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

Courts

John Roberts

Supreme Court

U.S.

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 Reveals Ethics Code For Justices

Clarence Thomas

Ethics

Judiciary

Samuel Alito

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

Congress

Politics

Chief Justice John Roberts quoted former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in the majority opinion — released on Friday — that struck down President Joe Biden&#8217;s student debt cancellation program.
The program, which was designed to forgive up to $10,000 in federal student loans for borrowers whose incomes were below a certain threshold — up to $20,000 if they had been Pell Grant recipients — was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-delivers-defeat-to-biden-admin-on-student-loan-forgiveness" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruled unconstitutional</a> by a 6-3 margin, with Roberts saying that the COVID-era HEROES Act did not give Joe Biden the authority to act unilaterally on the issue.
&#8220;The Secretary asserts that the HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not. We hold today that the Act allows the Secretary to ‘waive or modify’ existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite that statute from the ground up,&#8221; Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.
The Chief Justice went on to use a statement made by Pelosi to bolster his point, noting that she had agreed Biden had the authority to make some changes in the time or manner that payments were made, but not to waive them altogether.
&#8220;People think that the President of the United States has the power for debt forgiveness. He does not,&#8221; she said in July of 2021. &#8220;He can postpone. He can delay. But he does not have that power. That has to be an act of Congress.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
HAHAHAHAHA Justice Roberts cited Nancy Pelosi in the majority opinion when she said Biden doesn&#39;t have the power to cancel student debt. <a href="https://t.co/mhhyniRPpa">pic.twitter.com/mhhyniRPpa</a>
&mdash; Greg Price (@greg_price11) <a href="https://twitter.com/greg_price11/status/1674790244468793344?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 30, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Despite her apparent misgivings at the time, Pelosi later appeared to support the plan. In August of 2022, just over a year later, she cheered Biden&#8217;s efforts in a tweet, saying, &#8220;@POTUS’ bold action is a strong step in Democrats’ fight to expand access to higher education. By delivering historic targeted student debt relief to millions of borrowers, more working families will be able to meet their kitchen table needs as they recover from the pandemic.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
.<a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>’ bold action is a strong step in Democrats’ fight to expand access to higher education.
By delivering historic targeted student debt relief to millions of borrowers, more working families will be able to meet their kitchen table needs as they recover from the pandemic. <a href="https://t.co/nHkBLNvqeG">https://t.co/nHkBLNvqeG</a>
&mdash; Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) <a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1562470835641692164?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 24, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Pelosi has not yet commented on the Court&#8217;s decision to strike the program in its entirety.

Nancy Pelosi

Supreme Court Quoted Pelosi In Decision That Killed Biden’s Student Debt Cancellation

Supreme Court Quoted Pelosi In Decision That Killed Biden's Student Debt Cancellation

Joe Biden

Student Loan Cancellation

Chief Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/john-roberts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Roberts</a> delivered a scathing response to the liberal justices in Thursday&#8217;s Affirmative Action decision, accusing them of burying a power grab in the dissents penned by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, with Justice Elena Kagan concurring.
Roberts <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23864238-affirmative-action-ruling" target="_blank" rel="noopener">addressed the dissent</a> on page 46 of his opinion, saying that the Justices had divorced the case from the context in a concerted effort to make the Court the arbiter of which race[s] were entitled to preferential treatment.
&#8220;The principal dissent wrenches our case law from its context, going to lengths to ignore the parts of that law it does not like. The serious reservations that Bakke, Grutter, and Fisher had about racial preferences go unrecognized,&#8221; Roberts began. &#8220;The unambiguous requirements of the Equal Protection Clause — &#8216;the most rigid,&#8217; &#8216;searching&#8217; scrutiny it entails — go without note.&#8221;
&#8220;And the repeated demands that race-based admissions programs must end go overlooked — contorted, worse still, into a demand that such programs never stop,&#8221; Roberts continued. &#8220;Most troubling of all is what the dissent must make these omissions to defend: a judiciary that picks winners and losers based on the color of their skin. While the dissent would certainly not permit university programs that discriminated against black and Latino applicants, it is perfectly willing to let the programs here continue. In its view, this Court is supposed to tell state actors when they have picked the right races to benefit. Separate but equal is &#8216;inherently unequal,&#8217; said Brown. 347 U. S., at 495 (emphasis added). It depends, says the dissent.&#8221;
The Chief Justice went on to attack the liberal justices&#8217; apparent attempt to reserve for the Court the power to choose which race[s] deserve such beneficial treatment, saying it was so egregious that it mirrored decisions rendered before the &#8220;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/18/books/review/the-second-founding-eric-foner.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Second Founding</a>&#8221; &#8212; when the post-Civil-War-era 14th Amendment and the included Equal Protection Clause put an end to the Court&#8217;s freedom to do so.
<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-102078">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
&#8220;That is a remarkable view of the judicial role—remarkably wrong,&#8221; Roberts said. &#8220;Lost in the false pretense of judicial humility that the dissent espouses is a claim to power so radical, so destructive, that it required a Second Founding to undo. &#8216;Justice Harlan knew better,&#8217; one of the dissents decrees. &#8230; Indeed he did: &#8216;[I]n view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.&#8217; Plessy, 163 U. S., at 559 (Harlan, J., dissenting).&#8221;

Supreme Court Justices Pose For Formal Group Photo

Chief Justice Roberts Accuses Liberal Justices Of Power Grab In Affirmative Action Opinion

Affirmative Action

Harvard

Ketanji Brown Jackson

SCOTUS

Leftist politicians and pundits expressed rage on Thursday after a landmark Supreme Court decision was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-issues-landmark-ruling-on-affirmative-action-at-universities" target="_blank" rel="noopener">released</a> that struck down the race-based admission policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina. 
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court court ruled that the race-based admissions programs at the schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, drawing the ire of prominent Democrat politicians and leftist commentators.
Former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the ruling diminished &#8220;hard-fought progress for racial justice.&#8221;
&#8220;Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion does violence to justice and fairness in America,&#8221; she <a href="https://twitter.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1674443650216910849" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> on Twitter. &#8220;In contrast, Justice Jackson’s powerful dissent is inspiring to us, as we continue to fight to widen the path to success for all Americans.&#8221;
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said the decision was &#8220;misguided.&#8221; &#8220;The Supreme Court ruling has put a giant roadblock in our country&#8217;s march for racial justice,&#8221; Schumer <a href="https://www.democrats.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/majority-leader-schumer-statement-on-supreme-court-decision-on-affirmative-action" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>. &#8220;The consequences of this decision will be felt immediately and across the country, as students of color will face an admission cycle next year with fewer opportunities to attend the same colleges and universities than their parents and older siblings.&#8221;
Former President Barack Obama said the court&#8217;s ruling would hamper minorities&#8217; educational opportunities.
&#8220;Affirmative action was never a complete answer in the drive towards a more just society. But for generations of students who had been systematically excluded from most of America’s key institutions – it gave us the chance to show we more than deserved a seat at the table. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, it’s time to redouble our effort,&#8221; Obama <a href="https://barackobama.medium.com/our-statements-on-the-u-s-supreme-courts-decision-to-overturn-affirmative-action-2e161f52b5d1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.
ABC News commentator and former acting Democratic National Committee chair <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/donna-brazile" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Donna Brazile</a> said that the justices that supported the decision &#8220;whitewash the Constitution.&#8221;
“I am shocked by the fact that in the majority opinion, they basically whitewash the Constitution in a way that basically says we were right all along. The 14 Amendment, the equal protection clause, would guarantee us a color-blind society,” she said. “And now the most effective tool, an affirmative tool, to eliminate barriers, a tool that would give us opportunity is now weakened.” 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
ABC brought in Donna Brazile and it was quite the meltdown over the SCOTUS decision on affirmative action.
Watch and enjoy.
h/t: <a href="https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@RyanGirdusky</a> <a href="https://t.co/xiadN4T7IE">pic.twitter.com/xiadN4T7IE</a>
&mdash; Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) <a href="https://twitter.com/CurtisHouck/status/1674431725500518402?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 29, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Activist and MSNBC commentator Al Sharpton also lamented the decision.
&#8220;I think that this is tantamount to sticking a dagger in our back because what they have said now is that it is unconstitutional to even consider race,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It is completely a throw to the wind the history of why we needed affirmative action in the first place.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Al Sharpton weighing in on SCOTUS decision on Affirmative Action: &quot;I think that this is tantamount to sticking a dagger in our back because what they have said now is that it is unconstitutional to even consider race&#8230;&quot; <a href="https://t.co/oCpbZDlXrm">pic.twitter.com/oCpbZDlXrm</a>
&mdash; Kevin Tober (@KevinTober94) <a href="https://twitter.com/KevinTober94/status/1674436821873197058?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 29, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Princeton professor Eddie Glaude predicted &#8220;a kind of segregated higher education landscape&#8221; would emerge.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Eddie Glaude claims the country will &quot;return&quot; to &quot;segregated&quot; colleges and universities. Sounding like a racist, he openly decries more Asian students getting admitted to institutions of higher education. <a href="https://t.co/IeFFacFfUV">pic.twitter.com/IeFFacFfUV</a>
&mdash; Nicholas Fondacaro (@NickFondacaro) <a href="https://twitter.com/NickFondacaro/status/1674421655345692675?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 29, 2023</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, said that universities could allow applicants to mention personal experiences of racism when applying for colleges, but that there could not be explicit policies based on the applicant&#8217;s race. 
“Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,” Roberts <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> in the opinion for the majority.
The ruling came after a group called Students for Fair Admissions <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/scotus-hinting-it-might-throw-out-affirmative-action-used-in-college-admissions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sued</a> the schools, accusing the institutions of unfairly factoring race into their admissions processes. The group pointed to the high test scores of Asian-American and white applicants who were rejected.
<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-8325">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
The court’s decision was widely celebrated by conservatives, who said it was a win for merit-based academic admissions. 
“Affirmative action is systemic discrimination. I’m thankful the Supreme Court held this discrimination violates the constitution [sic]. Admissions should be decided on merit — not by color of skin,” Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenTomCotton/status/1674425866645012488" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> on Twitter. 
Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) <a href="https://twitter.com/chiproytx/status/1674426297530093568" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> conservatives should be careful not to allow universities to get around the ruling. 
“When the schools still take steps to accomplish the race-based objective, will we still fund higher ed at high levels and subsidize loans to those schools?  Asking for a friend…,” he said.

2019 ESSENCE Festival Presented By Coca-Cola – Ernest N. Morial Convention Center – Day 1

‘A Dagger In Our Back’: Leftists Freak Out After SCOTUS Overturns Affirmative Action In College Admissions

Leftists Freak Out After SCOTUS Overturns Affirmative Action In College Admissions

ABC News

Donna Brazile

The U.S. Supreme Court <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/scotus-rules-against-north-carolina-gop-congressional-map">ruled</a> Tuesday against a Republican-drawn congressional map in North Carolina, rebuking “independent legislature theory.”
The <a href="https://fedsoc.org/events/litigation-update-state-legislatures-state-courts-and-federal-elections">theory</a> proposed by the GOP lawyers <a href="https://www.law.columbia.edu/news/archive/five-questions-independent-state-legislature-theory-elections-expert-richard-briffault">believes</a> that because Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives state legislatures the power to determine the “times, places and manner” of federal elections, state and federal courts have no business reviewing state decisions in redistricting. 
“The Elections Clause does not insulate state legislatures from the ordinary exercise of state judicial review,” Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1271_3f14.pdf">wrote</a> in the majority opinion. 
The controversy was spurred when the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the legislature’s congressional map, which favored Republican candidates. However, after the state’s top legislative Republicans appealed to SCOTUS, the party gained control of the state’s high court, which subsequently overruled the reasoning — but not the result — of the original decision. 
The decision gives power to federal courts to review state supreme court decisions regarding congressional maps’ compliance with state election laws. This means that federal courts could overrule state courts in deciding whether a map violates state law, not just federal law. 
Roberts was joined by Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and the three Democrat-appointed justices to form the 6-3 majority. The majority argued that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the case, state constitutions govern the legislature’s redistricting power, and state and federal courts can review the legality of state legislatures’ maps under state and federal laws.
Roberts argued that the Court had authority to hear the case because the only path for the GOP petitioners to be relieved is if SCOTUS overturned the state supreme court’s first decision on the matter, which was only partially overturned after Republicans took over the Tar Heel State’s high court. 
The Chief Justice also turned to the practice of judicial review before Marbury v. Madison solidified the practice in SCOTUS. “State cases, debates at the Convention, and writings de- fending the Constitution all advanced the concept of judicial review,” he wrote. “The idea that courts may review legislative action was so “long and well established” by … Marbury in 1803 that Chief Justice Marshall referred to judicial review as ‘one of the fundamental principles of our society.’” 
<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=1687972190386000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2poz7lKxiyhNV9ljBcMSzM">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“State courts retain the authority to apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures act under the power conferred upon them by the Elections Clause. But federal courts must not abandon their own duty to exercise judicial review,” Roberts concluded.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence where he emphasized that federal courts should be limited in their jurisdiction to review state redistricting cases, pointing out the Court does not adopt a standard. He also argued that allowing federal courts this jurisdiction is not disrespect to state courts but a protection for state legislatures. 
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, arguing that the Court should not have even heard the case and that granting federal judges authority over controversies of state election law would “swell federal court dockets.” 
More consequentially, he noted that “politically charged controversies” will arise “haphazardly” before federal courts, with the winners of federal elections possibly being decided by a quick judgment of a federal court. 
Lead petitioner and Speaker of the North Carolina House Tim Moore <a href="https://twitter.com/TimBoyumTV/status/1673737273932693504">released</a> a statement regarding the decision:
&#8220;Ultimately, the question of the role of state courts in congressional redistricting needed to be settled and this decision has done just that. I am proud of the work we did to pursue this case to the nation&#8217;s highest court,&#8221; Moore said. &#8220;Fortunately the current Supreme Court of North Carolina has rectified bad precedent from the previous majority, reaffirming the state constitutional authority of the NC General Assembly. We will continue to move forward with the redistricting process later this year.&#8221;
Rick Pildes, a law professor at New York University, <a href="https://twitter.com/RickPildes/status/1673698906318725121">said</a> that “while the Court provided some clarity about the independent state legislature issue,” it left a “vague standard” for federal courts to apply when determining whether they should review state legislatures’ maps legality under state law. Pildes states that we don’t know when a court goes “too far” and that it will likely be litigated amid the 2024 elections.
Zach Jewell and Nathan Gay contributed to this report.

A Fair Maps Rally was held in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, March 26, 2019 in Washington, DC. The rally coincides with the U.S. Supreme Court hearings in landmark redistricting cases out of North Carolina and Maryland. The activists sent the

SCOTUS Rules Against GOP State Legislature In Key Election Law Case

Constitution

Election Laws

North Carolina

Redistricting

Republican Party

All nine Supreme Court Justices issued a statement late last week pushing back on attempts from Senate Democrats to implement new ethics oversight measures over the nation&#8217;s highest court which comes after the political Left has tried to generate controversy surrounding three conservative justices in recent weeks.
The statement from the justices also included a letter from Chief Justice John Roberts to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Richard Durbin (D-IL) saying that he will not attend a hearing that Senate Democrats want to hold.
&#8220;Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence,&#8221; Roberts <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Letter%20to%20Chairman%20Durbin%2004.25.2023.pdf">said</a>.
The statement from the nine justices said that they wrote it to &#8220;provide new clarity to the bar and to the public on how the Justices address certain recurring issues, and also seeks to dispel some common misconceptions.&#8221;
The letter then laid out how justices deal with a variety of issues that they face some of which have been included in recent left-wing attacks on Justices Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch.
The Associated Press <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/9-supreme-court-justices-push-back-oversight-raises/story?id=98917921">reported</a> that the apparent message contained in the unanimous letter from the justices &#8220;though not expressly stated, is that the court unanimously rejects legislation proposed by Democrats seeking to impose on the justices the same ethics obligations applied to all other federal judges.&#8221;
The letter also addressed recent threats against justices, which reached a fever pitch last year when a leftist <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/27/politics/kavanaugh-roske-arrest-warrant/index.html">reportedly</a> attempted to assassinate up to 3 conservative justices.
&#8220;A word is necessary concerning security. Judges at all levels face increased threats to personal safety,&#8221; the letter said. &#8220;These threats are magnified with respect to Members of the Supreme Court, given the higher profile of the matters they address. Recent episodes confirm that such dangers are not merely hypothetical. Security issues are addressed by the Supreme Court Police, United States Marshals, state and local law enforcement, and other authorities. Matters considered here concerning issues such as travel, accommodations, and disclosure may at times have to take into account security guidance.&#8221;

The U.S. Supreme Court Poses For Official Group Photo

All 9 Supreme Court Justices Issue Rare Statement After Leftist Attacks On Conservative Justices

The Supreme Court investigation into who leaked a draft opinion indicating Roe v. Wade would be overturned last year has narrowed down the list of suspects, according to a new report.
The Wall Street Journal, which <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-investigators-have-narrowed-leak-inquiry-to-small-number-of-suspects-11673635774?mod=e2tw" target="_blank" rel="noopener">broke the news Friday</a>, cited sources who stressed that officials have not yet settled on a specific suspect.
Chief Justice John Roberts announced that he had tasked the Supreme Court&#8217;s marshal, Gail Curley, with investigating how the draft opinion by Justice Samuel Alito had leaked the day after POLITICO published it in May 2022.
&#8220;To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way,&#8221; <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_05-03-22" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Roberts said in a statement</a>.
More than a month later, on June 24, the Supreme Court released Alito&#8217;s majority opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, which overturned the 1973 Roe decision and returned the issue of abortion to the states.
Curley leads a force of 189 officers, but because it has little experience in complex investigations the court brought in outside help and made strides in narrowing down the list of suspects by early summer, sources told The Wall Street Journal. An insider said interviews were sometimes short and included pointed questions such as &#8220;Did you do it? Do you know anyone who had a reason to do it?”
Fox News host Shannon Bream <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/supreme-court-leak-investigators-narrowed-shannon-bream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported in late July</a> that her sources were telling her the group of suspects had been whittled down from about 70 people, including law clerks working with the justices.
&#8220;Thanks to our amazing producer Bill Mears, [we] have been digging around and found that they have started this group of essentially about 70 or so that would have had access to that document,&#8221; Bream said at the time. &#8220;They have narrowed it down. They did ask the clerks who were then working at the court. And listen, their one-year contract is basically up mid-July. So most of them have moved on. They did ask them to turn over cellphones and sign affidavits. They asked some of those similar things also of permanent court employees.&#8221;
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said in September that he hoped a report on the leaked draft would be completed in the near future, though he did not comment on whether it would be released to the public. “The chief justice appointed an internal committee to oversee the investigation,” Gorsuch <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/justice-gorsuch-says-he-hopes-report-on-dobbs-leak-will-come-soon" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said at a conference</a>. “That committee has been busy and we’re looking forward to their report, I hope soon.”
This is a breaking news story; refresh the page for updates.

Suspects In Supreme Court Leak Narrowed Down: Report

Abortion

The <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/supreme-court" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Supreme Court</a> on Monday blocked the lifting of key immigration policy <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/title-42" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Title 42</a>.
The statute, which gives commanders-in-chief the power to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/texas-governor-predicts-total-chaos-when-title-42-border-rule-ends" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shut down immigration</a> as an emergency action to keep communicable diseases out of the United States, was last used by former President Donald Trump in reaction to the COVID outbreak. Families seeking asylum had filed a lawsuit which led Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to order the Biden administration to lift Title 42 by Wednesday.
Customs and Border Protection officials warned lawmakers that approximately 50,000 foreigners were waiting to cross into the United States once Title 42 ended. An <a href="https://twitter.com/realDailyWire/status/1604959650788659200" target="_blank" rel="noopener">order</a> from Chief Justice John Roberts, however, stayed the ruling of the lower court.
“Texas and other states are insisting that the Court leave Title 42 in place. Today&#8217;s order is a step in that direction,” Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) <a href="https://twitter.com/GregAbbott_TX/status/1604959009987264514" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in reaction to the move. “This helps prevent illegal immigration.”
Leaders in border cities had been bracing for an influx of immigrants. Oscar Leeser, the Democratic mayor of El Paso, Texas, declared a state of emergency on Saturday in anticipation of the end of Title 42. “Our asylum seekers are not safe,” the official <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/12/17/el-paso-mayor-oscar-leeser-declares-state-of-emergency-ahead-of-title-42-lifting/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> at a press conference. “We have hundreds and hundreds on the street and that’s not the way we treat our people.”
More than 80,000 migrants have entered El Paso in the last four months; approximately 678,000 people currently reside in the city, where temperatures can drop below freezing during winter nights. Leeser did not rule out the option of using a nearby military base to temporarily house migrants, adding that officials were discussing options with state and federal authorities.
As many as 4.9 million migrants have crossed into the United States under the administration of President Joe Biden, according to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bidens-press-secretary-on-illegal-immigration-its-not-like-somebody-walks-over-actually-millions-do" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data</a> from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Some 66 individuals from the terror watchlist crossed the border between October 2021 and July 2022; in the previous five years combined, only 30 aliens from the terror watchlist had been apprehended.
Sullivan said in his November ruling that the use of Title 42 to stop migrants from entering the United States for asylum is an “arbitrary” use of the law. “It is unreasonable for the CDC to assume that it can ignore the consequences of any actions it chooses to take in the pursuit of fulfilling its goals, particularly when those actions included the extraordinary decision to suspend the codified procedural and substantive rights of non-citizens seeking safe harbor,” he <a href="https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/opinion_-_huisha-huisha_v._mayorkas.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>.
The Department of Homeland Security previously vowed to continue enforcing Title 42 until the policy ended. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/news/2022/12/13/statement-secretary-mayorkas-planning-end-title-42" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> last week that the agency would “process individuals encountered at the border without proper travel documents using its longstanding Title 8 authorities, which provide for meaningful consequences, including barring individuals who are removed from re-entry for five years.”
Policies from the Biden administration meant to decrease illegal crossings have emphasized “root causes” such as economic instability in some Latin American nations rather than increased security at the border.
Dillon Burroughs contributed to this report.

El Paso migrants

Supreme Court Blocks Key Immigration Policy Title 42 From Ending

Immigration

Title 42

As we all learned in civics class in high school (before they were teaching how to become transgender and having drag queens for entertainment), there are three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial.
The idea of the Founding Fathers, seeking to build a balanced system, was that each branch could check the others. Congress could pass a bill, the president could veto it, then Congress could vote to override. And the Supreme Court could step in and void the whole thing.
While the executive and legislative branches are often adversarial &#8212; especially when they&#8217;re not controlled by the same party &#8212; the Supreme Court has long been held above the others. Its job is simply to answer this question: Does an action by the president or Congress adhere to the Constitution?
Back in 1972, Americans put great faith in the highest court in the land, with 66% saying they had “trust and confidence” in the branch, <a class="c-link" tabindex="-1" href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/402737/trust-federal-government-branches-continues-falter.aspx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://news.gallup.com/poll/402737/trust-federal-government-branches-continues-falter.aspx" data-sk="tooltip_parent" data-remove-tab-index="true">according</a> to Gallup. That rose to 80% by 1999 and held steady for a decade but began to drop in 2009 as President Barack Obama boldly bashed the court &#8212; down to 76% in 2009, and 53% by 2015.
Americans&#8217; confidence in the court rose to 68% while President Donald Trump took office, but as the mainstream media repeatedly slammed his nominees &#8212; at one point alleging Justice Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a girl back in high school &#8212; that trust plunged to 54%.
Now, with President Joe Biden in office, confidence in the Supreme Court stands at less than half of Americans, 47%.
That is due in large part to Biden endlessly ripping the court as political &#8212; and he&#8217;s on a desperate tear now in the waning days of the campaigns before Election Day on November 8.
“I view this, this off-year election, as one of the most important elections that I’ve been engaged in, because a lot can change because the institutions have changed,” he said at a fundraiser for Democrats on Tuesday.
“The Supreme Court is more of an advocacy group these days than it is a — evenhanded about it,” he said.
The executive&#8217;s attack on the judicial branch comes after the court struck down the constitutional right to abortion and expanded gun rights.
Chief Justice John Roberts blasted the politicization of the court at a September conference for judges and lawyers. “Simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for questioning the legitimacy of the court,” he said, <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/roberts-defends-high-court-against-attacks-on-its-legitimacy">according</a> to Bloomberg Law.
“The [Court’s] decisions have always been publicly criticized,” Roberts said, adding it is a “mistake” to view those criticisms as doubting the Court’s legitimacy as long as the Court does its job &#8212; which is “to say what the law is.”
“If the court doesn’t retain its legitimate function of interpreting the Constitution, I’m not sure who would take up that mantle,” he said. “You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is. And you don’t want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is.”
But that&#8217;s just what Biden is doing, questioning the legitimacy of the judicial branch &#8212; and stoking distrust in the American public.
Thank God the Founders were far smarter than our current president.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Joseph Curl has covered politics for 35 years, including 12 years as White House correspondent for a national newspaper. He was also the a.m. editor of the Drudge Report for four years. Send tips to josephcurl@dailywire.com and follow him on Twitter @josephcurl.

Rallies Protesting The Supreme Court Abortion Opinion Continue Across The Country

Shameful: Biden Tears Down The Supreme Court, Stoking Fear And Distrust Among Americans

Shameful: President Joe Biden Tears Down The Supreme Court, The Most Trusted Branch Of Government

Supreme Court Chief Justice <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/john-roberts" target="_blank" rel="noopener">John Roberts</a> defended the court from attacks on its legitimacy.
Speaking to jurists at the 10th Circuit Bench and Bar Conference in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Roberts pointed out that the nation&#8217;s highest court has always handled controversial cases, and decided some cases that provoked strong reactions from the public. However, Roberts pushed back on recent attacks against the legitimacy of the court itself, saying that disagreeing with an opinion on a controversial issue does not call into question the legitimacy of the court.
“The court has always decided controversial cases and decisions always have been subject to intense criticism and that is entirely appropriate,” Roberts told attendees at the conference, via the <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/chief-justice-john-roberts-defends-supreme-court-legitimacy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York Post</a>. “But I don’t understand the connection between the opinions people disagree with and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”
“Yes, all of our opinions are open to criticism,&#8221; he added, according to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/10/supreme-court-roberts-legitimacy/">The Washington Post</a>. &#8220;In fact, our members do a great job of criticizing some opinions from time to time. But simply because people disagree with an opinion is not a basis for criticizing the legitimacy of the court.”
Roberts pointed out that the distinct purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law without regard to political opinions or concerns. “That role doesn’t change simply because people disagree with this opinion or that opinion or with a particular mode of jurisprudence,” he said.
The Supreme Court took up a number of controversial cases and handed down several controversial decisions during its term earlier this year. In June, the court ruled that state-level restrictions on concealed carrying firearms are unconstitutional, in the case of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-scotus-strikes-down-new-york-concealed-carry-restrictions-restrictions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen</a>; then, the court ruled in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/united-states-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-leaves-abortion-restrictions-to-states" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Dobbs v. Jackson Women&#8217;s Health Organization</a>, overturning Roe v. Wade and giving control of abortion back to the states; finally, the court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency does not have the authority to set emissions caps on coal plants in <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/supreme-court-rules-against-bidens-epa-says-agency-does-not-have-authority-to-regulate-carbon-dioxide-emissions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">West Virginia v. The Environmental Protection Agency</a>.
Democrats and left-wing activists responded to those three rulings, especially the Dobbs decision, by slandering the court as &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-nancy-pelosi-demonizes-extremist-supreme-court-as-dhs-warns-of-terrorism-against-judges">extremist</a>&#8221; and saying the court &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/sen-elizabeth-warren-claimed-scotus-burned-legitimacy-in-roe-verdict-calls-for-adding-more-justices" target="_blank" rel="noopener">set a torch</a>&#8221; to its legitimacy, and calling for it to be reformed or for more justices to be put onto the bench.
Roberts continued, warning about the dangers of allowing politics into the judiciary. “If the court doesn’t retain its legitimate function of interpreting the constitution, I’m not sure who would take up that mantle,” he said, via the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-colorado-springs-john-roberts-government-and-politics-cdff7d291a37c3b8459e787421c633d2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Associated Press</a>. &#8220;You don’t want the political branches telling you what the law is, and you don’t want public opinion to be the guide of what the appropriate decision is.&#8221;
Roberts’ comments come after Vice President <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/vp-harris-attacks-activist-court-says-loss-rights-post-roe-led-sufferi-rcna47072" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kamala Harris</a> attacked the legitimacy of the Supreme Court in reaction to the Court&#8217;s decision in Dobbs.
&#8220;I think this is an activist court,&#8221; Harris told Chuck Todd in a clip of an interview with NBC News’ &#8220;Meet the Press&#8221; Friday. &#8220;We had an established right for almost half a century [abortion]&#8230; And this court took that constitutional right away, and we are suffering as a nation because of it. That causes me great concern about the integrity of the court overall.&#8221;

Menu