COMMENTS ON RECENT SUPREME COURT RULINGS First day back from having a cold or fl

COMMENTS ON RECENT SUPREME COURT RULINGS
First day back from having a cold or flu or whatever I picked up on the plane. I can’t really work yet, but at least I can read. And so I’m reading the past six months of Opinions from the Supreme Court.

Now, aside from the fact That Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor, are obviously too profoundly ignorant, incompetent, and ideological to sit the court, the rest of the court’s opinions are:
(a) narrow
(b) technical
(c) and demanding responsibility from the legislature – ending the left’s tradition of lawfare to bypass the people and their legislatures by inventing rights on one hand authority on the other.
In other words – this is good law.

Now, we do need to clean the court of the three nitwits. But and if so, it would be possible for the court, over a decade or so, to clean up the mess the prior courts allowed during the lawfare-heyday of the 1960s. And we can all thank the Federalist Society for their decades of work in making this quality of court possible.

On Recent Rulings:

1) CORNER POST: the Corner Post ruling was extremely narrow and technical and suppressed irresponsibility of the bureaucracy (regulators) to circumvent the legislature by art and artifice by claiming defense by a statute of limitations regardless of when the harm was incurred, and, it was possible for the plaintiff to take action.
OPINION: while technical it’s a rather easy decision for the court and is a continuation of the court’s objective of restoring accountability to the legislature and depriving the bureaucracy from legislation without authority from the representatives of the people.

2) TRUMP: The Trump ruling was not only narrow but a codification of an ‘ unwritten law’ dating back to the founders: Presidents must be immune from criminal prosecution for their acts as president or they may not take actions necessary as president in the face of uncertainty and risk. HOWEVER, this ruling does not render them immune from murder, theft, etc as a private citizen external to their role as president (murdering your wife, raping an intern, or embezzling funds, for example), AND it does not render them immune from impeachment. The left has no respect for reciprocity sovereignty, rule of law, and only power, so this codification of the customary law has been a long time coming. Nothing new here. I expected this ruling.
ALSO, regarding Trump’s felony: there is no way this will stand the supreme court. (a) it’s a misdemeanor not a felony and classifying it so was an abuse of jurisprudence, (b) no one was harmed by Trump’s actions (c) it’s selective prosecution because no one else has been fined over $100 for the same crime.
OPINION: My hope is that the Court specifically addresses the use of the lower courts for political purposes, abusing the law in doing so, and does so with predjudice so that it never happens again. it’s bad enough we tried to prosecute Clinton for consensual oral sex with an overweight intern most of us would kick out of bed. Prosecuting an ex-president for paying off a call girl, when both parties were ‘satisfied’ with the transaction is also out of hand. These are not high crimes and misdemeanors. They are personal moral misjudgements that men with moeny and power often easily seek given the high costs of seeking sexual release from wives while fending off tidal waves of opportunity. In other words, the Tiger Woods Defense is all that is necessary: “I’m human. I’m a man. And I’m Tiger Woods. At some point you know, you just can’t resist.” This is the male equivalent of the pass we give to women over their reckless emotionality and pervasive evasion of responsibility. So, good for the gander, good for the goose so to speak.

(Micro Lesson: The etymology of ‘plaintiff’ is french ‘plaint’ (complaining) to middle english ‘plaintif’ filing a complaint in a court.)

3) Moody v. NetChoice, LLC: The Court, not so politely I might add, in very simple and clear language, stated that neither the fifth nor the eleventh Circuit thought more deeply about the matter than what their common sense at the moment (not being very good common sense at that) amounted to, and returned the cases to the courts in what I would consider a disciplinary prose. First amendement issues are quite complex because social media is far more difficult to regulate and far more powerful than speech, publications, radio, and television have been in the past. And given the rather obvious capture of media by political activists and ideologues, combined with the lack of accountability and rapidity of spread of nonsense on social media, means we need a solution to both problems not just social media. And social media solution will also solve the major media problem. And the court is looking for lower courts to produce arguments of sufficient quality OR of sufficient undecidability, that the higher court or the legislature may provide clarification.
OPINION: the quality of our legislatures is not sufficient to solve this question and the high court and it’s officers and ‘serfs’ so to speak are so. If the court maintains present discipline, I expect them to issue a narrow ruling that clarifies the matter AND suggests (or demands) a solution from the legislature. This is the optimum solution for any court decision: explain the legal issues and throw it back to the legislature for a decision. Unfortunately, while my work on constitutional reform includes this provision, the present constitution does not ‘close the loop’ and as such too much lands on the court’s plate and this opens the door for lawfare.

More as I work my way through the opinions.

Cheers