Justice Clarence Thomas Questions Whether Jack Smith’s Appointment Is Even Constitutional
Plus: Video commentary on Murthy v. Missouri
Clarence Thomas Questions Whether Jack Smith’s Appointment Is Even Constitutional
On the final day of a significant Supreme Court term, and in one of its most consequential cases, Justice Clarence Thomas delivered a stunning rebuke to our ruling regime for its disingenuous effort to legitimize the republic-eviscerating lawfare inquisition against Donald Trump.
Thomas took to a concurrence in the landmark Trump v. United States case not so much to affirm the majority’s view regarding former President Trump’s immunity from prosecution, but to question whether the Biden Justice Department’s prosecution of Trump itself was legal.
“In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President ‘is not above the law,’” Thomas wrote. “But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law.”
By contrast, the associate justice asserted, “I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been ‘established by Law,’ as the Constitution requires.”
“If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,” Thomas wrote.
Thomas wants the lower courts to weigh in on whether Special Counsel Jack Smith is in fact “duly authorized.”
I unpack Justice Thomas’s concurrence in a new piece at The Federalist.
Murthy v. Missouri: An Anti-Free Speech SCOTUS Non-Decision That Will Live in Infamy
Separately, for Straight Arrow News, I provided some initial thoughts on the Supreme Court’s disheartening Murthy v. Missouri ruling.
Check out my video commentary by clicking below:
