The Supreme Court is poised to drop its final batch of major opinions of its term Tuesday, in what could have major implications for the midterms and immigration.
The following is an installment of “On This Day,” a series celebrating America’s 250th anniversary by following the actions of Gen. George Washington, the Continental Congress, and the men and women whose bravery and sacrifice led up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. June 28-29th 1776 Two of the most breathtaking, high-stakes days of the […]
A Republican senator stepped up to correct President Donald Trump after he became confused over the bill that he has said is the "No. 1 priority."Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) posted the correction on X on Monday after Trump called him out directly as one of five Republican senators blocking the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, Trump's top election-overhaul bill."all Dumocrats, and our five Republican Senate Hold Outs, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, and Mitch McConnell must vote to SAVE OUR COUNTRY," Trump posted on Truth Social after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against him on mail-in ballots."Mr. President, I don't know which version of the SAVE America Act you're referring to, but I am a cosponsor and support the latest version," Cassidy fired back on X."I don't know which staffer misled you, but thank you for your attention to this matter!!""Btw, it's irresponsible to postpone signing the Housing bill due to the SAVE Act," Cassidy added. "We need to start delivering relief to people for the high cost of housing ASAP!!"Trump had told House Republicans in March that passing the SAVE America Act was the "No. 1 priority" for Congress and vowed he would "not sign anything" until it passed — including a bipartisan housing bill already on his desk.That housing bill remains unsigned.
In a blow to the integrity of U.S. elections, the Supreme Court upheld state laws permitting election officials to accept postmarked ballots after Election Day on Monday. The ruling was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s liberal justices in the majority. The dispute in Watson v. RNC […]
The U.S. Supreme Court has “declared war” on American democracy, on “modern society,” and on “everything it takes to function in the 21st century,” warns Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, after the court expanded presidential powers once again. Six of the court’s members, presumably the conservative wing, “are fundamentally hostile to democracy, fundamentally hostile to the modern world and determined to put the catastrophically bad leader that we currently have sitting in the White House in charge of everything, which is a nightmare scenario on every level.”Krugman scorches the court for ruling that presidents can fire, without cause, the heads of independent federal agencies (except the Federal Reserve). In doing so, the court overturned a 91-year-old precedent. He explains that in a modern society, “the agencies that operate the U.S. government and basically run our society are supposed to be professional. They’re supposed to be following their legal mandate. They’re not supposed to be personal tools of a dictator in the White House.” Krugman says that the court has now given “essentially dictatorial powers to the occupant of the White House,” while also making it extremely difficult for the economy and for society to function.He explains that in today’s complicated world, ground rules are necessary. Offering the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an example, Krugman says that producers need to know that their products will be approved based on merit, and not on “spurious grounds.” “And what would cause those decisions to happen?” he asks. “Well, how about the fact that some businesses are better at the business of bribing the president and his family than others. And if you think that this is outlandish — you know, a few years ago you might have said this was outlandish, things like that wouldn’t really happen — well, as we speak, these things are happening all the time.”Ultimately, Krugman says, America cannot continue on this path — and he calls for some form of restructuring or constraining of the Supreme Court.“This is a clear argument that says we have to one way or another disempower the Supreme Court. I don’t know enough to tell you what is the best route to do that but court packing or something else is going to have to happen.” Professor of law Barb McQuade, commenting on the court’s opinion, wrote, “Today’s decision in Slaughter will destroy the independence of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which will have a cascading effect on all federal employees, who have been free from political interference for 150 years. The spoils system is back, baby!”
Congressional Republicans are redoubling their support for the SAVE America Act, a bill that has left Washington in gridlock for months, after the Supreme Court ruled states can count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. The 5-4 decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee rejected a GOP-led push to end laws that permitted mailed […]
In a blow to the integrity of U.S. elections, the Supreme Court upheld state laws permitting election officials to accept postmarked ballots after Election Day on Monday. The ruling was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s liberal justices in the majority. The dispute in Watson v. RNC […]
President Donald Trump suffered a major setback in his efforts to federalize voting in the upcoming midterm elections, according to a right-leaning legal scholar.“I think this is a significant loss for Republicans who have wanted to try to rein in the way that we do our elections,” Jonathan Turley told Fox News’ Dana Perino on Monday. The George Washington University Law School professor was discussing the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling permitting states to count mail-in ballots after Election Day, even though Trump — who believes mail-in ballots are predominantly used by Democratic voters — tried to ban counting any of them after Election. “California, of course, is the nightmare where you can go for weeks without a decision.”He added, regarding right-wing Justice Samuel Alito’s lashing out at the decision, “And just as Alito really lashes out and says this undermines the integrity of the process, the faith in the process of voters — and that is a sentiment that is shared by many — what the court is saying is that you can’t use this federal law to achieve that purpose, that there is room at the elbows here for states like Mississippi to count ballots that had been postmarked before Election Day.”The Supreme Court’s decision breaks a recent pattern of the judges siding with Trump and Republicans, especially on cases involving race, a trend that has caused many critics to accuse the jurists of partisanship given that six of them are Republicans and three are Democrats. In the mail-in ballot case, two conservative judges — Chief Justice John Roberts and Judge Amy Coney Barrett — joined the three liberal judges to create the narrow majority.“The ruling, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, is a setback for President Donald Trump, who has frequently criticized mail-in voting, claiming without offering evidence that it is rife with fraud,” NBC News explained. Journalist Jamie Dupree pointed out that, despite Trump’s hope to reduce Democratic votes by suppressing mail-in ballots, “that issue is now off the table for the 2026 midterms.”This is not the only way that Trump has attempted to guarantee he retains control of the Senate and House of Representatives by federalizing the midterm elections. He also suggested he would purge voters from the rolls using DOGE and state-shared voter files, advocated strict voter ID laws, threatened to send ICE and radical groups to polling locations and implemented partisan gerrymandering. The last move was made possible when the Supreme Court overturned large portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.“What they all add up to is a desire to avoid any accountability to the voters in the midterm elections — to ensure, to preordain the outcome of a midterm that he thinks is going to go badly for him,” Dan Vicuña, Senior Policy Director for Voting and Fair Representation at the nonprofit good government group Common Cause, told AlterNet earlier this month. “We know, from the Big Lie of the 2020 election to spurring on a violent revolt to overthrow a free and fair election, that he has no respect for democratic norms, for the voice of the people. This is entirely about his own power and his own ego. He will even invest in protecting that ego and protecting his power at the expense of the needs of the public. People are suffering with high gas prices and affordability issues, and he does not care. All that matters is protecting his power, and he has no interest in whether he does that through democratic means.”Regarding the attempts to federalize elections, such as by his recently-overturned attempt to impose deadlines on mail-in ballots, Vicuña suggested those efforts are illegal.“I think some of these attempts to federalize, to nationalize elections are clearly illegal,” Vicuña argued. “You've seen some of that overreach already struck down — attempts to order independent agencies to force a strict voter ID requirement on people. That has been rejected. Common Cause is in court challenging the latest executive order to turn the United States Postal Service into some election administration agency and to create a further bureaucratic layer to make it more difficult to vote by mail. In terms of the president's authority to order around USPS, it's illegal. In terms of USPS's authority to become some sort of national election administration agency, it far exceeds the legal authority that Congress gave to the postal service. The statute describing what kind of work the postal service would do is about postal service work — processing mail and selling stamps. It has nothing to do with election administration.”
The US Supreme Court ruled that federal law permits mail-in ballots to arrive after Election Day in a decision that preserves grace periods in 30 states. Mick Mulvaney, Former-Acting WH Chief of Staff (Trump's First Term), Co-Founder of the Freedom Caucus, Former-OMB Director joins Balance of Power to discuss the latest news from the Supreme Court as well as the latest from Congress. (Source: Bloomberg)