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.

A unanimous Supreme Court found that the First Amendment exists even in New York, even when the government hates what you have to say. As unbelievable as it sounds, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the opinion stating, "The critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries." //

The NRA appealed because if the Second Circuit's ruling prevailed, the First Amendment basically ceased to exist. Even the ACLU recognized the danger and represented the NRA.

This decision is a clear victory for the First Amendment and for the NRA. The case is headed back for trial in district court, and given this decision and Sotomayor's reasoning (yes, it's scary to write that), it will be difficult for Vullo to evade what happens next. The only rathole available to her is a claim of "qualified immunity." Sotomayor told the Second Circuit to determine if Vullo was eligible, but the original district court ruling and a footnote in Sotomayor's opinion cast a lot of doubt on that claim.

Like a rabid dog gnawing on a bone, the New York Times will just not let go of the non-story involving Justice Samuel Alito's wife, Martha-Ann, and a 2021 dispute with a neighbor that allegedly culminated in Mrs. Alito "briefly" flying the American flag upside down 11 days after the Capitol riot.

Not even counting the guest essays, letters to the editor, opinion pieces, and Spanish language versions they've published on the issue, by my count they've published nine - count 'em - nine articles over the last two weeks related to flag-flying at the homes of the Alito family, from the upside down one at their primary residence in 2021 to the Revolutionary War-era "Appeal to Heaven" flag that was flown at various points in 2023 at their beach house.

The insinuations have been clear in all of them: In their view and that of their "experts," due to the alleged Jan. 6th symbolism of the flags, Mrs. Alito is sympathetic to the beliefs of the Capitol rioters and as such, her alleged beliefs have compromised Justice Alito's ability to impartially judge cases related to Jan. 6 and the 2020 presidential election. //

We are looking at a completely fabricated outrage, and the press has resorted to reporting on the “growing” tide of indignation to have Alito step down – coming from the press. This lame attempt is producing little more than eye-rolling from the public. The news outlets need to wave their white flags on this issue.

And upside down if they have to.

As Alito has famously said in the past, Congress did not create the Supreme Court, the Constitution did. It is not any Democrat hack's job to "fix" the court, and certainly, no one in Congress has the credibility to do absolutely anything regarding it.

"Fixing" it isn't the real purpose of the current left-wing hysteria, though. The real purpose is to garner more power.

My words will perhaps seem somewhat vintage in character rather than current or up-to-date. In that context, I admit to being unapologetically Catholic, unapologetically patriotic, and unapologetically a constitutionalist.

[...]

Let me offer you, this year’s graduates, a few brief suggestions about making your deposits in the account of liberty. Today is just the end of the beginning of your young lives, and the beginning, the commencement of the rest of your lives. There is much more to come, and it will not be with the guiding hands of your parents—indeed, they may someday need your hand to guide them. Some of you will most assuredly be called upon to do very hard things to preserve liberty. All of you will be called upon to provide a firm foundation of citizenship by carrying out your obligations in the way so many preceding generations have done. You are to be the example to others that those generations have been to us. And in being that example, what you do will matter far more than what you say.

Thomas… described Washington as a place where “people pride themselves in being awful.”

“It is a hideous place as far as I’m concerned,” Thomas said.

“It’s one of the reasons we like RVing,” he added. “You get to be around regular people who don’t pride themselves in doing harmful things merely because they have the capacity to do it or because they disagree.”

Thomas should know—he was at the center of the Anita Hill fiasco—overseen by then-Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Joe Biden—where he was subjected to evidence-free, humiliating claims of sexual harassment during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings in 1991. Biden not surprisingly—in a preview of what has befallen us—utterly failed to control the proceedings, and they became a national embarrassment that decades later led to the equally clownish Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process.

Central to the former Justice Antonin Scalia law clerk's arguments in January and Thursday is that when a man becomes president, he becomes a part of the constitutional machinery, no longer a regular citizen.

In this construct, the president is always the president, and the only way to laicize him is through a House impeachment and a Senate conviction for conduct that then becomes vulnerable to criminal prosecution. //

etba_ss Cappy Hamper
2 hours ago
It is actually worse. Roberts is the worst sort of justice, where in an attempt to preserve the "integrity" of the Court and avoid wading into political matters, his decisions are always guided by politics, not the law. In an effort to appear above politics, he is the most political creature on the Court.

Not political in the sense of advancing one party, but political in that every decision is filtered through the lens of how it will be viewed, the consequences, attacks, and preserving the Court's power. He sees himself as the hero of the SCOTUS, whose job it is to protect its power far more than to correctly interpret the Constitution and the law. This is why he upheld Obamacare under the "tax" provision, while ignoring that he had to disagree with his own opinion to take the case up. This is why he wanted to uphold the LA law in Dobbs, but not overturn Roe.

I think it would be preferable if they had pictures of him. Instead, he really just is this cowardly, feckless, weak and depraved. //

Random US Citizen etba_ss
2 hours ago
Roberts has turned the SC in to My Lai--he's destroying the court in order to "save" it. History isn't going to look kindly on that, either because constitutional order will fail and Roberts attacks on the rule of law will be seen as one cause of the collapse, or because constitutional order will prevail (an unlikely outcome) and he'll be seen as an obstacle that had to be overcome.

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. //

anon-of-yo-biz
2 hours ago
Is it really being argued that Bin laden was a "political" enemy? Was Hitler a "political" enemy? Can we never object against tyranny, hatred, and murder unless we have compatible political or religious views? It seems that the word bigot has grow to include all forms of just resistance. //

Cafeblue32 anon-of-yo-biz
an hour ago edited
This is intentional. The left is destroying language by making specific terms no longer their definition, or getting rid of them altogether. The purpose of language is clear and precise comminication so as to not be misunderstood and creat a bunch of unneccesary problems.The left's purpose is to deconstruct language to be less clear, so specific sexes become they/thems, Catperson, or whatever the hell. They remove gender indicators in gender-specific languages. They use persons instead of men and women, family units instead of marriage and family, how is everyone instead of "How are you guys doing?" The more generic they can make the language, the more they can re-invent it to mean whatever they want it to mean.

And here we are-men are women, Israel is genocidal, Palestine is a legitimate state, Putin is ready to roll into New York, illegal able bodies men wearing expensive jeans and sneakers are refugees, illegal squatters are residents, the American flag is racist and the LGBTGFY flag is to fly high above them all everywhere an American flag is flown around ther world. Working class conservatives are racists and fascists while Palestininas calling for the end of Jews and demand for sharia law are freedom fighters. Etc etc.

Rush said it long ago: words mean things. That's why they work so hard to destroy them.

Blue State Deplorable
5 hours ago

Justice Alito just asked Dreeben about the wisdom of his approach to just rely on the discretion and good motivations of Justice Department officials given the history of abusive, partisan prosecutions...

That’s one hellluva rebuke right there from Justice Alito. 😂

2E Son of Nel
5 hours ago

Roberts just slammed the lower court "a former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has acted in defiance of the laws."

Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? "The fact of prosecution" does not mean that he has "acted in defiance of the laws." It merely means that he's accused of acting in defiance of the laws. Presumably the accuser still has to prove his case.

Roberts was entirely correct here. But with Democrats prosecuting Republicans it's always "the seriousness of the charges" and not the evidence that matters. //

Min Headroom llme 2E Son of Nel
3 hours ago edited
I found the argument that being prosecuted is proof that the defendant broke laws breathtaking. It’s worthy of Stalinist Russia, and if democrats want to blather about threats to democracy, then this is it. //

bpbatch
5 hours ago
The breakneck speed that all of these trials are occurring and the reaction immediately necessitated by SCOTUS is more Cloward/Piven "flood the system" Marxist garbage in real time. Pray the Court takes the time to breathe and make an intelligent, measured, and patient decision in all of these matters. //