Tag: scotus

Dolt Kamala Harris Promises to Destroy America If Elected – Including Expanding SCOTUS, Dump the Electoral College, Give DC and Puerto Rico Statehood

Unimpressive dolt Kamala Harris, the second most unimpressive presidential candidate in US history, spoke at the National Urban League’s annual conference in Nashville, Tennessee on Friday.

Obviously, it is apparent that the former VP is looking at another run for president in 2028. Because she is.

She should probably work on her ridiculous word salad rambling nonsense while she has some down time. Maybe get a speech coach?

Kamala explained to the Urban League members how she would help Americans if elected… Just kidding.

Kamala promised to rig the system to give all power to Democrats.

She has learned nothing from her historic loss to Donald J. Trump.

Keep reading

Liberal Justice Ketanji Jackson Mocked For Discussing the Importance of Impartiality… While Appearing on Michelle Obama’s Podcast

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared on Michelle Obama’s “IMO” podcast this week in an episode titled, “Move Through the Hard Times with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.”

Ketanji Jackson discussed her life before serving on the Supreme Court, motherhood and other topics.

At one point, Ketanji Jackson stressed the importance of impartiality.

“There are lots of limits on what judges can do, and I try to be very, very mindful and scrupulous with respect to that because, as you say, our obligation is to be unbiased in our approach,” said Jackson.

“And, so, you have to then navigate all the sources that could make for an appearance of partiality, which you want to avoid,” Jackson added.

The irony.

Michelle Obama chimed in and agreed and asked Justice Jackson if she consumes the news.

“You also have to watch your exposure to things, so that there isn’t a bias,” said Obama. “What does that mean for you in terms of reading the paper and listening to the news? And how do get your information and what do you have to be careful about? And how are you dealing with the potential conflicts so that you do stay above board?”

Ketanji Jackson said her legal team screens invitations to make sure there are no ethical conflict.

“When I get invitations to do things, I always have them screened by the legal office, the public information office, just to make sure that there are no ethical conflicts, that this is not a fundraiser, you know,” Ketanji Jackson told Michelle Obama.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Jackson Denies President Trump’s Request to Immediately Reinstate Key Parts of Executive Order on Mail-In Ballots

Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Jackson on Monday evening denied President Trump’s request to immediately reinstate key parts of his executive order on mail-in ballots.

Justice Jackson gave the Democrat-run plaintiff states seven days to respond to Trump’s emergency application.

Last month, a federal judge blocked key parts of President Trump’s executive order on mail-in ballots.

Boston-based US District Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, blocked President Trump’s March 2025 executive order, specifically his attempt to create a federal voter list.

In March 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14248: Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections.

“Free, fair, and honest elections unmarred by fraud, errors, or suspicion are fundamental to maintaining our constitutional Republic. The right of American citizens to have their votes properly counted and tabulated, without illegal dilution, is vital to determining the rightful winner of an election,” the executive order said.

Keep reading

Federal judge accused of defying Supreme Court with pro-TPS agenda

A federal judge is being accused of defying the U.S. Supreme Court with a pro-TPS agenda.

“Another rogue district judge just postponed the termination of TPS (Temporary Protected Status) for South Sudan,” DHS general counsel James Percival wrote on X, slamming the decision. “This is open defiance of the Supreme Court, plain and simple!”

The judge is temporarily blocking the Trump administration’s plans to end TPS protection for people from South Sudan.

That’s despite a Supreme Court ruling that significantly narrowed the circumstances when judges can do that.

U.S. District Judge Patti Saris has ordered an administrative stay in the case brought by African Communities Together. She ordered continued special protections for South Sudanese nationals while she considers whether plaintiffs may amend their lawsuit and seek renewed relief.

A Fox report said Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom, explained Saris lacks authority to issue any relief after the Supreme Court’s recent TPS ruling.

While the judge claimed she wanted the “status quo,” that’s what she has no right to have, he said.

“No jurisdiction (as ordered by the Supreme Court) means no jurisdiction and under the applicable law, the only proper course of judicial action is to dismiss the lawsuits, explaining that based on the law and the Supreme Court’s decision, she has no jurisdiction to entertain any claims in her courtroom,” he said.

The expert said the ruling from Mullin v. Doe at the high court “reaffirmed that federal law largely bars courts from reviewing or blocking the government’s decisions to end Temporary Protected Status,” the report said.

Keep reading

Pete Buttigieg Ramps Up His Renewed Effort to ‘Reform’ the U.S. Supreme Court

Former Biden Transportation Secretary and Democrat presidential candidate in 2020, Pete Buttigieg is ramping up his renewed effort on pushing “reform” of the U.S. Supreme Court, most recently while appearing in an interview on Fox News’ America Reports on Friday. But it wasn’t just Democrats’ favorite solution—court packing—that’s on his agenda.

Notice how he tries to push the idea that the current Supreme Court is corrupt, claiming “the legitimacy of the Supreme Court is, I believe, the lowest it’s ever been in the eyes of the American people.”

He adds, “It’s come to feel like a nakedly partisan institution.”

Pretty crafty, but biased. Then he starts with his first of three proposed changes: putting term limits in place. 

“At a minimum, term limits so that, for each presidential term, you know how many Supreme Court appointments are going to go with it,” he says.

His second idea: raising the number of Supreme Court justices (AKA court packing).

“I also think we would be better off with a court that has something like 13 justices that would match the number of districts that we have in the federal system,” he says.

Lastly, he expresses support for a balanced bench proposal being floated by progressives.

The balanced bench system would see the court expanded to 15 justices. Ten would be appointed through the traditional presidential nomination and Senate confirmation process, split evenly between Democratic- and Republican-appointed members over time.

Those 10 justices would then unanimously select an additional five consensus justices, who would be expected to have broader support across ideological lines.

Buttigieg warns that if the kinds of reforms he and other Dems are suggesting aren’t put in place, it would lead to “catastrophe.”

It comes just about two weeks after he told an Iowa Democrat Party audience he wants the Electoral College to be abolished and U.S. Supreme Court justices to be held accountable.

Keep reading

Slate: 3rd Circuit Ruling Gives SCOTUS ‘Cover’ to Find Constitutional Protection for AR-15s

Slate lamented in a column on July 24 the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit striking down New Jersey’s “assault weapons” ban and claimed it gives SCOTUS “cover” to strike down such bans more broadly.

Breitbart News reported that the Third Circuit’s ruling was handed down on July 17, 2026. In that ruling, the majority made clear that the state’s ban failed to survive the Bruen (2022) test, which is a two-tiered test examining the historicity and tradition of firearms and firearms regulation in America.

The majority opinion for the 3rd Circuit decision was written by Judge Ariana Freeman, a Biden appointee. This fact was not lost on Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, as the astounded duo noted that Freeman is a “progressive appointee” who ruled that the millions of AR-15s in circulation prove they are in “common use for self-defense” and therefore protected by the Second Amendment.

Keep reading

“Mutiny Against the Supreme Court” – DHS Blasts Biden Judge for Indefinitely Extending Block on Termination of Temporary Protected Status for Ethiopians

US District Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee on Friday indefinitely extended a block on the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS).

In 2022, the Biden Regime allowed more than 5,000 Ethiopians to enter the US and live here with special protections.

Their TPS status was extended again in April 2024 and expired on February 13, 2026.

Upon taking office again in January 2025, President Trump immediately revoked the Biden-era ‘Temporary Protected Status’ and ordered the DHS to ensure that the TPS designations were limited.

Judge Murphy previously said President Trump violated the process by revoking the protections.

Earlier this year, Judge Murphy issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and blocked the Trump Administration from ending the protection for the Ethiopians.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Case of Alaska Pilot Whose $95,000 Plane Was Seized Over a 6-Pack of Beer

The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to consider an Alaska pilot’s challenge to the government seizure of his airplane for transporting an illicit six-pack of beer.

In an orders list, the Court granted the petition of Ken Jouppi, a retired 82-year-old Alaskan bush pilot who argues that the seizure of his $95,000 Cessna U206D is an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.

Jouppi was convicted of a misdemeanor in 2012 when Alaska state troopers searched his plane before takeoff and discovered that a passenger was attempting to bring several cases of beer to a “dry” village where alcohol is prohibited. (Jouppi was only culpable for a single six-pack of Budweiser that troopers said was in plain sight.)

And for the last 14 years, Jouppi has fought to stop the Alaska state government from taking his Cessna through asset forfeiture, a process which allows police and prosecutors to seize property connected to criminal activity.

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled against Jouppi last year, leading to his Supreme Court petition. Jouppi is represented by the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm.

“I’m thrilled that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear this case, because this case isn’t just about me or my airplane anymore,” Jouppi said in an Institute for Justice press release. “I’m in my 80s now, and I’ve been fighting this for over a decade because I see it as my duty to ensure that the Bill of Rights actually means something in protecting against government overreach.”

For the Institute for Justice, Jouppi’s case is also an opportunity to build on a landmark 2019 Supreme Court ruling that held that the Eighth Amendment applied to states. Specifically, Jouppi’s case asks the Supreme Court to rule on whether states should consider the gravity of a defendant’s specific offense, rather than take an abstract view of the general crime.

“The Excessive Fines Clause of the Constitution was built for cases like this,” said Sam Gedge, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, in the press release. “As government agencies increasingly exploit fines and forfeitures to pad their budgets, it’s vital that the Supreme Court make clear that the Excessive Fines Clause is a meaningful check on government overreach. We’re confident that it will do so here.”

In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in response to an Institute for Justice lawsuit that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines and fees applies to states under the incorporation doctrine. In the underlying case, Indiana police had seized a Land Rover from a man named Tyson Timbs for a minor drug crime.

But while the Supreme Court ruled that states are bound by the Eighth Amendment, the justices left it up to state courts to determine what constitutes an excessive fine.

Keep reading

Federal Ban on Home Whiskey Distilleries Now Heading to Supreme Court

When I was a young man, roaming around the woods and hills of northeast Iowa, two old guys had a still tucked away somewhere in the woods near Highlandville. I know that moonshining is something generally associated with the South, but nobody seems to have told these two old fellows, and from them you could buy a Mason jar of what they called “corn squeezings” for $10. It wasn’t bad, although if you had any left after a night’s revelry, you could always use it to strip paint and blast stumps.

Now, selling homemade hooch is one thing, I admit. But honestly, this is a free country; one should be able to set up a small still and make your own booze for personal use. And now, a case with that as a possible result, is headed to the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to legalize home whiskey distilleries in the United States by a conservative-leaning think tank in Ohio.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that the federal ban against home whiskey distilleries is unconstitutional. However, the 6th Circuit upheld the federal ban.

The federal government said the law is constitutional because it was enacted to prevent tax evasion and that it would be easier for a distiller working out of their home to conceal the business and therefore avoid paying taxes.

That last bit seems a bit of a trite argument; it’s certainly possible now for a person to do this, just as it would be if home use were legalized, as it is now for wine and beer. And, if anyone can point out to us in the Constitution where the government is authorized to regulate booze, I’d love to see it. 

As evidence of the ambiguity of all this, we might note that two different courts of appeals issued conflicting rulings in this matter, which is why the case is going to the Supreme Court.

On Monday, the Buckeye Institute filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to decide between the two conflicting appeals-court rulings.

“Two courts of appeals considered the same provisions, against the same constitutional challenge, on materially identical facts, within 11 days of each other, and issued opposite judgments,” Buckeye’s Monday petition to the Supreme Court states.

That seems a pretty clear-cut argument for the escalation.

Keep reading

The Supreme Court’s AI Collision Course

Imagine a tight House race in a swing state. In the final weeks of the campaign, a new super PAC begins spending heavily against the incumbent. It runs ads on local television and reaches individual voters with highly tailored texts. The messaging is hard-hitting and seems to be swaying the electorate. None of it traces back to the opposing campaign.

It also doesn’t trace back to any human operative. The super PAC is funded by a single LLC whose donor cannot be identified, and its spending decisions are being made by an AI agent that has been given a budget and a political objective and is now operating without any meaningful human direction. The “consultants” placing the ads are software. The text messages were crafted by the AI.

This is not a hypothetical we will face in some distant future. The technology already exists. A wealthy person, foreign government, or corporation that wants to influence an election without ever exposing themselves to scrutiny could set up such a campaign operation today. And under the Supreme Court’s current campaign finance doctrine, the states and Congress may have little power to stop it.

The AI industry has emerged as one of the largest forces in American politics. Super PACs funded by AI companies and their investors have raised well over $100 million to shape the 2026 midterms, backing candidates in both parties who share the industry’s preferred approach to regulation, and attacking those who don’t. So far, their ads rarely mention artificial intelligence at all. They talk about issues like immigration, corruption, and cost of living, and it isn’t obvious to the average viewer that these ads were funded by a multi-billion dollar industry with its own unspoken legislative wish list.

But there’s a deeper, less-obvious dynamic operating in the background. The constitutional doctrine that currently protects the right of these companies to spend millions in our elections is the same doctrine that will be asked to protect something even stranger: The “speech” of artificial intelligence itself.

Modern campaign finance doctrine has been established, affirmed, and extended by Supreme Court decisions over the last 50 years. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), it held that raising and spending money in political campaigns is tantamount to speech itself, and, therefore, that most legislative efforts to address the influence of money in elections would be subject to strict judicial oversight. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) extended this framework to corporations, and then, most famously, Citizens United v. FEC (2010) extended it further to independent spending.

The court’s campaign finance jurisprudence was not built with artificial intelligence in mind, but its logic isn’t confined to the campaign finance context. If “speaker identity” does not matter for corporations and unions and super PACs, why should it matter when it comes to AI platforms?

Keep reading