President Donald Trump said Senator Ted Cruz could be Supreme Court nominee in the near future, praising the Texas Republican during a speech in Corpus Christi on Friday evening.
Trump, who was once a fierce critic of Cruz, called the senator &#8220;an amazing guy&#8221; who is &#8220;so good and so talented.&#8221;
&#8220;I&#8217;m thinking about putting him in the Supreme Court,&#8221; Trump said. &#8220;I&#8217;m thinking because it&#8217;s very hard, getting these nominations through is tough.&#8221;
The president added that Cruz would receive &#8220;100%&#8221; of the Democratic and Republican vote, arguing that Cruz&#8217;s foes would &#8220;want to get him out of [the Senate]. He is such a pain in the ass.&#8221;
Trump also floated the idea of a Cruz Supreme Court appointment during a speech last month, calling the senator a &#8220;brilliant legal mind.&#8221; Cruz, however, shot the proposal down in January.
&#8220;My answer&#8217;s not just no, it&#8217;s hell no,&#8221; he <a href="https://www.fox26houston.com/news/supreme-court-texas-ted-cruz-donald-trump">said</a>. &#8220;It is interesting in the first Trump term, the president talked to me about all three Supreme Court vacancies, and we had very serious conversations and I told him no all three times.&#8221;
Cruz added that he wants to be &#8220;right in the middle&#8221; of political battles, something the Republican said a &#8220;principled federal judge&#8221; would stay out of.
After completing law school, Cruz clerked for Chief Justice William Rehnquist at the Supreme Court from 1996 to 1997. Trump first discussed the idea of nominating Cruz to the Supreme Court with the senator privately after the death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, according to Cruz.
&#8220;I wrestled with it because I knew Justice Scalia and revered him,&#8221; Cruz added. &#8220;And to have the opportunity to succeed him, I mean, talk about taking your breath away.&#8221;
While none of the Supreme Court justices have announced plans to retire anytime soon, there has been talk of either Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas, the two oldest and most conservative justices, retiring within the next couple of years to give Trump a chance to replace either of them with another conservative. Thomas is 77-years-old and Alito is 75.
Alito is set to release a book in early October, which has sparked rumors that the conservative justice could be hanging up his robe before the beginning of the Supreme Court&#8217;s next term, which also begins in October. Alito has served on the court for 20 years, while Thomas is the longest-tenured justice, nearing his 35th year on the high court.
When asked about Thomas or Alito potentially retiring in the near future, Trump <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/09/donald-trump-full-interview-transcript-00681693?nid=0000014f-1646-d88f-a1cf-5f46b7bd0000&amp;nname=playbook&amp;nrid=fe8db97b-d67e-4e92-8f3a-1577ce038e35">told</a> POLITICO in December that he wants both of them to stay on the court.
&#8220;Both of those men are fantastic,&#8221; he said.
After Republicans successfully prevented former President Barack Obama from tapping Merrick Garland as Scalia&#8217;s replacement — thanks to the efforts of then-Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell — Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch in 2017. Trump went on to nominate two more justices, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, during his first term. Conservatives now have a 6-3 majority, but Trump has recently been frustrated with conservative justices, including Gorsuch, Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts.

Trump Signs Order Seeking To Limit State-Level AI Regulation

Trump Floats Idea For His Next Supreme Court Appointment As Rumors Swirl About Possible Retirements

Clarence Thomas

Donald Trump

Executive

Politics

Samuel Alito

Supreme Court

Ted Cruz

The Supreme Court this week heard major cases on whether men who think they’re women because they’re mentally ill should be able to play sports with women who think they’re women because they’re women. The cases were a chance for the court to explore the question: is it fair for men who feel like women to play women’s sports or are we living in reality where that would be the sort of question only a nerdy nine-year-old boy would ask just before cracking up at his own joke and then making a series of snorting noises that ends with his accidentally blowing snot on his I Heart Stranger Things T-shirt?
In the event, the case was argued before a gathering of fine legal minds and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The trans-athletes were represented by the famous attorney Foster Closterfockolus who was hired by the Roland Dinghead Memorial Fund, which was named in honor of the famous trans-athlete, a girl who identified as male and joined a men’s boxing club, then sadly died.
Mr. Closterfockolus made the argument that — in theory — there are no real advantages to men who play women’s sports, so we should all live in theory instead of on earth where the idea is completely absurd. Judging by their responses to his argument, the justices seemed divided between those justices with IQ’s higher than a bowl of Cheerios and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The highlight of Mr. Closterfockolus’s argument was when he conjured up the cherished memory of transgender athletes from the past, like Abner Skullfog, a girl who identified as male and joined the local men’s ice hockey team, then, sadly, died. Mr. Closterfockolus said that to ban boys who identify as girls from girls’ sports would be to betray the memory of such pioneers who gave the last measure of devotion to free us from the shackles of sanity and common sense. Mr. Closterfockulus actually fought back tears as he went on to tell the story of another historic transgender innovator, Henry Blither, a woman who identified as a man and managed to join an NFL football team, then, sadly, died — though not before breaking through the Steelers’ offensive line to sack Aaron Rodgers.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1262-the-andrew-klavan-show?elementPosition=1&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974735 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1024x171.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1024x171.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-300x50.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-768x128.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now-1536x256.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/Klavan-watch-now.jpg 1800w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>
When Mr. Closterfockolus concluded his arguments, he was peppered with incisive questions by the brilliant justices and one from Ketanji Brown Jackson. Jackson asked, “If a man wears a skirt that’s a really soft shade of pink and has girly pleats with maybe a flower pattern, like little roses weaving in a kind of floaty, dream-like feminine way, and that skirt makes him very attractive to the sort of burly man who walks around with his shoulders and arms swinging, and then suddenly he sees this boy in his pretty pink skirt, and okay, it doesn’t develop into anything, but he takes a second look before becoming disgusted with himself, couldn’t we then say that the first boy is as much a female as that gruff detective on the HBO show about Easttown or is the whole scenario of three different local women getting kidnapped by the same man just too unbelievable?”
The next probing question came from Justice Alito who asked the attorney, “What the hell is that moron talking about and how in God’s name did she get on the Supreme Court?”
Throughout the questioning, the Justices tried to be respectful to the defendants by using their preferred pronouns without giggling, which unfortunately proved impossible.
After the question period was over, the attorney for the states banning men in women’s sports, Joan Dark, stood before the justices and wept quietly for twenty minutes before answering questions, including another intricate inquiry from Alito, who said, “Why couldn&#8217;t that dementia-riddled puddlehead of a president find a black woman who had been to law school, or could at least form an English sentence?”
But the final argument startled the justices when it came from a resonant disembodied voice that shook the courtroom, saying, “I created mankind in my image, male and female, and if you’re wondering why I didn’t ask your opinion about it, it’s because I’m omniscient and I knew there would one day be a justice on the Supreme Court who was dumber than a bowl of Cheerios.”
* * *
This excerpt is taken from the opening satirical monologue of “<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/the-andrew-klavan-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Andrew Klavan Show</a>.”
Andrew Klavan is the host of “The Andrew Klavan Show” at The Daily Wire. Klavan is the bestselling author of numerous books, including the Cameron Winter Mystery series. The fifth installment, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/After-That-Cameron-Winter-Mysteries/dp/1613166869/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3EGZUC370LG46&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Y_NI0mDOKeowShheDQTVx5NH-fAeimJoCD56_T0Acpl8C0mup7uJf-nGGSRLEItaaekoDnvS2vWLMa4Zd2UBXQ8Y-g-P502jOWz-Y8IX3ZQsdlO7WMLrg1xIhNoKmjCorSWUR4C2l_RbiZ7apJ1MfPzGOrrEf7AdAXX6xwnJRVP_XqUfWuMuVthTWscaU3P4vgmS86-96n-721enHfX12CFQWTajqFbVnrsDkexfUf4.6_gTH6h1Bb9Pn375QdF_VAVZSayDvjQBBKGXE-MTiFo&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;keywords=klavan&amp;qid=1754049918&amp;sprefix=%2Caps%2C80&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">After That, The Dark,</a> is NOW AVAILABLE. Follow him on X: <a href="https://x.com/andrewklavan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@andrewklavan</a>.
The views expressed in this satirical piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

SCOTUS II

The Supreme Court Finally Has A Justice Dumber Than A Bowl Of Cheerios

Andrew Klavan

Humor

Ketanji Brown Jackson

Satire

Transgender Athletes

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court appears poised to allow states to keep men out of women’s sports after the majority of justices seemed favorable towards laws from West Virginia and Idaho that make participation in women’s sports contingent on sex.
After three and a half hours of arguments on Tuesday, the justices seemed skeptical of claims from transgender-identifying athletes that laws keeping them off women’s sports teams violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and Title IX. The outcome of the cases could have far-reaching implications for protecting women’s privacy in bathrooms, locker rooms, and other sensitive spaces.
The justices heard the cases of West Virginia v. B.P.J. and Little v. Hecox. Both cases revolve around laws in West Virginia and Idaho that prohibit men from competing on women’s sports teams.
The strongest pushback against the arguments made against the laws came from Justice Samuel Alito, who pressed lawyer Kathleen Hartnett, an attorney representing a transgender-identifying male athlete from Idaho, about what her definition of sex was.
“Is it not necessary for there to be, for Equal Protection purposes, if that is challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, an understanding of what it means to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman?” he asked.
“We do not have a definition for the court, and we don&#8217;t take issue with the … we&#8217;re not disputing the definition here. What we&#8217;re saying is that the way it applies in practice is to exclude birth sex males categorically from women&#8217;s teams, and that there&#8217;s a subset of those birth sex males where it doesn&#8217;t make sense to do so, according to the state&#8217;s own interest,” Hartnett replied.
“How can a court determine whether there&#8217;s discrimination on the basis of sex without knowing what sex means for Equal Protection purposes?” Alito followed up. He also asked Hartnett if she thought female athletes worried about fair competition were bigots.
In a different section of arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts joined in Alito’s skepticism about ACLU lawyer Joshua Block’s reluctance to provide a definition of sex for the court.
&#8220;Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. It&#8217;s a statutory term, it must mean something,&#8221; Roberts said. &#8220;You&#8217;re arguing here there is discrimination on the basis of sex, and how can we decide that question without knowing what sex means in Title IX?&#8221;
Justice Brett Kavanaugh appeared inclined to let the debate play out at the state level, noting that 27 states have protected women’s sports while the other 23 allow males who identify as females to compete in the women’s division.
“Why would we, at this point, just the role of this court, jump in and try to constitutionalize the rule for the whole country while [there&#8217;s] still, as you say, uncertainty, debate — while there are still strong interests on the other side?” he said.
Kavanaugh also noted that sports are often a “zero-sum game” and that even one transgender-identifying athlete allowed on a women’s team could have an outsized impact.
At a press conference after the case, Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer John Bursch told The Daily Wire that he believes the issue should be national and that women in California and Massachusetts should not have their right to fair competition taken away.
During arguments, demonstrators on both sides held competing rallies. One woman from North Carolina who was holding a sign in favor of protecting women&#8217;s sports told The Daily Wire that she got on a bus at 3:00 a.m. to travel up to Washington, D.C., for the demonstration.

Trans Athletes Supreme Court Case

SCOTUS Leans Toward Protecting Women’s Sports While ACLU Can’t Define ‘Woman’

Courts

Social Issues

Transgender

U.S.

If you talk to any experienced and honest teacher these days, from elementary school on up, one of the first things they will tell you is how quickly gender ideology has taken hold. Virtually overnight, students began adopting fake pronouns and made-up genders.
To call this phenomenon &#8220;unnatural&#8221; would be a vast understatement. It&#8217;s obviously engineered. Teachers and school boards are pushing this nonsense on children who are far too young to know any better. The public school system has committed itself to indoctrinating children, in many cases without their parents&#8217; knowledge or consent. But after what happened yesterday at the Supreme Court, it&#8217;s very clear that accountability is finally coming for these ghouls.
After many years of spewing LGBT propaganda with total impunity, school districts will soon face major new restrictions on their ability to pollute the minds of elementary-school-age children. Based on how the justices acted during oral arguments yesterday, “Mahmoud v. Taylor” could easily turn out to be one of the most significant Supreme Court rulings of this generation.
Before we review the oral arguments, here is some background. The case began after Montgomery County Public Schools, the largest school district in Maryland — introduced a new &#8220;gender and sexuality curriculum.&#8221; Initially, students (or their parents) could opt out of this curriculum for any reason. But after a short period of time, the school district claimed that it wasn&#8217;t feasible to continue allowing opt outs. So it&#8217;s mandatory now. To give you an idea of what exactly this curriculum entails, here&#8217;s an image from one book that children are introduced to.
<div id="attachment_911559" style="width: 690px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-911559" class="wp-image-911559 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U.jpeg" alt="Screenshot: What Are Your Words?" width="680" height="446" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U.jpeg 680w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/04/GpJWV7kX0AE7j3U-300x197.jpeg 300w" sizes=" (max-width: 680px) 100vw, 680px" />Screenshot: What Are Your Words?</div>
This is what&#8217;s apparently known as an &#8220;LGBT storybook.&#8221; This one&#8217;s called, “What Are Your Words?” As you can see, one line of dialogue reads, “My pronouns are like the weather. They change depending on how I feel.”
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which is a nonprofit, reported on some other books that were included in this <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/will-scotus-back-parents-when-it-comes-to-lgbtq-storybooks" target="_blank" rel="noopener">new curriculum</a>:
<blockquote>[O]ne book tasks three and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes &#8216;intersex flag,&#8217; &#8216;drag queen,&#8217; &#8216;underwear,&#8217; &#8216;leather,&#8217; and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn’t have to &#8216;make sense.&#8217; Teachers are instructed to say doctors only &#8216;guess&#8217; when identifying a newborn’s sex anyway.</blockquote>
When parents of varying religious faiths — including Muslims and Christians — objected to the idea that their 5-year-olds needed to be taught about &#8220;sex work&#8221; and &#8220;gender transitioning&#8221; by Left-wing activists posing as teachers, the school district told them they had no recourse. In fact, the district slandered the parents as bigots. All these parents were seeking was the ability to opt out of this indoctrination. They didn&#8217;t even demand that the classes be removed from the curriculum. But the school district denied their request. So the parents sued.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1581-member-exclusive?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
Which brings us to yesterday&#8217;s oral arguments. I want to begin with this question from Justice Alito, because it gets to the core of the issue. Alito wants to know why the school district is so hell-bent on forcing children to read books about homosexuality, transgenderism and so on. (To be clear, that&#8217;s what the school district is doing. They&#8217;re not merely providing these books in the school library. Teachers are actively telling students to read the books as part of class.) The truthful answer to Justice Alito&#8217;s question is simple: The Left understands that, if the LGBT movement is going to survive, it needs to indoctrinate new members at a very young age.
But the school district can&#8217;t say that out loud, of course. So instead, the lawyer representing the Montgomery school district&#8217;s superintendent, a man named Alan Schoenfeld, starts talking in circles about how impossible it would be, at a practical level, for the school district to allow students to opt out of this curriculum. But nothing he says actually makes sense. It gets so bad that, at the end of his rambling non-answer, Justice Kavanaugh chimes in to confirm that indeed, no one has any idea what the hell this guy is talking about. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="005 alito, whats the big deal" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q118nmS1g2s?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
As best I can tell, the lawyer for the school district is claiming that, because students might talk among themselves about certain LGBT books that are discussed in this curriculum, it&#8217;s therefore impossible to allow students to opt out of this kind of curriculum. In other words, whether or not students opt out, there&#8217;s a chance that they&#8217;ll hear about the materials that are discussed in these gay adventure books.
But this ignores a couple of obvious points.The big one is that, when a teacher is communicating a lesson to a class, it has a very different effect, as compared to one student talking to another student about a book during recess or whatever. The teacher is in a position of authority. It&#8217;s much easier for a 5-year-old to discount something another 5-year-old says, than it is to discount the wisdom of a 40-year-old teacher he&#8217;s told to trust. If this is an argument for anything, it&#8217;s an argument for not having these materials in the school to begin with. Which of course is the correct answer. But either way, it is not an argument against allowing parents to opt out.
The lawyer for the school district knows this but he can&#8217;t admit it. So he ends up confusing everyone in the room with a bunch of doublespeak. This kept happening throughout the oral arguments. Listen to this moment where Justice Gorsuch points out that, in Montgomery County, teachers are told to actively correct students who dare to suggest that men can&#8217;t become women. Gorsuch then asks the lawyer for Montgomery County whether this could constitute &#8220;coercion.&#8221; The obvious answer is yes. But instead of saying that, here&#8217;s the gibberish that the attorney comes back with:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="006 gorsuch, coercion, correcting himself" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x3sWOLDR4Q0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Justice Gorsuch gives an example where a student says, &#8220;a boy can&#8217;t be a girl.&#8221; And then the lawyer states that it&#8217;s not &#8220;coercive,&#8221; in any way, for the teacher to correct the student&#8217;s comment, in front of the entire class. He then changes his mind and says the opposite.
Even when he&#8217;s not contradicting himself, the school district&#8217;s lawyer managed to make a mockery of the entire case. 
Here&#8217;s his opening statement, for example:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="007 beginning with mr shonfeld" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xkw27dw9T5g?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Yes, according to this attorney for the school district, there&#8217;s no difference between teaching elementary-school students about wars, and teaching them that boys can become girls. Telling students about the War of 1812 is just like telling them that it&#8217;s totally reasonable to chemically castrate minors.
One of the ways we know this isn&#8217;t true, aside from using basic common sense, is that there&#8217;s no army of parents demanding that schools stop teaching students about wars. That&#8217;s because it&#8217;s understood that teaching students about wars is not a general endorsement of violence. Additionally, everyone agrees that history is important and useful because it&#8217;s grounded in reality. On the other hand, gender ideology is just that — ideological.
This lawyer was not the only person to embarrass himself yesterday. That&#8217;s a given. After all, Ketanji Brown Jackson was also in attendance at the hearing. And as you&#8217;d expect, she did not disappoint. Single-handedly, she dropped the collective IQ in the room by about 10 points, just by opening her mouth. And of course, she opened her mouth on the side of indoctrinating children, because she takes the Left&#8217;s position on every issue. Behold, Ketanji Brown Jackson&#8217;s argument in favor of mandatory indoctrination in public schools:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="008 can just go to private school" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y-FJrhGbwrw?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
Yes, you can homeschool, says Ketanji Brown Jackson. You can pay for an expensive private school. Therefore, there&#8217;s no &#8220;burden&#8221; on these parents, apparently. It&#8217;s not a &#8220;burden&#8221; to have to pay more money, and change your child&#8217;s school, because Montgomery County decided to teach LGBT propaganda. And then the lawyer representing the parents responds, and points out that she&#8217;s completely wrong, and many other cases demonstrate why she&#8217;s wrong. And then she goes quiet and they move on.
Here’s one more clip from these arguments, involving Justice Alito questioning the school board&#8217;s lawyer. He follows up on this logic, about how the parents can supposedly just go to a private school. He begins by talking from the perspective of one of these parents:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="009 alito, too bad" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hgRo17KtvU8?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
This is what it looks like in the Supreme Court when &#8220;sparks fly,&#8221; so to speak. Alito is making his disdain for the school district&#8217;s argument extremely clear, which is exactly what he should do. They&#8217;re trying to force-feed gender ideology to children, and instead of owning it, they&#8217;re lying and telling the parents to pay more money to find a private school that won&#8217;t interfere with their religious liberties. But the Constitution doesn&#8217;t work that way. And it appears the Montgomery County school district, and school districts all over the country, are about to discover that.
This is not a close case. That&#8217;s why even the far-Left outlet Vox <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20250422191725/https://www.vox.com/scotus/409921/supreme-court-dont-say-gay-mahmoud-taylor">reported</a>: 
<blockquote>The Supreme Court’s &#8216;Don’t Say Gay&#8217; argument went disastrously for public schools.</blockquote>
At the moment, the most likely outcome is that, when very young children are involved, parents will retain the right to opt out of curriculums involving gender ideology, or any other extreme ideology that conflicts with their established religion. Everyone can see this coming.
And just to underscore that, yesterday Randi Weingarten, the head of one of the largest teachers&#8217; unions in the country, went on Fox News. And she admitted, right away, that she wouldn&#8217;t read these books in the classroom. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="010 Randi" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/luc0jWbW_HA?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
&nbsp;
We all know that Randi Weingarten isn&#8217;t saying this because she believes it. She&#8217;s maybe the most calculating political operative in the country, after Nancy Pelosi. But Weingarten understands when the Left is overplaying its hand. She knows that they&#8217;re on the cusp of yet another crushing defeat in their efforts to indoctrinate children, and she&#8217;s trying to soften that blow when it inevitably comes.
Unfortunately for Weingarten, the truth is, there&#8217;s no way to accomplish that. Gender ideology and LGBT activists, as we&#8217;ve discussed many times, are now extremely unpopular. They have alienated the entire country, to the point that they may have cost Democrats the last election. The only way an ideology like this can survive is by targeting children before they&#8217;re able to develop their cognitive abilities. That&#8217;s their only viable play. And in a few short months, after this case is inevitably decided against the public school system of Montgomery County, it&#8217;ll be much, much harder for these people to accomplish that.

Supreme Court Hears Arguments On Parental Rights Regarding LGBTQ Books In Schools

The Lawyers Promoting Child Indoctrination To SCOTUS Were Absolutely Humiliated

Books

Brett Kavanaugh

Children's Books

Education

Elementary Schools

gender ideology

LGBTQ

Matt Walsh

Neil Gorsuch

Opinion

Parents rights

SCOTUS

Virginia

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) delivered a quick fact-check to Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) during a Tuesday hearing, using her own previous actions to discredit her current position on the impeachment of judges.
Crockett, along with several other Democrats, used her time during the committee hearing to complain that democracy itself would be left in shambles if Republicans were to succeed in impeaching any of the judges who have unilaterally blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from taking certain actions.
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🔥Jasmine Crockett starts HYPERVENTILATING about protecting the institution of the judiciary — before PROMPTLY being reminded by <a href="https://twitter.com/repdarrellissa?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@repdarrellissa</a> that she cosponsored legislation to impeach Justices Thomas &amp; Alito!
&quot;AOC filed articles of impeachment on Justice Thomas &amp; Alito.… <a href="https://t.co/lQZwj3tAWT">pic.twitter.com/lQZwj3tAWT</a>
&mdash; Townhall.com (@townhallcom) <a href="https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1907134854317142079?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 1, 2025</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“The problem that we have right now is that if we continue down this road, we will not have a rule of law because we have people that are currently serving and they’re saying things like, ‘Ignore the judge’s order.’”
Making no mention of the fact that President Joe Biden had done exactly that when he pushed ahead with student loan forgiveness despite a Supreme Court decision stating that he did not have the authority to do so, Crockett continued.
“What it means to have law and order in this country is that you follow the order and you go through the appeals process even if you dislike what the judge did,” Crockett said before yielding back her time.
She relied, as have other Democrats and media talking heads alike, on the narrative claiming that Republicans wanted to impeach the federal judges over rulings they “did not like” — despite the fact that the reasoning given by those calling for impeachment is rooted instead in those judges’ alleged abuses of power.
Issa stepped in briefly then, observing that when Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) had introduced articles of impeachment against conservative Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, Crockett herself had co-sponsored the move.
“It does seem interesting that when the shoe is on the other foot, everyone is self-righteous!” Issa said before moving on to the next agenda item.

House Oversight And Accountability Members And Watchdog Group Court Accountability Focus On Supreme Court Ethics

Darrell Issa Stops Crockett Cold With Real-Time Fact Check On Impeaching Judges

Congress

Impeachment

Jasmine Crockett

Judges

A very serious constitutional issue is currently being fought over, and the Supreme Court came down on the wrong side.
President Trump had a plan to cut into USAID spending. DOGE basically wiped out about $50 billion in USAID spending, reporting that money as not comporting with American standards of foreign policy. Thus, a temporary federal freeze, an impoundment, was essentially put on those funds. Then, a district court judge put a freeze on the freeze to allow that money to continue to go out the door.
The constitutional issue involved here is whether a district court judge has the capacity to simply shut down a presidential nationwide action.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States, in a 5-4 vote, essentially remanded the case back to the district court, saying they need clarification as to why and how this is actually being done.
The five judges who voted in favor of doing so included three leftist judges — Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor — and two conservatives — John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett. The SCOTUS order <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">stated</a>:
<blockquote>The United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. The present application does not challenge the Government’s obligation to follow that order. On February 25, the District Court ordered the Government to issue payments for a portion of the paused disbursements—those owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District Court’s temporary restraining order—by 11:59 p.m. on February 26.</blockquote>
There was an invoice because the work was already done. Does the federal government have to pay the bill?
The SCOTUS order continued:
<blockquote>The Chief Justice entered an administrative stay shortly before the 11:59 p.m. deadline and subsequently referred the application to the Court. The application is denied. Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.</blockquote>
It is unclear what the scope of this judgment is. SCOTUS is remanding the case back to the district court to figure out exactly what must be paused — and what doesn&#8217;t have to be. Are they saying the portion that has to go out is because the work has been completed? Or, are they saying pausing federal spending at all is not allowable? We will need clarification on that.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/bss-ep-2152-member-exclusive">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
The decision elicited a harsh dissent from Justice Samuel Alito, who is awesome, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
In the same way some people rank their favorite baseball players, I rank my favorite Supreme Court justices: Thomas is at the top, followed closely by Alito.
Alito was terrific. He <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a831_3135.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>:
<blockquote>Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) two billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic “No,” but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.</blockquote>
Alito did not pull any punches. He continued:
<blockquote>In capsule form, this is what happened. Respondents are a group of American businesses and nonprofits that receive foreign-assistance funds from the State Department and the U. S. Agency for International Development. They brought suit and claimed that the current administration’s temporary pause of foreign-assistance payments is unlawful. On February 13, 2025, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) requiring the Government to halt its funding pause. It based that decision on a finding that respondents are likely to succeed in showing that the Government violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
After issuing the TRO, the District Judge grew frustrated with the pace at which funds were being disbursed, and on February 25, he issued a second order requiring the Government to pay out approximately $2 billion. The judge brushed aside the Government’s argument that sovereign immunity barred this enforcement order, and he took two steps that, unless corrected, would prevent any higher court from reviewing and possibly stopping the payments. First, he labeled the order as a non-appealable TRO, and second, he demanded that the money be paid within 36 hours.
This left the Government little time to try to obtain some review of what it regarded as a lawless order. The Government moved for a stay pending appeal in the District Court. But the judge shrugged off the Government’s sovereign immunity argument and ignored the Government’s representation that most of the money in question, once disbursed, could probably not be recovered.</blockquote>
 Alito further explained:
<blockquote>To start, it is clear that the District Court’s enforcement order should be construed as an appealable preliminary injunction, not a mere TRO. A TRO, as its name suggests, is “temporary,” and its proper role is to “restrain” challenged conduct for a short time while the court considers whether more lasting relief is warranted.</blockquote>
A ”temporary restraining order” does not apply in this instance because it is not temporary; once the money is gone, it&#8217;s gone. A typical temporary restraining order could instruct not to engage in a particular action for a certain period of time. But a temporary restraining order cannot instruct one to pay a certain amount of money to a particular person, as that is not a temporary restraining order. Once the money has been paid, there is no clawing it back. This is Alito&#8217;s point.
Alito declared, “Nor did the order merely ‘restrain’ the Government’s challenged action in order to ‘preserve the status quo.’ Rather, it ‘act[s] as a mandatory injunction requiring affirmative action’ by the Government.”
“Even if the majority is unwilling to vacate the District Court’s order, it should at least stay the District Court’s enforcement order until the Government is able to petition for a writ of certiorari,” he wrote, meaning that the Supreme Court would take up the full case. 
He is right about all of this. He concluded:
<blockquote>Today, the Court makes a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers. The District Court has made plain its frustration with the Government, and respondents raise serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work. But the relief ordered is, quite simply, too extreme a response. A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them. </blockquote>
All of this raises questions as to why Justices Roberts and Coney Barrett did what they did. It&#8217;s not as extreme an order as it originally seems from the Supreme Court when it basically says any district court judge anywhere can put a nationwide temporary restraining order on the federal government for any reason whatsoever.
But, as Justice Alito says, if the effect of the order is to force the federal government to disperse funds it can&#8217;t get back before the adjudication at the Supreme Court level, then that is a massive problem.
Alito is absolutely right about all of that.
We were expecting these types of issues to happen.
The reality is that because President Trump is moving fast and breaking things, there&#8217;s going to be a lot of legal action. Most of that legal action is going to redound to the benefit of the Trump administration.
Some will not.

Inauguration Of Donald Trump As 47th President Of The United States

The Supreme Court Attacks DOGE Cuts

Ben Shapiro

Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

Federal Government

President Trump

USAID

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration when it ruled that the federal government must pay out $2 billion to U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contractors.
In a 5-4 <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/24A831-Order-2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decision</a>, the Supreme Court rejected an emergency application from the Department of Justice seeking to overturn a district court judge’s demand that the administration unfreeze billions of dollars Trump halted through an executive order, NBC News <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rejects-trump-administrations-bid-avoid-paying-usaid-con-rcna194230" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. All three leftist judges were joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a President Donald Trump appointee.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh wrote a scathing dissent, with Alito saying he was “stunned” by the majority’s decision.
&#8220;Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” Alito asked in the dissenting opinion. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.&#8221;
Alito added that the majority effectively rewarded “an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.”
The case began when a group of American businesses and nonprofits that receive funds from USAID claimed that Trump’s pause on foreign aid payments was unlawful. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali quickly issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the Trump administration from following through with the funding freeze. As Alito wrote, the lower court based its decision on the belief that the suing parties would succeed in showing that the Trump administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act when issuing the funding freeze. But after issuing the TRO, Alito wrote, “the District Judge grew frustrated with the pace at which funds were being disbursed.” So, less than two weeks after issuing the TRO, Ali issued a second order demanding the federal government pay out about $2 billion, brushing “aside the Government’s argument that sovereign immunity barred this enforcement order,” Alito wrote.
Ali also took two steps to ensure his order could not be stopped by higher courts, Alito wrote.
“First, he labeled the order as a non-appealable TRO, and second, he demanded that the money be paid within 36 hours.”
These steps meant the Trump administration had little time to prepare an argument against what it saw as a lawless order, Alito said, but moved for a stay pending appeal. But when the administration appealed, the U.S. States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia accepted the lower court’s onerous limitations and denied the appeal, bringing it to the Supreme Court.
“At the last moment, The Chief Justice issued an administrative stay,” Alito wrote. “Unfortunately, a majority has now undone that stay. As a result, the Government must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste – not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered.”
“As the Nation’s highest court, we have a duty to ensure that the power entrusted to federal judges by the Constitution is not abused,” he continued. “Today, the Court fails to carry out that responsibility.”

U.S. Supreme Court Building

Supreme Court Denies Trump Admin Request To Halt $2 Billion In Foreign Aid

Trump Administration

MixCollage-04-Dec-2024

This Could Be The Beginning Of The End For Gender Ideology

Gender

Gender Identity

Sonia Sotomayor

transgender surgery

Shortly after Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-matt-gaetz-withdraws-name-from-ag-consideration?topStoryPosition=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">withdrew his name</a> from consideration for attorney general, multiple political commentators suggested that President-elect Donald Trump nominate a conservative Supreme Court justice for the position.
Gaetz withdrew his name from consideration for AG after being tapped by Trump for the position, saying it was “clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition.” The move came as the House Ethics Committee weighed releasing a report on alleged sexual misconduct by Gaetz.
Conservative commentators floated Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito for attorney general, a move that would also open up a seat for Trump to appoint someone to the nation&#8217;s highest court. Trump appointed three Supreme Court justices in his first term.
&#8220;Trump could put Justice Alito up for Attorney General and then fill the SCOTUS seat,&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/KatiePavlich/status/1859654297107193887" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> Katie Pavlich. In a follow-up post, Pavlich added, &#8220;Or:&#8221; next to a GIF of Thomas.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Or: <a href="https://t.co/j6tXbmM4kr">https://t.co/j6tXbmM4kr</a> <a href="https://t.co/pralJXF1UK">pic.twitter.com/pralJXF1UK</a>
&mdash; Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) <a href="https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/1859655571898761237?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Steve Deace of The Blaze floated Thomas for the position in the second Trump administration. &#8220;Appoint Clarence Thomas attorney general, and then fill his seat on the Supreme Court with either Ted Cruz or Ron DeSantis,&#8221; Deace <a href="https://x.com/SteveDeaceShow/status/1859666753925869635" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a>.
Nevada Republican Senate candidate Sam Brown also endorsed the idea of nominating Thomas for AG.
&#8220;Double Win! President Trump appoints Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito, strong defenders of the Constitution, as his Attorney General. Then, he can immediately nominate a new US Supreme Court Justice!&#8221; Brown wrote on X. Make America Great Again! 🇺🇸 Left’s meltdown continues.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
🚨Double Win!
President Trump appoints Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito, strong defenders of the Constitution, as his Attorney General. 
Then, he can immediately nominate a new US Supreme Court Justice! 
Make America Great Again! 🇺🇸
Left’s meltdown continues. <a href="https://t.co/xfsemfPgwG">pic.twitter.com/xfsemfPgwG</a>
&mdash; Sam Brown (@CaptainSamBrown) <a href="https://twitter.com/CaptainSamBrown/status/1859666567056986325?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/?_gl=1*jtghwp*_gcl_au*ODQ1NjYzNTg2LjE3Mjg5MDk3OTE.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczMDEyMDgwOS40OS4xLjE3MzAxMjA4MzkuMzAuMC4w">MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+</a>
Other names that have been floated for attorney general include Attorney Mark Paoletta, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Trump only has a few positions left to fill in his new cabinet. Some of his picks, including Gaetz, have caused a stir on Capitol Hill and in legacy media newsrooms. Decorated veteran Pete Hegseth, the nominee for Defense Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, and Tulsi Gabbard, the nominee for Director of National Intelligence, have all come under fire after being tapped by Trump.

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito

Commentators Float Conservative SCOTUS Justices For AG

Attorney General

Matt Gaetz

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is still trying to steal headlines and distract from the failure of Joe Biden by introducing articles of impeachment against Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
This is nothing but ridiculous and silly grandstanding. There are no grounds for the impeachment of Thomas or Alito. Thomas did not violate any ethics standards of the Supreme Court by hanging out with people who happen to be rich Republicans any more than Democrats on the Supreme Court have violated their ethical standards by hanging out with rich Democrats.
Being on the Supreme Court automatically makes you a member of the economic and philosophical elite in this country. That&#8217;s just the way it works.
The idea that Samuel Alito should also be impeached demonstrates the full-scale insanity of the joke. The Democrats are claiming that a full-on senile president who&#8217;s incapable of forming sentences should remain in the White House, and everyone in the cabinet who knew who he is senile should remain.
But Alito’s wife flew flags the Democrats didn’t like, and they’re trying to construct that into some sort of statement about January 6 so that Alito is impeached.
Ocasio-Cortez knows her act is going nowhere. She doesn’t control the House. But getting a member to introduce articles of impeachment is the simplest thing in the world.
It&#8217;s an attempt to undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court. These same people say Donald Trump is a threat to democracy, yet our institutions are filing articles of impeachment against Thomas and Alito for absolutely nothing. They’re completely fine with the integrity of the Supreme Court as long as the majority is made up by people sympathetic to Democrats.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2002-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h4>
The minute that there is a Republican majority, a Republican-appointed majority on the Supreme Court, then it&#8217;s time for the Democrats to destroy the institution as a whole.
Yesterday, Ocasio-Cortez put out <a href="https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-introduces-articles-impeachment-against-justice-thomas-and" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a statement</a> saying, “The unchecked corruption crisis on the Supreme Court has now spiraled into a Constitutional crisis threatening American democracy writ large. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito’s pattern of refusal to recuse from consequential matters before the court in which they hold widely documented financial and personal entanglements constitutes a grave threat to American rule of law, the integrity of our democracy, and one of the clearest cases for which the tool of impeachment was designed.”
What “unchecked corruption crisis”? Please name the case in which Clarence Thomas was paid for his opinion. Can she? The answer, of course, is no, she cannot.
So what are the impeachment articles against Thomas?
First, “Failure to disclose financial income, gifts and reimbursement, property interests, liabilities, and transactions, among other information.” Yet he did all of the legal disclosures he&#8217;s required to do.
Next, “Refusal to recuse from matters concerning his spouse&#8217;s legal interest in cases before the court.” She is not named in any of the court cases. If my spouse has political interests, why should I have to recuse based on that? I seem to remember being told by Democrats that to even imply that married women don&#8217;t have their own political interests because they&#8217;re married, and so they&#8217;re obviously impacting their husband or vice versa, would be sexist.
Ocasio-Cortez says with regard to Alito, “Refusal to recuse from matters involving his spouse’s financial interest in cases before the court.” Personal bias or prejudice? I&#8217;m sorry. Is the new standard that justices are not supposed to know people or groups? Because that&#8217;s going to be a hard one for Democrats to fulfill.
<h4><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/show/scamala-kamala-harris-unmasked#" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: Ben Shapiro&#8217;s new three-part series: &#8220;Scamala: Kamala Harris Unmasked&#8221; on DailyWire+</a></h4>
This is not going anywhere. The sponsors are the usual cast of idiots: Barbara Lee (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Delia Ramirez (D-IL), Maxwell Frost (D-FL), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) and Jasmine Crockett (D-TX). It&#8217;s the clown caucus. And many of those members are also members of the pro-Hamas caucus in the House of Representatives.
This is AOC’s latest attempt to storm the castle.
Pathetic.

Headline-Grabber Ocasio-Cortez Attacks Thomas, Alito. It Won’t Work.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Readers Pass

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out a challenge brought by two Republican state officials and conservative social media users challenging the White House&#8217;s pressure campaigns on social media companies to remove what the Biden administration deems &#8220;misinformation.&#8221;
In a 6-3 decision with Justice Amy Coney-Barrett writing the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-411_3dq3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">majority opinion</a>, the court ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the case, CNN <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/26/politics/social-media-disinformation-supreme-court-ruling/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a>. The high court did not rule on any of the First Amendment questions raised by the plaintiffs, which included the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana along with five conservative social media users.
In her majority opinion, Barrett wrote, “To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek. Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”
Barrett acknowledged that there is evidence showing the White House &#8220;played a role&#8221; in moderating content on social media, but she argued that was not enough to justify an injunction. The plaintiffs cited Facebook restricting a Louisiana state representative&#8217;s posts about the COVID vaccine, arguing that the post was targeted because of the Biden administration&#8217;s pressure on the Big Tech company. Barrett, however, wrote in her opinion that there was &#8220;no evidence to support the states&#8217; allegation.&#8221;
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito penned the dissent, writing that the case was “one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.” Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch joined Alito&#8217;s dissent.
Alito added that the Biden administration&#8217;s actions were &#8220;unconstitutional,&#8221; &#8220;coercive,&#8221; and &#8220;dangerous.&#8221;
“It was blatantly unconstitutional, and the country may come to regret the Court’s failure to say so,” he wrote, adding, “For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech. Because the Court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.&#8221;
<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=1712932862202000&amp;usg=AOvVaw0plT8RRdMy9XUpIhocnjQS">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey reacted to the court&#8217;s decision, <a href="https://x.com/AGAndrewBailey/status/1805979926438244769" target="_blank" rel="noopener">writing</a> that the ruling &#8220;does not dispute&#8221; that &#8220;the deep state pressured and coerced social media companies to take down truthful speech simply because it was conservative.&#8221;
&#8220;My rallying cry to disappointed Americans is this: Missouri is not done,&#8221; Bailey added. &#8220;We are going back to the district court to obtain more discovery in order to root out Joe Biden’s vast censorship enterprise once and for all.&#8221;
The Daily Wire is suing the Biden administration in a separate social media censorship case, alleging that the U.S. State Department is engaging with and promoting censorship technology designed to bankrupt domestic media outlets with disfavored political opinions. Last month, a federal judge <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-judge-slaps-down-biden-administrations-attempt-to-dismiss-daily-wire-censorship-lawsuit" target="_blank" rel="noopener">rejected</a> the State Department&#8217;s attempt to get the censorship lawsuit dismissed. The Daily Wire is joined by The Federalist and the state of Texas as plaintiffs in the case.

Supreme Court Rejects Conservative Challenge To Biden Admin Pressuring Social Media Companies To Remove Content

Amy Coney Barrett

Biden Administration

Louisiana

Missouri

Social Media Censorship

White House

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

John Roberts

Menu