top of page
Search
  • Dagny

Supremes Wake Up




The Dems/MSM are framing this whole thing incorrectly.

The Supreme Court did not “grant” Trump immunity.


Presidents have always had immunity, the Supreme Court just had to overrule the corrupt Biden regime’s unprecedented lawfare against a political opponent.


The Dems/MSM are making it seem like the Supreme Court just made this up out of nowhere, when in reality, it was the Biden regime who crossed the line and have been violating the law, by weaponizing the DOJ for political means and election interference. The Supreme Court merely did their jobs, and put the Biden regime in check.


The Dems never cared about the “rule of law”. They are just throwing a fit, because their Gestapo-like election interference operation has been shut down. Their entire campaign strategy revolved around Trump being behind bars, and now it’s blowing up in their faces.








Liberal response:

He told me, "Did you hear that SCOTUS actually passed a law that said politicians are now going to be able to make the rules, rather than scientists who know better?









Bans on Homeless Camps Upheld: Supreme Court Ruling Grants Cities Authority to Clear Streets


Sanity has won. In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 in favor of allowing cities to prohibit homeless encampments in public spaces.The ruling stems from the case City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson et al., where the city sought to enforce ordinances prohibiting camping on public property.Grants Pass, a city of approximately 38,000 residents, has struggled with homelessness, with an estimated 600 individuals experiencing homelessness on any given day. In response, the city implemented ordinances prohibiting camping on public property and parking overnight in city parks. Initial violations could result in fines, while repeated offenses could lead to imprisonment.


This legal battle began after the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 decision in Martin v. Boise, which held that cities could not enforce such ordinances against homeless individuals if the number of homeless individuals exceeded the available shelter beds. Following this precedent, the district court in Oregon prohibited Grants Pass from enforcing its camping bans.


The court’s decision, delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, emphasizes the distinction between criminalizing a “status” and regulating actions.


The Court found that the enforcement of public camping laws does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment, as these laws target specific behaviors rather than the condition of homelessness itself.


“The Court cannot say that the punishments Grants Pass imposes here qualify as cruel and unusual. The city imposes only limited fines for first-time offenders, an order temporarily barring an individual from camping in a public park for repeat offenders, and a maximum sentence of 30 days in jail for those who later violate an order. Such punishments do not qualify as cruel because they are not designed to “superad[d]” “terror, pain, or disgrace.” Gorsuch wrote in his majority opinion.



Pharmaceutical manufacturers Personally Liable


The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a multi-billion-dollar bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma, the maker of the opioid OxyContin, cannot move forward. By a vote of 5-4, the justices granted the federal government’s request to block the plan on the ground that it shields members of the Sackler family, which principally owns the company and controlled it until recently, from liability for opioid-related claims even though they did not declare bankruptcy.


Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch contended that federal bankruptcy laws do not allow the plan to release the Sacklers from liability without the consent of creditors and opioid victims. Gorsuch acknowledged the government’s argument that its decision could cause the plan to “unravel” by exposing the Sacklers to a wide range of lawsuits. But such questions, Gorsuch concluded, are best left to Congress, rather than the courts.


In a lengthy dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh contended that, without releasing the Sacklers from liability, “there is no good reason to believe that any of the victims or state or local governments will ever recover anything.”










The Supreme Court threw out a challenge on June 26 to the federal government’s actions when it communicated with social media platforms about public health issues during the COVID-19 pandemic.


The justices voted 6–3, finding that two Republican-led states and several individuals challenging the government lacked legal standing to do so because they couldn’t show they were directly harmed by the government’s efforts to communicate with the platforms. Standing refers to the right of someone to sue in court. The parties must show a strong enough connection to the law or action complained of to justify their participation in the lawsuit.


The states had argued that the federal government strong-armed social media companies into censoring disfavored views on important public issues, such as side effects related to COVID-19 vaccines and the pandemic lockdowns. Applying this kind of pressure violates the First Amendment, the states said.




“A Private Citizen Cannot Criminally Prosecute Anyone, Let Alone a Former President” – Clarence Thomas Questions Jack Smith’s Authority in Blistering Opinion on Immunity Ruling

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Jack Smith’s authority as special counsel in his concurring opinion on the high court’s presidential immunity ruling.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers.

Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.

The Supreme Court ruled there is no immunity for unofficial acts.




Clerk Abruzzo Announces Release of Jeffrey Epstein Grand Jury Records. WARNING: Contains Graphic Content

posted 1 day ago by aslan_is_0n_the_m0ve +45 / -0

Clerk Abruzzo Announces Release of Jeffrey Epstein Grand Jury Records Post Date:07/01/2024 2:54 PM When I became Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller, I promised that I would leave no stone unturned to ensure the release of the Jeffrey Epstein grand jury records.

Today, in our role as Clerk to the 15th Judicial Circuit, we are making these important documents available to the public to ensure transparency to the people of Palm Beach County that we serve every day, and to the international community that has closely followed the Epstein case.

It was legislation our office championed that led to the release of these grand jury records. We worked tirelessly alongside Senator Tina Polsky and Representative Peggy Gossett-Seidman for this legislation to pass – I am grateful for their partnership in this effort.

I would also like to personally thank our Legal team at the Clerk’s office and our government affairs team at Ballard Partners for their work on this legislation – particularly Amy Borman, our Chief Legal Officer and Chief Operating Officer for Courts and Official Records, Legal Counsel Jennifer Printz, Associate Legal Counsel Collin Jackson, and Mat Forrest with Ballard Partners.

It is our hope that the release of these records gives peace of mind to our community and gives Jeffrey Epstein’s victims the closure they deserve. https://www.mypalmbeachclerk.com/Home/Components/News/News/734/16 WARNING: Contains Graphic Content PDF file icon Epstein Grand Jury Clerks Notes and Transcripts (Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration Of The Trial Court’s February 29, 2024 Order)




10 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page