The Supreme Court heard arguments regarding a potential TikTok ban, focusing on national security concerns versus First Amendment rights. The justices largely sided with the government’s argument that ByteDance’s control poses a security risk due to potential Chinese government data access and manipulation. Debate centered on the extent of China’s influence over TikTok and whether less restrictive measures could address these concerns. The Court also considered the potential consequences of a ban, including the impact on TikTok users and the possibility of President-elect Trump’s non-enforcement.
Read More
The Supreme Court is considering delaying a ruling on a TikTok ban until after President-elect Trump’s inauguration, potentially allowing him to negotiate a solution addressing national security concerns while avoiding a platform shutdown. TikTok’s lawyers argued the ban violates their First Amendment rights, while the government countered that Chinese government control poses a national security threat. Meanwhile, Republicans are proposing significant cuts to Medicare, climate programs, and welfare as potential offsets for their spending bill. The House Judiciary Committee will continue its investigation into Hunter Biden, despite a presidential pardon, led by Chairman Jim Jordan. Finally, recent discoveries include a remarkably preserved Anglo-Saxon sword and a previously unknown dinosaur species from the Triassic period.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s refusal to delay Donald Trump’s hush money sentencing is certainly a noteworthy event, and the 5-4 vote itself raises many questions. It’s surprising, given the gravity of the situation, that the decision wasn’t more unanimous. The fact that it was so closely divided, with three liberal justices siding with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett, against four conservative justices, underscores the deep partisan divisions within the court. This narrow margin suggests that even within the conservative bloc, there might be differing opinions on the appropriate course of action.
The Court’s brief, unsigned order stated that the issues Trump raised could be addressed through the normal appeals process.… Continue reading
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, rejected Donald Trump’s emergency request to delay his sentencing in the New York hush money case, allowing the proceeding to commence Friday. The court deemed the burden on Trump’s presidential transition “relatively insubstantial,” given the judge’s intent to impose no penalty. Trump’s conviction stems from falsifying business records related to hush-money payments made before the 2016 election, a conviction he contests based on claims of presidential immunity. While Trump will appear virtually, the ruling sparked further ethical concerns surrounding a phone call between Justice Alito and the President-elect prior to the appeal.
Read More
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, rejected Donald Trump’s emergency request to delay his sentencing in the New York hush-money case, allowing the proceeding to commence Friday morning. The Court reasoned that the sentencing’s burden on Trump’s responsibilities is minimal, given the judge’s indication of no penalties. Trump’s conviction stems from falsifying business records related to hush-money payments made before the 2016 election. While Trump argues the case involves official actions and thus immunity, the lower court rejected this claim, and the Supreme Court declined to intervene preemptively. A subsequent ethics controversy arose from a phone call between Justice Alito and Trump before the appeal.
Read More
The Supreme Court is considering a case challenging a law mandating TikTok’s sale due to national security concerns, with arguments focusing on free speech versus national security. President Trump, despite previously supporting a ban, now urges a delay to allow for a political resolution, a highly unusual intervention. TikTok argues the law violates free speech and that a shutdown would severely harm users and the platform. The court must decide on the appropriate level of legal review, with a strict scrutiny standard likely leading to the law’s invalidation.
Read More
During a recent speech, Donald Trump criticized the push for electric vehicles and electric heaters, asserting that the United States lacks sufficient electricity to support widespread adoption. He argued that gas heaters are superior, claiming they provide better, cheaper heat without the supposed “itchiness” associated with electric models. Trump’s preference for gas aligns with his broader policy of increasing fossil fuel production, despite the environmental implications. While condensing gas heaters offer long-term cost and emissions benefits, these advantages were dismissed by Trump.
Read More
A Tennessee law mandating age verification for pornographic websites was largely blocked by a federal judge who ruled it violated First Amendment rights and would be ineffective at preventing minors’ access. The judge cited the effectiveness of parental controls and the potential for circumvention via VPNs. While the state is appealing, the ruling follows similar legal challenges in other states, with the Supreme Court set to hear arguments on a related Texas law. The law’s opponents argue it is unconstitutional and ineffective, while supporters maintain it protects children.
Read More
Chief Justice Roberts’ year-end report uses images of civil rights-era judges, like J. Waties Waring, to deflect criticism of contemporary judicial decisions. This tactic, also employed by Judge Edith Jones, falsely equates modern judicial opponents to those who faced violent backlash for upholding civil rights. Sherrilyn Ifill argues this comparison is ahistorical and inaccurate, highlighting the stark difference between judges who risked their safety and standing to advance justice and those facing criticism today. This appropriation of civil rights history ignores the systemic racism faced by civil rights advocates and minimizes the severity of the modern critiques. The comparison is ultimately a misguided attempt to shield controversial rulings from legitimate scrutiny.
Read More
The Judicial Conference refused to refer Justice Clarence Thomas to the Department of Justice for investigation despite his failure to disclose lavish gifts and travel, citing jurisdictional concerns and claiming his amended disclosures addressed the issues. This decision effectively guts the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which explicitly grants the Conference this referral power, leaving Thomas without accountability for his actions. The Conference’s assertion that Thomas is now compliant is contradicted by evidence showing continued omissions in his disclosures. This lack of accountability highlights the judiciary’s inability to police itself and foreshadows a likely lack of investigation by the incoming Trump administration, solidifying a system where powerful figures face no repercussions for ethical violations.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood