Supreme Court Rules on Trump’s Immunity


Posted originally on Jul 1, 2024 By Martin Armstrong

Trump_v._United_States Dissen

Trump Immunity Decision

The Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s immunity is out today. The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for official, but not unofficial, acts. They also noted that even comments that he thought the election was rigged as so many other people, “So most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities,” it added. Even in the case Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Court held that his obstruction of justice was still immune to civil suits. The Supreme Court issued a significant ruling on presidential immunity back in 1982, where it held that presidents enjoyed absolute immunity from civil liability for actions that fell within the outer perimeter of their official duties. Trump was still president on January 6th,

This decision shows that the United States cannot possibly stand beyond 2032 and perhaps as soon as 2029. Even the Supreme Court is reflecting this deep polarization of the nation. The dissent in this decision reflects the deep divide and why America is tearing itself apart at the seams. Here, the dissent insists that the Constitution does not shield a former President from criminal acts, which is clearly words simply because this is Trump.

The Washington Post, America’s version of Lenin’s Pravda, emphasizes that the law is determined by political ideology by writing: “The Supreme Court says presidents have “absolute” immunity for clearly official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts. The high court’s 6-3 ruling along ideological lines sends the case back to the lower court to determine what acts alleged in Donald Trump’s indictment on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election are official or unofficial. The ruling likely adds significant time and further appeals to the pending trial of the former president’s federal case in D.C.”

Imbler_v._Pachtman_424_U.S._409_1976

Held: A state prosecuting attorney who, as here, acted within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution and in presenting the State’s case, is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the accused’s constitutional rights. Pp. 424 U. S. 417-431.

In Imber vs. Pachtman, 424 US 429 (1976), the Supreme Court was so anti-citizen that it handed prosecutors ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY no matter what. They have abused that power all the time, and they can target you because of who you are. They have driven people to suicide for being harassed and having their lives completely destroyed including members of their families, even for personal animosity or for political gain as Bragg is doing to Trump in New York, and God help you if you try to ever sue a judge for his bias as an official act. They anoint themselves with ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY, which is far above the law – but they want to imprison Trump because he is their political nemesis.  Judges and prosecutors bestow ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY upon themselves, and there is NOTHING in the Constitution that dares to imply such a power.

Turn out Lights

We are rapidly approaching the fatal moment when it will be time to turn out the light on this experiment from 1776 by the Founding Fathers. Like all Republics, it has led to such corruption and moral deprivation that, as a unified nation, we will be unable to stand thanks to the polarization that is turning to deep-seated hatred. When Franklin was asked what kind of government they created, he replied, “Republic, if you can keep it.” We are reaching the end of the road. Civilization works when everyone benefits. It ceases to be viable when it divides, and one side assumes the power to abuse the other. Then the nation should split, for as we have seen today, there should have been no dissent unless you also remove all ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from judges and prosecutors as well.

Franklin on Revolution

Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Doctrine – Reining in the Deep State


Posted originally on Jul 1, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

US Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron deference in a 6-3 vote in a major push toward eliminating government overreach. The 1984 Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council has permitted government agencies to implement the rule of law, bypassing the federal judicial system.

Deep State 1

Individuals and Corporations have been at the mercy of agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was permitted to implement regulations over entire industries as it saw fit. That violated the Constitution, for the laws are to be made by the PEOPLE, and Congress should NEVER delegate that power to an unelected agency that creates the Deep State. Conservatives have attempted to overturn the Chevron doctrine for years, as it simply places the law in the hands of unelected government officials.

Rosevelt FDR Drawing

Justice Roberts said Chevron violated the Administrative Procedure Act (1946), which dictates how government agencies may issue and develop regulations. The APA was intended to inform the public of how and why rules were implemented and provided a platform for public participation. It also created a clear standard for proceedings and restated judicial review. The APA was implemented after Franklin D. Roosevelt created an onslaught of public agencies through the New Deal. Chief Justice Roberts further stated that the Chevron doctrine was “misguided” as it made the rule of law ambiguous.

For 40 years, the Chevron doctrine has corrupted every aspect of American life, from health care to labor laws. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) deferred to public agency interpretations of the law, which was outrageous that non-elected and non-judges make the law. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had the authority to control what Americans content Americans could consume, and they abolished the Fairness Doctrine with no regard to how that would harm society with fake news.

The Food and Drug Administration (FD) had the authority to control what it deemed safe for Americans to consume. With COVID-19, they prohibited anyone from advocating drugs that worked all because funding comes from the Pharmaceutical companies. This has by no means benefited society and this decision was so necessary to restore some accountability.

2024_06_29_11_04_46_Justices_limit_major_SEC_tool_to_penalize_fraud_SCOTUSblog
7th Amendment

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) had the ability to define American financial markets. The SEC has just been overruled where they were charging people, imposing penalties, and refusing to allow what the Constitution supposedly guaranteed – the right to trial by jury under the 7th Amendment.

Absolutely every facet of American life is partially controlled by unelected government agencies who need not abide by a uniform rule of law before implementing regulations. What the SEC has been doing has rejected the Constitution for decades. Once you hand this unbridled power to any agency, you get tyranny. What is WRONG WITH OUR LEGAL SYSTEM is that whenever Congress or an agency write any law or rule, they should go to court to establish that it is Constitutional. Instead, they pick on people who cannot afford lawyers to expand their tyranny, and it is always our burden for someone to challenge them and make it to the Supreme Court. That is outrageous.

The Supreme Court ruling is a major blow to the administrative Deep State. It is ABOUT TIME! This aims to de-politicize government agencies to control our very way of life. Executive branches need to be reined in dramatically, especially at a time when industries such as the EPA are driving entire sectors into the ground, outlawing gas stoves that I grew up with, and I think I’m still alive. The liberals in favor of Chevron believe Congress should be trusted to defer power to agencies, which they believe will rule based on expertise, laughably unbiasedly.

The reason I say we need a Constitutional Court that Congress and agencies go to first for PERMISSION to create the rule of law is that they get to rule the country by sheet tyranny. In my case, they seized the foreign companies, denied using any funds, would not allow them to answer complaints, and installed a receiver, Alan Cohen, who refused to defend the companies or even answer a complaint. This amounted to violating the 5th Amendment, illegally taking my companies, and denying them any right to defend themselves.

They threw me in contempt of court using 28 USC 1826, where the statute states the maximum time is 18 months, not 7 years, and that I was supposed to have a right to appeal in 30 days, which was NEVER honored by the Second Circuit. The very prison records show the contempt was renewed every 18 months, and the ONLY way I was ever released was when I finally made it to the Supreme Court, and they ordered the government to explain. They released me and told the Court the case was then moot. If they can do this to me, steal the pensions of 240 employees, they can do it to anyone.

SCT 2020
28 use 1826
BOP Screen 18 months

ICYMI – Two Significant Positive Rulings from Supreme Court – Fischer Case (J6) and Chevron Reversal


Posted originally on the CTH on June 29, 2024 | Sundance | 240 Comments

In a major 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court has finally addressed the expansive regulatory use of executive agencies to create law through interpretation.  The 40-year-old Chevron ruling granted the executive agencies of government the ability to interpret laws and apply restrictions/regulations based on their own rules and definitions therein.

The Supreme Court put the judicial branch back into the equation by ruling that courts will decide what laws apply when the legislation is ambiguous on detail.  This shift in prior precedent could have major ramifications.  [MORE AT SCOTUS BLOG]

In another big case, the court ruled in favor of Joseph Fischer a Pennsylvania police officer charged in the January 6th protest with “obstructing an official proceeding.”  [FULL RULING HERE]

The law at the center of Fischer’s case is 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), and as noted by Julie Kelly, “The statute … has been applied in roughly 350 J6 cases; it also represents two of four counts in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s J6-related criminal indictment of Donald Trump in Washington.”

Julie Kelly – […] In a 6-3 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the “c2” subsection is tethered to the “c1” subsection that addresses tampering with a record, document, or “object.”

Roberts was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the dissent (!) joined by Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Today’s decision means hundreds of Americans have been wrongfully prosecuted by Attorney General Merrick Garland as he insists his department is dedicated to upholding the “rule of law” and pursuing justice “without fear or favor.” (read more)

The DOJ now has to figure out how it will respond to losing the majority charge in many of the J6 cases.  However, the DOJ immediately responded with the following press release:

MAIN JUSTICE – The Justice Department issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on the Supreme Court’s decision in Fischer v. United States:

“January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government — the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. I am disappointed by today’s decision, which limits an important federal statute that the Department has sought to use to ensure that those most responsible for that attack face appropriate consequences.  

The vast majority of the more than 1,400 defendants charged for their illegal actions on January 6 will not be affected by this decision. There are no cases in which the Department charged a January 6 defendant only with the offense at issue in Fischer. For the cases affected by today’s decision, the Department will take appropriate steps to comply with the Court’s ruling.

We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy.” (read more)

Harvard Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said the Supreme Court was correct in its ruling to make it harder to charge Jan. 6 defendants with obstruction.

Davis: Historic SCOTUS Decisions Deliver Justice For J6 Prisoners And Death Of Deep State


Posted originally on Rumble By Bannons War Room on: June 28, 2024 at 7:00 pm EST

Supreme Court Allows Government Control Over Speech on Social Media Platforms, Rejects Standing in Murthy vs Missouri


Posted originally on the CTH on June 26, 2024 | Sundance 

The Supreme Court rejected the standing of the State of Missouri and five individuals in the censorship and free speech case surrounding social media.  The court came down with a 6-3 decision, Justice Amy Coney-Barrett writing the majority opinion.  Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas dissented in the minority.

The background of the case was very familiar to this audience, as the Biden administration was previously blocked by lower courts from telling social media platforms to remove content against their interests.  Today, the Supreme Court rejected the standing of the plaintiffs, essentially giving a green light to the USA government to begin controlling social media platforms again.

If you read the opinion [FULL PDF HERE], I would strongly urge readers to focus beginning on page #11 of the Justice Barrett opinion.  It is obvious in the three or four pages that follow, the court was looking for an exit from the free speech issue.  Denying the case on “standing” grounds became their justification for the cop-out.

Barrett goes out of her way to make the standing issue the crux of the majority opinion.  Comey-Barrett dismisses all the instances of censorship and coerced removal under the auspices that the relief sought by the plaintiffs was for future harm, not past injury.   The lower courts had ruled the government could not interfere with speech in the future, without establishing that each individual plaintiff was harmed specifically by each action of the government.

Social media platforms did some censorship and content removal on their own, without government direction.  Therefore, it becomes impossible for the court to determine which censorship decisions were made by government coercion, and which were made by the social media platform with ordinary moderation rules being applied.  {pdf page #11}

Just because some of the removal was done at the direction of government, doesn’t mean all of the activity was done at the direction of government, and therefore the plaintiff standing is undetermined as a result of the lack of uniformity.   [WATCH THIS ASPECT CLOSELY, because CTH already predicted this was going to happen (¹I’ll come back to it)]….

As noted by Jeff Clark, “In effect, the Supreme Court majority is requiring government-private partnerships aimed at censorship to overlap entirely. If there are situations where private censorship predates and or postdates government calls for censorship, then the majority is saying the actions should be treated as independent and therefore to frustrate satisfaction of the causation and redressability prongs of standing analysis. And the Supreme Court majority did this even where they simultaneously acknowledged there was evidence of government collusion with Big Tech to censor COVID-related and 2020 election-related speech.”

Justice Samuel Alito Jr, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch, dissented.  Alito criticized the majority for failing to address the underlying free speech questions in the case, calling efforts by the government to police content “coercion.”

The court “shirks that duty and thus permits the successful campaign of coercion in this case to stand as an attractive model for future officials who want to control what the people say, hear and think,” Alito wrote. “That is regrettable.”

¹We keep saying in the Government censorship 2.0 model we were going to see a shift.  The original censorship removal was going to shift away from “content” as defined by the subject matter and will resurface as censorship against the specific individual person or outlet.   This Supreme Court decision aligns with that visible DHS intention.

This case is part of the reason why DHS shifted from censorship based on what was being said (ex COVID-19), and now focuses on who is saying it.  How big is their influence?  What is the size of their audience?  What is their platform?  Where are they vulnerable or fragile?

The targeting is not necessarily the subject matter; now it’s the person or outlet with the voice that spreads the subject matter.   This is what has already started to happen, and this is the approach that will continue to happen – only at a faster pace and larger scale.

It is even more critical now to show support to the entities that are at the forefront of the information network.  We must support the voices that are digging, sharing, providing the raw material information and analyzing the ramifications, so that an understanding expands the awakening.

Those voices who provide truthful information… information that enlarges the understanding of the average person… are going to be the biggest targets now.  DHS will shift away from spider crawls looking for “keywords” and “phrases,” and they will specifically be using AI to look for context within the content.

Accurate context with accurate content will be information most perceived as against the interest of government.

Does the SCOTUS Support Capital Gains Taxes?


Posted Jun 25, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Supreme Court BW

The government believes it has unlimited power to tax the citizens of the United States. The idea of capital gains taxes on unrealized earnings will be an economic nuclear disaster. The Democrat-appointed Supreme Justices believe that Moore v. United States does not exceed Congress’s Constitutional authority to tax unrealized gains. America’s entire future is on the line.

On June 20, 2024, the US Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold federal taxes on foreign income. There will be a one-time tax on shares of undistributed profits, and they anticipate the move will earn the Fed $340 billion. Only Justices Gorsuch and Thomas argued that Moore v. United States is unconstitutional and must be abolished.  Kavanaugh stated that this ruling need not be interpreted at the court authorizing taxation on unrealized income. Yet it is a major step in that direction.

Biden_Promised_to_Put_a_Black_Woman_on_the_Supreme_Court_The_New_York_Times

Biden’s appointee to the bench, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, supports capital gains taxation. This is the first time a Justice has spoken directly on the topic in favor of the practice. She argued that the income need not be realized before it can be taxed. She feels it is not a Constitutional right but rather a principle founded on equality. Jackson has extremely far-left views regarding wealth in America that are outright racist. While Sotomayor stated race must not be factored in when analyzing the Constitution, Jackson wrote a separate piece last June “to expound upon the universal benefits of considering race in this context.” But this isn’t about race for the Biden Administration. He appointed Jackson to have a socialist voice on the bench to promote “equality,” which ultimately amounts to everyone having nothing – you will own nothing and be happy.

Thomas Justice

The far left is stumped by Justice Clarence Thomas, who upholds the Constitution in favor of its original intentions. You never hear Thomas speak of his race when discussing a ruling as it simply DOES NOT MATTER — we are all protected under one nation, indivisible. He called affirmative action “rudderless, race-based preferences designed to ensure a particular racial mix in their entering classes.” He believes “all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law” and rejects the notion that one should feel victimized based on race. Racial politics is merely a method to divide the people. It certainly has no place in America’s top court.

President Biden has proposed a 25% tax on income and unrealized gains for the wealthiest Americans earning over $100 million. This opens the door to creating a third income tax. They always begin by taxing the wealthiest, but sooner than later, it will pass on to everyone. The proposal also suggests taxing estates of over $5 million on unrealized capital gains in the event of a death to prevent generational wealth.

Eisner v. Macomber stated that unrealized gains were NOT income during the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. This would punish anyone from owning an appreciating asset, even homeownership would be a taxable penalty if unrealized gains were grabbed by the government. Taxes are never repealed. The government will continue to tax the people into poverty if permitted to do so, and that is precisely how empires fall. The government is utterly desperate for funding and believes shaking down Americans is a better solution than curtailing its own spending.

Supreme Court Hears Immunity Arguments, Administrative State Smiling – SCOTUS Likely to Send Case Back to Lower Court


Posted originally on the CTH on April 26, 2024 | Sundance

The issue of presidential immunity is being tested in the DC political Lawfare case against President Donald Trump.

As the Jack Smith prosecution claims President Trump tried to “overturn the results of the 2020 election,” the issue of presidential actions intended to secure & protect the legitimacy of election outcomes becomes a focus.

The legal counsel for President Trump has stated any action by the president to ensure election security falls within official acts, and is therefore subject to immunity from prosecution.  The special counsel claims the act of reviewing an election outcome is a private benefit to the president and not part of presidential immunity.

The Supreme Court is now involved in determining whether the President of the United States has immunity from prosecution, or whether any/all future presidents can be prosecuted for their action while in office.  Inside the debate is the larger question of whether the “bureaucratic state” controls the president, or whether the office of the president controls the executive branch bureaucratic state.

The leftists and communists agree with former AG Bill Barr, that institutions run the government, and the office of the President is simply a figurehead within it.  In essence, the DC institutions are omnipotent and powerful, and the president is simply occupying space the deep state allows.  That’s the core ramification within the immunity argument.

In this video, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asks several questions about limiting the immunity of the president and some of the ramifications that will surface for future presidents.  WATCH:

Interestingly, at 2:30 of the video, Justice Kavanaugh notes the current Lawfare approach – crowdsourcing for prosecution angles with the DOJ, which was the same Lawfare approach used by the beach friends to attack Kavanaugh’s nomination.  Judge Kavanaugh uses that hidden reference point – very subtlety – but its inclusion shows that he knows exactly what is taking place here.

I also like the part where the DOJ argues President Obama is not guilty of murder, via drone strike, because the type of murder created by Obama in that situation was “lawful murder.”  Collateral killing via drone strike is considered by the DOJ to be: the lawful murder of another person with malice of forethought and specific intent to kill.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong with the DC administrative Deep State having the power to determine what is “lawful conduct” vs “unlawful conduct” by their political opposition?  Oh wait, it’s done by DOJ statutory interpretation, lolol… now I feel better.   Good grief, can people not see where this ends.

That said, here’s what the SCOTUS is going to do… I’m 95% certain of this.

[Oh, and Steve Bannon’s insufferable legal analysis, by Mike Davis, is GASLIGHTING.  Davis is an idiot and totally dishonest legal mind (wants to be AG – God, help us), who only tells MAGA what they want to hear; so, I would suggest ignoring his claim that SCOTUS will rule support for Trump with absolute immunity.  Mike Davis is totally wrong.]

The Supreme Court is not going to get into the debate of what action is “immune” vs what action is “not immune”; the court simply hates that stuff.

This unwillingness to get into the granular debate of statutory interpretation is the same reason why the court will not look at what the executive branch defines as “classified documents” vs “non-classified” documents.  Once they open that pandora’s box, there would be a bazillion appeals for a SCOTUS writ on the baseline of illegitimately denied FOIA requests.  They ain’t going to touch it.  Same applies here.

The Supreme Court is going to send this back to the lower DC court, and tell them to hash out the issue of “private interest” acts vs “official” acts.   This is the core of the originating issue.

Was President Trump ensuring the integrity of an election outcome he considered sketchy (official act), or was President Trump trying to overturn the election by ensuring election integrity (private interest act).

That’s the question that SCOTUS is going to tell the lower court to battle out, and then the SCOTUS will weigh in if needed. The Supreme Court is going to send this case back down to the lower court for definitions of “official act” -vs- “private interest act” before they will touch the immunity issue.

Here’s the full oral argument hearing at the Supreme Court:

Supreme Court Appears to Lean Favorably Toward Government in First Amendment Case of Federal Coercion of Social Media


Posted originally on the CTH on March 18, 2024 | Sundance 

Oral arguments were heard today in the appeal of the government against the states of Louisiana, Missouri and seven plaintiffs who claim that Biden officials, including Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media platforms to suppress or delete content about COVID-19 that federal officials found objectionable.

The Biden administration had an extensive communication pipeline into Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Google, YouTube and various subsidiary tech companies where instructions, the government says “encouragement”, were/was given about the removal of content critical of the government position, and the removal of content providers – American citizens.  Full Hearing Audio:

Making the case for the Biden administration, Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher led the way.  “We don’t think it’s possible for the government — through speech alone — to transform private speakers into state actors,” he said.

Fletcher said the government didn’t engage in coercion — which he said would be unconstitutional — just encouragement and persuasion for the social media platforms to enforce their existing rules at the time barring Covid-19 misinformation.  “If it stays on the persuasion side of the line — and all we’re talking about is government speech — then there’s no state action and there’s also no First Amendment problem,” he said. “I think it’s clear this is exhortation, not threat.”

Louisiana state Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga, arguing for the plaintiffs, said the speech the platforms were suppressing wasn’t their own speech but those of third parties, ordinary Americans. Aguiñaga also said the users often had no idea they were being impacted by the federal effort to prod the platforms to take down content.  “The bulk of it is behind closed doors. That is what is so pernicious about it,” he said.

The questioning by the majority of the Supreme Court justices appeared to favor the government, in large part due to the inability of the plaintiffs to outline direct actionable harm to them as an outcome of the regulation of their speech by the tech platforms.  The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision in the case by late June.

Crying over the Supreme Court Decision – Get Over It


Posted originally on Mar 4, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Crying

Some critics are obviously anti-Trump who have come out crying that’s really unusual for the Court to give such little notice that they would release a decision. They are indeed crying that this was because of Super Tuesday and therefore they are trying to support Trump.

Let me explain something here to these absolutely biased idiots. Let’s say the Supreme Court waited until May or June to release its decision, and you have Colorado, Maine, and Illinois who blocked Trump. Then what would happen? The entire 2024 election might be seriously impacted and then challenged in court in another array of suits. They had to rule, and it was UNANIMOUS before Super Tuesday to avoid a constitutional crisis. EVERYONE on the court agreed – Colorado had no such jurisdiction – PERIOD!

GET OVER IT!

THIS WAS NOT A 5-4 DECISION

IT WAS UNANIMOUS

Trump v Anderson My Amicus Brief-F

As I wrote in my Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court, the last time any state refused to allow a candidate on the ballot was 1860 when Abraham Lincoln did not appear on the ballots in the South. What followed? The Civil War.

The Founding Fathers never intended to allow a rogue state to interfere in either national commerce or national federal elections, as implied in the Commerce Clause, Article 1, Section 8, Clause
3 of the U.S. Constitution. Could Colorado remove a senator or congressman of another state claiming that they were part of the January 6th event they called an unarmed insurrection? There is no jurisdiction for a single state to remove a national candidate from the ballot – PERIOD! Assuming such power would mean they too could interfere in the commerce of other states. That would lead to complete chaos. Even Sotomayor, the favorite of the Democrats, wrote clearly:

“Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case.”

Brainwash Menticide

Anyone who cannot see that is so biased; they no longer have a functioning brain cell. They have been so brainwashed, they are no longer competent even to vote. We are either a nation with a national identity or a patchwork of states that no longer should pretend to be united.

Supreme Court Unanimously Rejects Removing Trump from the Ballots


Posted Mar 4, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 
Trump_v._Anderson_03_04_2024_

Trump v Colorado Decision

COMMENT: Marty, the Supreme Court bought your argument that there is no subject matter jurisdiction for the states to remove Trump from the ballot. Even the Democrats on the Court unanimously agreed that states do not have the authority to enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. You were right.

“This case raises the question whether the States, in addition to Congress, may also enforce Section 3. We conclude that States may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office. But States have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices, especially the Presidency”

BP

REPLY: If this had not been political nonsense, it was a case that should have been dismissed as frivolous. A court is supposed FIRST to determine if it has the jurisdiction to hear the case. This was such a biased maneuver by those who brought the actions and the judges involved that it illustrates more than anything how BROKEN and MORALLY CORRUPT our legal system has become. It is no more trustworthy today than it was in Rome before the fall.

As I submitted to the Court, there cannot be such jurisdiction to allow one state to prejudice a national election for all. Under the precedents, those involved committed a crime because their motive was to interfere in the 2024 election. These people are only concerned on winning at all costs and to keep the prospect for war alive. They advocated the overthrow of the government, which is the very thing they have accused Trump of.

As I wrote to the Court, allowing a single state to interfere in a national election undermines the very structure of the Constitution. One rogue state cannot block everyone else in the country from voting. Elections are for the people to decide – not backroom deals and conspiracys of bureaucrats seeking to retain power.

Even the concurring opinion of Sotomayor agreed there is no state jurisdiction to enforce the 14th Amendment. She wrote:

“Allowing Colorado to do so would, we agree, create a chaotic state-by-state patchwork, at odds with our Nation’s federalism principles. That is enough to resolve this case.”

“The American people have the power to vote for and elect candidates for national office, and that is a great and glorious thing. “