Top House Democrat Issues Troubling Threat to Supreme Court Justices After Trump Immunity Ruling
Members of the establishment, led by the Democratic Party elite, regularly expose themselves as either stupid or evil.
Which of those qualities predominates depends on both the circumstances and the identity of the particular establishment figure in question.
On Monday, Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the House Minority Leader, reacted to the Supreme Court’s rather mild ruling in former President Donald Trump’s immunity case by threatening to go nuclear on the entire U.S. Constitution.
“House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution,” Jeffries said, according to congressional reporter Max Cohen of Punchbowl News.
Hakeem Jeffries reacts to SCOTUS immunity ruling:
“House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution”
— Max Cohen (@maxpcohen) July 1, 2024
Democrats, of course, have saddled Trump with four criminal indictments, all designed to derail his presidential campaign.
One such indictment in New York, driven by transparently political motives, resulted in a May 30 conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records.
Another indictment, brought by deranged special counsel Jack Smith, sought to bolster the establishment’s phony “insurrection” narrative by charging Trump with crimes related to the Capitol incursion of Jan. 6, 2021, and Trump’s broader protest against the scandalous 2020 presidential election.
In Monday’s 6-3 opinion, however, SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution requires “at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.”
SCOTUS did not directly exonerate Trump. It merely established — what should be obvious — that presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.
Furthermore, it did not establish the line between acts undertaken in an official capacity and those of an unofficial nature.
Teasing constitutional principles out of criminal cases brought for political reasons poses challenges. But SCOTUS tried and, in the end, at least succeeded in upholding the independence of the executive branch.
With the establishment’s 2020-election-related prosecution now delayed at best, Trump declared victory.
In all likelihood, that was too much for Jeffries and others who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.
We already know, of course, that establishment operatives will do anything to maintain power and destroy Trump. They showed as much in 2020 when they used a virus to tank the economy while burning down the country.
Needless to say, people who harbor such inclinations have hostility toward the Constitution, which suggests an authoritarianism rooted in evil.
For a moment, however, let us assume that Jeffries is merely stupid.
In that case, he would not know that Congress lacks authority over the Supreme Court.
Thus, it would likely surprise him to learn that all the “aggressive oversight and legislative activity” in the world would amount to kabuki theater.
As any 5th grader knows, the Constitution keeps legislative and judicial power separate.
In fact, under Article III, the Constitution allows Congress only to establish inferior courts and remove judges by impeachment — a cumbersome process designed to protect the independent judiciary from vengeful and grasping Marxists like Jeffries.
Furthermore, Congress can neither enlarge nor diminish the federal judiciary’s authority, which comes directly from the People.
Thus, thanks to the Founding Fathers, Jeffries has no power to bring SCOTUS into his deranged version of “compliance with the Constitution.”
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
