Supreme Court’s term revealed the left’s incoherence as it pushes a lawless agenda

Each passing Supreme Court term serves as a fresh new indictment of its progressive bloc.

Last week, the court released its last batch of decisions before setting off to enjoy its summer vacation, including its much-anticipated verdict in Trump v. United States.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that presidents are immune from prosecution for actions related to their core duties and enjoy presumptive immunity for other official actions, but can be prosecuted for actions taken in their personal capacity.

While the ruling shielded former President Donald Trump from some — but not all — of the federal charges brought by special counsel Jack Smith, it more importantly safeguarded against a death spiral of successive, politically motivated prosecutions that could cripple the executive branch and the American republic.

With her characteristic lack of understanding, Justice Sonia Sotomayor delivered a hysterical dissent.

“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,” she wrote.

“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 . . . That is the majority’s message today,” continued Sotomayor.

There are strawmen, and then there are the loose pieces of hay blowing in the wind that Justice Sotomayor would have the American public believe constitutes the majority opinion.

Even one MSNBC legal analyst rejected Sotomayor’s far-fetched hyperbole, arguing that there wasn’t “anything” to support her most outrageous accusations.

But Sotomayor’s unhinged dissent is just the tip of the iceberg.

The outrage she peddled — and that Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson signed on to — is all the more befuddling given the trio’s sweeping, even frightening view of executive branch power, as seen in two dissenting opinions released by the progressive justices last month.

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, the court ruled that when the SEC, an administrative agency within the executive branch, seeks civil penalties against a defendant, the accused is entitled to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

The SEC may not, as it has in many cases over the years, make a case against a defendant in one of its own, in-house courts because doing so both violates a core constitutional right and raises separation-of-powers concerns.

The executive branch, the majority explained, cannot be allowed to act as judge, jury and executioner.

Sotomayor and the other liberals dissented, crying that the majority “prescribes artificial constraints on what modern-day adaptable governance must look like.”

If modern-day adaptable governance means discarding the protections outlined in the Bill of Rights, then ancient, inflexible governance is preferable.

The court’s originalist bloc delivered another victory for the American people and constitutional order in Loper Bright v. Raimondo.

For many years, the judicial doctrine known as “Chevron deference” has resulted in American courts delegating their role in protecting Americans’ rights to executive branch agencies.

This was always an absurdity that allowed the executive branch to grant itself undue powers and then be shielded from judicial oversight.

The rule made up by the National Marine Fisheries Service that resulted in the Loper Brightcase being brought, for example, required commercial fishermen to pay $710 for the pleasure of being monitored — based on a 1976 law that did not explicitly empower the agency to do such a thing.

Once again, the originalists did right by overturning the Chevron doctrine and reining in the executive branch.

And once again, the liberals gnashed their teeth.

Chevron deference is “part of the warp and woof of modern government — supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds — to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe, and financial markets honest,” wailed Justice Kagan.

Is Chevron responsible for sunshine and rainbows, too?

Is it the very axis upon which Earth turns?

It’s a wonder that the liberals can at once be so offended by the court’s reaffirmation of the core powers of the president, in whom all executive power resides, and also so vexed by the court’s defense of the other two branches from the executive’s ambition.

Indeed, the only explanation for their backwards logic is political.

Progressives’ agenda for the country remains deeply unpopular and nearly impossible to pass through the legislative branch.

Instead of moderating or trying to move public opinion, their solution is to use the executive branch’s runaway agencies to implement that agenda, one regulation at a time.

It’s a lawless, sly strategy that can be defended only through the use of euphemisms like “modern-day adaptable governance” — as well as implausible attributions of all that is good and right to the rogue administrative state.

And it’s one that Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson have abdicated their fidelity to the Constitution to champion.

Isaac Schorr is a staff writer at Mediaite.