Today's the day
Today the SCOTUS will begin hearing oral arguments in three cases consolidated under Trump v. CASA that challenges President Trump's executive order to end birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally. The order was halted by District Court judges, which compels the Court to confront another issue: whether District Court judges have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions. The first issue is controversial with legal experts coming down on either side, however the issues of the authority of a District Court judges is not. The Supreme Court has long issued subtle warnings to District Courts about nation-wide injunctions. Now the matter has finally been dropped into the lap of the high Court.
This reporter will also be covering other important stories today as the President has arrived in Quatar for more diplomacy & business talks. President Donald Trump arrived in Qatar, the second stop on his Middle East tour, where he received a grand welcome. He reached a deal with the government of Qatar for the purchase of up to 210 jets from Boeing. After lifting sanctions on Syria, President Trump urged Syria's interim leader Ahmed al-Sharaa to join the Abraham Accords and recognize Israel. The President also spoke before a packed house at Qatar’s al-Udeid Air Base, a major staging base for US forces.
Qatar also purchased $1 billion worth of counter-drone technology from defense giant Raytheon, making Qatar the first international buyer of the contractor’s new FS-LIDS system. US-based General Atomics, meanwhile, secured a $2 billion deal for MQ-9B drones. Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg joined Trump for part of the signing ceremony.
The Big, Beautiful Deal:
House committees pulled all-nighters yesterday to bring the major components of Trump's key piece of legislation. Here is what is now in the bill:
Tax cuts: The legislation extends the parts of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts that are set to expire.
Medicaid: Changes to the health insurance program would leave around eight million Americans uninsured. The bill says that poor, childless adults must work at least 80 hours every month to qualify. It would also require beneficiaries to pay more fees and complete more paperwork to prove they are eligible for Medicaid.
Immigration: The bill would increase funding to help build a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border and crack down on illegal immigration.
Clean energy: Joe Biden enacted hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks for electric vehicles and other clean energy initiatives. Republicans would phase out most of that money.
Odds & ends: The bill would also make states pay more for food stamps, create “MAGA” savings accounts for newborns, starting them out with $1,000 and letting parents contribute $5,000 per year tax-free until a child turns 31. It would raise taxes on colleges and universities. It would increase military spending. It would repeal Biden’s student loan forgiveness program.
Passing the Bill will be the ultimate test for Speaker Johnson.
In other news:
Ukrainian and Russian delegations are now in Turkey to begin a round of talks to end the war between the countries.
At a congressional hearing, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. clashed with Democrats who accused him of illegally cutting funding for medical research.
Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, will now receive the daily CIA briefing once reserved for the President.
Gavin Newsom, rapidly pivoting to moderate positions, wants to reduce health care coverage for illegal aliens.
Progressives are going after PA Senator John Fetterman, the man they supported during an election when he was recovering from a stroke and could barely function.
Tags
Who is online
150 visitors
Good morning to all those at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar and welcome to the news.
The President's historic middle eastern trip continues as the President signs a series of agreements with Qatar's Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani in Doha, Qatar.
You want to insert a silly meme?
That's all the left has?
You have never won an argument with me Vic. [deleted][✘]
You've never made an argument, John. You engage in name-calling. PERIOD.
And they can't even do that.
[deleted]
[✘] As far as my not having substance, the thousands of articles and comments I have placed on this forum, with backing quotes and links, would indicate otherwise.
That would be one horrible white male.
[deleted][✘]
Of course you are. The game du jour is "keep conservatives OFF the front page" and actually, it has been played for several months now.
Wondering who it is that is censoring you or trying to persuade you to "help the cause"?
The sad thing is you and a few others actually believe that.
This is all your articles and comments summed up:
You've had an argument?
I’ve never
lost an argument with them so I don’t know where they are coming from.
That was funny!
[deleted][✘]
Did trump have a stroke? WTF?
Woke Judge faces 6 years:
The trial takes place in fairly progressive district. Will there be justice?
Probably not, but she needs to lose her job at the very least.
A baby step on the road to justice?
Sadly, this is part of why we needed Trump.
I read that she's filed a motion to dismiss the charges citing judicial immunity. Makes one question what she sees as official acts for a judge. I also wonder if she would consider any action taken by a President while in office to be an official duty regardless of what the President was doing? Would she consider Trump immune to prosecution for shooting someone in Times Square?
I'm not a lawyer but this case seems rather open and shut to me. Will have to wait to watch it play out.
It seems that way to me too.
Will have to wait to watch it play out.
It is a very important case. The outcome will set a precedent for these kinds of judges.
What part of her "official duties" does obstruction, aiding and abetting fall?
This situation is made even more hilarious as the idiots supporting her equate her to a modern day Harriet Tubman.
They will need to defy logic. Let's face it, lawyers do try and do just that at times.
I'm interested in the part where Judge Dugan told the ICE officers that they needed to get a warrant, (WHICH THEY DIDN'T) and sent them off to see another official, and then whisked the one they came for out of the Courtroom.
I want to see how her lawyers get around that.
THAT is going to be hilarious to watch. I'm sure some on the left here on NT will come up with some pretty funny justifications as well.
I'm very much looking forward to it.
I wonder how many woke radical judges on the SC will go to jail? I barrett. She should be removed and jailed immediately, with no due process.
This just in from The Washington Times:
"President Trump answered nearly 100 questions from the press during his first three Cabinet meetings this year — nearly 20 times the number answered by President Biden in the same setting during four years in office, according to data compiled by The Washington Times.
Mr. Trump fielded roughly 20 questions from the press during his third Cabinet meeting Thursday. He answered a whopping 55 questions during his first Cabinet meeting in February and 15 questions during his second meeting last month.
Trump's first three Cabinet meetings feature more press questions and answers than all of Biden's - Washington Times
He could answer 100 million questions and it doesnt matter if your answers are "I dont know" or you lie in 95% of your answers, or your answer is not related to the question, or if you attack the reporter when they ask a question you fumble with.
He doesn't need friendly interviews either John. He takes them all on.
However, he will call activist reporters out for what they are.
It actually matters a lot John, because he's still out there for the american public to see and evaluate. If what you say is true that's still information for Americans to process and would create a negative impression.
When Trump gets a question that he doesnt have an answer for he answers an imaginary question that wasnt asked . It is irrelevant how many questions he answers when the answers are garbage.
Oh please. Next you'll tell us that the fawning , embarrassing praise heaped on him at the cabinet meetings is good because they let us see what the cabinet is thinking.
The whole thing of praising Trump for his access by the media is ridiculous.
Is that just your assessment. It might be nice to give some examples.
I don't know how Sean feels about that, but it sickens me.
I agree on that one. I hate watching it.
Do you think the media and the cabinet are the same thing? I get when a Democrat is in office they are essentially the same but with a Republican President the media actually works against the PResident.
What bothers you is that Trump handles the media and it helps him politically. Unlike Biden, he stands up there and offers unfiltered responses to hostile questions. Americans see and evaluate that. If he can't answer questions, it will hurt him.
Are you really going to sit her and claim that PResidents should hide from the media and not allow Americans to see them debate reporters? Of course its a good thing Trump answers questions. It's bizarre to even try and argue otherwise.
What bothers me is that the president of the United States is a mentally ill, crooked as hell, pathological liar and people like you are fine with it.
Why didn't it bother you this time last year?
But in real life that's not what happens. His answers are well thought out and not evasive
‘the president of the United States is a mentally ill, crooked as hell, pathological liar’
We just got through four years of that very same thing and nary a word from you or other leftists.
you still have never produced any evidence of any of the accusations you make of Trump .
I appreciate a little slowpitch softball.
yes, but his answers are wrong. a statesman is supposed to at least frame his actions as for the country. trump blatantly sells his soul to the highest bidder*
He's sure getting a lot of good things done, while the divided lefties continue to destroy any relevance they may have once had. They are leaderless and powerless.
I'm thinking that if the midterm election was held today, the GOP would pick up even more seats.
I think you are underestimating the damage he's done to the economy and markets.
Are you going by the fraudulent polls?
There are very few Trump supporters polled.
I'm not going by polls at all. I'm going by what my clients and friends are saying.
You're a Trump cheerleader. That's fine. But most people aren't. Most people vote much more pragmatically.
In his first few months, we've seen some positive changes. Illegal immigration is down, the soldiers of the Woke Jihad are slinking back to their holes, and we're finally starting to see some sense emerging into the batshit gender debates.
But we've also seen some self-inflicted wounds and a whole lot of very capricious behavior, specifically related to tariffs and trade.
Regular people are not generally political zealots and are historically much more concerned about things that affect them like their bank accounts and investment portfolios and job security than they are about things that don't really affect them like who the women's swimming champion is or whether the guy making their tacos has a green card or not.
Like it or not, you need those pragmatic regular people to win elections.
Even if what you say were true, the key phrase you used was "In the first few months."
It is way to early to judge what comes out of the oven.
I have to agree (in part) with Jack. There have been some good things and some self-inflicted wounds in the first months of this term. IMO the entire tariff and trade crap was poorly handled. While I think that changes were needed, the way it was done was wrong.
As for who 'wins' the mid-terms, that will depend on where the economy is at the months immediately before the elections as well as the people running. Right now it seems that the extremists on both sides are pushing hard to get in there but to me it seems that the Democrats are the most fucked up. It seems like all they are pushing is to be against whatever Trump is for.
I really miss having adults in Washington.
Fair, but you said "if the midterm election was held today".
As of today, the market is still down, unemployment is trending up, and we have significant and unnecessary economic uncertainty that is going to likely to slow future investment.
Most importantly, every bit of that is directly and unnecessarily caused by Trump's actions.
That's right. That was my opinion, much different from yours.
As of today, the market is still down, unemployment is trending up, and we have significant and unnecessary economic uncertainty that is going to likely to slow future investment.
We are in the 4th month of the Trump Presidency. Let us talk in December. Does that seem right?
That's simply not true. The PResident doesn't control the economy. It's not that simple. Yes, tariffs created uncertainty and are probably responsible for a significant chunk of the 2% the market is down since his inauguration, but there are so many other factors in play as well. The President, and the federal government in general, is only one piece of a global economy.
I’m sorry , Jack, but the markets simply had a correction that was coming anyway and have rebounded to not far off where they were before the announcements of tariffs.
It may have been coming. Markets eventually correct.
It's not an accident that the market went down sharply when Trump declared a tariff war and rebounded sharply when he relented. Those actions are the causes the markets falling and rising.
Sorry bud, it absolutely is.
Ordinarily no. But when he unilaterally declares a surprise trade war... with everybody all at once.... yes... he's exercising control over the economy.
They are the reason. The almost direct inverse relationship between the market and tariffs is not a coincidence.
The world isn't that simple. The President is not omnipotent. The government operates at the margins of the economy. The rate of inflation went down in April to the lowest in years. Does Trump get all the credit for that? Or is Trump only solely responsible for things you don't like?
People like simple explanations. Complexity is hard to grasp. The President's plans obviously had a negative impact, but to claim it's the only effect is a naive way to look at an infinitely complex global system.. If you want to believe the Fed's choice to keep interest rates flat has zero economic impact, there's not much I can say.
No, but he can sure as hell enact a 125% tariff with an executive order, now, can't he?
Ordinarily yes. But imports are 14% of GDP, and he just went at it like Yosemite Sam in a Looney Tune.
You're trying to talk traditional theory, like Trump is a traditional president. He's not.
OK, I'll settle for Trump's tariffs being 98% of the issue.
Sorry... want to make sure I'm understanding you... Are you saying the Fed should have lowered interest rates to accommodate Trump's tariffs?
List them..
Question for our readers:
If you shove an ICE agent, is it assault?
Usually, breathing in the general direction of some on the left would be considered assault. Look at the frivolous charges made every day.
The left lives by a double standard. I thought Sam Donaldson used to defend protestors trained to trigger the police by saying "The right to protest ends where another's nose begins." That would indicate anything short of contact.
If an ICE agent shoves you, is it assault?
Not if someone is resisting arrest or trying to break into an ICE facility.
Happy 68th birthday to White House Chief of staff Susie Wiles!!
From what I have been hearing is the justices are more interested in hearing arguments about the rogue judges that consider themselves monarchs.
I understand even a couple of the liberal justices have voiced frustration with these judges, left and right, and are ready to put a stop to it.
As far as the birthright is concerned, they will most likely push it back to the lower courts and we will wait longer for any decisions.
That is 100% correct.
I understand even a couple of the liberal justices have voiced frustration with these judges, left and right, and are ready to put a stop to it.
The implications:
"A Supreme Court decision here could have sweeping national implications, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 federal lawsuits that have challenged White House actions since Trump's second presidency began on Jan. 20, 2025, according to a Fox News data analysis."
Supreme Court takes on birthright citizenship: Justices seemingly split on lower court powers
As far as the birthright is concerned, they will most likely push it back to the lower courts and we will wait longer for any decisions.
Agreed. Very few countries allow such BS. In our case it was meant for those born to newly freed slaves
I think the Court will limit the availability for nationwide injunctions to some restricted set of rare circumstances, which activist judges will immediately claim apply in every lawsuit that gets forum shoppsed in front of them, and we'll be right back where we started.
Kavanaugh, Roberts and Barrett are incrementalists who believe they can set reasonable guidelines that lower court judges will act in good faith. I think they are in for a shock.
greed. Very few countries allow such BS. In our case it was meant for those born to newly freed slaves
I don't think the court will rule on birthright citizenship. It's federal law and the Constitution gives the Congress the power to define citizenship. Congress would have to repeal the law before the 14th amendment is even implicated.
I think you've been following the oral arguments. I think that is the most likely outcome.
Kavanaugh, Roberts and Barrett are incrementalists who believe they can set reasonable guidelines that lower court judges will act in good faith. I think they are in for a shock.
"Please Joe, say it ain't so!"
I don't think the court will rule on birthright citizenship. It's federal law and the Constitution gives the Congress the power to define citizenship. Congress would have to repeal the law before the 14th amendment is even implicated.
Again, I agree. They have about 4 cases of bad precedent staring at them. Too much on the plate already.
So if you are born in the USA, you shouldn't be a citizen? Really? LOL
Does anyone think that Putin might just be trying to play for time?
Putin suggested holding direct negotiations in Turkey TODAY.
Zelensky has arrived in Turkey.
Putin is absent.
Sergey Lavrov just responded to Ukrainian complaints:
Zelensky is a "miserable person" for demanding Putin's presence in Istanbul , — Lavrov said.
Putin is our president. Trump is an empty suit.
At this hour the debate continues.
This from Jonathan Turley:
"George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told Fox News host Harris Faulkner on Thursday oral arguments at the Supreme Court over nationwide injunctions got “pretty hot.”
The Supreme Court held a special oral argument session focusing on the practice of nationwide injunctions blocking an executive order President Donald Trump issued regarding birthright citizenship when he took office Jan. 20. Turley said one justice was particularly responsible for the tension in the courtroom and constantly interrupted one of the attorneys arguing the case.
“This has been a pretty hot argument. Chief Justice [John] Roberts doesn’t ordinarily talk over Justice Sotomayor and said, ‘Will you please let us hear his answer’ and by the way, Justice Sotomayor didn’t yield,” Turley said. “She continued to talk. She was right out of the gates very early and clearly, that was not going over well with some of the justices who want to hear what the solicitor general has to say. But Justice Sotomayor was very, very active.”
Turley also noted that one of the more liberal justices on the court also had previously criticized the practice of issuing nationwide injunctions.
WATCH:
“The interesting thing so far is Justice Kagan, because she sort of painted herself in a corner in her interview at Northwestern Law School during the Biden Administration when she said, you know, these injunctions really are crazy,” Turley said. “Today she was suggesting well, if we think this order is clearly unconstitutional, does that change the dynamic for us? So, it seemed like she is trying to reframe it a bit, in terms of how they would approach this.”
The Supreme Court temporarily halted the Trump administration’s efforts to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport members of the Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) in April, saying those who were slated for deportation had a right to challenge their removal.
Trump issued several executive orders to address illegal immigration and border security, including designating Mexican drug cartels, TdA and MS-13, an El Salvadoran prison gang, as foreign terrorist organizations. Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to speed up the deportation of TdA gang members March 15.
“There is this widening gap between the judiciary, both state and federal, and the Trump administration,” Turley said. “And I think it’s one of the reasons why the Supreme Court took the injunction case in this irregular way. This is a pretty rare occasion for them to accept an oral argument in a case like this. I think they do want to bring clarity. But if the oral argument in the Supreme Court is any indication, there is more heat than light so far.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation.
Jonathan Turley Details ‘Pretty Hot Argument’ Over Nationwide Injunctions At Supreme Court
Groan. Is this the only attorney that anyone on the Right - or the people at Fox - know about? He gets sillier by the year.
I listened to the whole thing, it never got “pretty hot.” It was a perfectly ordinary and collegial exchange of oral arguments and questions. Turley is a drama queen. His appraisal of Sotomayor’s participation is pure fantasy.
So? The context is what matters, and that was the focus of the whole session. In my opinion, there was consensus that under certain circumstances, such injunctions were appropriate, and in others, they weren’t. And then the primary issue is, does this case fall within those circumstances?
Secondarily, there was some discussion over whether - and if so, how - the Court should address the underlying merits of the case. i.e., the question of birthright citizenship.
Seriously, I wish Turley would fuck off with this reality show drama. He thinks he’s hosting The Bachelor, or something. Or he’s auditioning for something like that.
Its more like the fact his bread, and fame, is buttered by MAGA media.
Turtling: The delicate moments right before one really, really has to take a shit, where the shit is literally poking its head out of the sphincter then quickly hiding inside again. - Urban Dictionary
Turleying: The indelicate moments during one really, really greasy opportunistic shit literally poking its head out of the Fox News sphincter then quickly hiding inside again.
There is the Professor from Harvard, the democrat Alan Dershowitz. Remember that law schools don't produce many good law professors.
I listened to the whole thing, it never got “pretty hot.” It was a perfectly ordinary and collegial exchange of oral arguments and questions. Turley is a drama queen. His appraisal of Sotomayor’s participation is pure fantasy.
Gee, I listened too, and I recall the Chief Justice asking Sotomayer to allow the petitioner to finish answering her questions. She kept cutting him off.
So? The context is what matters, and that was the focus of the whole session. In my opinion, there was consensus that under certain circumstances, such injunctions were appropriate, and in others, they weren’t. And then the primary issue is, does this case fall within those circumstances?
The circumstances under which injunctions were appropriate would be a direct violation of the Constitution. A very rare thing. I'm confident that most of this activist shit is about to end.
Seriously, I wish Turley would fuck off with this reality show drama. He thinks he’s hosting The Bachelor, or something. Or he’s auditioning for something like that.
I'm sure you do. I want to hear from reasonable people.
That's the idea. Smear everyone who doesn't follow the dogma of the left.
Smear metaphorical butter on his metaphorical bread perhaps. Turley wasn't even a speck on anyone's radar recently until he started pimping legal advice for Fox News after he got a taste of the spotlight back when he was accusing the Bush administration of torture. He got paraded around on MSNBC and the Rachel Maddow show over 20 years ago when he pointed to the illegality of what Bush and Co. were doing, now he's back to milk the religious right because that's what he does. He goes where his bread is buttered or smeared as you point out.
Interesting watch that actually has some connection to today's current incarcerations and renditions under Trump.
Rachel Maddow Show: Jonathan Turley on War Crimes
Your post isn't even internally consistent.
Turley told a congressional committee the other day that he has never heard of Trumps crypto scams, er, businesses.
Umm. Law schools produce very nearly all the law professors, good and bad.
Every justice cuts off petitioners. Questions is a time for the justices to get at what they are concerned about. It is not some free speech forum where attorneys can pontificate ad nauseam on whatever topic they choose.
You need to be more specific if you have any hope of that making sense.
Then stop listening to Turley. There is objectively no reason at all in his performance - just drama about how “hot” it was. He is the very epitome of unseriousness.
That isn't saying much.
Every justice cuts off petitioners.
Oh, that reminds me of the language of the left. "CNN has been mocked on Twitter for displaying a chyron that said protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin were "fiery but mostly peaceful" as its correspondent on the ground reported while standing in front of burning cars."
You need to be more specific if you have any hope of that making sense.
Out of 310 lawsuits vs the Trump administration only about 2 involve a clear Constructional question. Thus, this conclusion you drew about under certain circumstances, such injunctions were appropriate, and in others they weren't, doesn't exactly fall into two equal containers. Whatever rare exception the Supreme Court may give the District Courts, the vast majority of these nationwide injunctions will be curtailed and I'm sure the judge shopping element will be ended. Is that specific enough?
Then stop listening to Turley.
I think I'll stick with logic & reason.
So it's not true, got it.
A piece of the bill that i have been following that is being somewhat under reported in the tax break section , is the removal of the $200 tax stamp requirement under the NFA for suppressors . that could get interesting.
Of course i had to laugh at the new name that was created for gun advocates by the opposition to this section , "the assassins lobby", of course i see it as a section to protect ones hearing , which it is referred to .
In 2022, Elena Kagan, a LIBERAL Supreme Court justice, says "It CAN'T be right that one District Judge can stop a nationwide policy in it's tracks"
And not a single person expects her to maintain that position when a Republican is President. The hypocrisy and partisan results oriented jurisdiction is so ingrained among the left that she will vote in support of injunctions until a Democrat is PResident again. Then it's a given she will flip back to 2022 reasoning.
In contrast, from 2020 when Trump was President , here's Gorsuch joined by Thomas " The routine issuance of universal injunctions is patently unworkable, sowing chaos for litigants, the government, courts, and all those affected by these conflicting decisions."
Is it illegal?