Free Republic

WASHINGTON, D.C. - In what some are taking as perhaps a bad omen, President Trump responded to the SCOTUS ruling on nationwide injunctions by screaming "UNLIMITED POWER!" and shooting lightning from his fingertips. "That's probably not good," said an eyewitness as a cackling Trump scorched an aide with lightning. "It sounded like he said something to the effect of ‘Now, nothing can stop me from controlling the galaxy'. It's a bit concerning." While many conservatives had felt that district courts issuing nationwide injunctions was an unfair check on executive power, they no longer felt so sure after witnessing Trump levitate...

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., released Friday, finally put the brakes on the reckless abuse of nationwide injunctions by lower courts—and has Democrats in full meltdown mode. The left’s favorite judicial weapon just got neutered, and the hypocrisy is impossible to ignore. The liberal wing of the court didn’t do itself any favors, either. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent was so horrible that Justice Amy Coney Barrett felt compelled to call it out in the majority opinion. But Justice Elena Kagan’s credibility also took a direct hit. In a stunning display of judicial flip-flopping, Kagan’s...

Democrats warned the decision paves the way for “a vile betrayal of our Constitution.” Democratic members of Congress sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s Friday ruling that limited district courts’ use of nationwide injunctions in a case challenging President Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship. The court did not rule on whether the Trump administration has legal standing to revoke birthright citizenship for the children of some immigrants. Yet Democrats warned the decision paves the way for “a vile betrayal of our Constitution,” Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said in a social media post. “The Supreme Court’s decision...

The CASA ruling has been handed down, and rogue judges and unhinged liberals are hardest hit. While it doesn’t address the issue of birthright citizenship per se, it did strike down the national injunction power that district judges have been abusing since the outset of the second Trump presidency. SCOTUSblog set up the issue: Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district courts' nationwide preliminary injunctions on the Trump administration’s Jan. 20 executive order ending birthright citizenship except as to the individual plaintiffs and identified members of the organizational plaintiffs or states. And in a 6-3 ruling, the Court ruled:...

As Twitchy readers know, the Supreme Court ruled against activist federal judges standing in the way of the Trump administration. What you all may not know is just how badly Amy Coney Barrett NUKED Ketanji Brown Jackson. "“We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.” In other words, Ketanji is too dumb to even bother with. Okay, that's going to leave a mark. Oooh, the her usage...

For months, President Donald Trump has griped in private about some of the Supreme Court justices he appointed during his first term, believing they were not sufficiently standing behind his agenda. But on Friday, all of his appointees — including Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the one who’s earned his particular ire — ruled in his favor in a case challenging his executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, with Barrett writing the majority opinion. The ruling was a decisive win for a president who has long railed against unelected judges blocking some of his executive actions. The decision limits lower...

WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship.The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. He called it a “monumental victory.”But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump’s order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally.The cases now return to lower courts, where...

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Ramifications were predicted to be felt for generations after today, as in a historic 6-3 Supreme Court decision, 3 justices were ruled to be morons. The ruling came near the end of the U.S. Supreme Court's current term, leaving legal analysts around the country saying that the decision was sure to have a long-lasting impact on all future cases. "This was a ruling that shifts the balance in the country," one expert said. "According to this 6-3 decision, three of the justices sitting on the Supreme Court as morons, with the three morons themselves providing the dissenting...

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court issued a ruling this morning that it is legal for President Donald Trump to be the president. In a 6-3 decision, the court held that since Trump was, in fact, elected to be president, his ability to "do president things" was protected under the law. "The court hereby rules that a president can be president," wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who penned the decision for the majority. "By virtue of being president, that person is the president. I can't freaking believe I'm having to explain this." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a scathing dissent...

There were several concurring opinions, and a dissent joined by the Court’s three liberal justices, including a separate dissent by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has become the Court’s resident left-wing activist. Jackson wrote:”The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.” She derided the Court’s cited precedents in common law at the Founding as “inapt comparisons to impotent English tribunals.”

President Donald Trump and his administration are rejoicing on Friday as the Supreme Court issued a ruling limiting the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions. Nationwide injunctions are sweeping orders issued by district courts to block executive actions across the country. The Supreme Court ruled that these orders exceed the equitable authority Congress has granted to federal courts. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. The case stems from an emergency appeal by the current administration, which sought to narrow orders that have blocked President Trump’s executive...

"JUSTICE JACKSON would do well to heed her own admonition: “[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.” Ibid. That goes for judges too," she added. T he Supreme Court's Friday ruling narrowing the scope of judicial injunctions also included a scathing rebuke of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, asserting she sought an "imperial judiciary" and that her views ran afoul of more than 200 years of precedent. "We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this:...

The court's opinion was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who took the time to include a pretty stinging rebuke to the opinions of her colleague, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The comments have lit up Twitter/X, where many are cheering ACB for slapping down KBJ's flimsy arguments in a way that only she can:

And that has crippled the Court.. Last year, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, despite being in her early 50s and having an undistinguished career before her affirmative action appointment, published a memoir. You might be forgiven for having missed it when “Lovely One” came out. As the media politely notes, it was “briefly” on the New York Times bestseller list and is now going for half price on Amazon. That is mostly to be expected of the ghostwritten memoir of an obscure judge. Except that Jackson received a $893,750 advance for her memoir and is now reporting $2 million in profits...

Americans don’t have time for Barrett to spend years figuring out what kind of justice she wants to be. What kind of Supreme Court justice is Amy Coney Barrett going to be?That appeared to be the question a new expose by New York Times hack Jodi Kantor attempted to answer. Published Sunday, the lengthy article features analysis of the Trump appointee’s SCOTUS record thus far, as well as comments from former associates and Court watchers on her jurisprudence and how she approaches legal questions. The goal, as it seems, is to decipher whether the Catholic mother of seven will follow...

President Donald Trump has privately complained that the Supreme Court justices he appointed have not sufficiently stood behind his agenda, according to multiple sources familiar with the conversations. But he has directed particular ire at Justice Amy Coney Barrett, his most recent appointee, one of the sources said. The behind-closed-doors grievances have been wide-ranging, and while many have been about Barrett, Trump has also expressed frustration about Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, the sources familiar with the matter said. The complaints have gone on for at least a year, the sources said. The president’s anger, sources said, has been...

The decision revives a lawsuit against a Texas officer who shot a driver after endangering himself by jumping onto a moving car. ============================================================= During a routine traffic stop near Houston in 2016, a police officer killed Ashtian Barnes by blindly firing two shots into his car after jumping onto the doorsill as Barnes began to drive away. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the shooting was justified by the threat that the officer, Harris County Constable Roberto Felix Jr., faced when he shot Barnes. Last Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the...

WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH THE FRAUDULENT JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT? Barrett sided with loony lib justices and Tren de Aragua gangs last week, after throwing J6 political hostages under the bus last year in another example of her despicable interpretation of the law (where she again sided with vindictive libs). This reporter asked Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt the administration’s comment on Barrett’s decision at today’s Press Briefing at The White House. See her response HERE:

Catturd ™ @catturd2 Everything wrong with justice, the Supreme Court, the rule of law, the real Constitution, all in one picture. Amy Commie Barrett is a joke and a loser - and these Karens are hellbent on destroying the judiciary branch. Imagine losing our country, freedom, and the rule of law over these four utter clowns? 7:05 PM · Apr 7, 2025 ·

One of President Donald Trump’s picks for the U.S. Supreme Court turned on him Monday, siding with liberal justices in a bid to constrain his ability to deport illegal immigrants suspected by the administration of being affiliated with violent South American gangs. MAGA conservatives are incensed with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom the president nominated and was confirmed for her role during his first administration. Barrett briefly became a right-wing celebrity after she held up her blank notebook during a U.S. Senate confirmation hearing to show that she brought no prepared talking points with her. Now, she is under fire...