Justice Clarence Thomas, during a recent appearance, argued that the Supreme Court should critically re-evaluate established legal precedents, implying they are not absolute. Thomas used a metaphor to criticize his colleagues for blindly following precedent. His remarks come as the Supreme Court prepares to address cases that could potentially overturn landmark decisions, including the legalization of same-sex marriage and key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Thomas’s views reflect his long-standing desire to revisit significant Supreme Court rulings, particularly given the current conservative majority, despite the Court’s overall reluctance to overturn past decisions.
Read More
The Trump administration has appealed to the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the president’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship, arguing that the long-held understanding of the 14th Amendment is “mistaken.” This appeal follows lower court rulings that have blocked the policy, citing the Constitution and precedent, including the case of *US v. Wong Kim Ark*. The administration contends the policy is crucial for border security, asserting that American citizenship should only be granted to those lawfully entitled. The ACLU, which has been involved in lawsuits against the order, has voiced opposition, calling the order illegal.
Read More
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of an executive order that would end birthright citizenship, marking the second time this year the issue has been brought before the justices. The administration’s appeal argues that the long-held understanding of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to those born in the U.S., is “mistaken.” The order was blocked by lower courts, with the administration now seeking a final ruling to resolve the issue. The executive order, signed in January, stated that the federal government will not recognize the U.S. citizenship of children born on American soil to parents who were in the country unlawfully or temporarily.
Read More
The Supreme Court has effectively given the green light to Donald Trump’s consolidation of power, allowing the illegal firing of a Federal Trade Commissioner by a 6-3 vote, and setting the stage to overturn a 90-year-old precedent. This decision, made via the shadow docket, lacks public explanation and signals the court’s intent to restructure the federal government by transferring power to the White House. The Court’s actions aim to dismantle the independence of agencies like the FTC, enabling the President to exert political influence and control over enforcement of federal law. This move raises concerns that the Supreme Court is dismantling the checks and balances that separate democracy from dictatorship.
Read More
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court has allowed President Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, sparking a dissent from Justice Elena Kagan who accused the court of overriding Congress to grant the president sweeping new powers over independent agencies. This decision signals the conservative majority’s potential willingness to overturn a 1935 precedent limiting presidential removals, specifically Humphrey’s Executor. The court’s actions have repeatedly cleared firings that Congress explicitly prohibited, thus shifting control of key regulatory agencies to the president. Arguments over the matter are expected in December, where the court will determine whether Trump can fire board members for any reason as he seeks to implement his agenda.
Read More
The Supreme Court has announced it will consider expanding presidential power over independent agencies by potentially overturning a long-standing precedent regarding the removal of board members. In a related decision, the court allowed the firing of an FTC commissioner to proceed while the case is being reviewed, echoing previous rulings that favor the president’s power of removal. The core of the case revolves around whether presidents should be able to fire board members at will, a stance supported by the Justice Department, which argues for the preservation of executive power. This decision marks a significant potential shift in the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies, with arguments scheduled to begin in December.
Read More
The Associated Press is a globally recognized, independent news organization committed to factual reporting, tracing its roots back to 1846. AP consistently upholds its reputation as a reliable source for fast, accurate, and unbiased news in various formats. It provides critical technology and services to the news industry, reaching over half the world’s population daily. Therefore, the AP maintains its position as a cornerstone of global news dissemination.
Read More
Jimmy Kimmel Has Supreme Court Precedent on His Side, or at Least, He Did
Jimmy Kimmel has Supreme Court precedent on his side, specifically referencing the 1963 case *Bantam Books v. Sullivan*. This pivotal ruling established a clear boundary: governmental entities cannot employ indirect methods to suppress constitutionally protected speech. The core of this precedent rests on the idea that the government cannot coerce or intimidate private parties into censoring others. The key question is whether the government official’s actions could reasonably be understood as a threat of adverse consequences aimed at coercing a private party to punish or suppress someone else’s speech on the government’s behalf.… Continue reading
The Trump administration has petitioned the Supreme Court for an emergency order to remove Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve’s board of governors. This action follows a failed attempt by the administration to oust Cook, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, and is part of a larger effort to reshape the Fed. The legal challenge is unprecedented, as no president has previously fired a sitting Fed governor. The administration argues that Cook’s alleged actions regarding mortgage rates raise concerns about her trustworthiness and ability to manage interest rates, though she denies any wrongdoing and has not been charged with a crime.
Read More
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized the importance of civic involvement and education during a recent speech. She questioned the public’s understanding of fundamental American principles, including the distinction between a president and a monarch. Sotomayor expressed concern over a lack of knowledge regarding the functions of the branches of government, advocating for more comprehensive civic education to address this deficit. While the justice did not directly address President Trump, her remarks touched on themes relevant to ongoing debates about the balance of power within the executive branch.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood