Trump Uses Supreme Court Immunity Ruling to Claim “Unrestricted Power”

Donald Trump is arguing to the Supreme Court that they have already given him “unrestricted power” to fire people.

The White House’s acting solicitor general, Sarah M. Harris, cited the Supreme Court’s July decision giving the president near-total immunity in an appeal Sunday asking the high court to overturn a lower court order blocking Trump’s decision to fire the head of the Office of Special Counsel, Hampton Dellinger. The office is an independent agency whose mission is to safeguard whistleblowers in the government and to enforce some ethics laws.

In July, the Supreme Court ruled that “the President’s management of the executive branch requires him to have unrestricted power to remove them [agency heads] in their most important duties,” Harris said in her filing, arguing that the lower court’s order was “an unprecedented assault on the separation of powers that warrant[ed] immediate relief.”

“This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will,” the filing states.

Was the president having “unrestricted power” the intention of the 6-3 Supreme Court majority when it ruled in Trump’s favor on presidential immunity last year? At the time, Trump was trying to skirt federal charges for allegedly mishandling classified documents and attempting to overturn the 2020 election results, an effort that ultimately paid off.

Now, this legal filing not only seeks to cement unlimited presidential power in firing employees, but also challenges Congress’s authority to limit the president’s mass purges. Trump’s efforts to overhaul the federal government would get a big boost if he gets a favorable ruling from his conservative friends on the Supreme Court. The question is whether they think a president should have those powers, or if they think the presidency needs some guardrails.

Thousands of protesters gathered at different cities across the country Monday to declare President’s Day as “No Kings Day,” in protest of the unlawful actions of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk to upend the federal government.

The swath of protests were organized by the 50501 Movement, a name which refers to 50 protests in 50 states on one day. The group, which originated on social media, previously planned a series of demonstrations that took place earlier this month in response to Musk and Trump’s early efforts to overhaul the federal government.

Since then, the fascist duo have only continued their plot to cut popular federal programs and launch mass firings of federal employees.

In Washington, D.C., thousands of people gathered around the reflecting pool beside the U.S. Capitol building. “Hey Congress, grow a spine!” they shouted, according to independent journalist Alejandro Alvarez.

Alvarez wrote that it was likely the largest demonstration to take place in the capital city since Trump was inaugurated last month.

Other protests took place across the country, from Augusta, Maine, to Portland, Oregon, to Sante Fe, New Mexico, to Orlando, Florida.

In New York City, a video from Freedom News TV showed thousands of protesters marching through lower Manhattan, cheering to “Stop the Coup!”

In Boston, Massachusetts, nearly 1,000 people marched through the below freezing temperatures shouting, “No Kings on President’s Day!”

Some of the MAGA faithful are having second thoughts after Trump’s all-out assault on the federal government in the early days of his administration.

Last month, The Wall Street Journal released a poll indicating that a sizeable chunk of Trump voters were looking for “MAGA lite” policies from the president. While 53 percent want significant changes to how the government is run, 60 percent are staunchly against his plan to purge the federal government of long-tenured bureaucrats with MAGA loyalists, 60 percent are against eliminating the Department of Education (one of Trump’s major promises), and a measly 18 percent actually want Trump to overrule Congress to give himself unlimited spending power.

These numbers suggest that even some of Trump’s staunchest supporters wanted more measured approaches to his campaign platform. Now, some of those same voters are feeling worried and disillusioned by the administration actually doing what it said it would do, according to the Journal.

“When we said safer borders, I thought he was thinking ‘let’s stop the drugs from coming into the country,’” Trump voter Staci White said. “I didn’t know he was going to start raiding places. Now I’m like: ‘Dang, why didn’t I just pick Kamala?’”

Emily Anderson called voting for Trump the “biggest mistake of my life,” as she was appalled by his implementation of Guantanamo Bay as a holding facility in his immigration crackdown.

“I feel so stupid, guilty, regretful—embarrassed is a huge one. I am absolutely embarrassed that I voted for Trump,” she said.

“He’s doing 80 miles an hour. I wouldn’t mind if he went around 55,” Trump supporter Gary Dixon told the Journal.

Recently released January 6, 2021 insurrectionists are trying to argue that their presidential pardons should apply to separate crimes they were charged with while they were being investigated for storming the Capitol, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Edward Kelley, who was pardoned after assaulting police at the Capitol, is also hoping to overturn a conviction for conspiring to murder FBI agents who investigated him, forming a “kill list.” He allegedly planned to use drones to bomb the FBI’s Knoxville, Tennessee, branch, and thinks that conviction should be thrown out.

“In this instance, there can be no dispute that Kelley’s case in this court is related to the events of January 6th and is covered by the President’s executive action,” his lawyer Mark Brown wrote in a motion on January 27.

Fellow rioter Andrew Taake, who served six months in prison for spraying officers at the Capitol with bear spray, was released from prison on January 27 even though he still had outstanding charges for solicitation of a minor in 2016. It took Houston police more than a week to track him down.

The lawyer for David Daniel, who is facing child pornography charges, stated that “pretty much all” of the evidence of his client’s pornography crimes stemmed from Daniel’s house being raided due to his January 6 involvement, which, the attorney argues, means those charges should be null and void since he was pardoned for his actions on January 6 four years ago.

“Anything that flowed from that case, given the pardon, should be excluded and inadmissible at trial,” Daniel’s lawyer William Terpening told the Journal.

This is a frightening line of argument—a literal get-out-of-jail-free card for dangerous, vindictive people who already got one from President Trump. Time will only tell how their unearned reintegration into society will impact the country if their requests are granted

Donald Trump’s border czar Tom Homan is desperate for the Department of Justice to scrape up some reason he can go after Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for making people aware of their rights.

During an appearance on Fox News last week, Homan suggested that Ocasio-Cortez might be in trouble over a webinar she’d held about immigrants’ legal rights when dealing with ICE.

“At what level is that impedement? Is that impedement? I’m not an attorney, I’m not a prosecutor. Is that impedement?” Homan asked, sounding increasingly untethered.

“Is that impeding our law enforcement efforts? And if so, what are we going to do about it? Is she crossing the line? So, I’m working with the Department of Justice and finding out. Where is that line that they cross? So, maybe AOC’s gonna be in trouble now,” Homan said.

Ocasio-Cortez dismissed Homan’s prattling. “‘MaYbe shE’s goiNg to be in TroUble nOw,’” she wrote in a post mocking him on X. “Maybe he can learn to read. The Constitution would be a good place to start.”

In a statement, Homan insisted he had actually read the U.S. Constitution, in which case, he must be simply choosing to ignore it.

There is no legal problem with informing individuals of their rights, like the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, or the right to refuse ICE entry without a warrant signed by a judge. Still, the border czar doubled down on his comments when pressed on his threats against the New York congresswoman during CNN’s State of the Union on Sunday.

“Are you suggesting that she should be prosecuted?” asked CNN host Dana Bash.

“I’m suggesting that I would ask the Department of Justice, where’s that line on impediment, right? That’s a broad statute. So I know impeding, or someone stopping in front of me and putting their hands on my chest that you’re not coming in here to arrest that guy, that’s clearly impeding. But at what line—where’s the line on impeding?” Homan said.

“I’m asking the Department of Justice, who are the prosecutors and decide who they prosecute, and what the standards of that prosecution is. I simply says [sic], at what point is that impeding? Because you can call it ‘Know Your Rights’ all you want. We all know the bottom line is, the bottom line is how they evade law enforcement. Don’t open your door. Don’t answer questions.”

Unfortunately for Homan, and his plan to enact inhumane mass deportations, both of those methods are entirely legal.

During another appearance on Fox News Monday, Homan repeated his assertion that Ocasio-Cortez was trying to teach undocumented immigrants to “evade” ICE, and said that he’d request the DOJ let him know whether she’d crossed the “line.” Rather than requesting that she be investigated, it seemed that Homan was desperate for them to conjure some evidence that she had violated the law. Spoiler alert: She hadn’t.