{"id":2315808,"date":"2024-07-30T04:22:02","date_gmt":"2024-07-30T08:22:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-wants-to-destroy-scotus-to-help-power-mongers\/"},"modified":"2024-07-30T04:30:46","modified_gmt":"2024-07-30T08:30:46","slug":"biden-wants-to-destroy-scotus-to-help-power-mongers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/biden-wants-to-destroy-scotus-to-help-power-mongers\/","title":{"rendered":"Biden Wants To Destroy SCOTUS To Help Power-Mongers"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">16<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fbiden-wants-to-destroy-scotus-to-help-power-mongers%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=2315808&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p>This week, President\u200c Biden unveiled\u2064 a plan aimed at &#8220;reforming&#8221; the Supreme Court, which includes\u2064 a controversial \u200dproposal to enforce \u200dterm limits for justices. \u200dThis\u200d move\u200c follows \u200dongoing criticisms\u2064 of conservative justices, particularly Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, by \u2062the political left. Biden argues these reforms are essential to restore public confidence\u200d in the \u200bCourt and \u2063<a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/janice-mcgeachin-i-tried-to-protect-personal-freedoms-with-executive-order-on-masks\/\" title=\"Janice McGeachin: I Tried to Protect Personal Freedoms with Executive Order on Masks\">protect personal freedoms<\/a>, a claim criticized as hypocritical given the \u2062leftist \u200bjustices&#8217; \u200bdismissive stance toward constitutional protections against \u200dgovernment overreach.<\/p>\n<p>In \u2064the\u2063 recent case of *SEC v. Jarkesy*, \u2062the Court ruled that\u200c the SEC&#8217;s in-house prosecution of investment adviser George Jarkesy\u2064 violated his Seventh \u200cAmendment right to a\u2064 jury trial, a\u2062 majority decision that the dissenting justices, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, opposed. \u2063They expressed no \u2063concern regarding the potential for \u200dbureaucrats to act as judge and jury, a viewpoint that raises alarms about unchecked government power.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, in *Loper \u200bBright Enterprises v. Raimondo*, the Court rejected the longstanding Chevron doctrine\u2064 that allowed agencies to interpret \u2064statutes broadly. The majority opinion highlighted the\u200d erosion of the separation of\u200b powers, while \u2063the dissenters maintained that ambiguities in law\u200d should be\u200d resolved by administrative agencies rather than the courts. the article suggests that the leftist \u200cjustices\u2064 prioritize agency power over\u2063 constitutional limits,\u200d undermining \u200cpersonal freedoms and due process.  <\/p>\n<p class=\"readmore\">\n    <button onclick=\"showReadMore()\" id=\"readmorebtn\">Read more&#8230;<\/button>\n<\/p>\n<hr id=\"line\">\n<span id=\"more\"><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>This week, President Biden introduced his <a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/opinions\/2024\/07\/29\/joe-biden-reform-supreme-court-presidential-immunity-plan-announcement\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">plan<\/a> for &ldquo;reforming&rdquo; the Supreme Court, featuring an unconstitutional proposal for imposing term limits on justices. This development follows years of relentless leftist attacks and unfair criticism towards the constitutionalist justices on the Supreme Court, particularly <a href=\"https:\/\/www.msnbc.com\/rachel-maddow-show\/maddowblog\/biggest-flaw-justice-clarence-thomas-newest-complaints-rcna151935\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Clarence Thomas<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nbcnews.com\/politics\/supreme-court\/aoc-files-articles-impeachment-supreme-court-justices-clarence-thomas-rcna161121\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Samuel Alito<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>President Biden claims these &ldquo;reforms&rdquo; are necessary because &ldquo;what is happening now (on the Supreme Court)&hellip; undermines the public&rsquo;s confidence in recent court decisions&rdquo; and has negatively impacted &ldquo;our personal freedoms.&rdquo; In reality, the political left simply doesn&rsquo;t like that recent rulings have held up the Constitution&rsquo;s limits on the power of government.<\/p>\n<p>Biden&rsquo;s hypocrisy on &ldquo;personal freedoms&rdquo; is most evident in the recent dissents by the court&rsquo;s left wing &mdash; Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. All betray a lack of concern for upholding the Constitution&rsquo;s protections against an oppressive central government and abusive prosecutors.<\/p>\n<p>In&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/22-859_1924.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>SEC v. Jarkesy<\/em><\/a>, the Securities and Exchange Commission investigated investment adviser George Jarkesy Jr. and his investment advisor firm, claiming he had committed investment fraud. The SEC then prosecuted him in-house, not in a court of law, using an administrative law &ldquo;judge&rdquo; &mdash; an SEC employee &mdash; who, surprise, surprise, found Jarkesy guilty and imposed a $300,000 fine.<\/p>\n<p>Jarkesy challenged this procedure, arguing this administrative prosecution violated his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in a court of law. A majority of the Supreme Court agreed &mdash; that is, the six justices who are constantly being attacked by President Biden and the mainstream media agreed.<\/p>\n<p>Yet Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson saw no problem with, as Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion, the bureaucrats in an executive branch agency assuming the &ldquo;roles of prosecutor, judge, and jury.&rdquo; The dissenters, said Roberts, would give the government the authority &ldquo;to penalize citizens without a jury, without an independent judge, and under procedures foreign to our courts.&rdquo; It was to prevent such violations of &ldquo;individual liberty&rdquo; that the Constitution built &ldquo;high walls and clear distinctions.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>In Sotomayor&rsquo;s disturbing dissent, which was joined by Kagan and Jackson, she wrote she would knock down those high walls. In her view, nothing in the Constitution &ldquo;requires the Government to seek civil penalties&rdquo; in such a securities fraud case &ldquo;before a jury in federal court.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>That view is a recipe for a despotic government that can abuse its law enforcement authority to prosecute members of the public without the due process of law. It is a frightening view of unchecked government power that impacts &ldquo;personal freedoms&rdquo; in a way that Biden approves.<\/p>\n<p>The same misguided view of government&nbsp;is apparent in these justices&rsquo; dissent in&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/22-451_7m58.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo<\/em><\/a>, which tossed out the so-called <em>Chevron <\/em>doctrine. <em>Chevron<\/em>&nbsp;was a regrettable 1984 decision in which the Supreme Court said courts should generally &ldquo;defer&rdquo; to federal agencies when interpreting the statutes those agencies administer, at least so long as the statute is &ldquo;ambiguous&rdquo; and the agency&rsquo;s interpretation is reasonable, even if the court decides that it is not the best interpretation of the statute in question.<\/p>\n<p>In other words, if there was any question about whether an agency had gone beyond the power granted to it by a federal statute, federal courts should not question an agency&rsquo;s permissive interpretation of the extent of its own authority. Over time, this resulted in federal bureaucrats having&nbsp;<em>carte blanche<\/em>&nbsp;to do almost anything they wanted.<\/p>\n<p>It also flew in the face of Chief Justice John Marshall&rsquo;s famous ruling in&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/supreme.justia.com\/cases\/federal\/us\/5\/137\/#tab-opinion-1958607\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>Marbury v. Madison<\/em><\/a>  that &ldquo;it is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,&rdquo; as well as Congress&rsquo;s judgment in the Administrative Procedure Act that courts must exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.<\/p>\n<p>In&nbsp;<em>Loper Bright<\/em>, the National Marine Fisheries Service used that &ldquo;interpretation&rdquo; power to claim it could <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-case-that-could-slash-power-of-administrative-state\/\" title=\"Supreme Court to Hear Case That May Reduce Administrative State&#039;s Power.\">require commercial fishermen<\/a> to not only carry NMFS observers on their boats, but to actually pay the observers&rsquo; salaries, even though there was no such provision giving the NMFS that power in the authorizing statute.<\/p>\n<p>As Roberts said in the majority opinion, this deferral to federal agencies was a &ldquo;fundamental disruption of our separation of powers&rdquo; in the Constitution. The &ldquo;Founders envisioned that &lsquo;the courts [would] check the Executive by applying the correct interpretation of the law.&rsquo;&rdquo; The&nbsp;<em>Chevron<\/em>&nbsp;doctrine had stripped the &ldquo;courts of judicial power by simultaneously increasing the power of executive agencies.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>Yet once again, the three dissenters, led this time by Kagan, saw nothing wrong with giving executive branch agencies such power. According to her, when Congress has &ldquo;left an ambiguity or gap&rdquo; in a statute, the courts should leave it up to the swarms of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to decide how much power they have, and how far they can go, to regulate the lives, professions, and property of the American public and their businesses.<\/p>\n<p>Kagan saw nothing wrong with &ldquo;sen[ding] hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance,&rdquo; to cite one of the complaints about the English monarchy in the Declaration of Independence.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, one of the areas the leftist justices don&rsquo;t mind curbing government is when <a href=\"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/kentucky-lawmakers-override-governor-ditch-school-mask-mandate\/\" title=\"Kentucky Lawmakers Override Governor, Ditch School Mask Mandate\">giving local governments<\/a> the ability to try to clean up their cities and make parks and other public places safe for families and children. In a revealing dissent in&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/23pdf\/23-175_19m2.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>City of Grants Pass v. Johnson<\/em><\/a>, Sotomayor, again joined by Kagan and Jackson, bizarrely argued that local ordinances against camping in public parks violate the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.<\/p>\n<p>The Eighth Amendment was put into the Bill of Rights not to tie the hands of government officials trying to address a vexing problem, but to prevent, as Justice Neil Gorsuch points out in the majority opinion, &ldquo;certain barbaric punishments like &lsquo;disemboweling, quartering, public dissection, and burning alive.&rsquo;&rdquo; Anti-camping ordinances are a key part of solving the homelessness problem that is overwhelming so many cities across the country. That includes places like San Francisco, which in its amicus brief in the case related that it has thousands of individuals sleeping in &ldquo;tents and makeshift structures&rdquo; in its public places.<\/p>\n<p>As Gorsuch says, potential solutions to that problem need to be resolved through the democratic process, not by federal judges. The Eighth Amendment &ldquo;does not authorize federal judges to wrest those [democratic] rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation&rsquo;s homelessness policy.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>Adopting the leftist bloc&rsquo;s view would turn judges into super-legislators with veto authority over local laws and ordinances they don&rsquo;t like under the guise of constitutional interpretation. That is judicial activism, pure and simple. Accordingly, when Joe Biden claims that we &ldquo;stand in a breach&rdquo; and must defend democracy against the conservative appointees on the Supreme Court, it is to prevent them from further reigning in these kinds of unchecked government powers.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>This week, President Biden unveiled his proposal for &#8220;reforming&#8221; the Supreme Court, which includes an unconstitutional suggestion to impose term limits on justices. This move comes after years of persistent leftist criticism and attacks on the constitutionalist justices, especially Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Biden argues that these &#8220;reforms&#8221; are essential because current actions by the Supreme Court are eroding public confidence in its recent decisions and negatively affecting &#8220;our personal freedoms.&#8221; In truth, the political left is simply dissatisfied with recent rulings that have upheld constitutional limits on government power.<\/p>\n<p>Biden&#8217;s inconsistency regarding &#8220;personal freedoms&#8221; is particularly evident in the recent dissents from justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Their opinions show a disregard for maintaining constitutional protections against an overreaching central government and abusive prosecutors. <\/p>\n<p>In SEC v. Jarkesy, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigated investment adviser George Jarkesy Jr., accusing him of fraud. The SEC prosecuted him internally rather than in a court of law using an administrative law judge\u2014an SEC employee\u2014who found him guilty and imposed a $300,000 fine. Jarkesy contested this process as a violation of his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in court; six justices agreed with him despite ongoing attacks from Biden and mainstream media.<\/p>\n<p>However, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson did not see any issue with allowing bureaucrats within an executive agency to take on roles as prosecutor, judge, and jury\u2014a situation Chief Justice John Roberts criticized as giving government too much power to penalize citizens without due process or independent judicial oversight.<\/p>\n<p>In her dissenting opinion joined by Kagan and Jackson in this case, Sotomayor suggested dismantling those protective barriers by arguing that nothing mandates civil penalties be sought before a jury in federal court for securities fraud cases\u2014a stance that could lead to governmental abuse of prosecutorial powers without due process.<\/p>\n<p>A similar flawed perspective was evident in their dissent regarding Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo when they opposed overturning the Chevron doctrine\u2014a 1984 ruling allowing courts to defer to federal agencies&#8217; interpretations of ambiguous statutes even if those interpretations were not optimal or correct according to judicial standards.<\/p>\n<p>The National Marine Fisheries Service used this doctrine improperly by claiming authority over commercial fishermen beyond what was granted by statute\u2014an action Roberts described as fundamentally disrupting separation of powers outlined in the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p>Once again dissenters like Kagan supported empowering executive branch agencies at the expense of judicial authority while ignoring historical complaints about unchecked bureaucratic power reminiscent of grievances against British rule noted during America&#8217;s founding.<\/p>\n<p>Interestingly enough though these left-leaning justices resist limiting governmental reach elsewhere; they oppose local governments trying to address homelessness through ordinances prohibiting camping in public parks under Eighth Amendment claims against cruel punishment\u2014even though such laws aim at solving pressing social issues like homelessness prevalent across many cities today including San Francisco where tent encampments abound.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Gorsuch emphasized that solutions should emerge through democratic processes rather than being dictated by federal judges who would effectively act as super-legislators undermining local governance under pretenses related solely towards constitutional interpretation\u2014this represents clear judicial activism at play here too! Thus when Joe Biden asserts we must defend democracy against conservative appointees on SCOTUS it\u2019s really about curbing their efforts aimed at reining back excessive governmental powers instead!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3149,"featured_media":2315809,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Brown-Biden-2.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[546],"tags":[3620,4151,5894,36613,6994],"class_list":["post-2315808","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-federalist","tag-biden","tag-judiciary","tag-politics","tag-power-mongers","tag-scotus"],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/thefederalist.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Brown-Biden-2.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2315808","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3149"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2315808"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2315808\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315809"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2315808"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2315808"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2315808"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}