Supreme Court Reins in Bureaucratic Overreach and Affirms Trump’s Presidential Immunity

#GoRightNews Shared by Peter Boykin

American Political Commentator / Citizen Journalist / Activist / Constitutionalist for Liberty

Web: https://PeterBoykin.com
Kick: http://Kick.com/PeterBoykin
Rumble: http://Rumble.com/GoRightNews
YouTube: https://youtube.com/@PeterBoykinForAmerica
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/boykin4congress
Twitter: https://twitter.com/GoRightNews
Telegram: http://t.me/realpeterboykin

Like the Content? Please Support!

Stripe: https://gorightnews.com/donations/support-gorightnews/

Cash App: http://Cash.app/$PeterBoykin1

Supreme Court Reins in Bureaucratic Overreach and Affirms Trump’s Presidential Immunity

Supreme Court drops the mic. Many Times….

The Supreme Court has delivered a series of landmark rulings that have profound implications for federal regulation and presidential accountability, reinforcing the principles of a Constitutional Republic that ensures our Democracy. These decisions limit the powers of unelected officials and reaffirm the scope of presidential protections, ensuring a balanced governance structure.

Overturning the Chevron Doctrine

In **Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo**, the Court’s 6-3 majority overruled the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year-old precedent that allowed federal agencies to interpret ambiguously worded laws when creating regulations. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, asserted, “Agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.” This decision effectively curtails the expansive regulatory power of federal bureaucracies, which had grown under the broad interpretations allowed by the Chevron doctrine.

Mike Davis, president of the Article 3 Project, celebrated the ruling, stating that it “finally reigns in the out-of-control power from bureaucratic officials.” The decision underscores the importance of judicial oversight in maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that regulatory agencies do not overstep their bounds.

Restricting the Application of Criminal Code

In **Fischer v. United States**, the Supreme Court delivered another 6-3 decision that rejected the Biden administration’s broad application of criminal code 1512(c)(2) in charging individuals involved in the January 6 events with “obstruction.” This statute, initially intended to prosecute individuals who tamper with or destroy evidence, was deemed applicable only if the Department of Justice could prove such tampering or destruction occurred.

The ruling has significant implications, potentially affecting over 300 defendants involved in the January 6 cases, including former President Donald Trump, who faced similar charges. The Court’s decision emphasizes the need for precise application of laws and prevents the government from overreaching in its prosecutorial efforts.

Affirming Presidential Immunity

In a crucial decision regarding presidential immunity, the Supreme Court ruled that former President Trump is entitled to substantial immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his constitutional authority. The 6-3 decision is a major setback for the Biden administration’s attempts to prosecute Trump for his actions on January 6.

The Court outlined three categories to define presidential immunity:

– **Constitutional actions**, such as appointing cabinet positions, are protected by absolute immunity.
– **Official actions**, involving the day-to-day operations of the executive branch, are presumed immune.
– **Unofficial actions**, which are private pursuits outside the presidency, are not granted immunity.

The Court dismissed charges against Trump related to encouraging the DOJ to investigate election fraud in 2020. The remaining charges will be reviewed by lower courts to determine if they fall under official or unofficial actions, potentially delaying any proceedings until after the 2024 election. Trump celebrated the ruling, stating on Truth Social, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!”

Political Reactions and Misinterpretations

Reactions from the political left have been intense and critical. President Biden criticized the ruling, claiming it sets a “dangerous precedent.” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even suggested impeaching members of the Court. Left-wing Gen Z influencer Harry Sisson expressed alarm over the potential misuse of presidential powers, writing on X that the decision might allow a president to order military operations against political rivals without facing prosecution.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in her dissent, warned that the majority’s reasoning could shield a president from prosecution for egregious actions, such as ordering military operations against political rivals. She wrote, “When [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.”

However, this interpretation is misleading. Any presidential order must comply with the Constitution and U.S. laws, and an action such as ordering the assassination of a political opponent would fall outside the scope of the president’s “presumption” of immunity.

According to the Supreme Court, Biden could now send in Seal Team 6 to take all of them out. He could send in the military to take out Trump. He has “immunity” for official acts now!

— Harry Sisson (@harryjsisson) July 1, 2024

Implications for the Future

These decisions mark a pivotal moment in the ongoing balance of power between federal agencies, the executive branch, and the judicial system. They reinforce the principles of limited government and individual liberties by ensuring that regulatory agencies operate within their legal bounds and that presidential actions are appropriately protected while maintaining accountability for actions outside the scope of presidential authority.

The Supreme Court’s rulings demonstrate a commitment to upholding the Constitution and ensuring that power is not concentrated in the hands of a few unelected officials or misused by those in the highest offices. These decisions will likely have long-lasting effects on how laws are interpreted and enforced in our Constitutional Republic.

[Source: SCOTUS Blog, Breitbart, The National Pulse, Joe Biden on YouTube, X/Twitter, SCOTUS Blog, WSJ]

This Article is Brought to you by Go Right News and Edited by Peter Boykin

Visit GoRightNews.com for More Articles and Visit PeterBoykin.com to Learn more about Peter Boykin

Like what you see?

#GoRight with Peter Boykin

https://PeterBoykin.com

Follow Telegram

https://T.me/RealPeterBoykin

https://T.me/GoRightNews

Follow on Kick

https://Kick.com/PeterBoykin

Follow on Rumble

https://Rumble.com/GoRightNews

Tags:

#ncpol #NCpolitics #Boykin4NC #BoykinFor2024 #BoykinForNC

#Android #Apple #Trump #trumptrain #Trump2024 #TRUMP2024ToSaveAmerica #2024Election #election #election2023 #electionchallenge #ElectionIntegrity #ElectionsMatter #ElectionCommission #GoRightNews #GaysForTrump #tuesday #GoRight #ihatemondays #applemusic #applewatch #applepodcasts #ApplePay #appleiphone #bidenisnotmypresident #BIDENSAMERICA #BidenBorderCrisis #Bidenflation #Biden #BidenCrimeFamily #northcarolina #government #Governor #politics #political #politicians #politicalchallenge #politicalmeme

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]