Tag: scotus

Clyburn Calls For Packing The Court With “Baker’s Dozen” To Flip Cases

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) added his voice to expand the Supreme Court to a “baker’s dozen,” or thirteen members to allow Democrats to add justices who agree with him and Democratic members on how the law must be interpreted.

In the meantime, as discussed earlier, court packing is being pushed as the new litmus test for any Democratic candidates. Clyburn’s “baker’s dozen” is a telling description of an effort to bake in partisan views on a Court expanded to create an instant liberal majority. In defending this hostile takeover of the Court, Clyburn bizarrely insisted that the failure to do so might lead to a return to antebellum conditions when blacks were being given fewer rights than whites.

When asked by host Kristen Welker whether he supports the call of former Vice President Kamala Harris to pack the Court, Clyburn responded:

“Yes, I do. I think that we are in a position now that calls for some significant actions taken by the Congress and we ought to expand. Thirteen is a pretty good number. A baker’s dozen would be a good number to have on the court. And I would hope we would get people on the Court who will follow the constitutional underpinnings of this great nation of ours.”

Clyburn then made the sensational claim that, without taking over the Court, blacks could be returned to virtual slave conditions. He added:

“The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments have been interpreted different ways over the years. And we had in the Warren Court an interpretation of those amendments that I thought would be set for the future of the country. We have now a Supreme Court that has decided to reverse course and take this country back, I say, to those rulings of Justice Taney that said that no black man has any rights that a white man must respect.”

So, while recognizing that interpretations have evolved, Clyburn now demands a takeover of the Court because he disagrees with the current interpretations. It was fine when interpretations aligned with his views, but opposing viewpoints are intolerable and warrant packing the Court with reliable liberal votes. Other Democrats have demanded packing the Court to reverse immigration rulings.

The unhinged rhetoric reflects the importance of taking over the Court by Democrats who view the institution as a barrier to carrying out a radical agenda, including proposals that are considered unconstitutional. Liberal professors and pundits have identified a court takeover as essential to, as one law professor put it, guaranteeing that the Democrats never lose another national election. As former Attorney General Eric Holder and Democratic strategist James Carville have made clear, it is about power and guaranteeing its retention.

Of course, these figures know that it will take a great deal to get Americans to trash core institutions and values. Polls have long shown that a majority of citizens oppose efforts to pack the Court. FDR’s infamous court-packing plan in the 1930s has been widely panned in history, but is now being used as a model by many Democrats to achieve short-term political goals.

In order to overcome this fealty to our constitutional system, citizens must be very angry or very afraid. That is why the rage rhetoric is increasing as we approach the midterm elections. In the last election, the prediction was the imminent end of democracy. Now it is the return to slavery conditions in the United States.

One can disagree with the Court without suggesting that these justices are effective racists or want to return the nation to pre-Civil War slavery conditions. The suggestion that the Court would return this country to the Dred Scott period from before the Civil War is deeply offensive to the conservative justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas, who is African American. It is an absurd suggestion and shows contempt not just for the Court but for Black voters.

Keep reading

Justice Kavanaugh Demands Michigan Sec of State Benson Answer After 2 Democrat Canvassers Block Citizenship Petition Backed by 87% of Likely MI Voters

America’s dirtiest Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and her right hand man, Bureau of Elections Director Jonathan Brater, have done everything within their power to ensure non-citizens are not only placed on Michigan’s voter rolls, but that once they are on the voter rolls, there is no way to discover them.

Last week, on Monday, August 4, hundreds of Michigan residents packed the Michigan Board of Canvassers meeting in Lansing to defend the validity of the Americans for Citizens Only Voting petition which was turned in several months ago with an astounding 709,841 signatures, 59.1% over the threshold of the minimum to make the ballot, which was only 446,198.

ACVM did not sneak this petition in at the last minute. The petitions landed on March 4, 2026 — more than four months before the July 6 filing deadline and eight months before Election Day. The Bureau of Elections sat on those 709,841 signatures for five and a half months. Staff did not release the 1,000-signature sample until July 24. The staff report calling the petition 17 signatures short did not come out until August 17. That is 166 days after the boxes were delivered, and it left the campaign 17 days to fight challenges, chase affidavits, and get in front of the Board of State Canvassers on August 24.

By then the clock was already killing the measure. Ballots have to be locked for the November 3 election. ACVM asked the Michigan Supreme Court to move. When that court sat on the case, the group went to Justice Kavanaugh on August 31 and asked for an order by September 3 — because the Board of State Canvassers meets September 4 to finalize the ballot. Five and a half months of silence, then a two-week scramble to save a proposal that had cleared the first staff count. That is how Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and her fellow Democrat activists keep a citizenship amendment off the ballot without ever taking a vote on the merits.

The Michigan Board of Canvassers was asked to review the signatures pulled from the “random sampling” that the Board of Elections Director Jonathan Brater’s staff deemed unacceptable because, according to the staff members, the signatures on the petition didn’t match the signatures they had on file. Many audience members could be heard remarking that their signatures have changed over the years, suggesting this was a completely unfair practice. The intense scrutiny given to each signature by the amateur signature sleuths was especially difficult to watch, given that only 6 years ago, Michigan’s top election official, Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, told her clerks to ignore signature matching when accepting absentee ballots and assume the signature matched.

The attorneys working with ACVM were able to obtain 23 affidavits from the sampling of 1,000 that MI Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson’s Board of Elections “staff members” rejected, to prove that the signatures they called into question were indeed, valid signatures. The attornies provided 19 affidavits by the 10 am Saturday deadline and an additional 4 more on Saturday (the time of the delivery is unclear).

Keep reading

James Clyburn Basically Says Clarence Thomas ‘Ain’t Black’

Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) sat down with Kristen Welker on Meet the Press Sunday, and the segment on the Supreme Court went about as you’d expect from a Democrat these days. He’s on board with Kamala Harris’s push to expand the Court to 13 justices, because of course he is. I don’t care how many times Democrats swear this isn’t about seizing permanent power. Packing the bench only becomes a priority whenever they’re the ones stuck losing decisions, and something tells me Clyburn’s enthusiasm for a bigger bench is entirely dependent on which party gets to fill those seats.

But that’s not even the part of the interview that made me sit up.

Welker brought up something I had no idea about: Clyburn testified in favor of Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court confirmation back in 1991.

Welker even played the tape.

“It’s a pleasure for me to be here today to present testimony in favor of my good friend, Clarence Thomas,” Clyburn said in the old clip. “I have known Clarence for ten years and I consider him to be a personal and professional friend, in spite of the fact that he shares a conservative Republican philosophy.”

I looked up his entire testimony, and I was floored. Clyburn praised him as “zealous in his pursuit of the facts and intellectually honest and objective.”

Most significantly, Clyburn said civil-rights officials who worked with Thomas found him “highly compassionate, sensitive, judicious” and possessed of the “intellectual honesty that is required in this field.” Despite their disagreements, Clyburn said he had “never found anything in his philosophy of a nature to deny him this Supreme Court confirmation.” He concluded that Thomas was “deeply committed to an even-handed system of justice” and possessed “the integrity, the conscientious spirit, and the basic sense of fairness” required of a Supreme Court justice.

Keep reading

DEI Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Still Playing COVID Theater, Performatively Masked Up at DC Airport

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was filmed being escorted through a DC airport this week, still performatively wearing a face mask.

The video shows the Justice walking through the terminal with security as if it were still 2020.

Her security team was not wearing masks.

No declared public health emergency has required or justified airport masking in 2026.

Keep reading

Supreme Court hands Trump a win in bid to prevent ineligible voters voting in midterm elections

The Supreme Court on Monday opened the door for President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at securing the upcoming midterm elections from ineligible voters and implementing verification standards for mail-in ballots. 

The high court halted a lower court ruling that was blocking the president’s March 31 executive order establishing a whole-of-government approach to prevent noncitizens from registering to vote or voting in federal elections. A coalition of 23 Democratic states and Washington, D.C., sued the administration in Massachusetts to block the order. 

The lower court’s ruling by District Court Judge Indira Talwani in June specifically blocked parts of the executive order directing federal prosecutors to focus on prosecuting any state and local officials who facilitate ineligible voting and instructing the U.S. Postal Service to establish verification standards for mail-in ballots, including a unique barcode. 

While the Supreme Court’s August 24 decision lifts the injunction in California v. Trump, the lawsuit brought by a coalition of 23 states and D.C., the administration still faces a separate nationwide legal barrier. 

A second, active preliminary injunction issued by Judge Talwani in August in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump continues to block the Postal Service from implementing the changes mandated by the executive order for the upcoming election. 

So, while the Supreme Court has cleared the path for the administration to proceed with certain aspects of the order, significant legal hurdles remain regarding the Postal Service’s implementation before the November midterm elections.

The executive order directed the Department of Homeland Security to create a nationwide list of adult U.S. citizens and the USPS to obtain lists of registered voters. The USPS, an independent agency of the executive branch, would then be required to send mail-in ballots only to individuals on both of those lists.  

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices determined, however, that the District Court “lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment” and that the stay on the executive order does harm to the government’s legitimate functions of rulemaking and executive prosecutorial discretion, according to the high court’s per curiam opinion published Monday.   

The ruling allows the Trump administration to proceed with its two-pronged effort, through the Postal Service, to ensure that no non-eligible voters cast votes in the upcoming midterms and, through the Justice Department, that those who facilitate such alleged illegal voting will be pursued by prosecutors. 

Since early absentee voting in many states is just weeks away, the Trump administration would have to move quickly to implement the order’s provisions, which could still face further legal challenges. 

As the midterms approach, President Trump has aimed to ensure that no ineligible voters cast votes. In recent months, emerging evidence shows that potentially hundreds of thousands of noncitizens are registered to vote across the country and some have voted in recent elections. 

Keep reading

Leftist Obama Judge Indira Talwani Goes Completely ROGUE – Spits in the Face of the Supreme Court and Rules Trump’s U.S. Postal Service is in “Complete Noncompliance” With Her Block on Mail-In Ballot Security Rules

Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani escalated her war against President Donald Trump’s election-integrity agenda Tuesday, declaring that the U.S. Postal Service violated her nationwide injunction by completing new security regulations for federal mail-in ballots.

Just one day after the United States Supreme Court UPHELD, for now, President Trump’s executive order and the new U.S. Postal Service rules designed to secure America’s mail-in ballots, this Obama-appointed radical in Boston just ruled that Trump’s Postal Service has VIOLATED her earlier injunction.

She’s going off. Aggressively. Accusing the Trump team of “complete noncompliance.”

This is pure judicial warfare against the American people and against free and fair elections.

Talwani’s nationwide injunction (entered earlier this month in League of Women Voters of Massachusetts v. Trump) explicitly barred the USPS Defendants “from implementing, giving effect to, or enforcing Section 3 of Executive Order No. 14399… or otherwise initiating or completing rulemaking to promulgate the specific regulations outlined in Section 3(b)(i)-(v) or (d) of the EO for the November 3, 2026 or any earlier election.”

On Friday evening, August 21, the USPS completed the rulemaking process. They sent a Final Rule titled “Ballot Mail for Federal Elections” to the Office of the Federal Register, with an immediate effective date of August 21 and publication set for August 26.

The Final Rule itself nods to the injunctions and states the Postal Service “will not take actions to implement the rule specifically for the 2026 election unless and until the government obtains relief from those injunctions.”

Keep reading

Battle Over Ten Commandments Arrives At Supreme Court

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Aug. 17 to review a federal appeals court decision that upheld a Texas law requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public school classrooms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit cleared the way in April for the Texas law to take effect.

The state law known as Senate Bill 10, or SB 10, requires that public elementary and secondary schools conspicuously display in classrooms an easily readable poster or framed copy of the Ten Commandments with no additional commentary.

The Fifth Circuit’s 9–8 ruling in Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District raised questions about freedom of religion and how the Supreme Court had ruled on these issues in the past. If the justices agree to hear the case, their potentially landmark ruling could change the legal landscape for how governments deal with religion.

The Fifth Circuit said that the law complied with the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

The Texas law “looks nothing like a historical religious establishment,” because it does not tell houses of worship what to believe, how to worship, or whom to employ, the appeals court said. It does not punish people who reject the Ten Commandments, impose taxes to support the clergy, or require churches to carry out civic functions, the court said.

“These are the kinds of things ‘establishments of religion’ did at the founding. [The Texas law] does none of them,” it said.

The Fifth Circuit also held that a 1980 precedent, Stone v. Graham, which struck down a nearly identical classroom display law, is no longer binding.

The circuit court ruling upholding the Texas statute came after a federal district court preliminarily blocked it, finding the law likely violates both the Constitution’s establishment clause, which forbids the government from favoring one religion over another, and the free exercise clause, which prohibits the government from infringing on worship and other activities. The district judge also found the displays would coerce students and interfere with parents’ rights to direct their children’s religious upbringing.

The challenge in the district court was brought by a group of Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Baha’i, Unitarian Universalist, and nonreligious families. The families argue in the petition that the Texas law violates the Constitution by forcing religion on students, and that the Fifth Circuit misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent.

Keep reading

SCOTUS rejects Trump’s petition for rehearing $5M E. Jean Carroll judgment

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has formally rejected President Donald Trump’s petition for a rehearing regarding the $5 million civil judgment in the E. Jean Carroll lawsuit. The high court rejected the petition without providing an explanation in accordance with standard court customs.

Monday’s denial leaves intact a 2023 Manhattan jury verdict that found Trump liable for the alleged mid-1990s sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll, a former magazine columnist. SCOTUS had previously declined to review the civil case in late June before Trump’s legal team filed for the rehearing.

“The American People stand with President Trump as they demand an immediate end to all of the Witch Hunts, including the Democrat-funded travesty of the Carroll Hoaxes,” said a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team in a statement to The Hill.

“President Trump will keep winning against Liberal lawfare, as he continues to focus on his mission to Make America Great Again.”

Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan praised the decision, seeing it as a closure of Trump’s last avenue to have the verdict reversed.

“We are pleased that the United States Supreme Court has declined again to hear this case,” Kaplan said in a statement.

“As a result, the jury’s unanimous verdict that Donald Trump sexually assaulted and then defamed E. Jean Carroll is now final and cannot be challenged in any court,” the attorney continued.

Trump has consistently denied that he sexually abused Carroll, calling all of her allegations a “Made Up Story” that never happened.

Meanwhile, a separate $83.3 million defamation verdict against Trump remains under appeal before the Supreme Court, centering on statements made while he was in the White House.

Keep reading

Clarence Thomas Reveals Certain Law Schools Won’t Host Him

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said certain law schools won’t host him because of his political beliefs.

Justice Thomas said Stanford Law School and others are “off limits” to him because of his conservative political values.

Clarence Thomas made the remarks this week during a conversation with host Peter Robinson at the Hoover Institute.

Stanford denied Thomas’ claim that the law school wouldn’t host him.

“We would be honored to host Justice Thomas at Stanford Law School,” a spokesperson said in a statement to Fox News. “The Stanford Constitutional Law Center, directed by Professor Michael McConnell, former Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, regularly hosts members of the judiciary on campus.”

“Our students and faculty would welcome the opportunity to hear from Justice Thomas and engage with his perspectives on the Court, the Constitution, and the law,” the spokesperson said.

Fox News reported:

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently claimed that certain law schools and colleges were completely “off limits” for him and other conservatives to visit.

“You know, I have never been to Stanford Law School,” Thomas told Peter Robinson during an on-stage discussion hosted by the Hoover Institute.

He went on to say that current conservative thought leaders, like himself, are largely unwelcome from high education institutions like Stanford Law School.

“That’s the reality,” Thomas said. “That’s the world we’re in, because there’s certain places that are just presumptively off limits. This is the way it works. And that’s true. I mean, I’ve been to Yale Law School, but that’s the way it works. And to say it isn’t, is to lie.”

The comments from the high court justice came amid ongoing criticism from conservative pundits that college campuses have become intolerant to right-wing ideas and that students are being indoctrinated by liberal professors.

Thomas alleged that, if not for YouTube, the ideas and works of American economist Thomas Sowell, who profoundly shaped his political views, would be lost to the younger generation of students because some people’s views are “unpalatable” to the student body.

Keep reading

Rage Politics: Hakeem Jeffries Will Take A Baseball Bat To The Supreme Court

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has struggled to pander to the mob to secure power in the midterm elections, including brandishing a baseball bat on social media to show his radical bona fides.

With Democratic Socialists chanting “you’re next” when seeing Jeffries, he continues to struggle to stay in front of the mob.

This week, he doubled down on his pledge to throw the Supreme Court to the mob if they make him the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

After the recent gains by far-left candidates in states like Minnesota and the near victory of Democratic Socialist Francesca Hong in Wisconsin, Jeffries came out to reaffirm his intent to radically change the highest court. According to the Washington Times, Jeffries declared, “There’s a variety of different options that are on the table, and I think that we can’t foreclose any single one of them.” He added that the “conservative, right-wing majority on the Supreme Court has become basically a subsidiary of the MAGA Republican Party.”

He promised to make far-left Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) the driving force behind changing the Court, including possible 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices and expanding the Court to create an instant liberal majority.

Notably, none of these figures were claiming that the Court was fundamentally flawed until it ruled against them, particularly in cases that impacted their political power such as declaring racial gerrymandering to be unconstitutional.

What is interesting is that the liberal justices reject this narrative, reminding citizens that the Court has delivered major losses to the Trump Administration. Indeed, President Trump has routinely attacked conservative justices for ruling against him and his Administration.

In addition, polls show that the majority of the public supports virtually all of the recent major rulings, including the ban on racial gerrymandering.

It is only the Democrats who oppose those rulings and are now demanding a hostile takeover of the Court.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) has called for packing the Court because it does not follow her views and those of “widely held public opinion.” I have pushed back on that rationale, given the Court’s function as a countermajoritarian institution. However, these polls even challenge the flawed rationale for court packing.

So Jeffries is promising that the work of James Madison will be undone by the likes of Jamie Raskin and Elizabeth Warren. To have these calls on our 250th anniversary is crushingly ironic.  Other leading Democrats have lined up to pledge to fundamentally change the Court, which has played a key role in making this the oldest and most stable republic in history.

It is simply about power. Former Obama Attorney General Eric Holder has put packing the Supreme Court front and center, explaining, “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.”

I have called it the Nike School of Constitutional Law. Democratic leaders are pledging to “just do it” to appease the mob. Of course, some of these measures would be challenged if done without constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court would then have to rule on the effort to pack or limit its members. The expansion can be done by legislative vote. Although most Americans oppose court packing, Democrats view control of the Court as essential to pushing through a radical agenda to change the political system to their advantage.

Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.

In Federalist 10, Madison discussed the destructive impact of factions in forcing through opportunistic changes to advance their interests:

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

We are witnessing the same factional politics being pushed by leaders who believe that they can ride a rage wave into power. They have a greater likelihood of causing lasting damage to our system than guaranteeing their own lasting power. History is not on their side. Today’s revolutionaries are often tomorrow’s reactionaries in an age of rage.

Keep reading