By Perry Stein
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (click here) tackled a question in his presidential immunity opinion Monday that Donald Trump’s attorneys didn’t bring before the nation’s highest court: Was special counsel Jack Smith legally appointed?
Thomas joined his fellow conservative justices on a blockbuster majority opinion that expanded the definition of presidential powers and narrowed the scope of Trump’s D.C. election interference trial.
Thomas joined his fellow conservative justices on a blockbuster majority opinion that expanded the definition of presidential powers and narrowed the scope of Trump’s D.C. election interference trial.
He also wrote a concurring opinion that delved into the separate question of whether Attorney General Merrick Garland violated the Constitution when he appointed Smith in November 2022 to oversee the two federal prosecutions of Trump.
Thomas argued both that the special counsel’s office needs to be established by Congress and that Smith needed to be confirmed by the Senate. He said he tacked on his concurring opinion to the immunity ruling to “highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure.”...
Clarence Thomas is trying to raise a political firestorm when there is no basis for it.
28 U.S. Code § 515 - Authority for legal proceedings; (click here) commission, oath, and salary for special attorneys
(a) The Attorney General or any other officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under law, may, when specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which United States attorneys are authorized by law to conduct, whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought.
(b) Each attorney specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice shall be commissioned as special assistant to the Attorney General or special attorney, and shall take the oath required by law. Foreign counsel employed in special cases are not required to take the oath. The Attorney General shall fix the annual salary of a special assistant or special attorney.
The Law.
(b) Each attorney specially retained under authority of the Department of Justice shall be commissioned as special assistant to the Attorney General or special attorney, and shall take the oath required by law. Foreign counsel employed in special cases are not required to take the oath. The Attorney General shall fix the annual salary of a special assistant or special attorney.
Thomas is especially afraid of John (Jack) Luman Smith (click here) because Jack Smith has spent a good part of his career investigating and prosecuting corruption. Jack Smith has served approximately 14 years in chasing down corruption in the Public Integrity Section of the US Department of Justice. He knows what he is doing and can run rings around Clarence for all his knowledge of corruption, it's investigation and prosecution.
.jpg)
APPOINTMENT OF JOHN L. SMITH AS SPECIAL COUNSEL
By virtue of the authority vested in the Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509,
510, 515, and 533, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and
management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of
certain matters, I hereby order as follows:
(a) John L. Smith is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States
Department of Justice....
The Republicans always like to complain how the Executive Branch is breaking the law because all such Special Counsels have to be confirmed by the USA Senate. To begin, that point is mute because Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would have no problem finding the votes for Jack Smith. The law clearly states the Attorney General is granted the power to assign a Special Prosecutor to the case of Donald John Trump.
If the US Senate was involved it would be contrary to the statute of law that currently exists. THE LAW states clearly the Attorney General needs to do his job and do it well. This complaint by Clarence is still yet another attempt to attack the Executive Branch. It is all political and an attempt to assist Trump in his campaign.
Trump was OUT OF OFFICE when the classified documents were STOLEN from the American people!
Thomas is always warning about danger in cases that are politically advantageous to the right wing politically. Ready? He is always backing up Ginny.
The danger as Clarence see it, is that the AR-15 is not dangerous and unusual because IT IS POPULAR and a great MARKETING tool. Jack Smith should be Special Council to investigate Clarence.
But, that is really some of the most moronic logic I have ever heard. I mean, come on now. This is a Supreme Court associate justice stating the reason a lower court should have overturned a ban is because the semi-automatic weapon is popular. Clarence conveniently threw out the idea an AR-15 is dangerous. It's popularity makes is safe. That is definitely moron level thinking. Sorry, it just is.
Then it all it's wisdom the Supreme Court again attacked the Executive Branch for regulating bump stocks.
The ATF falls under the Executive Branch of the USA Government, specifically the Department of Justice.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) was established as a separate component within the Department of Justice pursuant to Title XI of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, on January 17, 2003.
...But prohibitions will remain intact in states like Illinois that have banned bump stocks through legislative action....
July 2, 2024
By Katherine Fung
...On Tuesday, (click here) the Court decided to not hear the case of John Doe v. Snap, Inc. Two conservative justices on the bench, however, disagreed, saying they would have granted the petition, which would have allowed the Court to "address whether social-media platforms—some of the largest and most powerful companies in the world—can be held responsible for their own misconduct."...
...In the lawsuit against Snapchat's parent company, lawyers for an unnamed 15-year-old Texas teen allege that the boy's science teacher groomed him using the platform. The suit also claims that certain Snapchat features, including disappearing messages, enable abuse by predators while encouraging users to lie about their age and that Snapchat should be liable for its defective design.
The ATF was legislated it's powers. So, regulating bump stocks that turn a semi-automatic weapon in an automatic weapons was definitely within it's LEGISLATED authority.
Ready? Here is the proof of the moronic Roberts' court.
So, what the Roberts' court did was to say that the federal legislated authority is pre-empted by a state's legislative authority. The bump stock works the same in Illinois as it does in Texas. But, in Texas when the south rises again and Trump gives the executive order to kill all undocumented immigrants it will be easier and will require less law enforcement in case they are attacked by a mob of "illegals."
That is utter stupidity and has absolutely nothing to do with States' Rights.
Here is another one that Clarence wanted to do for Ginny.
By Katherine Fung
...On Tuesday, (click here) the Court decided to not hear the case of John Doe v. Snap, Inc. Two conservative justices on the bench, however, disagreed, saying they would have granted the petition, which would have allowed the Court to "address whether social-media platforms—some of the largest and most powerful companies in the world—can be held responsible for their own misconduct."...
...In the lawsuit against Snapchat's parent company, lawyers for an unnamed 15-year-old Texas teen allege that the boy's science teacher groomed him using the platform. The suit also claims that certain Snapchat features, including disappearing messages, enable abuse by predators while encouraging users to lie about their age and that Snapchat should be liable for its defective design.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to hear the case in December, affirming a 2022 decision from a federal trial judge in Houston, who dismissed the case under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 protects internet publishers from liability for third-party speech created by users....
..."In the platforms' world, they are fully responsible for their websites when it results in constitutional protections, but the moment that responsibility could lead to liability, they can disclaim any obligations and enjoy greater protections from suit than nearly any other industry," he said. "The Court should consider if this state of affairs is what §230 demands."...
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (click here) is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on July 1, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2024....
...The outcome: In a ruling for both Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded the judgements of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton. The Court held that neither the Fifth Circuit nor the Eleventh Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws that regulate large internet platforms.
This is a case whereby the parents of the child are suing an internet company that allowed seduction of their child by a teacher. This is an attempt to treat internet companies as if they were as responsible as the tobacco companies in allowing this activity to occur. Now, I am confident the information on the platform was provided to legal authorities to charge and convict the pedophile. But, can the platform be held responsible for it's users abuse of policy that probably exists in that such activity is prohibited and can result in the loss of access to their platform.
So, there is poor, ole' Clarence trying to decide how best to pander to Ginny and her soccer moms, when he voted for absolute freedom of internet companies.
...The outcome: In a ruling for both Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated and remanded the judgements of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit for NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton. The Court held that neither the Fifth Circuit nor the Eleventh Circuit conducted a proper analysis of the facial First Amendment challenges to Florida and Texas laws that regulate large internet platforms.
Now, there is no getting around how Clarence uses "hot topics" to attempt to carry out apologetic politics for right wing support. Clarence can't have it both ways. He cannot on one hand be sympathetic to parents appalled and wanting to sue an internet company to obtain control of the issue, while stating how dangerous it is for the Supreme Court to have not taken his issue and turn around and vote for unmitigated freedom and authority to internet companies.
These are only two cases when Clarence takes the "political capital of a case" and turns it into political fodder for the public while ruling in completely opposite directions from his political sympathetic path. Clarence has a very bad ethics problem and there are a lot of reasons to doubt the expertise of the Roberts' court as it clearly leans into politics with their decisions and not real life.
