There are fireworks currently going off within the ranks of the North Carolina Supreme Court, and it's due to a razor-thin ballot margin regarding an associate justice seat.
According to WUNC, Republican Jefferson Griffin isn't giving up his fight to claim the seat over election winner and Democrat Allison Riggs. He's urging the state's high court to take up his ballot protest.
So far, there have been two recounts in the wake of the election, as Riggs has reportedly held onto a 700-vote lead over Griffin since Election Day.
Griffin believes he has a solid chance at claiming victory, as he's protesting some 60,000 ballots that he claims were filled with irregularities, making them, in his view, invalid.
So far, Griffin, a judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals, hasn't had much in the way of success in convincing the court that the ballots are invalid.
WUNC noted:
Last week, the North Carolina State Board of Elections dismissed Griffin's protests, finding they lacked sufficient evidence, and that the GOP candidate failed to adequately notify affected voters.
The outlet noted:
Normally, Griffin first would have filed an appeal in state Superior Court. But on Wednesday, Griffin filed a writ of prohibition, seeking to circumvent the typical appeals process and went right to the North Carolina Supreme Court, asking the justices to prevent certification of the election and invalidate the 60,000-plus challenged ballots.
Griffin argued that Supreme Court intervention is needed due to the timeline of the certification process taking place in North Carolina.
The appeals court judge wants the state's high court to issue a stay on the matter by Dec. 23, giving ample time to wrap up his legal fight to have the votes invalidated.
The only problem is that the North Carolina elections board argued that Griffin has overstated the urgency of the matter.
Griffin is going all out in his fight, as he reportedly seeking court rulings "on provisions of the federal Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act."
Jefferson Griffin Files Protests to Safeguard Election Integrity #NCPOL #NCCourts pic.twitter.com/vEQOt2yxAL
— NCGOP (@NCGOP) November 19, 2024
Griffin definitely has support on the Republican side. Many X users applauded his efforts.
"Good!! Keep up the great work and make the cheaters accountable for the first time!! Just like PA we need to keep our focus on free and fair elections! When we count until they find votes to win then no one believes the outcome," one X user wrote.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The U.S. Supreme Court bizarrely ruled in 2005, in the Kelo case, that a government could take privately owned property from one owner to give it to another, just, well, just because.
That original ruling came down to dollars and cents, when the city of New London, New York, used eminent domain to confiscate a home belonging to Susan Kelo to give it to Pfizer for one of its business operations.
She sued, but the Supreme Court said a procedure to use eminent domain "to transfer land from private owner to another private owner" did not violate the Constitution.
Actually, the authority vested in eminent domain would be for purposes of taking property to build a highway, or some similar public benefit.
That New London scheme actually failed, as the company was unable to obtain financing for its plans, and the site remained an undeveloped empty lot.
The move already has prompted 47 states to strengthen their own eminent domain laws, and now it's time for the national precedent to be reversed, according to constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley, who not only has testified before Congress as an expert on the Constitution but has represented members in court.
He said that one case, Kelo, "has long stood out for me as wildly off-base and wrongly decided."
He explained, "There is now a petition before the Supreme Court that would allow it to reconsider this pernicious precedent. The court should grant review in Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency precisely for that purpose," he explained.
"Many of us expressed outrage at the actions of the city leaders of New London, Connecticut, when they used eminent domain to seize the property of citizens against their will to give it to the Pfizer corporation," he said. "This anger grew with the inexplicable decision of the Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London to uphold the abusive action. After all the pain that the city caused its own residents and the $80 million it spent to buy and bulldoze the property, it came to nothing. Pfizer later announced that it was closing the facility — leaving the city worse off than when it began."
He said the new case involves New York developer Bryan Bowers who challenged the decision of a county redevelopment agency to condemn his property and then give it to another developer to use as a private parking lot.
Turley noted that Justice Chase, shortly after the Bill of Rights was written, explained the injustice.
"An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority … . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean…. [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it." Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798).
Turley explained much has changed in the Supreme Court since its 2005 ruling and "It is possible that the new majority could finally correct the mistake made in Kelo."
He said, "This abusive use of eminent domain is not just an invitation for corrupt dealings but a denial of the core protections of individual citizens under our Constitution."
The campaign of lawfare that has engulfed much of President-elect Donald Trump's life for the past several years has been falling apart to an astonishing degree in recent months, and according to one prominent commentator, that collapse may be poised to continue.
With prosecutors in New York, Georgia, and Washington, D.C. suffering one defeat after another, Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Victor Davis Hanson recently suggested that now a civil case in which Trump was found liable to the tune of millions could also soon be subject to reversal, as the Daily Caller reports.
Hanson's opinion emerged during a recent installment of his podcast, The Victor Davis Hanson Show, in which ABC's recent legal settlement with Trump was discussed.
The network's decision to resolve a lawsuit filed by Trump over allegedly defamatory comments made by This Week anchor George Stephanopoulos could have significant implications for an appeal in writer E. Jean Carroll's previously successful case against the incoming commander-in-chief.
Hanson referenced the fact that Stephanopoulos repeatedly claimed during his Sunday panel program that in the Carroll case, Trump was found “liable for rape.”
Prior to settling the case with Trump, Stephanopoulos referenced comments made by the presiding judge in the Carroll case suggesting that while the jury had not specifically found that the defendant committed rape, there was no practical difference in their finding of “sexual abuse.”
The judge said that the jury's verdict should not be taken to mean that Carroll failed to prove that Mr. Trump 'raped' her as many people commonly understand the word 'rape.' Indeed...the jury found that Mr. Trump in fact did exactly that.”
Hanson offered listeners a detailed explanation of why he believes Carroll's jury windfall may now be vulnerable to reversal due to the judge's unchecked musings from the bench.
“Well, George Stephanopoulos gave an interview, and I think on 11 occasions he said Donald Trump committed rape. In the E. Jean Carroll civil suit, she alleged that she was sexually attacked by him. The jury found that he did not commit rape but that he had committed, there was a likelihood he'd committed sexual assault,” Hanson said.
The podcaster and writer continued, “And the judge [Kaplan], as I remember his name, had misspoken and said, 'Well' somebody had corrected him or reminded him that he had never been convicted of rape and he said, 'What's the difference?' something along that line.”
“And that I think will be cause for reversal because that's up on appeal,” Hanson declared.
Outlining the rationale for that take, he added, “The judge basically...show[ed] pre-existing prejudice that if the judge knew the jury had not found or was not considering rape and yet he said publicly that they were indistinguishable, then that's going to be appealed.”
Trump's legal victories have continued to mount in the run-up to his inauguration, with both federal cases leveled by special counsel Jack Smith now dead in the water and Fulton County Fani Willis recently disqualified from continuing her pursuit of a RICO case against the incoming president.
Whether Hanson's prediction about the ultimate fate of Carroll's lucrative civil win proves correct, however, only time will tell.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A newly released report from Congress, all 17,000 pages, confirms that the censorship schemes assembled and implemented by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were "blatantly unconstitutional."
The report on the "Weaponization of the federal government" was released by the select subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, in the committee on the Judiciary in the House.
"Freedom of speech, including free speech on digital platforms, is a fundamental and vital part of democratic societies. The ability of Americans to publish, share, and receive information and opinions online is necessary to an informed citizenry and the functioning of American democracy," the report explains.
But what it found, under the Biden-Harris regime, is that "the executive branch coerced or colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor lawful speech." It's chore was to examine to what extent that happened.
"Through its oversight, the Select Subcommittee revealed the extent of the censorship industrial complex, proving that in 2021 the Biden-Harris White House 'engaged in a covert scheme of censorship' that was 'blatantly unconstitutional' by directly pressuring Facebook, YouTube, and Amazon to censor COVID-related speech, including true information and critics of the Biden-Harris Administration."
In fact, the FBI's interference in the 2020 election long as been known, and recognized as an undue influence on those results, as it told media organizations to suppress accurate information about Biden family scandals detailed in Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop. A survey suggested that maneuver by the government could have cost Donald Trump the election in 2020.
"The Select Subcommittee also showed how multiple federal agencies used non-governmental entities to censor Americans by proxy," and also, it "demonstrated that the threat to Americans' free speech does not end at America's shores but increasingly emanates from foreign governments, including Brazil, the European Union, and Australia."
The report, which includes hundreds of pages of direct testimony on the problem, explained the subcommittee found "how the Biden-Harris White House coerced social media platforms to censor Americans' speech, including true information and speech criticizing the Biden-Harris administration."
The FBI, the report charged, "directed social media platforms to censor Americans engaging in constitutionally protected speech online, including a verified U.S. State Department account and accounts belonging to American journalists."
Other censorship schemes came from the Federal Trade Commission, Meta, Alphabet, Amazon, and more.
"By the end of 2021, Facebook, YouTube, and Amazon changed their content moderation policies in ways that were directly responsive to criticism from the Biden Harris Administration. The report concluded that (1) Big Tech changed their content moderation policies because of pressure from the Biden-Harris White House; (2) the Biden Harris White House's censorship campaign targeted true information, satire, and other content that did not violate the platforms' policies; (3) the Biden-Harris White House's censorship campaign had a chilling effect on other speech; (4) the Biden-Harris White House had leverage over the companies because of other policy concerns involving the Biden-Harris Administration; and (5) the Biden-Harris White House pushed censorship of books, not just social media," the report confirmed.
Among the topics covered in the report is highlights of "censorship by Big Tech that led to Mark Zuckerberg admitting Facebook was pressured by the Biden-Harris White House to censor Americans."
Further, how the now-defunct Global Alliance for Responsible Media impacted censorship schemes and details about the "weaponization of federal law enforcement against the American people."
Further, if found evidence "that the Biden campaign coordinated with 51 former intelligence officials to interfere in the American electoral system weeks before the 2020 presidential election by signing the statement calling Hunter Biden's laptop disinformation."
The report also covers whistleblower retaliation, the politicization of the nation's law enforcement and more.
Pointedly, it notes that the work to correct such misbehaviors is not over.
Among what it did accomplish, the report said, is to stop "the FBI's effort to target Catholic Americans because of their religious views," and it "detailed the Justice Department's directives to target parents at school board meetings."
Also, it halted agents from the Internal Revenue Service "from making unannounced visits to American taxpayers' homes."
It quotes Ronald Reagan, who said, "Freedom is fragile thing. It's never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people."
It also found unrefuted evidence of "two-tiered system of government—one of favorable treatment for the politically-favored class, and one of intimidation and unfairness for the rest of American citizens. Under the Biden-Harris Administration, the contrast between these two tiers has become even more stark," the report said.
"The Weaponization Committee conducted rigorous oversight of the Biden-Harris administrations weaponized government and uncovered numerous examples of federal government abuses," explained the panel's chairman, Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.
"Through our oversight, we protected the First Amendment by investigating the censorship-industrial-complex, heard from numerous brave whistleblowers, stopped the targeting of Americans by the IRS and Department of Justice, and created serious legislative and policy changes that will benefit all Americans."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
An appeals court in Georgia has tossed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis off of her own case, a series of wild organized crime claims against President Trump based largely on his own expressions of his dissatisfaction with the process and results of the 2020 presidential election.
The move technically leaves the case against Trump and more than a dozen others alive, but analysts suggested it ultimately might not survive.
"Fani Willis hired her dumb, unqualified boyfriend to go after Trump and 18 others. Fani paid Nathan Wade $700,000 in taxpayer funds. Fani took illegal kickbacks. Fani lied about them under oath. Now Fani got disqualified. And Fani must go to prison," charged Mike Davis, of the Article III Project, which advocates for judicial integrity and independence.
The Washington Examiner reported it was the Georgia Court of Appeals that tossed Willis – and her entire office – off the case.
She had created a long list of "election subversion" claims against more than a dozen people, including Trump. She had been allowed to stay on the case by a lower court after her scandalous behavior involving her appointment of her paramour, Wade, to a special position and use of some $700,000 of tax money to pay him.
The two then took exotic vacations together.
A lower court judge said the ethics problems could be resolved if Wade was dismissed from the case, and he left. But the judge left Willis on the case, a move the appeals court said was wrong.
The panel, 2-1, found the lower court "erred by failing to disqualify DA Willis."
The ruling said, "The remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times."
It was Judge Scott McAfee who had allowed Willis to continue her work on the case, despite the massive ethics issues involved.
"While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings," the judges wrote.
That the court didn't dismiss the case outright left it struggling in "a state of uncertainty," reports said. Legal experts explained the removal of Willis now puts the case in the hands of a state agency, which could decide to begin again with another prosecutor, or simply consider the attack on Trump at a dead end.
The result continues the massive collapse of the Democrats' lawfare cases against Trump. Special counsel Jack Smith's two cases, over election issues and handling of government documents, were killed after Trump won the election.
"Trump's hush money case in New York was the lone case of the four to have resulted in a guilty conviction against Trump, for falsifying business records. However, the judge there is facing roadblocks to sentencing Trump, because he is an incoming president, and Trump's attorneys are also threatening to challenge every aspect of the case until it is paused indefinitely or dismissed," the report said.
In that case, the judge is known to have supported financially Democrat candidates and his daughter was working with Democrats during the trial, making money off of the court rulings her father was issuing against Trump inside the court.
Further, the original charges probably never would have been brought had the defendant not been named Trump. It was Manhattan prosecutor Alvin Bragg, who boasted of going after Trump, who turned misdemeanors for which the statute of limitations had expired into felonies because they were in pursuit of some other, unidentified, crime. Further, the judge inexplicably said the jury's verdict against Trump did not have to be unanimous.
Fox reported Trump, in an interview, said, the "whole case has been a disgrace to justice."
"It was started by the Biden DOJ as an attack on his political opponent, Donald Trump," he said, "They used anyone and anybody and she has been disqualified and her boyfriend has been disqualified and they stole funds and went on trips."
He continued, "There is no way such corrupt people can lead a case and then it gets taken over by somebody else. It was a corrupt case, so how could it be taken over by someone else?"
And, "The case has to be thrown out because it was started corruptly by an incompetent prosecutor who received millions of dollars through her boyfriend—who received it from her—and then they went on cruises all the time. … Therefore, the case is entirely dead. Everybody should receive an apology, including those wonderful patriots who have been caught up in this for years."
Montana's Supreme Court has decided that the state constitution requires climate change regulation, in a landmark victory for progressives. The lawsuit is the first of its kind in the country, and a successful example of social engineering through judicial fiat.
"This ruling is a victory not just for us, but for every young person whose future is threatened by climate change,” lead plaintiff Rikki Held said in a statement Wednesday.
In an unprecedented trial last year, Montana Judge Kathy Seeley sided with a group of young plaintiffs who argued their lives were negatively impacted by greenhouse gas emissions.
The Supreme Court agreed with Seeley, striking down a law signed by Governor Greg Gianforte (R) that excluded climate change analysis from environmental reviews of energy projects.
The key issue in the case was the scope of Article IX in the state's Constitution, which guarantees a "clean and healthful environment” for Montanans.
In a groundbreaking legal maneuver, climate attorneys and a group of 16 young plaintiffs, now aged 7 to 23, argued that the state's Constitution guaranteed a right against greenhouse gas harms.
The state argued that the framers of the 1972 environmental amendment weren't thinking about climate change when they adopted Article IX, but the Supreme Court disagreed.
“The District Court’s conclusion of law is affirmed: Montana’s right to a clean and healthful environment and environmental life support system includes a stable climate system, which is clearly within the object and true principles of the Framers inclusion of the right to a clean and healthful environment," the court wrote.
The ruling raises the regulatory burden for fossil fuel producers in Montana, leading Governor Gianforte to warn of higher energy costs ahead.
“This Court continues to step outside of its lane to tread on the right of the Legislature, the elected representatives of the people, to make policy,” Gianforte said.
“This decision does nothing more than declare open season on Montana’s all-of-the-above-approach to energy, which is key to providing affordable and reliable energy to homes, schools, and businesses across our state.”
While Montana is a Republican state, the Supreme Court is dominated by liberals, who have handed progressives victories on issues like voting rights.
The state's Republicans have accused the Supreme Court of acting like a legislature, and after their latest ruling, the GOP is warning the court to "buckle up" for reform.
Jefferson Griffin, who is running for North Carolina state Supreme Court judge, asked that court to toss 60,000 votes his legal team deemed problematic, NBC News reported. Griffin is losing to Democratic challenger Justice Allison Riggs by just 734 votes in that race.
Griffin is an appeals court judge who wished to move to the state's highest court this election cycle. With the race so close, he believes the Democrat-controlled election board needs to hold off on certifying the vote because the votes in question were unlawfully cast.
"In the 2024 general election, the Board’s errors changed the outcome of the election for the open seat on this Court. When those errors were raised again in valid election protests, the Board then claimed that it was too late to fix its law-breaking," Griffin's attorneys asserted.
Nearly 5 million votes had been cast in that election, and a machine count revealed the relative closeness of the two candidates. However, the court previously rejected Griffin's request to throw out what he calls fraudulent votes because they didn't have a photo ID or Social Security number to verify the votes.
North Carolina Democrats are currently in the minority in the court's 5-2 balance. They claim Griffin is attempting to use that to his advantage to sway a free and fair election.
"There is a five alarm fire happening in NC right now. In a truly outlandish move, Jefferson Griffin has now taken his attack on voters one step further," the North Carolina Democratic Party posted to X, formerly Twitter, on Thursday.
"He is hiding behind Chief Justice Paul Newby and he is now trying to achieve what’s been aiming for all along: getting the Republican-controlled state Supreme Court to toss out legitimate ballots and hand this seat to him. There have been multiple recounts that all confirmed that Justice Riggs won this seat by 734 votes," the post went on.
"His conduct continues to demonstrate that he is not fit to serve on the Court. Concede now," Democrats urged.
🚨There is a five alarm fire happening in NC right now. In a truly outlandish move, Jefferson Griffin has now taken his attack on voters one step further. He is hiding behind Chief Justice Paul Newby and he is now trying to achieve what’s been aiming for all along: getting the…
— NC Democratic Party (@NCDemParty) December 19, 2024
This race between the judges highlights an ongoing problem with trust in elections. Griffin's attorneys maintain that these votes should never have been counted, but the North Carolina State Board of Elections has rejected three of their disputes.
Still, Patrick Gannon, a spokesperson for the NCSBE, said that they have "certified the vote totals" in the election between the judges but can't finalize results "until all protests and appeals are adjudicated." Griffin's team had also filed a federal case asking that 225,000 ineligible voters be removed.
That case was tossed out of federal court, but Griffin's legal filings for the latest complaint assert that his objections are "questions that our nation’s system of federalism reserves for state courts, not federal courts." Perhaps this is easy for opponents to explain away as sour grapes from Griffin.
However, the 2024 presidential election's favorable results for GOP President-elect Donald Trump have done little to dispel persistent rumors about election fraud, CBS News reported. While the network claims that the idea of widespread voter fraud has been debunked, there is a deep mistrust in the process.
The state will eventually hash out its election results between Griffin and Riggs. However, that won't put to rest the persistent feeling that the process can no longer be trusted, especially when verifying voters are who they say they are is no longer a priority.
Questions about the ethical nature of a Supreme Court Justice taking part in what could be seen as a partisan event, as the court is expected to deliberate a related case in the near future, as was pointed out during an interview on Fox News.
After appearing in a Broadway spinoff of "Romeo and Juliet," critics question Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's impartiality in a landmark case regarding minors' transgender surgical procedures.
Justice served. pic.twitter.com/DeeYRvxQum
— & Juliet Broadway (@AndJulietBway) December 16, 2024
"I think it's a huge mistake for federal judges, especially Supreme Court justices, to engage in activities that clearly put the stamp of approval on an ideological position regarding issues that could come before the court, which is practically the definition of a threat to their impartiality, the appearance of impropriety," Heritage Foundation senior legal counsel Thomas Jipping told Fox News Digital in an interview.
"The expert went on to lay out why this was outside of the rhelm of the approrpiate "It's unusual for judges to do this sort of thing under any circumstances. But I suppose if this was ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ if this was some recognized, established classic or something, it might be different.
"But this is obviously an advocacy production, so for a Supreme Court justice to participate in advocacy on an issue that is currently in the courts, and at least broadly speaking, before her, I think it's a huge mistake," he said.
The musical, which is called "& Juliet," includes strong LGBTQ+ themes as well as characters who do not hold a binary gender. In the same place where Shakespeare's original finishes, the musical begins.
It is said on the website of the company that "& Juliet" is a "hilarious new musical" that "flips the script on the greatest love story ever told."
Instead of taking her own life out of love, Juliet decides to make her own path, which is a shown as a risky move because it challenges the conventional gender roles.
In the musical, the character May, who is Juliet's best friend, is a character whose LGBTQ relationship is heavily portrayed and explored throughout the whole production.
Jackson became the first Supreme Court justice to play on Broadway when he joined the Broadway company for a one-time performance at New York's Stephen Sondheim Theatre on Saturday night.
Other Broadway artists, including TikTok sensation Charli D'Amelio, were also a part of the Broadway cast.
David West Read, who is best known for his work as a writer and producer on the television show "Schitt's Creek," is the author of the song "& Juliet."
While Justice Amy Coney Barrett has attracted attention for her ties to religious groups and their potential influence on cases involving LGBTQ+ issues, Justice Samuel Alito has come under fire for failing to disclose luxury trips funded by wealthy donors with business before the court.
There has been intense scrutiny directed toward Justice Clarence Thomas because of his wife's political activism. Additionally, Justice Brett Kavanaugh has encountered criticism regarding his confirmation process and prior financial disclosures.
"For two, three years now, liberals have been complaining about actions by Supreme Court justices that they say undermine the public's confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary," Jipping said. "Liberals in Congress want an enforceable code of conduct. I wonder what they say about this."
"Participating in an advocacy, in an exercise of advocacy, for a position on issues that come before the Supreme Court is an egregious violation of that principle in the code of conduct regarding impartiality. I don't think there's any question about that," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal judge has apologized after an investigation determined an opinion piece he wrote and allowed to be published that called Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito "dumb" violated judicial ethics rules.
The apology is from Michael Ponsor, of the district of Massachusetts.
It got started when the New York Times said it got a photograph of an upside-down flag at Alito's home in Virginia just days after the protest-turned-riot at the U.S. Capitol in 2021.
The comments claimed the inverted flag signaled support for claims by President Donald Trump about problems in the election.
Legacy media continues to describe those claims as "unsupported," although there now is evidence that the election was skewed by undue influences, including Mark Zuckerberg's handout of $400 million plus to leftist election officials who often recruited voters in Democrat districts and the FBI's decision to interfere by telling media groups to suppress truthful, but damaging, information about the Biden family scandals.
Alito had told the newspaper he had "no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag." And said, "It was briefly placed by Mrs. Alito in response to a neighbor's use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs."
The ethics complaint had been filed by the Article II Project and now has been sustained by Chief Judge Albert Diaz.
Ponsor had criticized Alito personally but did much more, Diaz found.
"The essay expressed personal opinions on controversial public issues and criticized the ethics of a sitting Supreme Court justice. Such comments diminish the public confidence in the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary in violation of Canons 1 and 2A. Viewed in the timeframe during which the essay was published, including the substantial press coverage detailing the calls for Justice Alito's recusals from the then-pending January 6 cases, it would be reasonable for a member of the public to perceive the essay as a commentary on partisan issues and as a call for Justice Alito's recusal," Diaz wrote.
A3P said it filed the complaint in order to protect the integrity of the judiciary and ensure that judges avoid any appearance of partisanship.
According to Law & Crime, Ponsor delivered an "unreserved apology" for his comments.
Diaz's order said that Ponsor's letter constituted "voluntary corrective action sufficient to allow for the conclusion of the complaint."
The Washington Examiner said Ponsor's criticisms of Alito aligned with criticisms also coming from Democrats at the time.
They claimed flying an upside-down American flag outside his home in Virginia and a Revolutionary War-era "Appeal to Heaven" flag outside his beach home showed a bias.
Ponsor, a Bill Clinton appointee, had blamed Alito for the flags, and said they were "improper."
He accused Alito of hurting the high court.
"You just don't do that sort of thing, whether it may be considered over the line, or just edging up to the margin. Flying those flags was tantamount to sticking a 'Stop the steal' bumper sticker on your car. You just don't do it," he claimed.
The Ponsor essay, according to the complaint that was filed, was "highly inappropriate, baseless, and prejudicial political speech by a judge against another judge while he is deciding the legal fates of criminal defendants going through the judicial process."
On Monday, TikTok submitted a request to the Supreme Court, requesting that it intervene on an urgent basis in order to block the federal statute that would prohibit the popular platform from operating in the United States unless its parent company, which is based in China, agreed to sell it.
Attorneys for the corporation and ByteDance, which is based in China, begged the justices to intervene before the deadline of January 19th, which was set by the law, as NBC News reported.
TikTok has more than 170 million users and content creators in the United States, and many of them have signed a similar petition. These individuals rely on the network for their revenue.
“A modest delay in enforcing the Act will create breathing room for this Court to conduct an orderly review and the new Administration to evaluate this matter — before this vital channel for Americans to communicate with their fellow citizens and the world is closed,” lawyers for the companies told the Supreme Court.
Even though he campaigned on a promise to "save TikTok," then-President-elect Donald Trump said his administration would review the matter. Trump also previously supported a ban.
“As you know, I have a warm spot in my heart for TikTok,” Trump said during a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. His campaign saw the platform as a way to reach younger, less politically engaged voters.
According to two individuals who were not authorized to speak publicly about the president-elect's plans Trump was meeting with TikTok CEO Shou Zi Chew at Mar-a-Lago on Monday.
According to the companies, a suspension that lasts for only one month would result in TikTok losing approximately one-third of its daily users in the United States and substantial advertising revenue.
The case has the potential to pique the court's interest due to its unique nature, which juxtaposes the government's stated objectives of safeguarding national security with the right to free speech. Additionally, it raises novel concerns regarding social media platforms.
The initial recipient of the request is Chief Justice John Roberts, who is responsible for emergency appeals from courts in the nation's capital. It is almost certain that he will solicit input from all nine justices.
A procedural ruling that permitted the case to proceed to the Supreme Court was issued on Friday by a panel of federal judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who denied an emergency petition to block the law.
The same panel had previously unanimously sustained the law in response to a First Amendment challenge that alleged it violated free speech rights.
App stores that provide TikTok and internet hosting services that facilitate it would be subject to potential penalties if the law were to take effect on January 19th without a court-ordered freeze.
The Justice Department would be responsible for enforcing the law by conducting investigations into potential violations and pursuing sanctions.
However, attorneys for ByteDance and TikTok have contended that the Justice Department under Trump may suspend enforcement or otherwise attempt to alleviate the most grievous repercussions of the law. Trump takes office a day after the law goes into effect.
One possible solution would allow the justices may conduct a more thorough examination of the First Amendment and other matters, which would be the Supreme Court moving to create a provisionally suspension the law. Additionally, they could expedite the scheduling of arguments and endeavor to reach a decision by January 19.