I was going to rant about two issues that came out of the Supreme Court today and not the immunity decision and I will but Magoo had to come out and show just how shallow he is. The decision should have been welcomed by him because of all the illegal activities he has engaged in including defying Supreme Court decisions and ignoring laws at the border which has resulted in the deaths of citizens. Instead he took the myopic view that basically anything that is potentially beneficial to Trump must be destroyed. He even lamented that the decision will in all likelihood keep Trump from being tried before the election and thereby denying the American voters the truth about J6. I thought that’s what the J6 phony committee was supposed to do. The only way that it makes any sense is if as I mentioned to a couple of you today and previously posited here is that he plans to pardon himself before he leaves office.

And as I’ve previously said, Magoo’s ability to stand at a podium and read off a teleprompter does absolutely nothing to dispel the disaster that was last Thursday. If he answered unscripted questions, it might have an effect but he didn’t even answer scripted questions.

Now for what I planned on commenting on. Two things happened today at the Supremes. One you probably heard about and the other you probably didn’t. First Justice Thomas issued a concurring opinion in the immunity case in which he questioned the legality of Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel which is already being challenged in the documents case and I predict that the judge will rule in Trump’s favor on that issue which will destroy both that case but also what’s left of the DC case.

Now what you probably didn’t see was another decision slapping down the administrative state. The court ruled that the statute of limitations in the Administrative Procedure Act, six years, doesn’t begin to run until a party was affected by the rule at issue. Previously the law had been interpreted to start the limitations period from the date the rule was promulgated. This caused obvious problems. First if you went to court to challenge before you had actually been harmed, your case would be dismissed because of a lack of standing. On the other hand, as was the case in this case, if you entered into a business that was affected by the rule but more than six years after the promulgation date you couldn’t challenge it.

Of course the left Dei pick KBJ was just upset because it might hamper the swamp. YES! But as was pointed out by either another justice or a pundit, I don’t remember which, it shouldn’t be a problem if agencies promulgate rules that are within their authority and factually defensible.