Thomas v. Biden. Ha ha ha

Escaping an electronic lynching made the justice stronger

Oilfield Rando tweeted, “Imagine if Trump wins, and both Thomas and Sotomayor retire.

“The United States Supreme Court would have a majority of justices appointed by Donald J. Trump.

“Imagine the media industry meltdown LOL. The headlines would be hilarious.”

I replied, “Thomas ain't going nowhere. That electronic lynching gave him the resolve he needed to be Nothing But A Man.”

And who led the Democrat lynch mob? Pedo Joe.

33 years later, Thomas delivered another slice of payback with his concurring opinion in Trump v. Biden (aka Trump v. USA). The five men on the court plus ACB ruled that a president has immunity from prosecution in carrying out his official duties, which would preclude charging him for any of the cheapfake J6 crimes.

The decision so shocked Freeze Frame Joe that he went on national TV and turned orange.

Thomas went one step beyond the majority opinion, observing:

I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires.

By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the president—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.

No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.

The prosecution of a former president is a very serious matter that Democrats have turned into a circus. In New York, Democrats made paying off an extortionist a 34-count felony indictment. The trial was so bizarre that I want a DNA test to determine whether Judge Merchan is a man or indeed a kangaroo.

But, this decision and Biden’s post-debate collapse in the polls have forced Democrats to postpone their sentencing of President Trump. Merchan just told Trump see you in September, which was music to his ears.

Clearly, the witch hunts failed miserably, forcing Democrats to re-assess their situation. Merchan does only what his party bosses tell him to do. It’s a New York thing.

The federal cases against President Trump are even weirder. How does holding a rally at the National Mall become an insurrection? How does holding documents Trump declassified become a violation of national security laws?

But most importantly, how does a bum hack lawyer like Jack R. Smith become the prosecutor in these cases?

Smith is the rare prosecutor who has had a verdict reversed by the Supreme Court. Only his lack of ethics and devotion to the Democrat Party got him this gig.

Obama sicced him on former Republican Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia. While the Jack S. got the conviction, he did so in a dirty, slimy way that so violated the Constitution and the governor’s rights that the Supreme Court unanimously — RGB included — threw the conviction away.

The Washington Post reported 8 years ago:

The Supreme Court unanimously overturned former Virginia governor Robert F. McDonnell’s public-corruption conviction Monday and imposed higher standards for federal prosecutors who charge public officials with wrongdoing.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. described the former governor’s actions as “tawdry” but agreed that instructions to the jury in his case about what constitutes “official acts” were so broad, they could cover almost any action a public official takes.

McDonnell’s promising political career was derailed by his entanglement with a businessman who showered the governor and his family with luxury gifts and financial benefits. McDonnell and his wife, Maureen, were indicted and convicted after he left office in January 2014.

The feds refused to try the case again because Obama got what he wanted — an end to McDonnell’s promising political career. Ha ha ha. Cheating worked.

Thomas remembered and this time the justice is questioning Smith’s appointment.

NYT tried to blow off the concurrence by Justice Thomas, writing:

Despite Justice Thomas’s concerns, courts reaching back to the early 1970s have repeatedly rejected efforts to question the legality of independent prosecutors. Those have included the Supreme Court upholding the appointment of Leon Jaworski, one of the special prosecutors who investigated the Watergate scandal, in a decision that was largely focused on the issue of President Richard Nixon’s claims of executive privilege.

Judges have also tossed out efforts to invalidate the work of special counsels like Robert S. Mueller III, who examined connections between Russia and Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign, and David C. Weiss, who has brought two criminal cases against Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son.

However, this court is tasing bad precedent. Thomas signaled that the court will look kindly at an appeal challenging the constitutionality of appointing special prosecutors. He pointed Judge Cannon at Smith and said fire away.

Prosecuting a former president should be taken carefully because no one has ventured into this dark territory before.

FJB has been haphazard, knowing that winning by any means necessary — or unnecessary — will result in zero penalties. After all, Obama got away with ruining a Republican, why would Obama’s flunky face any consequences for phony prosecutions?

In his concurring opinion, Thomas showed the wisdom of a man forged in the fires of false accusation and racism.

The three lib Ditzy Chicks on the bench were approved by the Senate because of their ethnicity; they have never been challenged. They coasted their way in and it shows in the wise Latinx’s dissent, in which she said:

Even though the majority’s immunity analysis purports to leave unofficial acts open to prosecution, its draconian approach to official-acts evidence deprives these prosecutions of any teeth. If the former President cannot be held criminally liable for his official acts, those acts should still be admissible to prove knowledge or intent in criminal prosecutions of unofficial acts. For instance, the majority struggles with classifying whether a President’s speech is in his capacity as President (official act) or as a candidate (unofficial act). Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the President’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder. That is a strange result, to say the least.

No one who lived through the Kennedy and King assassinations would be so cavalier and casual in referencing the murder of political rivals. Even the backstabbing Bill Barr complained.

Sotomayor, Kagan and KBJ are DEI hires as in Didn’t Earn It.

Thomas did. It shows in the higher quality of his work. Pedo Joe put him through the fires of hell, forging one of the greatest justices ever.