Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently discussed Joe Biden’s proposed changes to the Supreme Court during an interview on “Fox News Sunday” with Shannon Bream.
When asked about Biden’s plans to overhaul the judiciary, Gorsuch declined to delve into what he deemed a “political issue” during an election year.
However, Gorsuch emphasized the importance of maintaining an independent judiciary, especially for individuals facing government scrutiny.
WATCH: Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch responds to President Biden’s proposed reforms. pic.twitter.com/AwDRHlKTjH
— Fox News Sunday (@FoxNewsSunday) August 4, 2024
Trump's Sovereign Wealth Fund: What Could It Mean For Your Money?
In his remarks, Gorsuch pointed out the significance of having a fiercely independent judge and jury to safeguard individual rights in the face of government adversities. He emphasized the fundamental right of American citizens to a fair legal process and urged caution in addressing the issue.
Joe Biden and Vice President Harris have been advocating for term limits, a code of conduct, and restrictions on presidential immunity for Supreme Court justices.
This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year
MORE NEWS: After Months of Silence, Hunter Biden Finally Breaks His Silence: ‘I Realize How Privileged I Am’
Gorsuch also expressed his concerns about the proliferation of laws in the United States, suggesting that an excessive number of laws can lead to inadvertent violations by well-meaning citizens.
Highlighting the challenges Americans face in navigating complex legal frameworks, Gorsuch recounted instances where citizens unknowingly violated laws due to the intricacies of the legal system.
He shared anecdotes about Americans grappling with tax-related issues, underscoring the complexities created by an abundance of laws.
Addressing conflicts between government branches, Gorsuch underscored the paramount importance of upholding the Constitution as the ultimate guide.
He stressed the need for fostering trust among Americans and suggested that not every issue requires government intervention, promoting a sense of community responsibility.
Join the Discussion
COMMENTS POLICY: We have no tolerance for messages of violence, racism, vulgarity, obscenity or other such discourteous behavior. Thank you for contributing to a respectful and useful online dialogue.
This term limits with the supreme court is a joke coming from someone who spent 50 yrs. in DC politics.
Well said but …….Weak.
How would Gorsuch’s jury vote on a tax question ?
Taxation is an attribute of sovereignty. That over which the taxing entity is not sovereign is not a suitable object to tax. A State is not able to tax federal assets, nor can it tax purchases by the Fed government.
All states are required to maintain a Republican government. Article IV, Section 4. Citizens are Sovereign in a Republican govt.
IRS computer printouts of claimed income tax values without adjudication evidence are used by states to assess claimed taxes. The values are hearsay and subject to objection and challenge—but maybe not if the individual submits to an administrative review of the states’ assessment.
A Constitutional Right [Trial by Jury] cannot be destroyed by Amendment. If Sovereignty of Citizens can be destroyed by 16th Amendment, it is a coup. If a judge enforces a coup, it has violated the oath of office and voids jurisdiction and is impersonating a government officer.
The IRS has been weaponized by the SCOTUS with the recent case of Moore v IRS via the precedent of assessed taxes on non-received value. After the IRS gradually introduces the methodology, the increased value of your home, or the junk pile behind your barn, if you are a ‘social terrorist’, will be administratively taxed. Protesting, in the corrupt courts, as Trump has found out, will virtually bankrupt anyone. An unaware sworn signature on a tax form, over the label of “Taxpayer’s name,” is accepted by a corrupt court to assume the individual is legally responsible and the IRS does not have to allege violation of a “known legal duty” for valid process. The court is ingenious on shifting the Burden of Proof to the accused to prove there is no possible way the tax can be valid. Such a proof is impossible.