Senate Republicans are signaling plans to block Kamala Harris from adding justices to the Supreme Court if she wins the presidency.
With Republicans seen as likely to regain the Senate this fall, Democrats might be locked out of appointing new justices even if Harris wins the high-stakes presidential race.
Democrats are fighting an uphill battle to retain narrow control of the Senate, as Republicans eye pickups in states like Montana, Ohio, and West Virginia.
Two senior Republicans, John Thune (Sd.) and John Cornyn (Tx.), both expressed skepticism of helping Harris in interviews with CNN.
“We’ll cross the bridge when we come to it,” Thune said. “But, you know, it probably depends on who it is and that’s the advantage of having a Republican Senate.”
Likewise, Texas senator Cornyn said he isn't likely to support Harris if she picks a radical liberal.
"If I’m in a position to make the decision, I’m not going to schedule a vote on some wild-eyed radical nominee, which I know she would love to nominate. But that would be my intention," he said.
The president nominates Supreme Court picks, who then have to be confirmed by the Senate. In recent years, confirmation battles have grown more contentious with America's deepening political divide.
The bench shifted rightward under President Trump, who appointed three justices, Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Joe Biden confirmed a single justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, but her appointment did not upset the court's 6-3 majority.
The conservative Supreme Court has been a powerful check on the agenda of the Biden-Harris administration, curtailing sweeping policies on everything from student loans to the environment.
Democrats have blasted the court as "extreme" and an extension of a Trump-led assault on "democracy." But the reforms Democrats have pushed, from term limits to court packing, have little chance of getting past Republicans who see the demands as politically motivated.
Senate Republicans haven't shied from obstructing Democrats' Supreme Court picks in the past. Democrats have never forgiven then-Senate majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) for blocking Barack Obama's pick to replace the late Antonin Scalia, Merrick Garland, in 2016.
Democrats still point to McConnell's move as a justification to pack the court.
McConnell announced his retirement from Senate leadership this year, setting the stage for Republicans to choose a new leader after the November elections.
The Kentucky Supreme Court suspended an attorney in the state from practicing law for three years after he attempted to harass and intimidate other lawyers during a custody dispute involving his children.
Ben Dusing has been temporarily suspended from practicing law in the state since 2022, when a profanity-filled 2021 Facebook message he sent to opposing attorneys in his custody case came to light.
Dusing used the word "f***" almost 50 times in his 9-minute online tirade and threatened to blow up the attorneys.
He has since apologized to the court for his actions, claiming that he was advocating for court reform and fighting alleged "corruption" in the process.
His contentions were dismissed by the justices, who said that the video was “incredibly disturbing and threatening.”
Chief Justice Laurance VanMeter and Justices Debra Lambert, Kelly Thompson and Michelle Keller voted for the three-year suspension, while Justices Angela McCormick Bisig and Robert Conley thought Dusing should be permanently disbarred.
The justices also said that Dusing had a “history of engaging in frivolous litigation” during family court proceedings.
“Dusing failed to use the law’s procedures for legitimate purposes and instead intentionally sought to harass and intimidate others,” the ruling stated.
During the case against him, Dusing tried to get the judge recused and filed over two dozen appellate motions. He also tried to get the opposing attorney disqualified prior to the start of the case.
He spent seven days in jail last year for failing to abide by restrictions in communication with his ex-fiancee.
Dusing used to represent high profile clients as a federal prosecutor in the state.
He prosecuted former Cincinnati City Council member Jeff Pastor on a corruption charge, for example.
Dusing spent the last year in Ukraine as an aid runner while appealing his sentence.
As the seemingly neverending war between Russia and Ukraine continues to unfold, reports of a recent Russian strike revealed that a high-ranking Ukrainian official had been killed as a result.
According to regional news sources, Russia launched two airstrikes on villages in eastern Ukraine’s Kharkiv region over the weekend, resulting in the death of multiple people, including a Ukrainian Supreme Court judge.
A Russian drone reportedly struck the Supreme Court judge's vehicle while he was delivering humanitarian aid to local villagers.
The Ukrainian Supreme Court identified the deceased person as judge Leonid Loboyko.
Three women were in the vehicle with Loboyko when the Russian drone fired a missile at it. They were transported to a local hospital for treatment.
Loboyko, who was described by the country's Supreme Court as a "kind, wise, and compassionate person," worked in Ukraine's Criminal Cassation Court.
Russians killed Leonid Loboyko, a Supreme Court judge, by striking his car with an FPV drone in Kozacha Lopan, Kharkiv region. pic.twitter.com/052yS1BFcE
— UABrave (@Leowizzs) September 28, 2024
The airstrikes on the village killed others and heavily damaged property, according to the sources.
The outlet noted:
Three more men were killed and six people were injured in a separate strike on the nearby village of Slatyne several hours later, the Prosecutor’s Office said, with a shop, houses, and an educational institution all reportedly damaged by guided aerial bombs in the attack.
It added:
The Prosecutor’s Office announced it had opened investigations into both attacks for premeditated murder and the violation of the laws and customs of war, and that law enforcement agencies were taking “all possible and appropriate measures to document the war crimes committed by Russian forces”.
It was announced that the deadly attack came in the wake of another Russian drone attack on a hospital in the capital of Ukraine’s northeastern Sumy region.
That attack resulted in numerous injuries and the death of at least 10 people, according to Ukrainian officials.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky slammed Russia for launching attacks on targets that include large numbers of civilians.
Zelensky is fresh off his trip to America where he managed to wrangle mountains more of military aid and weapons from the United States to continue fighting the Russian military.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A federal court ruling has ordered Louisville, permanently, to stop enforcing its speech restrictions in areas just outside of abortion businesses.
According to a report from the American Center for Law and Justice, the district court handed down a "favorable resolution," stopping the city completely from enforcing a so-called buffer zone against people in Louisville.
The fight began in 2021 when two sidewalk counselors protested the city's use of its governmental power to impose "unconstitutional speech restrictions" outside of abortion businesses as well as health care facilities.
Specifically involved were EMW Women's Surgical Center and Planned Parenthood, which provided abortion at the time.
The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals soon was called into the dispute, and ruled that the counselors likely would be able to prove their constitutional speech rights were being limited.
When the case then was returned to the lower court, city officials claimed the case should be thrown about because abortion no longer was allowed in the state.
But the ACLJ pointed out that the counselors' speech rights continued to remain under threat from the city. The city's motion to dismiss failed and the court soon released its opinion supporting the speech rights of the counselors.
The city now is permanently banned from enforcing its speech restriction ordinance.
The ACLJ reported, "This ruling is a victory for free speech and the rights of sidewalk counselors. Should abortion ever be reinstated in Kentucky, and should EMW resume abortion services, our clients will be protected in their mission to offer women alternatives to abortion immediately outside the clinic's entrance. In the interim, our clients, along with any other citizens, are free to pray and offer counseling outside any healthcare facility in the city, including EMW and Planned Parenthood."
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Imagine trying to explain to your children that their grandmother is a criminal because she was giving food to the needy.
Strange?
That's the result of a federal court decision in Arizona.
The Institute for Justice reports a new ruling from U.S. district court there concluded that a law in Bullhead City, Arizona, that makes it a crime to share food in public parks for "charitable purposes" is constitutional.
Norma Thornton, a grandmother, and the Institute for Justice say they will be appealing the decision.
Citing "illegal behavior," "human waste, litter, trash and other debris" the city imposed a permit requirement for giving away food, in order to "protect" the public and avoid the "deterioration" of public property," and decided, "It is unlawful for any person or organization to sponsor, promote or engage in a food sharing event at a public park in violation of the provisions of this chapter. Any violation of this chapter is a class 2 misdemeanor."
Thornton was arrested in March 2022 for feeding people in Community Park. and she and the IJ lawyers working with her said an appeal will be pursued.
"Americans have a constitutional right to engage in charitable activities and cities can't pass laws that outlaw doing so," said IJ lawyer Paul Avelar. "The district court failed to grapple with the fact that charity is deeply rooted in American history, and we look forward to proving to the appeals court that Bullhead City's actions criminalizing charity violate Norma's right to help others."
The court, in fact, claimed "the right to serve one's community, while important, is not a fundamental right."
Thornton has handed out food for decades, and when she retired to Bullhead City she wanted to continue.
"Being told that I cannot feed the hungry is absolutely heartbreaking to me, which is why I will continue fighting against this unjust law," she explained. "All I want to do is help people in my community, so they can survive and get back on their feet. It makes no sense for the city to prevent me from doing so."
The legal team noted that the city's "permit" requirement really is a ban, as "obtaining a permit is expensive and, even with a permit, the city allows people to share food only once per month."
Further, the restriction applies only to those sharing food for "charitable purposes."
"Norma is allowed to throw a pizza party in Community Park for 50 of her friends without limitation. But once she offers food for charity, she runs afoul of the ordinance. Each violation of the law is punishable with a fine of up to $1,431, 120 days in jail and 24 months of probation."
The decision is from Judge Susan M. Brnovich, who alleged there is a "rational basis for regulating food sharing events for charitable purposes differently than other food sharing events."
During the city's banishment of her charity, she has been using about half her income to feed some 30 people a day in an alley behind a jet ski shop that has no shade, tables, or restrooms.
Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) called for New York City Mayor Eric Adams to resign following his indictment, The Hill reported. Adams is facing corruption charges stemming from a federal investigation.
Adams was served with a five-count indictment that included charges such as bribery, wire fraud, and foreign contribution on Thursday. Adams maintains his innocence and has insisted he is staying in office for the duration.
This has become a problem for lawmakers like Nadler who see Adams as a burden to the city. "My belief is that the Mayor has lost the ability to effectively lead the City of New York, and therefore, he must resign," Nadler said in a statement shared on X, formerly Twitter.
My statement on Mayor Eric Adams: pic.twitter.com/pAovO99Gkn
— Rep. Nadler (@RepJerryNadler) September 27, 2024
Nadler isn't alone in calling on Adams to resign from office amid the scandal. Still, Nadler's statement was careful to clarify that Adams has the presumption of innocence.
"While the criminal charges outlined in the indictment by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York are very serious, Mayor Adams deserves the right to due process and to be treated as presumed innocent until proven guilty," Nadler stated. "However, there are questions of whether the Mayor can continue to effectively lead our City as Mayor at this time," he added.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) similarly demanded that Adams step down for the good of the city. "I do not see how Mayor Adams can continue governing New York City," Ocasio-Cortez said in her post to X on Wednesday.
"The flood of resignations and vacancies are threatening gov function. Nonstop investigations will make it impossible to recruit and retain a qualified administration. For the good of the city, he should resign," she added, referring to other officials around Adams who also have been implicated.
I do not see how Mayor Adams can continue governing New York City.
The flood of resignations and vacancies are threatening gov function. Nonstop investigations will make it impossible to recruit and retain a qualified administration.
For the good of the city, he should resign.…
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 25, 2024
Adams didn't respond directly to Nadler but previously reiterated that he has no plans to leave office. "From here, my attorneys will take care of the case so I can take care of the city," Adams told reporters.
"My day-to-day will not change. I will continue to do the job for 8.3 million New Yorkers that I was elected to do and the 300,000 plus employees of our city government will continue to do their job because this is what we do as New Yorkers," he claimed.
Even when it came time for Thursday's arrangement, NBC News reported that Adams was still maintaining his innocence. He pleaded not guilty before a judge and dug in his heels about remaining in office.
"We are not surprised. We expected this. I ask New Yorkers to wait to hear our defense before making any judgments," Adams said after his indictment.
Adams needs to think of the people of New York instead of himself. Even if he is innocent, Adams will have to spend valuable time and resources defending himself, which will distract him from his duties.
Dame Maggie Smith, one of the world’s most distinguished actresses and a legend of British cinema, passed away on Friday at the age of 89.
Smith's sons, Toby Stephens and Chris Larkin, confirmed her passing in a heartfelt statement saying, "It is with great sadness we have to announce the death of Dame Maggie Smith."
Their statement continued saying, "She passed away peacefully in hospital early this morning, Friday 27th September. An intensely private person, she was with friends and family at the end. She leaves two sons and five loving grandchildren who are devastated by the loss of their extraordinary mother and grandmother."
Smith was an icon of cinema and snagged two Academy Awards for The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie and California Suite. Smith also won four Golden Globe Awards in a career that spanned seven decades.
She was also nominated for several Oscars and a litany of other awards between her debut in 1952 all the way to 2023 with The Miracle Club.
While many recognize Smith for her role as Professor Minerva McGonagall in the Harry Potter film series and Violet Crawley in the Downton Abbey series, Smith has been acting for decades and those roles were simply a resurgence of an already successful career.
Smith would make her stage debut in 1952, playing Viola in a stage production of Twelfth Night. That role would launch decades of roles in film, television, and theater.
Four years after her stage debut, Smith scored her first film credit in Child in the House in 1956. She would get a proper role in the 1959 crime drama Nowhere to Go.
Smith's early career would hit its prime when she won an Oscar for Best Actress in 1969 for her role in The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie.
She wasn't done with that as she would go on to win another Oscar for California Suite in 1979.
By the 1990's, Smith's profile had grown so significantly that she was made a dame by Queen Elizabeth II, in recognition of her contributions to the performing arts.
News of Smith's passing has spread quickly and those who worked with her are coming forward with many stories about working with Dame Smith.
Richard Eyre, who directed Smith in a television production of Suddenly, Last Summer stated that Smith was, "intellectually the smartest actress I’ve ever worked with. You have to get up very, very early in the morning to outwit Maggie Smith.”
Smith was a professional and took her work very seriously with director Peter Hall stating that Smith wasn't “remotely difficult unless she’s among idiots. She’s very hard on herself, and I don’t think she sees any reason why she shouldn’t be hard on other people, too."
Smith herself said, "It's true I don’t tolerate fools, but then they don’t tolerate me, so I am spiky. Maybe that’s why I’m quite good at playing spiky elderly ladies."
While she may have been spiky and venomous in many of her on-screen roles, Smith was a beloved figure who left her mark and will be missed dearly by fans and family alike.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh made interesting statements regarding the Chevron ruling earlier this year that torched the power of federal agencies.
According to Bloomberg Law, while speaking at Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law in Washington the Supreme Court justice stated that the Chevron ruling shouldn't be "over read."
Kavanaugh drew on his experiences working for former presidents and noted that he saw firsthand how difficult it was for presidents to push bigger legislative pieces through Cogress.
He added that the pressure was often on federal agencies to "push the envelope" as far as regulations were concerned.
Kavanaugh explained why he believes Loper Bright, the case that resulted in the Chevron reversal, shouldn't be "over read."
"To be clear, don’t over read Loper Bright," Kavanaugh said Thursday during his speech.
He added, "Oftentimes Congress will grant a broad authorization to an executive agency so it’s really important, as a neutral umpire, to respect the line that Congress has drawn when it’s granted broad authorization not to unduly hinder the executive branch when performing its congressional authorized functions, but at the same time not allowing the executive branch, as it could with Chevron in its toolkit, to go beyond the congressional authorization."
He then elaborated on the pressure he said federal agencies felt from the executive branch regarding getting new regulations in place when big pieces of legislation couldn't not pass through Congress.
Oh please, Justice Kavanaugh pleads that SCOTUS killed Chevron Deference with the best of intentions.
Let us appoint an agency to oversee ethics at the Supreme Court and give it specific powers and instructions. https://t.co/t1xAjp9Mv7
— Freebird1967 (@Freebird19671) September 28, 2024
“Even if the agency thought this is not the best reading of the statute, there would be pressure to go forward," Kavanaugh said.
The sickening part is that Kavanaugh said that judges would uphold the regulations "when they thought the executive was acting beyond the scope of the statute."
During his remarks on the Chevron case, he called the outcome a "course correction" according to Broadband Breakfast.
"What we did in Loper Bright – in the Chief Justice's opinion – was I think a course correction, consistent with the separation of powers to make sure the executive branch is acting within the authorization granted to it by Congress," Kavanaugh said durin his speech.
That was followed by his warning to not "over read" the ruling.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The lawfare agenda against President Donald Trump includes a long list of cases and claims.
Assembled by Democrats, some of whom actually campaigned on the ideology of getting Trump to "bring him down," they include documents disputes, arguments about his free speech, his business operations and in one case they changed a state law to allow a woman to bring a claim against Trump.
One of those, however, apparently now is facing a rugged road at an appeals court.
She brought the complaint on her own, as no one had registered any dissatisfaction with their deals with Trump and his corporate organization. In fact, during the trial before Democrat donor Arthur Engoron, witnesses testified all the loans were repaid on time and in full, they had no concerns about their agreements and, in fact, would like to do business with Trump again.
The upshot, from Engoron, was a fine of some $350 million for Trump in a case with no damages. Then interest would add another $100 million – or so.
It is commentator Byron York, in the Washington Examiner, who now has listed some of the concerns raised by the judges in the appeals court who are reviewing Engoron's agenda.
York described the case as "the most damaging, at least monetarily," for Trump.
James maneuvered the case so that Engoron, a "longtime Democratic donor" would decide the case alone, resulting in the nearly half billion dollar decision.
York noted, though, that appeals judge David Friedman pointed out it was not a case of a naïve victim being hurt. "It hardly seems to justify bringing an action to protect Deutsche Bank against President Trump, which is what you have here. You have two really sophisticated players in which no one lost any money."
Then Llinet Rosado, another judge, expressed concern because the case had "little to no impact on the public marketplace."
Further, Peter Moulton said, "The immense penalty in this case is troubling. … How do you tether the amount that was assessed by [Engoron] to the harm that was caused here, where the parties left these transactions happy?" He added, "There has to be some limitation in what the attorney general can do in interfering in these private transactions … where people don't claim harm."
And a fourth, John Higgitt, said any conflict would be a commercial dispute, and openly questioned whether James needed "guardrails" to keep her out of "an area that wasn't intended for her jurisdiction."
York pointed out the court's decision, coming later, could affirm the whole penalty, throw it out, or anything in between.
"Even with all of her anti-Trump animus, James couldn't figure out how to charge Trump with a crime, so she settled for trying to bankrupt him. She found a willing judge to make it happen. Now, we'll see if the damage they did survives judicial scrutiny," he said.
This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
A leftist school district, in the news in years past for contracting with a company that allowed students to access pornography through its web portals, now is facing a charge it violated the constitutional speech rights of a worker.
American First Legal announced it is suing the Cherry Creek School District in federal court in Colorado for "retaliating against an employee" after he stated he "identifies as an American who believes the U.S. is the greatest country in the world."
The comment came during one of those notorious "diversity training" schemes often used by schools to promote leftist ideologies, like the now-popular "diversity, equity and inclusion" campaigns that use race as the sole reason for making decisions.
AFL explained the case was prompted by the termination of Patrick Hogarty, formerly the dean of students at Campus Middle School in the Cherry Creek District. Defendants are the district and its officials.
They are accused of trying to force him to "embrace race-based ideologies" during a mandatory "training."
"During the January 18, 2024 training, Hogarty reportedly responded to a question about his experience being a white U.S. citizen by saying he 'identifies as an American who believes the U.S. is the greatest country in the world,'" the lawsuit said.
So the school's "equity" chief claimed, in a complaint to the principal, that the comment included "racist undertones."
In short order, the school eliminated Hogarty's position and then put him on administration leave for "unprofessional conduct" when he protested, then fired him.
"Cherry Creek School District blatantly violated the First Amendment rights of our client when they terminated him because his pride in the United States of America did not align with the district's political ideology that America is a systematically racist nation. Like other school districts across the country, Cherry Creek has replaced the Bill of Rights with the 'DEI Manifesto,' and teachers, students, and parents are being silenced for standing up for the values that make America great," explained Ian Prior, AFL senior adviser.
AFL pointed out that the "training" scheme was from Pacific Educational Group, and the legal team previously revealed that organization's "Courageous Conversations" plan was "trying to implement critical race theory" to change school leadership and force white staff members to recognize their "whiteness" as a problem.
CRT is an extremist ideology that teaches everything about America is racist.
AFL reported, "At the beginning of the 'Courageous Conversations' training that AFL's client attended this year, program facilitators assured participants that all comments would remain confidential and would not impact employment status. During a training breakout session, participants were asked to discuss questions such as 'What does it mean to be white?' and 'How do you identify?' AFL's client responded by stating he identifies as an American and believes the United States is the greatest country in the world."
"Immediately following the training, the district's Equity Director reported AFL's client's comments to the school's principal as having 'racist undertones.'" the legal team said.
The report also noted the school's claim the position was eliminated for "budgetary reasons" was contradicted by its own records.
"As alleged in the complaint, Cherry Creek School District blatantly violated the First Amendment rights of our client when they terminated him because his pride in the United States of America did not align with the district's political ideology that America is a systemically racist nation," Prior explained.
The parties named in this lawsuit are the Cherry Creek School District, the Cherry Creek School District Board of Education, board president Angela Garland, Supt. Christopher Smith, Angie Zehner, Courtney Smith, Lissa Staal, and the "equity" executive, Ronald Garcia y Ortiz.
The district previously was in the news when it used a company to provide database resources to students, and that company was sued for including pornography embedded in computer files.
The outside company was sued for violating Colorado's Deceptive Trade Practices Act for boasting its products are age-appropriate.
The district ultimately dropped its contract with that company after an uprising by parents.
A report from the nonprofit organization MassResistance said children attending middle schools in the district had been provided "access to extremely graphic sexual and homosexual pornography, material encouraging them to become sexually and homosexually active, descriptions of 'sex toys,' and much more."