Is there a $150,000 bounty on Donald Trump's head?
What unseen forces have been in play to ensure that Donald John Trump never takes office again and what is actually at stake that his life is on the line?
Have you ever pondered the ripple effects of a single individual’s influence on a nation's highest court?
Brace yourself for a journey through the twists and turns as we delve into the enigmatic impact of former President Donald Trump on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
The power dynamics and reshaping of justice are nothing short of spellbinding.
The Trump-Era Nominees
In the riveting realm of judicial appointments, President Trump made not one, not two, but THREE significant nominations to the Supreme Court – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
These selections were not merely names on a list; they were pivotal keystones in the judiciary's foundation, dancing at the intersection of ideology and jurisprudence.
What if he gets two more, which is highly likely if he wins this election.
The Trump Factor: A Divergent Path Forward
Trump’s impact on the Supreme Court transcends mere numbers on a roster; it is a masterstroke in the art of shaping the judiciary for years to come as the Chevron Deference and the Jarkesy rulings of the summer of 2024 are in play.
As the tenure of his nominees unfolds, we are bound to witness the culmination of his legacy, painting a vivid picture of a court in transition.
I will hammer this until you open your eyes and ears.
The Chevron Deference removed regulatory AMBIGUITY that gave administrative agencies unconstitutional power.
All State/STATE courts are Article I courts where you have no rights as they are ADMINISTRATIVE and only deal with LEGAL ENTITIES.
In commenting about the Chevron Deference, Roman Martinez stated:
“By ending Chevron deference, the Court has taken a major step to preserve the separation of powers and shut down unlawful agency overreach.
Going forward, judges will be charged with interpreting the law faithfully, impartially, and independently, without deference to the government. This is a win for individual liberty and the Constitution,”.
This quote sums up the Chevron Deference; “It further requires courts to “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . not in accordance with law.” §706(2)(A).”
Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled. Pp. 7–35.
There is never statutory authority over you without your consent.
Our rights are a private (individual basis) matter and anything adjudicated otherwise is a public right that is administrative, not private.
You are not public without consenting to it.
Are you beginning to understand that we teach you how to live in the PRIVATE and not THE PUBLIC?
No BAR CARD tool of the state is ever going to speak of this.
They do not learn this.
They learn statutes and codes.
They might be AWARE of the founding documents but they do not know how to interpret and use them.
Scott (guy in my video) deliberately studied this and is an expert scholar of it.
Quote from Jarkesy:
"To determine whether a suit is legal in nature, courts must consider whether the cause of action resembles common law causes of action, and whether the remedy is the sort that was traditionally obtained in a court of law.
Of these factors, the remedy is the more important. "
HUGE!
Judge Gorsuch issued a scathing Supreme Court ruling in the SEC v Jarkesy, that the "British attempted to evade American cries by siphoning adjudication to jury-less admiralty, vice admiralty, and chancery courts."
Those are Article One courts.
You never heard those words on TV law shows. LOL
Hell your zillion dollar BAR CARD tool has never heard those terms.
The Supreme Court in Jarkesy reaffirmed that actions involving private rights, such as common-law fraud, must be heard by an Article III court: "Congress cannot 'conjure away the Seventh Amendment by mandating that traditional legal claims be... taken to an administrative tribunal." SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. (2024)
This is the basis in LAW (not the code based system they push us around using) for which you STAND.
Are you willing to stand and learn this?
It's easy as I've created a path to take you on the ride so you can one day speak and think like we do.
This hangs by a thread until YOU THE PEOPLE decide to get off your asses and turn off the TV and move your political bitching to purposeful efforts.
In Conclusion
As we draw the curtains on this enthralling exploration, the enigma of Trump's influence on SCOTUS lingers like a specter in the hallowed halls of justice.
The legacy of a single man continues to sculpt the contours of law and order, crafting a narrative that intertwines with the very essence of the American legal system.
Trump's influence on SCOTUS is not merely a chapter in history; it is a living testament to the enduring impact of a presidency etched in the annals of time.
Join the Inalienable.University to learn how to stand on your God given rights.
Have heard you mention the Chevron deference & the Jarkesy rulings in your vids. Now I need to research these cases, along with learning more about Justice Gorsuch. Glad to have your insights. Wish I were a member, as I still can't figure out why my new desktop computer & new modem will not complete the registration process. Will keep learning in the meantime. Loved your article. Thanks for keeping me on the email list.