate media, try to deceive Americans into believing partisans hijacked the highest court in the land and ideologically fractured it into near-dysfunction. The prominence of unanimous opinions and even more unanimous judgments not only discredits this notion but suggests a far more concerning narrative about the politicization of lower courts.

Since its inception, the Supreme Court has wielded its authority to deliver decisions rooted in bench agreement. In recent years, especially, justices “defied critics” with “historic unanimity” on cases that circuit, appeals, and state supreme courts decided in defiance of the Constitution. Of the 32 cases already decided in the 2023 term, 21 of the judgments were agreed upon by all of the presiding justices. Many of them signaled justices’ concern that lower courts abused their ruling power to violate the Constitution. //

The Supreme Court’s recent string of unanimous decisions not only serves as a reminder that corporate media are deliberately deceptive, but also suggests that lower courts are abusing their power to achieve partisan and, more importantly, unconstitutional results.