Comments
RULE OF LAW - With the US Supreme Court Case of Trump vs Casa 606 U.S. __, June 27, 2025, the United States of American has become a military dictatorship. The most concise way to describe the majority opinion by Justice Barrette is judicial crap which dispenses with the rule of law in favor laying the groundwork for the rapid imposition of the military rule and all the subsequent violence which will follow.
Trump vs Casa is not the first unconstitutional Supreme Court Decision; all of them have brought havoc on the United States. The most famous was Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) which found that Blacks had no inalienable right of Liberty (or life or pursuit of happiness). Dred Scott led to the civil war. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___, (2022) which denied that women have the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, Pursuit if Happiness was fashioned after Dred Scott by taking away inalienable rights of women and making women’s rights subject the capricious will of the voters of each state.
In 1954, the Supreme Court brought us Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) which again denied that Blacks had inalienable rights but rather their rights were based on equality of outcome based on comparison how well Blacks did as compared to Whites. Brown vs Bd. Of Ed was the landmark decision for the Dems Woke Group Rights where all Whites and Jews are classified as Oppressors and all minorities, such as Black, and Hamas, are Oppressed victims. Under Wokeism, the sole cause any equality of outcome is caused by White/Jewish racism against minorities.
The Supreme Court in of Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission 588 U.S. 50 (2010) was another absurdly unconstitutional case where corporations, as fictitious persons, had all the rights of human beings, except unlike human beings who had their political donations limited, corporations as fictitious persons had unfettered rights to give parties all the millions and billions of campaign dollars provided that they followed the proper legal alchemy. The Doctrine of Fictitious Person was developed to allow people to form corporations to operate as entities separate from their shareholders. Otherwise, business would be impossible as each owner would be personally and fully liable for any and all of the corporation’s mistakes.
Although these cases seriously impaired our constitutional republic, none of these prior unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions threatened to result in a military dictatorship. A gigantic step towards making the Presidency powerful enough to impose a dictatorship upon all of us was the Supreme Court’s granting the President immunity for his intentional criminal behavior. All the President has to do is declare that the crimes were necessary to carry his policies – notice it was the President’s policies were the basis of immunity just as Trump vs Casa is based upon the President’s policies – not on any constitutional provision or statute. Trump vs United State 606 U.S. ___, (2024)
Justice Barrett’s Decision Leaves the President Unrestrained
“When a federal court enters a universal injunction (covers the entire county), it ‘improper[ly] intrudes’ on as ‘coordinated branch of the Government’ and prevents the Government from enforcing its POLICIES ...” Barrett Slip at p 24
Notice that Barrett refers to the President’s POLICIES and not to the President’s enforcing any law or constitutional provision. As with Trump’s immunity for his intentional criminal actions, it is POLICIES and not statutes or constitutional principles which are protected. Doing street sweeps where any Mexican looking person may be attacked, seized and whisked off to some unknown federal detention centers are policies. If it is proven that the person is a citizen like the senior US Senator from California Alex Padilla, the person is charged with attacking the ICE agent, or a with Senator Padilla’s case with the totally bogus claim that he was charging at the Secretary of Homeland Security. Secretary Noem actually admitted that the military had been activated to liberate Los Angeles and California from its government. See Liberate LA Part I and Liberate LA Part II
Masked Federal Troops Unleashed on Los Angeles
If masked persons with no law enforcement identification attack anyone on the street, until today the victim has a constitutional right to resist being kidnapped. After Trump vs Casa, Trump has immunity from criminal policies to kidnap individuals. If the kidnapped person might obtain a lawyer and the lawyer gets an injunction, that will do nothing to protect society from Trump’s military troopers from roaming the streets to kidnap and incarcerate at will . . . including US Citizens. A citizen can 6'2'’, have eyes of blue with hair as blond as sunshine, if one of federal troops dislikes him, he may be swept away on the bogus charge that he laid hands of a federal officer. Justice Barrett and Trump walk lock step in allowing the President to use military force against anyone who opposes him.
Another Example of Judicial Crap
Barrett claims that the court is making no determination about the ultimate constitutionality Trump’s unilateral changes of the US Constitution, and then she claims the government is more likely not to prevail on Trump’s unilateral re-writing of the US Constitution. In brief, Barrett is saying, “we will judicially approve Trump’s POLICY to alter US Constitution at a later date.” Let’s be clear, despite the legal garbage which Barrett spews forth, there is no basis in prior constitutional law of Trump’s policy and in fact his position has been consistently rejected for the last 100 years.
As to the Constitutionality of Nationwide Injunctions
Barrett’s not allowing nationwide injunctions is so transparently nonsense that grade schoolers could understand. The scope of the injunction may be as broad as the constitutional change which the President is making. Trump’s POLICY set the scope of the injunction. In many cases, an injunction is limited in geographic scope. Suppose the President should institute a POLICY to ignore California’s soon-to-be law that all law enforcement, except for bona fide under-cover cops, must have their agency and individual identification plainly visible on their person and they must state the same information when asked. If California should obtain an injunction against Trump, then clearly California injunction would not apply to New York, Alabama or any other state. Trump Birth Right POLICY, however, is applicable throughout the United States of America, and thus, the injunction must be wide as Trump’s alternation of the Citizenship Clause.
Barrett’s suggestion that each infant must challenge its classification as a non-citizen is judicial crap. As Justice Barrett knows, one of the most widely used basis to NOT rule in a particular direction is that the ruling would open the flood gates of litigation and swap the courts with tens of thousands of lawsuits. Let’s be clear, Barrett focus on the individual plaintiffs or the territory of the district court which issued the injunction is an obscene trashing of the US Constitution, forcing individuals to file hundreds of thousands of lawsuits.
California Attorney General filed in the Northern District the U.S. District Court of Judge Jon Tigar. With Barrett’s consistent use of “district court, it is clear that the injunction against Trump’s altering Birth Right Citizenship will not apply in other district courts unless a similar lawsuit has been filed in other district courts such as for the Central District for California. Trump may proceed his interpretation of Birth Right Citizenship in Los Angeles, Orange County, San Luis County, Santa Barbara Court, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County or perhaps Barrett will require each infant to file suit to stop from being classified as a non-citizen.
The Unitary Presidency is Military Dictatorship
The reason 99% of Americans have never heard of the Unitary Presidency aka Unitary Executive Theory, is that it is one thousand percent unconstitutional. The theory holds that the President may do whatever he desires since he holds a mandate as President. Thus, any interference with the President’s actions by Congress or the Courts is not permitted. United States Supreme Court Justice John Roberts is a huge advocate for the Unitary Executive, marking himself as a fool who will disappear when his usefulness to Trump is finished. Any prior Congressional decision may be overridden by the President, by his defunding any program or abolishing any agency which displeases him. As the nation has heard Trump rant almost daily, judges may not overrule his decisions.
(Richard Lee Abrams has been an attorney, a Realtor and community relations consultant as well as a CityWatch contributor. You may email him at [email protected])
