In their discussion, Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, and Steve Bannon, host of the WarRoom program, focus on significant upcoming Supreme Court decisions and their potential impact, particularly concerning presidential immunity and the Fisher case. Davis emphasizes the critical nature of these cases, describing them as “monumental.”

Davis and Bannon focused on violence directed toward the Supreme Court and related judicial matters. They highlighted concerns about the left’s approach to the judiciary, specifically regarding cases and decisions that are perceived as controversial or politically charged. Davis emphasizes the seriousness of these issues, particularly in cases like presidential immunity and other significant legal precedents.

Davis asserts that the left’s actions and rhetoric against the Supreme Court indicate broader attempts to undermine its authority and decisions. He discusses the protests and reactions outside the Supreme Court, suggesting that these reactions are symptomatic of a more significant effort to influence or intimidate the court’s decisions through public pressure and demonstrations.

Davis expressed deep concern about the violent rhetoric and actions directed towards the Supreme Court, viewing them as part of a strategy to sway judicial outcomes through external pressures rather than allowing the court to deliberate independently and impartially.

The cases’ highlights involved presidential immunity, which determines whether a sitting president can imprison a predecessor for official acts while in office.

Davis argues that allowing such prosecutions would “destroy the presidency and therefore destroy the country,” pointing out that it would set a dangerous precedent where future presidents could prosecute their predecessors for decisions made while in office.

Bannon underscores the importance of the Fisher case, labeling it the “Mack Daddy” of the decisions expected this week. This case addresses the Biden administration’s use of a statute intended for corporate fraud to prosecute former President Trump and numerous January 6th defendants. Bannon asserts that this case will “cut to the heart of the Biden crime family,” suggesting it highlights the administration’s politicization of justice.

The conversation then shifts to other important cases, including the Chevron Deference and Missouri’s abortion laws. Davis and Bannon agree that the outcome of these cases will significantly affect the administrative state and broader political dynamics. They also discuss a recent Supreme Court ruling in Murphy v. Missouri, where the court ruled that there was no First Amendment violation when the Biden administration pressured tech companies to censor information. Davis criticizes this decision, emphasizing the need to update antitrust laws to prevent tech monopolies from censoring dissenting voices.

Chevron deference is a legal principle derived from a landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984). This principle generally requires courts to defer to administrative agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes they administer as long as those interpretations are reasonable. In essence, it gives administrative agencies a degree of authority to interpret and apply laws within their jurisdiction unless their interpretations are unreasonable or contrary to clear congressional intent.

Chevron deference is crucial because it impacts the balance of power between administrative agencies and the judiciary. Critics argue that Chevron’s deference gives too much discretion to unelected bureaucrats, potentially allowing them to make policy decisions that should be the domain of elected representatives or the courts. Therefore, decisions related to Chevron’s deference can have significant implications for regulatory policy and the scope of executive authority in the United States.

Throughout the discussion, both Davis and Bannon stress the stakes of the upcoming Supreme Court decisions, linking them to the broader political battle leading up to the 2024 presidential election.

Davis concludes by noting the importance of President Trump’s judicial appointments in shaping the current conservative majority on the court and highlighting their lasting impact on American jurisprudence.

For more context, watch Wednesday’s segment:

Mike Davis Reports On 6-3 SCOTUS Decision With Barrett, Kavanaugh, And Roberts Joining Liberals In Declaring No First Amendment Violations Took Place When Biden Admin Pressured Social Media Platforms Into Censoring Covid Information