Turley Roundup

Jo. Turley is on the case at the SCOTUS. None of what follows redeems the SCOTUS for their atrocious punt on Free Speech, but there were some major wins for constitutional order. There is also the lesson about our dysfunctional justice system—sometimes justice delayed does mean justice denied. Not all of the J6 defendannts will benefit. Don’t kid yourselves about that. The SCOTUS looks to be trying to clear the deck for the elections, but four years is a long time for justice of any sort—even a defective parody.

This is a big news day so I’m going to paste in Turley’s comments on multiple issues. First, Free Speech and the “debate”. I put that in quotes because what it most likely amounted to was Zhou’s audition for the Dem nomination. I highly recommend the first linked article on Free Speech. Trump would, indeed, be wise to avoid the quagmire of empire and focus on our republican values. It’s a winning issue:

Jonathan Turley @JonathanTurley

The Post poll shows citizens trust Trump more than Biden on democracy. Once again, Trump would be wise to make free speech the defining issue in this presidential election.

jonathanturley.org

Want to Defeat Joe Biden? Look to the 1800 Election and Make Free Speech the Key Issue in 2024

Below is my column in USA Today on why the opponents of President Joe Biden should make free speech the focus of this election. With the Supreme Court taking an off ramp in Murthy v. Missouri on Internet censorship, the free speech community is left, for now, with the political process to protect free speech. It is a potentially unifying issue for many Americans who are alarmed by the current anti-free speech movement.

10:15 AM · Jun 27, 2024

On the “debate”:

The presidential debate last night was chilling to watch as President Joe Biden clearly struggled to retain his focus and, at points, seemed hopelessly confused. The winner was clear: Special Counsel Robert Hur...

Robert Hur Emerges as the Clear Winner in the Presidential Debate

What may be equally troubling for Democrats and the media is a poll that came out just before the debate that more wing-state voters see former President Donald Trump rather than President Joe Biden as protecting democracy.

Somehow that typo appeals to me: wing-state voters.

On 25thing Zhou. I happen to disagree with Turley on this. The 25th Amendment, no matter what the people who wrote it may have thought, is going to be a political process. If there’s a bipartisan consensus and a public groundswell, Zhou is gone. As Turley himself says: “The 25th Amendment is not designed for close calls.” Dumping Zhou isn’t a close call if the ruling class wants it bad enough. And it sure sounds like they do (but more on the real problems later). Again addressing Turley, Do not count on the cabinet running interference for Zhou. This is especially true with the nation facing the potential for nuclear war. It’s up to the ruling class—that’s how it rolls in an oligarchy. Here’s Turley:

There is a great deal of discussion about the 25th amendment after the chilling moments in last night's debate with President Biden. As I have previously written, the amendment was written primarily with physical disabilities in mind. It is far more difficult with mental decline.

While there are provisions for congressional action, the 25th Amendment make removal effectively a non-entity if the cabinet is running interference for a president who lacks capacity. Moreover, Democratic members have been attacking Special Counsel Hur for suggesting that

None of this means that Biden is now mentally incapable of performing the functions of the presidency. One can have diminished capacity but still be functional. The 25th Amendment is not designed for close calls.

Can Biden Be Removed Under the 25th Amendment? Don’t Bet on It

J6 and Trump—notably, Justice Amy again reveals herself as a lightweight. Sad:

We have the fourth case. It is Fischer! Huge day... 

Roberts again writes for the majority. supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…

D.C. Circuit is reversed in the J6 case...

A major loss for the Biden Administration. The Court rules that the "novel interpretation would criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists alike to decades in prison."

Obviously, there were other charges like trespass that will not be impacted. However, this hits hundreds of cases. Those cases must now be reviewed on just on the underlying convictions but sentencing in many cases. It will not impact those cases which only went forward on trespass which are also numbers in the hundreds...

This is a big win for Trump as well. It knocks out a substantial part of the case of Jack Smith against the former president. It also knocks out hundreds of convictions...

For Trump, this rips the wings of the plane that Jack Smith has been trying to take off in D.C. In an ordinary case, there would be a superseding indictment. Smith may try to go forward on the remaining counts. However, it is hard to see how the indictment holds together after this decision...

Hmmm. This kinda resonates:

The Admin State takes two huge hits. Did I say two HUGE hits? That’s what I meant. Hard to underestimate the importance of these decisions. And it is, as Turley rightly and generously notes, a major victory for Trump and his legacy. All three of his appointees were on board. What “Chevron” refers to is the notion of “Chevron deference”—the judge made doctrine (and, yes, Scalia was on board with this abomination) that courts should “defer” to the supposed “expertise” of administrative agencies. This allowed administration agencies to act as judge and jury in many, many cases, with little hope for effective review for those who ran afoul of them. Reversing that presumption is a body blow to the whole Progressive ideology of rule by experts as well as of the “living constitution”—thus Kagan’s wail of anguish.

We have our third opinion. We have Loper! Chief Justice Roberts writes for the majority. Chevron is now as dead as Dillinger. 

Roberts finally delivers the coup de grace on Chevron in a 6-2 decision. 

Notably, after Sotomayor said that she hoped to reverse the decision on homeless rights, the court just did that on Chevron. Roberts is saying that Chevron was a "misguided." 

This [Chevron] has been the Holy Grail for those who oppose the administrative state. It is also a victory for Trump whose appointees put the Court over the top in taking down Chevron... 

Justice Kagan is vehement that this is an outrageous clawback on federal agency authority because Chevron "has become part of the warp and woof of modern government." That is certainly true but many disagree that it was a good change in a Madisonian system based on tripartite government... 

Here it is. For many it is the funeral dirge for the administrative state...supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf…

It is important to note that this Republic did exist before Chevron. I have long been a critic of the case because I felt that it undermined the Madisonian system. Courts will now perform their constitutional and traditional function in review... 

In combination with SEC v. Jarkesy, the court is not just empowering courts but citizens in fights with federal agencies... 

In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Court ruled that citizens charged with civil penalties have the right to a jury trial, under the Seventh Amendment. Now agencies will not be able to count on sweeping deference in their interpretations. Also keep in mind that the Court has embraced the "major questions" doctrine to demand greater clarity in some of these cases... 

Big day.