Our list of the ten best rock songs about “The One That Got Away” presents a collection of songs that, for the most part, can be pretty painful to listen to. What fuels that pain is how we have all related to these songs on such a personal level. Almost everyone has had that special someone who got away. Songwriters and moviemakers are well aware of that, and they never stop reminding us, just like this article does. # 10 – Since You’ve Been Gone – Rainbow We open our 10 Best Rock Songs About The One That Got Away The post 10 Best Rock Songs About The One That Got Away appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

Supreme Court Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued dissents Monday in which they vehemently object to the court’s 6-3 opinion in the presidential immunity case brought by former President Donald Trump. The majority of the high court held that presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” as well as “at least presumptive immunity” for all official acts. But Sotomayor, in a dissent, penned out of “fear for our democracy” and joined by Jackson and Elena Kagan, wrote that the majority’s ruling “reshapes the institution of the Presidency” and that “the President is now a king.” Sotomayor wrote: The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official acts immunity now lies about like a loaded weapon for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Sotomayor wrote that, under the court’s ruling, the president will be “insulated from criminal prosecution” whenever he uses his official powers. “Orders the Navy’s SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune,” she wrote. “Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.” Sotomayor claimed the Supreme Court gave Trump “all the immunity he asked for and more.” However, Chief Justice John Roberts specifically stated in his majority opinion that Trump asserted “a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized.” “He contends that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution,” Roberts wrote. “The text of the Clause provides little support for such an absolute immunity.” Although Roberts wrote that Trump is “absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials,” the chief justice said the lower courts would have to sort out whether many other allegations in Trump’s indictment constituted official acts that are subject to immunity. Roberts admonished the Sotomayor dissent for “cherry-pick[ing]” sources and “fearmongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals.” “As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today—conclude that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts to determine ‘in the first instance’ whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining alleged conduct is entitled to immunity,” Roberts wrote. In her own dissent, Jackson wrote that the risks assumed by the court’s majority are “intolerable, unwarranted, and plainly antithetical to bedrock constitutional norms.” Jackson wrote: Stated simply: The Court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful official in the United States can (under circumstances yet to be fully determined) become a law unto himself. As we enter this uncharted territory, the People, in their wisdom, will need to remain ever attentive, consistently fulfilling their established role in our constitutional democracy, and thus collectively serving as the ultimate safeguard against any chaos spawned by this Court’s decision. Trump was indicted in August 2023 on four felony counts relating to alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election, in which Joe Biden emerged the winner. Trump sought to dismiss the indictment by arguing that he has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his presidency, but both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that he didn’t have immunity. In other opinions this term, the high court’s three liberal justices have admonished the majority for stripping power away from the executive branch. “At the end of a momentous Term, this much is clear: The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court’s holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government,” Jackson wrote in her dissent to another case Monday, where the majority ruled in favor of a North Dakota truck stop and allowed a longer time frame for challenging federal agency regulations. The Supreme Court on Friday reversed its landmark Chevron ruling, which held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of statutes when the language is ambiguous. Although opponents of Chevron praised the ruling as a victory that would take away a tool agencies used to violate the civil liberties of individuals who challenge government regulations, Kagan wrote in her dissent that it was an indication the high court’s majority “disdains restraint and grasps for power.” Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post ‘Now a King’: Liberal Justices Express ‘Fear for Democracy’ in Trump Immunity Dissent appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The modern public square is private. That paradox is the lesson handed down by the Supreme Court in NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, two cases in which the world’s largest social media empires challenged state laws in Texas and Florida that curtailed their practice of online content moderation. Just a few terms ago, the court observed that “social-media platforms have become the modern public square.” But on Monday, at least five justices opined that the platforms’ central content features—for example, YouTube’s homepage or Facebook’s newsfeed—are a “distinctive expressive product.”  Thus, under the majority’s interpretation of the First Amendment, laws that protect access to those popular speech forums are likely unconstitutional because they detract from the companies’ prerogative of absolute private control. The court’s actual holding was procedural: It remanded both cases back to the lower courts for consideration of whether the laws have a substantial number of unconstitutional applications. All nine justices concurred in that outcome. But as with the Murthy v. Missouri decision issued last Wednesday, what appears to be a procedural ruling in fact has significant import for the future of open public discourse.  Major social media platforms have amassed great fortunes and incalculable amounts of cultural influence based on their ability to host, curate, promote, and distribute the expression of others.  The platforms already enjoy immunity from civil liability for content published on their sites under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a 1996 relic of the pre-social media era. To gain a still greater exemption from public accountability, the platforms argued that their business is inherently expressive and thus protected by the First Amendment from all laws that would detract from their ability to promote or remove the content that their users post. Florida and Texas saw things differently. In 2021, Florida enacted state Senate Bill 7072, taking aim at several common ills by requiring publication and consistent application of standards for content, as well as requiring social media platforms to host political candidates and journalists. Texas followed shortly thereafter, enacting HB 20, a bill drafted in the same spirit, but with a slightly different approach. The Texas law classified social media platforms with at least 50 million users as “common carriers” that were prohibited from censoring users based on the content of their speech or their affiliation(s). The bill also obliged designated common carriers to disclose content moderation practices publicly.    Both laws faced challenges from NetChoice, an industry association representing large social media empires like Meta, X, and Google, as well as large e-commerce platforms, such as Uber and Etsy. NetChoice filed suit before either state attempted to enforce its law, claiming that both laws were facially unconstitutional violations of the platforms’ First Amendment freedoms. The laws met different fates in the lower courts. The 11th Circuit enjoined enforcement of Florida’s law, holding that the platforms’ content-moderation decisions were “protected exercises of editorial judgment.” Texas, however, prevailed in the 5th Circuit, which held that NetChoice’s members had no “freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.” Justice Elena Kagan—joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett (with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joining only in part)—rejected the 5th Circuit’s approach and implicitly condoned the 11th’s. Determined to provide guidance to the lower courts on remand, Kagan wrote that Texas’ law, in its most significant applications, is unlikely to pass constitutional muster because it invades the protected realm of editorial “discretion” or “judgments,” the sort of expression-based liberty interests the court had previously countenanced when asserted by the editors of local newspapers. Kagan set forth three principles likely to prove dispositive when the cases return to the lower courts: First, “compiling and curating others’ speech” is expressive; second, editing or moderating remains expressive, even if it excludes just a few posts among the millions; and third, governments cannot justify regulation of content moderation based on an interest in “better balancing the marketplace of ideas.” Although the object of her criticism is the 5th Circuit’s decision and Texas’ law, the substance of her critique applies with identical or greater force to Florida’s law. Thus, readers of Kagan’s majority opinion should not conclude that Florida is on firmer ground, only that the 11th Circuit is, at least in Kagan’s estimation.  Although Kagan acknowledged that the advent of social media makes for novel applications of the court’s pre-digital decisions, she was adamant that the inquiry is unchanging: Does a law mandating access for users “alter or disrupt” the platform’s own expressive conduct? The First Amendment’s principles, she maintained, “do not vary.” Justice Samuel Alito, concurred in the judgment, but explained in a separate opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch that there is no need to vary the First Amendment’s principles to question the uncritical ease with which the majority applied them to the novel practices of businesses such as Facebook. Alito acknowledged the continuing force of decisions recognizing that editing or compiling the speech of others can itself receive First Amendment protection. He noted, however, that unlike speech written or spoken, not all compiling or editing is inherently expressive because it does not necessarily convey a message.  Alito, like Kagan, offered his own three principles to the lower courts: First, platforms must demonstrate that they actually select and edit user content, not just passively host it; two, the resulting content compilation must make “some sort of collective point”; and three, the platforms must show that communication of that collective message is impaired by the requirement to host other speech.  Under that rubric, Alito had no difficulty concluding that NetChoice failed to meet its burden of proving the laws were unconstitutional in a substantial number of applications. NetChoice was evasive about which of its members were affected. Those members it admitted were covered use a disparate array of content-moderation policies, some of them user-based, applied to a multiplicity of user functions. More importantly, the court’s majority had no factual basis for the necessary premise of its First Amendment guidance—that the algorithms used for certain kinds of content moderation were in fact expressive in a way analogous to the judgment used by human newspaper editors. It’s questionable whether there is any “message” in the morass of content social media platforms leave available for public consumption. More doubtful still is the notion that whatever message the platforms have is somehow impaired by an obligation to host user content. Left undecided by today’s opinions are whether the states can regulate social media platforms as common carriers akin to phone service providers. If forced to answer, Kagan and the justices joining her majority would probably use the same First Amendment reasoning to reject the common carrier rationale. But perhaps on remand, the states can wrest enough information from the platforms about their algorithms to demonstrate how little these computational processes resemble the naturally expressive turns of human thought, the real object of the First Amendment’s solicitude. Such a showing could buttress the states’ argument that platforms are more like regulated telecom companies than they are like a newspaper’s editorial board or the academics making selections for the latest literature anthology.     Kagan alludes to one other possibility for checking social media’s empire of influence; namely, government authority to enforce “competition laws to protect that access.” Efforts to do so at the federal level have yet to make much of a dent, and they face headwinds from decades of antitrust jurisprudence that have strayed from the original purpose of laws such as the Sherman Act of checking monopoly power. But if a majority of the court is determined to treat the broad sweep of algorithmic content moderation as sacrosanct under the First Amendment, then enforcing content-neutral competition laws is the only other apparent option for curbing the outsized influence of tech moguls in the national discourse.  The post Supreme Court Gives Ominous Forecast for State Laws Regulating Social Media appeared first on The Daily Signal.

New Spin: Biden's Aides At Fault Because 'Age Has to Be Managed'

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that presidents had immunity for official acts while in office. In the Trump v. United States case, the former president was granted substantial immunity from prosecution when dealing with official acts. The ruling does not grant Trump, or any other president, immunity for unofficial acts. Never-Trumpers, like much of Hollywood, were obviously peeved at the news. They hate when anything good, even when completely just, happens to Prez 45. Many of those irritated expressed their worries on X. “In another outrageous decisions, the MAGA Supreme Court has ruled Donald Trump has immunity for ‘official’ acts. Now his lawyers can argue at his trial that his attempted coup was an official act. As the dissent forcefully put it, this makes the President a ‘king above the law.’ Our Founding Fathers fought a war against living under a monarchy,” singer Barbra Streisand wrote. Actor John Cusack opened his pie hole too when he retweeted someone’s tweet that said “democracy RIP” and then tweeted his own sentiment saying, “This horrific 6 -3  lawless declaration of a US monarchy - goes far beyond Trump - this is the federalist society coup via Supreme Court.” To nobody’s surprise, actor George Takei said, “With today’s ruling giving absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the president’s 'officials' duties, it is more imperative than ever that we do not elect an actual criminal mob boss as our next president. Imagine what he would do with that power." TV and real life witch Bette Midler wrote, “Looks like #SCOTUS gave #DonaldTrump the grease to wiggle out of his crimes once again!  Since he’s all greased up how about a pig roast?" Author Stephen King wrote, “Thanks to the Supreme Court, the next president will have the powers of a king. That’s not what the founders intended. Quite the opposite. Overturning Roe took power from women. Today’s decision takes power from all of us.” King also wrote, “In the name of ‘originalism,’ Trump's Supreme Court has taken a wrecking ball to the Constitution” and actress Mia Farrow, who perpetually chimes in when uninvited, retweeted King’s sentiment. Farrow also shared a clip from MSNBC where host Jen Psaki and former speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi chatted about how Trump should “not ever come close to the White House again” after SCOTUS granted immunity to a “rogue” former president.  To bring it home, here’s what director Rob Reiner said about the ruling: “A Convicted Felon has just been given a Get Out of Jail Free card by his Compromised Supreme Court. Autocracy here we come.”

Just like CNN on Monday, MSNBC's live coverage of the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity quickly launched into the hot talk of Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, all about Trump ordering a Seal Team Six assassination of a political rival. These Democrat judges can't get enough of this hyperbole.  Legal analyst Neal Katyal -- an Obama appointee -- reduced the 6-3 decision to Republican-appointed justices vs. Democrat-appointed justices, and then he read from Sotomayor's bluster, finishing with "With fear for our democracy, I dissent." Katy Tur oozed: "It doesn't get any stronger than that." Tur then quoted from more of the dissent, including the line that this decision "lies about like a loaded weapon" for a corrupt president.  “When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today." Tur wrapped up, "The president is now a king above the law." She asked Katyal: "She's arguing that he can assassinate somebody now. Is that what this majority opinion is saying?" Katyal agreed: "That is basically what she's saying the majority is saying, and I'm sure that is how Trump will take it." Katyal then moved on to electioneering, saying the stakes now are "astronomical" and people need to vote for Biden. "This is a -- you know, a clarion call to the American public to understand the law, the courts are not going to protect us against a president who wants to violate the law." Legal analyst Chuck Rosenberg became the dissident in the midst of this MSNBC panic: "I'm still reading through it, Katy, but I don't see anything in here that says the assassination of a political rival is part of a president's core constitutional responsibilities for which he or she would be absolutely immune." He didn't like the "indeterminate" language of the decision, and "there is a lot more immunity here than I would have imagined, and I think it sets up some dangers. But I don't see anything here that sanctions, for instance, the assassination of a political rival." Later, in the 11 am hour, pundit Maya Wiley added: "My topline legal thoughts are [the decision is] cray-cray!" Tur suggested Clarence Thomas's concurring opinion was "Trump-like," because he wrote of an "energetic executive" and Trump describes himself as energetic. She didn't suggest the Sotomayor dissent was..."Rachel Maddowesque."

On Monday, the liberal media were so desperate to paint the U.S. Supreme Court’s limited immunity ruling as a 100-percent-win for former President Trump that CNN seemingly threw critical thinking out the window. Liberal activist and commentator Van Jones added to that chorus by suggesting the highest court in the land just gave presidents “a license to thug” and lamented that they gave too much credence to fears that former presidents would be subject to unfair legal cases. Seemingly misremembering or misconstruing a legal “maxim,” Jones declared that he found the ruling “very concerning” because “bad facts create bad law.” “[T]he stuff that Trump did an office, it creates these bad facts. The court has to come in and figure out what to do about it. It often creates bad law,” he stated. Jones, a big proponent of so-called criminal justice reform, huffed that the Supreme Court feared the wrong legal possibility: “The Supreme Court, do you more care about the unlawful conduct of a sitting president, or possibly the unfair prosecution of a former president? That's really what they had to balance. They’re obviously more concerned about the latter.” He argued that the court fearing overzealous prosecutors going after former presidents – regardless of party – was “bad” “politically” speaking and “look[ed] very partisan.” Further, he decried that the justices were supposedly not wearing “black and white umpire jerseys,” but rather “they're wearing red Jerseys, or even MAGA hats.”     According to Jones, it was “really, really scary” how the Supreme Court gave Trump “a license to thug” in a second term: But it's also scary because what is Trump going to do? If Trump gets elected and there's this idea that he can get away with even more stuff, that's really, really scary for the public because he already ran over every norm that he could. So, it seems like it – just look at this politically – not legally – politically. It's almost like a license to thug in a way like you can do whatever you want and Supreme Court is probably going to let you get away with it. That is very frightening in this case. And so, I'm I'm very, very concerned. Anchor Anderson Cooper later teed up Jones to give credence to the same liberal conspiracy theory anchor Jake Tapper peddled, suggesting presidents could now assassinate their political rivals: COOPER: Van as you read this, I mean, if the SEAL Team 6 argument; is Sotomayor right, that under this ruling, the president can task them to assassinate somebody? A political rival, not – not a foreign leader. JONES: She's not – She's not right yet because of this idea that it has to be limited to the core responsibilities of the president, but we don't know because this thing ping-ponging back and forth. This – I don't know. Republican Scott Jennings was on hand to inject a little bit of sanity into the conversation. “Look, I think there's some amount of overreaction here,” he said. “I mean, we're looking at this through the lens of Donald Trump, but the president of the United States has a lot of power for a reason and they do take a lot of official actions. And I just I think about a future where if it was open season on presidents for time immemorial, what, what action would any president ever take out a fear of being dragged into a courtroom every time they did it?” Their critical thinking failed because what Jones was arguing for would open his former boss, former President Barack Obama, up to legal liability. During his presidency, Obama ordered the extrajudicial killings of two American citizens who had become terrorists in the Middle East. Surely, Jones and Cooper wouldn’t want him dragged into court over it because killing terrorists was an official act of office as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read: CNN’s Trump Immunity Ruling July 1, 2024 11:01:11 a.m. Eastern (…) ANDERSON COOPER: Van, as you look at this, what stands out to you? VAN JONES: Well it's very – very concerning outcome there's a maxim that says, in law: bad facts create bad law. So, when you have somebody doing some stuff that's so terrible, the stuff that Trump did an office, it creates these bad facts. The court has to come in and figure out what to do about it. It often creates bad law. Basically, the question is: The Supreme Court, do you more care about the unlawful conduct of a sitting president, or possibly the unfair prosecution of a former president? That's really what they had to balance. They’re obviously more concerned about the latter. And so, I think politically it's bad. It makes the Supreme Court look very partisan. They're supposed to be wearing these kind of black and white umpire jerseys or whatever; they look like they're wearing red Jerseys, or even MAGA hats. It's going to go down bad politically for Supreme Court. But it's also scary because what is Trump going to do? If Trump gets elected and there's this idea that he can get away with even more stuff, that's really, really scary for the public because he already ran over every norm that he could. So, it seems like it – just look at this politically – not legally – politically. It's almost like a license to thug in a way like you can do whatever you want and Supreme Court is probably going to let you get away with it. That is very frightening in this case. And so, I'm I'm very, very concerned. COOPER: Scott Jennings, Justice Sotomayor in her dissent, essentially makes that argument saying the main takeaway of today's decision is that all of a president's official acts to find without regard to motive or content are entitled to immunity that is at least presumptive and quite possibly absolute. SCOTT JENNINGS: Look, I think there's some amount of overreaction here. I mean, after all, they did kick it back down to the lower courts. So, some decisions could be made about differentiating between official and private acts. But look, this court has stood up for the office, the presidency and the executive power of the presidency in a way that maybe could have some benefit to future presidents. I mean, we're looking at this through the lens of Donald Trump, but the president of the United States has a lot of power for a reason and they do take a lot of official actions. And I just I think about a future where if it was open season on presidents for time immemorial, what, what action would any president ever take out a fear of being dragged into a courtroom every time they did it? So, I hear Van and I think there's interesting arguments on both sides of this today. I've listened to some of arguments like what Van is made. But at the same time, I do think the office deserves a lot of protection and a lot of deference because of the special place that it holds in our system. So, I'm okay with it, especially because I think a lower court may have decisions to make in the future. Of course, depending on the outcome of the election in November. COOPER: But Van, just to be clear, even if a lower court makes a ruling, then that can because what this record it says is that that can be appealed ultimately back to the Supreme Court. JONES: Yeah, I think supreme court is really hurting itself here. I mean, I think most Americans on either side would have preferred us getting some kind of finality around these cases. (…) 11:09:52 a.m. Eastern COOPER: Van as you read this, I mean, if the SEAL Team 6 argument; is Sotomayor right, that under this ruling, the president can task them to assassinate somebody? A political rival, not – not a foreign leader. JONES: She's not – She's not right yet because of this idea that it has to be limited to the core responsibilities of the president, but we don't know because this thing ping-ponging back and forth. This – I don't know. (…)

While CBS and NBC were far more balanced in perspectives and even behaved on Monday morning when it came to Special Reports on the Supreme Court’s Trump immunity case, it was not the case on Disney-run ABC as they kvetched over what they said was an “absolute”, “big”, and “total” win for Trump that was “hard to square” with the Constitution as we know it. The meltdowns started within minutes of breaking in. Supreme Court reporter Devin Dwyer showed he hadn’t read the full opinion as he told fill-in anchor Whit Johnson the 6-to-3 ruling was “in no short sense, Whit, a big win for Donald Trump” as “[i]t means [more] delay” and “all but impossible” for him to face more criminal charges before Election Day.     “So, as much as many Court observers had hoped that this Court would somehow try to find a decision that would unify their bench and the country, they did not do that here and this is a sharply divided opinion,” he added after giddily quoting the dissent from far-left Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Not quite 15 minutes later, Dwyer returned to hilariously claim that while this marked “a very good day for Donald Trump in terms of the timing of any potential prosecution…the Supreme Court makes clear, by writings by Chief Justice John Roberts, that in no way is this a free pass for Donald Trump” and wrote “at length…what is still fair game” in terms of potential illegalities by a president. Back to the initial reactions, chief Washington correspondent and three-time anti-Trump author Jonathan Karl seemed to be faux crestfallen (given the chances he’ll be able to make more hay off of Trump) (click “expand”): KARL: Now, look, this is an absolute win for Donald Trump, not just the substance of the opinion, but also the Court had the option here to make the decision effective immediately or go through a traditional waiting period of 25 days. There is no expedited period. This effectively grants Donald Trump blanket immunity because it makes it – it seems to me now – impossible for a trial to go forward, either in the classified documents case, because this is this is also at stake there and the January 6 case and I think when you look at the dissenting opinion – Devin read part of it. This line stands out to me, says the decision, “makes a mockery of the principle foundational to our constitution and system of government that no man is above the law.” Now, look, this decision doesn't say that what Trump did – to – to – in his effort to overturn the election is covered by – by this immunity. But it would take time. It's going to take time that simply isn't there and you have an election coming up and you have – Donald Trump has made it abundantly clear that if he wins this election, this case goes away. JOHNSON: And the timing is so key here. And I do want to put that graphic back up on the screen. We were listing out the various charges because now the special counsel would have to take another look at all of this. That's the graphic there. The Trump criminal trials and the charges there. Senior congressional correspondent Rachel Scott was also hyperbolic, bemoaning “[t]here is no question…this is big for Donald Trump because time is something that his campaign, that the former President deeply worried about.” Karl, like Dwyer, tweaked his tune a few minutes later. After emphasizing his gripe about Monday’s ruling as “an absolute total victory for Donald Trump in the legal sense,” he correctly noted “this the Court does not affirm what Trump has been saying on the campaign trail” in demanding “absolute immunity for anything”. Senior White House correspondent Selina Wang parroted Team Biden’s spin, eagerly boasting the ruling “underscores the core theme of President Biden's reelection” with Trump being “a threat to democracy, someone who is obsessed with power”, and “wants the power of a king or a monarch to have an absolute power without accountability.” Legal analyst Kate Shaw – wife of MSNBC host Christ Hayes – naturally sounded the most worried. She told Johnson that the split ruling (as opposed to opening presidents up to constant and frivolous allegations and suits) was “hard to square with previous constitutional decisions” and “a very big win for former President Trump, recognizing for the first time this sort of immunity of ex-presidents from criminal prosecution” even though it’s “not for everything they do.” She added the ruling delineating official acts being protected and others being dubious to not protected was “an enormous addition of new powers and protections to the President in a way we just haven't seen before, so I think the dissent is quite right to say this is a seismic opinion.” Before signing off, Karl touted as though it were fact the apocalyptic and wildly false claim from Sotomayor’s dissent that Trump (and any future president) could kill Americans without impunity using Navy SEAL Team Six (click “expand”): JOHNSON: Let's go back to Jon Karl here again as we're reading more of this decision, we have the political implications here as well. And you were referencing a specific incident that's getting a lot of attention. KARL: You remember when the argument came before the Court that – this example was given about SEAL Team Six. If a President ordered SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political opponent, would that be immune? And Trump's lawyers said yes, it would be, unless the President was first impeached and then –and then tried. So, it's interesting to read the dissent here. Again, Sotomayor writing the dissent, saying “the President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country and possibly the world When he uses his official powers in any way under the majority's reasoning, he is now insulated from criminal prosecution.” And then, she goes through examples orders. “The Navy SEAL Team Six to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold on to power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune, immune, immune.” That's how Sotomayor sees the implications of this decision. JOHNSON: And again, that decision along ideological lines there with the, you know, the three liberal justices, you know, teaming together and the six conservative justices with that decision. Johnson and Scott wrapped up, fretting this was yet another example of a win for Trump in what’s been “a good couple of weeks” for him, but it could all come crashing down when he’s sentenced July 11. To see the relevant ABC transcript from July 1, click here.

Democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) of New York accused the U.S. Supreme Court of corruption and promised to file articles of impeachment after the court's decision on presidential immunity. The court said Monday that former President Donald Trump did have some form of presidential immunity for official acts but not for those acts that could be classified as unofficial. 'The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control.' “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," read the majority decision. "And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts." The 6-3 decision was split along ideological lines. Democrats and others critical of Trump were incensed at the decision and accused the court of being biased in favor of the former president. Among the most histrionic of voices was Ocasio-Cortez. "The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control. Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy," she wrote on her official social media account. "It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture," she added. "I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return."Rep. Ilhan Omar (D) of Minnesota responded in support of Ocasio-Cortez. "It’s time, let’s get it done!" she posted on social media. Ocasio-Cortez had previously said that Justice Clarence Thomas should be impeached over accusations of alleged bribery, but she admitted that it would be nearly impossible with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives. While Trump proclaimed it a "BIG WIN" for the Constitution and for Democracy, others noted that the ruling found that no court had set forth the manner to distinguish an official act of the president from an unofficial act. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that the ruling had inappropriately given Trump all immunity he asked for and more. "It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law," wrote Soyomayor in part. "Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

UFC prospect Payton Talbott answered a series of unusual questions after a stunning victory at UFC 303 and said that he didn't want to be put "in a box" because he enjoys activities like pole dancing.Talbott improved to 9-0 after knocking out fellow 135-pound fighter Yanis Ghemmouri in just 19 seconds.Following the win, Talbott was asked many atypical questions in the subsequent press conference and interviews.During the post-fight press conference, Talbott was asked about his love for skateboarding and how his body has held up."What's harder on the body: skateboarding or MMA?" a reporter asked."Skateboarding, for sure. Nobody hits harder than concrete. Skateboarding has derailed so many fighters' careers," Talbott replied. 'I just think people have a really hard time characterizing me into this identity of a fighter.'That was, however, one of the more normal questions Talbott would face after his fight. Two days later, during an interview with Ariel Helwani on "The MMA Hour," Talbott was asked to shed light on some viral videos that fans have been asking about.Helwani asked about "pole stuff" in reference to videos of Talbott doing "pole dancing" or "pole fitness.""[Fans] are not sure what to make of it. ... Could I ask, when you see [negative reactions] how does that make you feel?" Helwani asked."I don't really like a lot of the MMA fan base, and I don't do [those] things out of spite for people, but I think it's hard for people when they see somebody that they can't box into their own parameters that they're used to," he said about the dancing. "They come up with a word that they feel they can box them into. I think it's really hard for MMA fans to put me in a box, and I hope so, I hope I'm very hard to box in," he told Helwani."A lot of times that's, like, gay. Like, 'He's a gay dude,' or 'he's zesty,' or he's this or he's that," Talbott added. "I just think people have a really hard time characterizing me into this identity of a fighter. Hopefully, maybe some day that changes what the expectations are of a fighter; we're not just mules that go out there and beat the s*** out of each other, we're actually people with hobbies."Talbott explained that his mother and his sister taught him pole fitness, noting that while they are fitness instructors, they did not want to "devalue" stripping on a pole, either.The bantamweight was also asked to clarify the claim that there was a video circulating online of him putting a vape pen in his anus."Maybe I just live on another planet," Helwani joked. "Can you explain what this is and explain why you felt the need to talk about this?"Talbott said that the video in question was not actually him, but rather he was the one filming his friend. He claimed that the idea for the video was to find a way for his friend to quit vaping and that doing the act would discourage the friend from using the smoking product again. Unfortunately, it did not.The Nevada native also told his host that he isn't a fan of answering too many questions at press conferences due to the repetitiveness of the queries and the general idea that "not everything needs to be explained."Talbott is 3-0 in the UFC since November 2023.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!