The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday cleared the way for President Donald Trump to move forward with construction of the White House ballroom. 
In an <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/26a203_2b8e.pdf">unsigned 5-4 order</a>, the majority granted an emergency application from the Trump administration, blocking lower court rulings that would have halted work on the aboveground portion of the project. At this preliminary stage, the majority concluded the preservation groups who brought the lawsuit lacked standing to sue. 
“Today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government’s East Wing project. We conclude only that, based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the Trust lacks Article III standing to challenge the project in federal court and that the remaining stay factors favor relief,” the high court wrote. 
Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberal wing — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — in dissent. He argued that Congress has not delegated the president the authority to undergo such a project. 
“That construction is likely unlawful,” Roberts wrote. “Pursuant to its plenary constitutional authority over the District of Columbia and federal property, Congress has explicitly prohibited the construction of any “building or structure . . . on any reservation, park, or public grounds of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.”
On Aug. 21, Roberts issued an<a href="https://x.com/JordanOnRecord/status/2090863977840459889?s=20"> administrative stay</a>, temporarily blocking the federal district court’s injunction while the full Supreme Court considered the Trump administration’s emergency request. Monday’s order marks a rare instance of Roberts in dissent as the conservative wing moves forward without him.
“The White House is not just any building, and—when it comes to historic preservation—Hoagland is not just any person. In failing to appreciate as much, the Court misconceives the plaintiff’s injury, allowing the Executive’s likely infringement of the Legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue,” Roberts argued with the liberals. 
“Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers,” he added. 
The split decision is a significant victory for the administration, which has argued that construction should be allowed to continue as the case moved through the courts, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-gives-trump-green-light-to-keep-building-white-house-ballroom-for-now">The Daily Wire</a> reported.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/08/supreme-court-allows-white-house-ballroom-construction-to-continue-for-now/">described</a> the project in a filing as an “integrated military complex” that includes a secure ballroom space that is “vitally required by national security.” The administration has also argued that the White House requires additional security infrastructure, including facilities designed to protect the president and other officials from potential attacks.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the lawsuit against the administration, disagreed. The group argued that Trump cannot unilaterally demolish portions of the White House and construct a 90,000-square-foot addition without congressional authorization and other required reviews. The trust has accused the administration of attempting to “outrun judicial review” by moving construction forward as quickly as possible.
The administration said in court filings that the project is already roughly 65% complete, with crews working 20 hours a day, seven days a week. About $200 million in private donations has reportedly already been spent or committed to the project. Trump first announced the ballroom project after returning to the White House, describing it as a roughly $400 million project financed primarily through private donations. 
The administration subsequently demolished the White House’s East Wing last year to clear the site.

Construction Continues On Trump Projects Around Washington, DC

Supreme Court Drops 5-4 Ruling In Trump Ballroom Fight

donald trump

john roberts

national trust for historic preservation

politics

supreme court

white house ballroom

The Supreme Court on Friday temporarily cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s administration to continue construction of the White House ballroom, pausing a lower court order that would have halted above-ground work on the controversial project.
Chief Justice John Roberts issued an <a href="https://x.com/JordanOnRecord/status/2090863977840459889?s=20">administrative stay</a> Friday, preventing a federal district court’s injunction from taking effect while the Supreme Court considers the Trump administration’s emergency request. The order does not resolve the underlying legal dispute or determine whether Trump had the authority to construct the ballroom without congressional approval.
The move is nevertheless a significant victory for the administration, which has argued that construction should be allowed to continue as the case makes its way through the courts. The dispute is likely to head to the full Supreme Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trumps-white-house-ballroom-plans-just-hit-a-major-legal-roadblock">ruled</a> earlier this month that Trump could not proceed with the project without authorization from Congress.
That 2-1 ruling by the appeals court held that the decision to construct the massive addition to the White House was ultimately Congress’ to make. “Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help,” the appeals court majority wrote.
The court, however, paused its ruling for two weeks to give the administration time to seek relief from the Supreme Court. The Trump administration subsequently asked the justices to intervene. Roberts’ Friday order keeps construction moving while the justices consider that request. The order is an administrative stay, meaning it is temporary and procedural rather than a ruling on the merits of the case. The full Supreme Court could ultimately lift the stay, leave it in place while the case proceeds, or take up the underlying dispute.
The administration has urged the Supreme Court to allow construction to continue, arguing that the project is already substantially underway and that stopping it would interfere with national security.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/08/supreme-court-allows-white-house-ballroom-construction-to-continue-for-now/">described</a> the project in a filing as an “integrated military complex” that includes a secure ballroom space that is “vitally required by national security.” The administration has also argued that the White House requires additional security infrastructure, including facilities designed to protect the president and other officials from potential attacks.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which brought the lawsuit against the administration, has taken the opposite position. The group argues that Trump cannot unilaterally demolish portions of the White House and construct a 90,000-square-foot addition without congressional authorization and other required reviews. The trust has accused the administration of attempting to “outrun judicial review” by moving construction forward as quickly as possible.
The administration said in court filings that the project is already roughly 65% complete, with crews working 20 hours a day, seven days a week. About $200 million in private donations has reportedly already been spent or committed to the project. Trump first announced the ballroom project after returning to the White House, describing it as a roughly $400 million project that would be financed primarily through private donations. The administration subsequently demolished the White House’s East Wing last year to clear the site.
The legal battle escalated after U.S. District Judge Richard Leon issued an injunction blocking most above-ground construction. Leon permitted underground work related to security facilities, including bunkers and other national security infrastructure, to continue.
The D.C. Circuit subsequently upheld Leon’s ruling, with Democratic-appointed judges Patricia Millett and Bradley Garcia forming the majority. Trump-appointed Judge Neomi Rao dissented, arguing that the lower court had improperly intervened in the president’s management of the White House.
“Each president is a temporary tenant, not the owner, of the White House and its executive residence,” the majority wrote. Rao countered that the lower court had exceeded its authority. “The district court seized supervision of construction at the White House, and my colleagues affirm this judicial overreach,” Rao wrote.
The Supreme Court’s Friday order does not indicate when the justices will decide whether to take further action. But with the Trump administration appealing the D.C. Circuit ruling, the legal dispute is now positioned to potentially become a full-fledged Supreme Court case.
For now, however, construction continues. The Trump administration has argued that halting the project would jeopardize both the construction schedule and national security, while preservationists maintain that allowing construction to proceed could effectively make the courts’ eventual ruling meaningless if the ballroom is completed before the legal dispute is resolved.
Friday’s order leaves that larger question unresolved: whether Trump has the unilateral authority to transform the White House’s East Wing into a 90,000-square-foot ballroom without first obtaining Congress’ approval.

White House Construction Exterior

SCOTUS Gives Trump Green Light To Keep Building White House Ballroom For Now

The Supreme Court is looking at the possibility of ensuring that the federal executive branch is a unitary executive.
The New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/07/us/politics/supreme-court-trump-independent-agencies.html">reports</a>:
<blockquote>As a young staff member in the Reagan administration, John G. Roberts Jr. was part of a group of lawyers who pushed for more White House control over independent government agencies.
The “time may be ripe to reconsider the existence of such entities, and take action to bring them back within the executive branch,” the future chief justice of the United States advised the White House counsel in a 1983 memo. Independent agencies, he wrote, were a “constitutional anomaly.”
Once he ascended to the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts joined other conservatives on the bench in a series of rulings that have chipped away at Congress’s power to constrain the president’s authority to fire independent regulators.</blockquote>
The real question here is this: Where in the Constitution do you find the idea of independent regulators? It does not exist. We have three branches of government, and, in order of power, it’s supposed to be: legislative, executive, and judicial.
With that said, all of these are unitary powers. The president is not supposed to implement legislative power, which is why many of the regulatory agencies that currently exist should be ruled unconstitutional. If there are unelected agencies writing laws — which is what regulations are — there is no mode for that under the Constitution of the United States.
Simultaneously, there is no independent fourth branch of government set up by Congress that is not answerable to the executive branch, but only answerable to Congress. There&#8217;s nothing like that contemplated by the Constitution.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
There will be a case argued in the Supreme Court over whether President Trump can fire people across the federal government in defiance of laws meant to protect their jobs and shield them from politics.
The Court’s majority will likely side with Trump, which makes perfect sense because there is nowhere in the Constitution where it says Congress has the power to set up an agency inside the executive branch that the president of the United States cannot run.
This case revolves around whether President Trump can fire Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission, simply because he says she does not align with his agenda. That firing would be despite a law that says the president can only remove commissioners for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.
The administration is asking the justices to toss out a 90-year-old precedent that said the Constitution allowed laws like that one and put limits on the president&#8217;s authority to dismiss some quasi-independent government officials.
There are two dozen other agencies charged with protecting consumers, workers, the environment, or nuclear safety. They have been insulated from complete presidential control by similar laws.
One of the points Trump makes is that he&#8217;s doing the obvious thing. Democrats have been firing these people by ginning up cases against them for a very, very long time. This is also how they manage to maintain control of the regulatory state even after they lost an election. This is what Trump would label the so-called “deep state.”
Trump has repeatedly ousted Democratic leaders — including at the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission —  to make way for replacements who share his policy priorities. That makes perfect sense. When you elect a president, you&#8217;re supposed to be able to shift regulatory policy along those lines.
It is why the Constitution was written the way that it was. Once you have a gigantic regulatory authority wedded to the executive branch, either the executive branch itself, run by the president, gains significant power, or you have to set up a fourth unregulated branch of government that is the regulatory state that actually runs the place.
Neither of those two solutions is good. Thus, the Constitution states that no lawmaking power lies with Congress. Executive power lies with the president.
We should hope that we return to the idea of a functional unitary executive, meaning everything that happens under the executive branch is run by the president.
If we go back to that, maybe Congress would actually legislate instead of kicking the can over to the regulatory branches of government to avoid responsibility.
The theory of the unitary executive is an idea that dates back to the Reagan administration. In a 2010 decision, Chief Justice Roberts said that the president&#8217;s power generally includes the authority to remove those assisting him in carrying out his duties. Without such power, the president could not be fully held accountable for discharging his own responsibilities.
That is exactly right, and I hope that the Supreme Court carries through on all of that. That would be a genuinely positive development.

Gemini generated Roberts Scotus Trump

Supreme Court Poised To Rein In ‘Fourth Branch,’ Restore Unitary Executive

Ben Shapiro

congress

executive power

Federal Government

Judicial Branch

opinion

Presidency

Chief Justice John Roberts issued an order on Monday that blocked a previous order from a district court judge demanding that deported Salvadoran national Kilmer Abrego Garcia be returned to the United States by midnight.
Fox News reporter Bill Melugin shared a photo of the order via X, along with the news: &#8220;BREAKING: SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts has temporarily blocked the district court’s order that Salvadoran National Kilmer Abrego Garcia be returned to the U-S by midnight tonight. He ordered Abrego Garcia’s lawyers to respond by Tuesday at 5pm ET.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
BREAKING: SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts has temporarily blocked the district court’s order that Salvadoran National Kilmer Abrego Garcia be returned to the U-S by midnight tonight. He ordered Abrego Garcia’s lawyers to respond by Tuesday at 5pm ET. <a href="https://t.co/NSM03mo52d">pic.twitter.com/NSM03mo52d</a>
&mdash; Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) <a href="https://twitter.com/BillMelugin_/status/1909336990094602303?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 7, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;UPON CONSIDERATION of the application of counsel for the applicants,&#8221; the order began. &#8220;IT IS ORDERED that the April 4, 2025 order of the United States District Court of of Maryland, case No. 8.25-cv-951, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Tuesday, April 8th, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).&#8221;
The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-admin-asks-scotus-to-block-order-requiring-return-of-salvadoran-man-mistakenly-deported">block the lower court&#8217;s order</a> — issued by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis — earlier in the day, arguing that allowing it to stand would set a dangerous precedent with regard to the administration&#8217;s ability to enforce immigration law.
Abrego Garcia, 29, was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March and sent to a mega prison there due to an &#8220;administrative error.&#8221; The Salvadoran national, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, is a suspected MS-13 gang member and has a deportation order from an American judge dating back to 2019. That judge did also state that Abrego Garcia should not be deported to El Salvador out of concern for his physical safety.

Supreme Court Justices Pose For Formal Group Photo

SCOTUS Halts Order Demanding Return Of Deported Salvadoran National

courts

el salvador

illegal immigration

U.S.

Supreme Court Chief Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/john-roberts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Roberts</a> issued a rare statement on Tuesday pushing back on a push by some Republicans to impeach federal judges who have sided against President Donald Trump&#8217;s second-term administration.
&#8220;For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,&#8221; Roberts <a href="https://x.com/edokeefe/status/1902029175638073448" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. &#8220;The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.&#8221;
Over the past few weeks, a couple of House Republicans have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/impeachathon-ensnares-growing-number-of-get-trump-judges" target="_blank" rel="noopener">unveiled</a> articles of impeachment against federal judges who have issued rulings unfavorable to the Trump administration, arguing they have become &#8220;judicial activists.&#8221;
The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/congressman-introduces-articles-of-impeachment-against-judge-blocking-trump-deportations?topStoryPosition=undefined" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> the latest set of impeachment articles was introduced against James Boasberg, an Obama-appointed judge blocking Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport violent criminal illegal migrants.
Trump himself <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114183576937425149" target="_blank" rel="noopener">took aim</a> at Boasberg in a post on Truth Social earlier on Tuesday, calling him a &#8220;troublemaker and agitator&#8221; who &#8220;like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!&#8221;
More than a dozen judges have been subject to impeachment proceedings over the course of United States <a href="https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/impeachment/impeachment-list.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">history</a>, dating back to the 1700s. Some of the cases resulted in a guilty verdict and removal from office.
The House and Senate are currently led by Republicans, though by slim margins. While a simple majority to impeach could be achieved along party lines in the House, a bipartisan group of 67 senators would be needed to convict.
Mike Davis, who <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/govt-background-checks-for-trump-political-appointees-include-left-wing-questions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">helped</a> oversee the vetting of judicial appointments as a Senate staffer and now runs the conservative Article III Project, responded defiantly to Robert&#8217;s statement on impeaching judges in a <a href="https://x.com/mrddmia/status/1902029950452113699" target="_blank" rel="noopener">post</a> on X.
&#8220;For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is a political decision by Congress. An activist judge ordering planes to turn around during a national-security operation is not a &#8216;judicial decision,'&#8221; Davis said.
&#8220;That is a highly illegal and extremely dangerous sabotage of the presidency, which is an impeachable offense,&#8221; he added. &#8220;Your statement is not an appropriate response. The normal impeachment process exists for that purpose.&#8221;

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts

Chief Justice John Roberts Speaks Out Against Trump-Backed Push To Impeach Judges

Impeachment

Judiciary

Joy Behar claimed that President Donald Trump&#8217;s brief handshake with the Supreme Court&#8217;s Chief Justice John Roberts — at his address before a joint session of Congress — amounted to solid evidence that the Court was colluding with Trump.
Cohost Sunny Hostin weighed in ahead of Behar, boasting about the fact that she had not watched Trump&#8217;s remarks at all and touting counter-programming that had garnered some 200,000 viewers to the millions who watched the president.
&#8220;I know how much this present loves his ratings, so I did not turn the TV on. I turned the TV off &#8230; I watched the State of the People Summit which was counter-programming,&#8221; she said.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Behar has a mental breakdown over Trump shaking Chief Justice John Roberts&#39; hand. She cooks up a crazy conspiracy theory and claims there&#39;s no longer any separation of powers: &quot;And there was a moment there that really stopped my heart and that was when Trump shook hands with the… <a href="https://t.co/vYXlgoMhga">pic.twitter.com/vYXlgoMhga</a>
&mdash; Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1897325657916383500?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 5, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Behar then jumped in with her assessment of the Democrat rebuttal, delivered by freshman Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) — which she said sounded &#8220;very presidential in many ways, and she wasn&#8217;t being held hostage like the woman last year&#8221; — before pivoting to address her greatest concern about the evening.
&#8220;What I really wanted to talk about was something you just said, that we don&#8217;t have a separation of powers anymore,&#8221; Behar continued. &#8220;And there was a moment there that really stopped my heart and that was when Trump shook hands with the members of the Supreme Court who were there &#8230; He said to Justice Roberts, &#8216;thank you again, thank you again, won&#8217;t forget it.&#8217; Now, what do you think he was referring to?&#8221;
Behar then speculated that Trump was obviously thanking Roberts for the decision regarding presidential immunity, and her cohosts agreed. Hostin pointed out the Court&#8217;s low approval rating, suggesting the two things were somehow linked.
Behar kept at it, going on to argue that the exchange between Trump and Roberts was clearly evidence that the Supreme Court, like the Republican-led Congress, was &#8220;in the bag&#8221; for President Trump.

Joint Address TW 2025

Joy Behar Is Mad Trump Shook Chief Justice Roberts’ Hand, Says Separation Of Powers Is Gone

Joy Behar Is Mad Trump Shook Chief Justice Roberts' Hand, Says Separation Of Powers Is Gone

Joy Behar

media

the view

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued his <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2024year-endreport.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">annual report</a> this week, and he attempted to head off the growing tendency among some citizens and politicians to violently interfere with the judicial system&#8217;s independence.
In the last two years, the Supreme Court has made rulings that have angered the political Left, from overturning Roe v. Wade and the Chevron Deference Doctrine to granting President-elect Donald Trump immunity from criminal prosecution for his conduct while in office. The Chevron Deference Doctrine stated that if federal legislation was unclear or left an administrative gap, the courts had to defer to the regulatory agency&#8217;s interpretation if the interpretation was “reasonable,” which allowed Democrats for decades to use executive agencies to circumvent the judicial system and institute leftist regulations.
“It is not in the nature of judicial work to make everyone happy,” Roberts wrote. “Most cases have a winner and a loser. Every Administration suffers defeats in the court system—sometimes in cases with major ramifications for executive or legislative power or other consequential topics. Nevertheless, for the past several decades, the decisions of the courts, popular or not, have been followed, and the Nation has avoided the standoffs that plagued the 1950s and 1960s.”
“As Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, ‘(a) natural consequence of life tenure should be the ability to benefit from informed criticism from legislators, the bar, academy, and the public.’ Unfortunately, not all actors engage in ‘informed criticism’ or anything resembling it. I feel compelled to address four areas of illegitimate activity that, in my view, do threaten the independence on judges on which the rule of law depends: (1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.”
Roberts quoted federal marshals who said they had investigated more than 1,000 serious threats against federal judges in the last five years. He mentioned two judges, one in Wisconsin and one in Maryland, who were murdered in their homes in the last two years.
Roberts wrote, “&#8230;disappointed litigants rage at judicial decisions on the Internet, urging readers to send a message to the judge. &#8230; Some of these messages promote violence &#8230;” He also spoke of critics doxing judges, imperiling them by revealing their private information.
Roberts stated that implementing more civic education would be a good antidote for the spread of misinformation about judicial decisions. He spoke of malign foreign actors, saying, “For example, bots distort judicial decisions, using fake or exaggerated narratives to foment discord within our democracy. In other cases, hackers steal information — often confidential and highly sensitive — for nefarious purposes, sometimes for private benefit and other times for the use of state actors themselves.”
“Although Roberts did not mention any of the ‘hostile foreign state actors’ responsible for such disinformation by name, the justices will hear oral arguments next week in a challenge to a federal law that would require social media giant TikTok to shut down in the United States unless its parent company can sell it off by Jan. 19,” Amy Howe of SCOTUSblog <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/12/in-year-end-report-chief-justice-defends-judiciarys-independence/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pointed out</a>.
Roberts quoted William Howard Taft, who served as president before serving as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, saying, “Nothing tends more to render judges careful in their decisions and anxiously solicitous to do exact justice than the consciousness that every act of theirs is to be subject to the intelligent scrutiny of their fellow men, and to their candid criticism.”
“But violence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our Republic, and are wholly unacceptable,” Roberts concluded.

State of the Union

Chief Justice Issues Warning: Do Not Threaten The Judicial System With Violence

SCOTUS

Violence

Hillary Clinton attacked Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on his Christian faith in a recent interview, calling the conservative justice &#8220;scary&#8221; and &#8220;a fanatic&#8221; for his religious views.
The former secretary of state and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee made the remarks in April during a podcast <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UpNrRNL8Gw&amp;t=535s" target="_blank" rel="noopener">interview</a> with Democracy Docket&#8217;s Marc Elias. A clip from that discussion resurfaced on social media over the weekend.
&#8220;You know, I was in the Senate when both John Roberts and Alito were nominated to the court by George W. Bush. Therefore, I had a chance, as you rightly say, to interview both of them,&#8221; Clinton said.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
&quot;Alito struck me almost immediately&#8230;as a radical, as a fanatic, about his views of culture and the role of religion in our society and his religion&#8230;And I found him scary.&quot;<a href="https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HillaryClinton</a> explains how she views the current Supreme Court. Watch here: <a href="https://t.co/v3VJj3YOYh">https://t.co/v3VJj3YOYh</a> <a href="https://t.co/KQu1ThNdFZ">pic.twitter.com/KQu1ThNdFZ</a>
&mdash; Democracy Docket (@DemocracyDocket) <a href="https://twitter.com/DemocracyDocket/status/1802023998764544169?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 15, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
&#8220;And I found John Roberts to be a kind of conservative, corporate-oriented lawyer, who had a kind of preconceived notion of the way things and people should work,&#8221; Clinton continued. &#8220;And I voted against him because I thought he was not only a candidate of the far Right, the Federalist Society and their agenda, but that his life experience was just too narrow to really be in that position.&#8221;
Alito, however, seemed like a &#8220;radical&#8221; due to his Christian faith, Clinton said.
&#8220;Alito struck me almost immediately upon sitting down to talk with him as a radical, as a fanatic about his views of culture and the role of religion in our society, and his religion, not maybe yours or mine, Marc, but his religion. And I found him scary, and I said so on the floor of the Senate when I voted against him,&#8221; Clinton said.
&#8220;We got the judges that had been groomed, put into the pipeline to do what they are now doing,&#8221; she added.
Roberts and Alito are both lifelong Catholics. Alito frequently votes with the Supreme Court&#8217;s conservative majority, while Roberts is considered a swing vote on many cases.
Alito has found himself headlining the news several times in recent months.
Last month, a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/us/justice-alito-upside-down-flag.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pair</a> of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/22/us/justice-alito-flag-appeal-to-heaven.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reports</a> from The New York Times said Alito&#8217;s homes <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-alito-gives-his-side-of-story-on-the-neighborhood-spat-behind-nyt-flag-story" target="_blank" rel="noopener">displayed</a> an upside-down American flag and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag, which people at the Capitol riot reportedly carried on January 6, 2021.
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1716990157394000&amp;usg=AOvVaw33qQydjIo8bet419amChif">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Several Democrat senators subsequently demanded Alito recuse himself from cases involving the 2020 presidential election, which Alito <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-alito-tells-democrat-senators-he-will-not-recuse-himself-from-supreme-court-cases" target="_blank" rel="noopener">refused</a> to do.
Then, last week, Alito was secretly recorded by a liberal activist pretending to be a religious conservative who told Alito she does not think “we can negotiate with the Left.”
&#8220;One side or the other is going to win,&#8221; Alito allegedly <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/10/alito-secret-recordings-politcal-divide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">responded</a>, according to the recording, adding that there can be &#8220;a way of living together peacefully,&#8221; but &#8220;there are differences on fundamental things that really can’t be compromised.&#8221;
Alito has been a particular target of the Left in the two years since he authored the court&#8217;s opinion in overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 landmark abortion case.

Clinton Global Initiative Returns To New York For First Time Since 2015

Hillary Clinton Attacked ‘Scary’ Justice Alito For His Christian Faith: ‘A Fanatic’

hillary clinton

Samuel Alito

On Thursday, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> Chief Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/john-roberts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Roberts</a> rejected a request from Senate Democrats for a meeting to discuss flags seen flying at Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/samuel-alito" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Samuel Alito</a>&#8216;s homes that have drawn ethics complaints from the Left.
Roberts conveyed his message in a <a href="https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24705122/2024-05-30-cjr-letter-to-chairman-durbin-and-senator-whitehouse.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">brief letter</a> to Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts,&#8221; who sent a missive last week asking for an audience with the chief justice.
&#8220;I must respectfully decline your request for a meeting,&#8221; Roberts said, adding later, &#8220;Separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence counsel against such appearances.&#8221;
He continued, &#8220;Moreover, the format proposed — a meeting with leaders of only one party who have expressed an interest in matters currently pending before the Court — simply underscores that participating in such a meeting would be inadvisable.&#8221;
The controversy took flight with a pair of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/us/justice-alito-upside-down-flag.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">recent</a> New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/22/us/justice-alito-flag-appeal-to-heaven.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reports</a> that said an upside-down American flag and an &#8220;Appeal to Heaven&#8221; flag were spotted at homes owned by the Alitos after similar flags were witnessed at the U.S. Capitol breach on January 6, 2021.
Durbin and Whitehouse additionally <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20from%20Justice%20Alito%20to%20Senators%20Durbin%20and%20Whitehouse.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">urged</a> Roberts to &#8220;ensure&#8221; Alito would recuse himself from any cases related to the 2020 election or the Capitol riot, including those that relate to the question of former President Donald Trump&#8217;s claims of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/eric-trump-warns-of-escalating-lawfare-if-supreme-court-rules-against-immunity" target="_blank" rel="noopener">immunity</a>.
Alito <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-alito-tells-democrat-senators-he-will-not-recuse-himself-from-supreme-court-cases" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> Senate Democrats on Wednesday he would not bend to their demands. He denied being involved in putting up either flag and said his wife, Martha-Ann, put them on display as she is &#8220;fond of flying flags&#8221; and has the same First Amendment rights as every other American.
“A reasonable person who is not motivated by political or ideological considerations or a desire to affect the outcome of Supreme Court cases would conclude that this event does not meet the applicable standard for recusal. I am therefore duty-bound to reject your recusal request,&#8221; Alito <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20from%20Justice%20Alito%20to%20Senators%20Durbin%20and%20Whitehouse.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.
In his letter on Thursday, Roberts made reference to Alito&#8217;s response and noted how members of the Supreme Court &#8220;recently reaffirmed the practice we have followed for 235 years pursuant to which individual Justices decide recusal issues.&#8221;

John Roberts, chief justice of the US Supreme Court

Chief Justice Roberts Declines Invite To Meet With Senate Dems On Alito

Senate Democrats

U.S. Senate

An honor guard collapsed on Monday while standing alongside the casket of Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sandra Day O&#8217;Connor</a> as the former justice was lying in repose in the Supreme Court.
The honor guard could be seen on camera beginning to wobble and beginning to lose her balance when another honor guard behind her stepped in and caught her before she hit the floor.
It is not clear what happened to the guard or what her status is.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
WATCH: Honor guard collapses while Sandra Day O’Connor lies in repose at the U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://t.co/6IMFgjEsei">pic.twitter.com/6IMFgjEsei</a>
&mdash; BNO News (@BNONews) <a href="https://twitter.com/BNONews/status/1736801475089903640?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 18, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
O’Connor passed away at the start of the month in Phoenix, Arizona, from complications related to advanced dementia and a respiratory illness. She was 93 years old.
O’Connor retired in 2006 after serving nearly a quarter of a century on the nation’s highest court.
She is survived by her three sons, Scott, Brian, and Jay; and by her six grandchildren: Courtney, Adam, Keely, Weston, Dylan, and Luke.
“A daughter of the American Southwest, Sandra Day O’Connor blazed an historic trail as our Nation’s first female Justice,” said Chief Justice John Roberts. “She met that challenge with undaunted determination, indisputable ability, and engaging candor. We at the Supreme Court mourn the loss of a beloved colleague, a fiercely independent defender of the rule of law, and an eloquent advocate for civics education. And we celebrate her enduring legacy as a true public servant and patriot.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
O’Connor was born in El Paso, Texas, on March 26, 1930. She married her husband, John Jay O’Connor III, in 1952, and cared for him until his final moments in 2009 when he passed away in an assisted-living center from Alzheimer’s disease.
O’Connor was beloved by many, and political figures from across the political spectrum had nothing but good things to say about her.

Late Justice Sandra Day O’Connor Lies In Repose At The Supreme Court

Honor Guard Collapses During Service For Justice Sandra Day O’Connor

Honor Guard Collapses During Service For Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

Washington D.C.

The <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> unveiled a formal ethics code this week amid <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/key-allegations-against-clarence-thomas-democrats-call-probe-1819296">scrutiny</a> from the media and Congress over concerns that the justices have failed to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/longtime-thomas-friend-hits-back-at-democratic-probe-into-financial-records" target="_blank" rel="noopener">properly disclose gifts</a> and did not recuse themselves in cases in which they might have a conflict of interest.
A <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/Code-of-Conduct-for-Justices_November_13_2023.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">15-page document</a>, featuring a statement at the top and a &#8220;Code of Conduct&#8221; below, was <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_11-13-23" target="_blank" rel="noopener">posted</a> to the high court&#8217;s website on Monday. All nine members, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, signed off on adhering to the five &#8220;canon&#8221; rules.
The five canons, many of which included subsections, said a justice &#8220;should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary,&#8221; &#8220;should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities,&#8221; &#8220;should perform the duties of office fairly, impartially, and diligently,&#8221; &#8220;may engage in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with the obligations of the judicial office,&#8221; and &#8220;should refrain from political activity.&#8221;
A &#8220;statement of the Court&#8221; offered a brief explanation for drawing out an ethics code without getting into specific media reports on ethical questions and a lack of transparency that have <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/clarence-thomas-cites-safety-concerns-for-private-jet-travel-after-dobbs-leak" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dogged conservative</a> justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, as well as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2023/05/04/politics/sonia-sotomayor-neil-gorsuch-book-recusal-supreme-court-cases/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">liberal Justice</a> Sonia Sotomayor in recent months while fueling an <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/releases/durbin-announces-judiciary-committee-will-no-longer-vote-to-authorize-subpoena-for-robin-arkley-following-cooperation-in-supreme-court-ethics-investigation" target="_blank" rel="noopener">investigation led by the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee</a>.
&#8220;The undersigned Justices are promulgating this Code of Conduct to set out succinctly and gather in one place the ethics rules and principles that guide the conduct of the Members of the Court,&#8221; the statement said.
&#8220;For the most part these rules and principles are not new: The Court has long had the equivalent of common law ethics rules, that is, a body of rules derived from a variety of sources, including statutory provisions, the code that applies to other members of the federal judiciary, ethics advisory opinions issued by the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, and historic practice,&#8221; the statement added.
&#8220;The absence of a Code, however, has led in recent years to the misunderstanding that the Justices of this Court, unlike all other jurists in this country, regard themselves as unrestricted by any ethics rules,&#8221; the statement said. &#8220;To dispel this misunderstanding, we are issuing this Code, which largely represents a codification of principles that we have long regarded as governing our conduct.&#8221;

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reveals Ethics Code For Justices

Clarence Thomas

Ethics

Sonia Sotomayor

Rep. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/alexandria-ocasio-cortez">Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez</a> (D-NY) suggested Congress should consider using subpoena power to force <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/john-roberts">John Roberts</a> to testify before lawmakers about ethics issues.
The Democrat-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee &#8220;is beginning the process of investigating the entanglements and conflicts of interest,&#8221; the congresswoman said during an interview with CNN that aired Sunday morning.
&#8220;I believe that if Chief John Roberts will not come before <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/congress">Congress</a> for an investigation voluntarily, I believe that we should be considering subpoenas,&#8221; she added later.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
AOC: If Chief Justice Roberts will not come before Congress for an investigation voluntarily, I believe that we should be considering subpoenas… <a href="https://t.co/a7XwkQ1oN9">pic.twitter.com/a7XwkQ1oN9</a>
&mdash; Acyn (@Acyn) <a href="https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1675505278974930944?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 2, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The Senate Judiciary Committee asked Roberts to testify about Supreme Court ethics and potential reforms for a hearing in early May, but the chief justice <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/durbin-invites-chief-justice-roberts-testify-supreme-court/story?id=98728400" target="_blank" rel="noopener">declined the invitation</a>.
At the time, Sen. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/dianne-feinstein">Dianne Feinstein</a> (D-CA) was on medical leave while recovering from shingles, leaving Democrats without a majority on the panel that could overcome GOP opposition if there was a vote on a subpoena. However, Feinstein has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/feinstein-returns-to-senate-in-wheelchair-needs-lighter-schedule">since returned to Capitol Hill</a>.
Ocasio-Cortez, who cited concerns centered on conservative Justices <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-view-keeps-pushing-claim-that-clarence-thomas-wife-egged-on-january-6th-riot">Clarence Thomas</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/jun/21/samuel-alito-undisclosed-gifts-billionaire-paul-singer-supreme-court">Samuel Alito</a>, said Congress &#8220;must pass much more binding and stringent ethics guidelines.&#8221;
&#8220;There also must be impeachment on the table,&#8221; she added. &#8220;We have a broad level of tools to deal with misconduct, overreach, and abuse of power. And the Supreme Court has not been receiving the adequate oversight necessary in order to preserve their own legitimacy. And, in the process, they themselves have been destroying the legitimacy of the court, which is profoundly dangerous for our entire democracy.&#8221;
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-3759">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
Ocasio-Cortez also discussed reining in the power held by the nine justices — including the prospect of expanding the Supreme Court — following a series of conservative victories over the past year in rulings focused on <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pro-life-professor-breaks-down-why-supreme-court-didnt-go-far-enough-when-it-overturned-roe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">abortion access</a>, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-sides-with-christian-graphic-designer-who-refused-to-work-on-same-sex-weddings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">religious freedom</a>, <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-issues-landmark-ruling-on-affirmative-action-at-universities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">affirmative action</a>, and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-delivers-defeat-to-biden-admin-on-student-loan-forgiveness" target="_blank" rel="noopener">President Joe Biden&#8217;s student debt plan</a>.
&#8220;The courts, if they were to proceed without any check on their power, without any balance on their power, then we will start to see an undemocratic and, frankly, dangerous authoritarian expansion of power in the Supreme Court,&#8221; Ocasio-Cortez said, adding, &#8220;which is what we are seeing now, from the overturning of abortion rights, to the ruling that discrimination and, frankly, stripping the full personhood and dignity of LGBTQ people in the United States.&#8221;
&#8220;These are the types of rulings that signal a dangerous creep towards authoritarianism and centralization of power in the court,&#8221; she added.

AOC Floats Subpoena Against Supreme Court Justice Roberts

alexandria ocasio-cortez

Menu