• One could reasonably argue that the judges entering these orders are essentially attempting to undo the results of the last election by keeping in place Biden administration policies — policies that more than 77 million voters roundly rejected last November. These judges apparently believe they have more authority than the president to make decisions on everything from domestic and foreign policy to matters affecting national security and the military.
  • The Supreme Court should vigorously enforce its prior precedents (including its 1984 decision in U.S. v. Mendoza), which strictly limit the ability of a single unelected district court judge (of whom there are nearly 700) to keep the administration from achieving its policy objectives by ruling not just for those who filed a lawsuit but also for everyone who didn’t.
  • The court must also end the blatant judge-shopping and what amounts to a collective wholesale interference in the president’s constitutional authority as head of the executive branch.
  • Source: thefederalist.com

    Section 1252(f)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that “no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of [specified immigration statutes],” with limited exceptions. This was referenced in Biden v. Texas (2022), where Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, addressed the scope of lower courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions in the context of immigration enforcement policies, specifically the Migrant Protection Protocols. The Court held that the lower court’s injunction overstepped its authority under this statute.

     

  •  finish line.
  • This will help us both in doubling down on our reform agenda.
  • -Shortly after swearing in, the Director and I evaluated a number of cases of potential public corruption that, understandably, have garnered public interest. We made the decision to either re-open, or push additional resources and investigative attention, to these cases.
  • These cases are the DC pipe bombing investigation, the cocaine discovery at the prior administration’s White House, and the leak of the Supreme Court Dobbs case. I receive requested briefings on these cases weekly and we are making progress. If you have any investigative tips on these matters that may assist us then please contact the FBI.
  • -The Director and I have done only one media interview together. We decided early on to limit our media footprint overall in order to keep the attention on the work being done.
  • There are both positives and negatives to this approach. We have chosen to communicate, in writing, on this platform to fill some of the inevitable information vacuums. I try to read as much of your feedback as possible but the workday is busy, and my office is a SCIF with limited phone access.
  • In response to feedback, both positive and negative, from our interview last week we will be releasing more information which will further clarify answers to some of the questions asked in the interview. Thank you for all of your support. God bless America and all those who defend Her.
  • May 2, 2022, when Politico published a draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito. This unprecedented breach revealed the Court’s intention to overturn Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), eliminating the constitutional right to abortion. The final decision, issued on June 24, 2022, closely mirrored the leaked draft, with a 5-4 vote overturning Roe and Casey, returning abortion regulation to the states. 
    Key Details of the Leak:
  • What Was Leaked: A 98-page draft opinion, labeled “Opinion of the Court,” written by Justice Alito, stating that Roe was “egregiously wrong” and should be overruled. The leak included details of the Court’s internal vote to strike down the federal right to abortion.
  • Investigation and Outcome:
  • Chief Justice John Roberts ordered an investigation led by Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley, announced within 24 hours of the leak.

  • The investigation involved:
  • 126 interviews with 97 employees, all of whom signed sworn affidavits denying responsibility.

  • Forensic analysis of IT systems, phone records, and printer logs, which found no evidence of a hack or conclusive proof of the leak’s source.

  • Over 80 people, including clerks and staff, had access to the draft, but no justices were required to sign affidavits, raising questions about the investigation’s thoroughness.
  • FBI has begun their investigation into the pipe bomber, SC leak and cocaine in the WH. Think logically, elections, judges and who was managing the WH
    It was reported that Hunter was acting like the chief of staff giving orders.