Today’s String of Supreme Court Decisions Blew Up Another Liberal Narrative (Again)

The Supreme Court has not yet decided on the presidential immunity case involving former President Donald Trump, which could wreck the pending trials from Special Counsel Jack Smith on January 6 and classified document indictments. At the same time, the string of decisions today did unravel another trite liberal talking regarding our third branch of government: it’s a rogue, right-wing machine that’s out to destroy America.

The three decisions today obliterated that narrative. There were no 5-4 decisions, and some concurring and dissenting opinions were—wait for it—made up of diverse company. Law professor Jonathan Turley had a lengthy Twitter thread about today’s rulings:

..We have the first case. It is Moore!

…Another shattering of the narrative of a hopelessly ideologically divided court. 7-2 decision. This is the tax case that I thought we might get today. It addresses the scope of the taxation powers.

…Court rules that taxpayers who own shares in foreign corporations can be constitutionally required to pay a one-time tax on their share of the corporation’s earnings…In his dissent, Thomas notes that the Court avoided the “wealth tax” issue with a biting couple lines: “Even as the majority admits to reasoning from fiscal consequences, it apparently believes that a generous application of dicta will guard against unconstitutional taxes in the future. The majority’s analysis begins with a list of nonexistent taxes that the Court does not today bless, including a wealth tax.”…

[…]

..We have the second opinion. It is CHIAVERINI ET AL. v. CITY OF NAPOLEON, OHIO, ET, a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution case.

…This is a Justice Kagan decision that holds “the presence of probable cause for one charge in a criminal proceeding does not categorically defeat a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim relating to another, baseless charge.”…

…Once again, the critics of the Supreme Court will be disappointed with the diverse majority of Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett joining Kagan in the 6-3 decision…

…We have the third decision. It is Diaz v. US and authored by Thomas. Justice Gorsuch joins Sotomayor and Kagan in dissent.

The court holds that an expert testifying about how ‘most people” have a particular mental state is not an opinion about the defendant and therefore does not violate federal evidentiary rules.

(Read more from “Today’s String of Supreme Court Decisions Blew Up Another Liberal Narrative (Again)” HERE)