Something interesting happened when the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday’s single decision of the day. The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision against Van Buren against the United States is not one of the much-anticipated blockbuster decisions in the coming days.
The case of computer fraud is of interest to some of us because it speaks to the subtleties of the federal statute. However, what is said about the subtleties of the court is even more interesting. In the ranks of its fair judges, the Supreme Court is once again loudly addressing critics who are calling for the court to be packaged and radically changed.
As I discussed in a recent article in Fox News announcing Opinion’s unanimous decisions, the Court could have spoken as an institution to remind the public that they are not nearly as biased as their critics.
The decision itself belongs to the police officer who managed the state number for the money. The question arose as to whether the move violated the 1986 Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The court ruled that he did not.
BARRETT, GORSUCH, KAVANAUGH SIDE, COMPUTER IN THE CASE OF FRAUD WITH THE JUSTICE OF THE LIBERAL SUPREME COURT.
The content should be another disappointment for Democratic Party members and lawyers, who are demanding the collection of raw materials in court.
The decision was written by Justice Amy Connie Barrett and was joined by Jistiser Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch and Cavanaugh. The first justice named here is important because Stephen Breyer must have handed it over to his conservative junior colleague Barrett as the highest judge. It’s a nightmare for activists: the consensus idea Barrett wrote for three conservatives and three liberals.
Democrat members and advocates say the court case should not be like that. He must be divided in a hopeless and blind ideological direction. President Joe Biden called the court “strange” because it was a conservative majority.
Calling the court to pack, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, DN.Y spokesman Jerrold Nadler, announced, “We’re not packing the Supreme Court, we’re removing it.”
Nadler called for such a radical move (against the majority of citizens for a long time) is necessary because “there is a need to“ restore balance to the nation’s highest court after the actions of Republicans in violation of the four-year norm have led to its current composition ”.
CALIFORNIA CHURCH $ 2 MILLION FOR COVID DEFICIENCIES.
Others have openly threatened that conservative justice should be voted on by its liberal colleagues or have serious consequences for the judiciary. Senator Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Said Hill:
“If this active majority betrays the basic constitutional principles, it will inevitably try to expand the Supreme Court and intensify the movement. It is already provoking the movement. This may not be the case. If the Supreme Court is expanding, it may make changes to its jurisdiction or require a certain number of votes to remove previous precedents from the past. “
Blumenthal went so far as to mention specific circumstances and expected decisions. This is as follows raw requirements in the hearing process in the confirmation of current Judge Amy Connie Barrett he promised to make a “correct” decision in some cases as a condition of approval.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, DN.Y. Last year, before the Supreme Court, he said, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you let go of the storm, and you pay the price for it. You don’t know what hit you.” If you make these horrible decisions . “
Click here to receive feedback
The court is expected to issue a divided opinion on future cases, but the views that lead the case home are similar to previous views, as most cases have not been initiated by such ideological divisions.
It is particularly noteworthy that Breyer gave the job to Barrett. Breyer was the target of a campaign by a “black money” group called Democratic Justice and others.
Breyer He warned the Supreme Court of any move to expand and refused a description of the Court in force “conservative” or ideologically rigid. Figures like cable news anchor Mehdi Hassan denounced him and called him “naive” and called for his retirement.
Demand Justice is pushing for a court packaging scheme, and a billboard on the streets of Washington the next day warning “Breyer, retire. Don’t risk your legacy.” (Ask for Justice Once upon a time, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki worked as a communications consultant, and Psaki was on the advisory board of one of her voting projects).
Click here to get the LOVEBYLIFE NEWS program
The pressure on Pierre to resign could backfire. He may decide that the greatest harm to the court is not in his continuation, but in his leaving the court after such a campaign of coercion and negligence.
Judges must speak their minds, and this decision speaks deeply and clearly to those like Blumenthal who threaten the court and its member with “seismic” changes. It is again, by accident or coincidence, that the Court is left without a package and without discrimination in the performance of its constitutional duties.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATAN TURLEY