Karoline Leavitt: This was a 'despicable' interview by CNN
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt discusses President Donald Trump’s move to reopen and expand Alcatraz prison and a CNN reporter traveling to Mexico to interview a Sinaloa cartel gangster
6:38
https://youtu.be/VZXUUyrUc5Q
There are a lot of stories that Alcatraz has ghosts, demons, etc. No one should want to go there. It’s creepy as shit
CARTEL ON CNN?: Trump advisor says press is trying to shows members’ 'feelings' are getting hurt
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller discusses how CNN interviewed cartel members and continues to attack President Donald Trump for 'securing the border' on ‘The Ingraham Angle
Next they’ll be inviting Acosta and Stelter back! KEK
6:53
https://youtu.be/-IEF9gWQ2og
Trump threatens new tariff, calls out 'grossly incompetent' Gov. Newsom
'Fox & Friends' co-hosts discuss President Donald Trump's threat of 100% tariffs on films produced outside of the United States
4:44
https://youtu.be/jxdgL4QjCC8
'60 Minutes' conveniently ignored this HUGE fact: McEnanyLawfare
'Outnumbered' discusses '60 Minutes' running a feature on a Democratic attorney Marc Elias despite continuing to push debunked President Donald Trump-Russia claims. Elias is giggling now but not much into the future
8:26
https://youtu.be/nPmHQzhfEGw
TRULY INSANE': Law professor breaks down New York AG's lawsuit against Trump
Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley weighs in on New York Attorney General Letitia James suing the Trump administration over funding cuts to the Health and Human Services Department on 'America Reports.'
Congress needs to pass a law where retaliatory lawsuits are not allowed to slow down or stop the Presidents power. WTH is Congress in this? They are too afraid or don’t care
5:18
https://youtu.be/05FXJQoFGRY
Supreme Court flare-ups grab headlines as justices feel the heat
Breanne Deppisch
May 6, 2025 at 9:03 AM EDT
Tensions on the Supreme Court have flared this term as justices have clashed with each other and with lawyers at oral arguments amid a wave of Trump-era emergency appeals.
These exchanges at any other forum would hardly even raise an eyebrow.But at the Supreme Court, where decorum and respect are bedrock principles and underpin even the most casual cross-talk between justices, these recent clashes are significant.
After one particularly acrimonious exchange, several longtime Supreme Court watchersnoted that the behavior displayed was unlike anything they'd seen in "decades" of covering the high court.
Here are two high-profile Supreme Court spats that have made headlines in recent weeks.
Last month, Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and Sonia Sotomayor quarreled briefly during oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case focused on LGBTQ-related books in elementary schools and whether parents with religious objections can "opt out" children being read such material.
The exhange occurred when Sotomayor asked Mahmoud attorney Eric Baxter about a book titled "Uncle Bobby’s Wedding," a story that invoked a same-sex relationship. Sotomayor asked Baxter whether exposure to same-sex relationships in children's books like the one in question should be considered "coercion."
Baxter began responding when Alito chimed in.
"I've read that book as well as a lot of these other books," Alito said. "Do you think it's fair to say that all that is done in 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding' is to expose children to the fact that there are men who marry other men?"
After Baxter objected,Alito noted that the book in question "has a clear message" but one that some individuals with "traditional religious beliefs don't agree with."
Sotomayor jumped in partway through Alito's objection, "What a minute, the reservation is – "
"Can I finish?" Alito said to Sotomayor in a rare moment of frustration.
He continued, "It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It's just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with."
"There is a growing heat to the exchanges between the justices," Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley observed on social media after the exchange.
The Sotomayor-Alito spat made some court-watchers uncomfortable. But it paled in comparison to the heated, tense exchange that played out just one week later between Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and Lisa Blatt, a litigator from the firm Williams & Connolly.
The exchange took place during oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a case about whether school districts can be held liable for discriminating against students with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Gorsuch scolded Blatt, an experienced Supreme Court litigator who was representing the public schools in the case, after she accused the other side of "lying."
What played out was a remarkably heated exchange, if only by Supreme Court standards. Several court observers noted that they had never seen Gorsuch so angry, and others remarked they had never seen counsel accuse the other side of "lying."
"You believe that Mr. Martinez and the Solicitor General are lying? Is that your accusation?" Gorsuch asked Blatt, who fired back, "Yes, absolutely."
Counsel "should be more careful with their words," Gorsuch told Blatt in an early tone of warning.
"OK, well, they should be more careful in mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect," Blatt responded.
Several minutes later, Gorsuch referenced the lying accusation again, "Ms. Blatt, I confess I’m still troubled by your suggestion that your friends on the other side have lied."
"I’d ask you to reconsider that phrase," he said. "You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying, lying is another matter."
He then began to read through quotations that she had entered before the court, before she interrupted again.
"I’m not finished," Gorsuch told Blatt, raising his voice.
"Fine," she responded.
Shortly after, Gorsuch asked Blatt to withdraw her earlier remarks that accused the other side of lying.
"Withdraw your accusation, Ms. Blatt," Gorsuch said.
"Fine, I withdraw," she shot back.
Plaintiffs said in rebuttal that they would not dignify the name-calling.
The exchange sparked some buzz online, including from an experienced appeals court litigator, Raffi Melkonian, who wrote on social media,"I've never heard Justice Gorsuch so angry."
Mark Joseph Stern, a court reporter for Slate,described the exchange as "extremely tense" and described Blatt's behavior as "indignant and unrepentant."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-flare-ups-grab-130301065.html
Federal judge orders results of NC Supreme Court race to be certified
May 5, 2025
RALEIGH, N.C. (WTVD) – Disputed ballots in the still unresolved 2024 race for a North Carolina Supreme Court seat must remain in the final count, a federal judge ruled late Monday, a decision that if upheld would result in an electoral victory for Democratic incumbent Allison Riggs.
U.S. District Judge Richard Myers agreed with Riggs and others who argued it would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution to carry out recent decisions by state appeals courts that directed the removal of potentially thousands of voter ballots deemed ineligible. Myers wrote that votes couldn't be removed six months after Election Day without damaging due process and equal protection rights of the affected residents.
Myers also ordered the State Board of Elections to certify results that, after two recounts, showed Riggs the winner - by just 734 votes - over Republican challenger Jefferson Griffin. But the judge delayed his decision for seven days in case Griffin wants to appeal the ruling to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The board "must not proceed with implementation of the North Carolina Court of Appeals and Supreme Court's orders, and instead must certify the results of the election for (the seat) based on the tally at the completion of the canvassing period," wrote Myers, who was nominated to the bench by President Donald Trump.
More than 5.5 million ballots were cast in what has been the nation's last undecided race from November's general election. Griffin filed formal protests after the election in hopes that removing ballots he said were unlawfully cast would flip the outcome to him.
Griffin's legal team was reviewing Myers' order Monday night and evaluating the next steps, Griffin campaign spokesperson Paul Shumaker wrote in an email.
Riggs was more assured in her statement: "Today, we won. I'm proud to continue upholding the Constitution and the rule of law as North Carolina's Supreme Court Justice."
Griffin wanted Myers to leave undisturbed the state courts' decisions, which also directed that most of the voters with otherwise ineligible ballots get 30 days to provide identifying information for their race choices to remain in the tally.
Riggs, the state Democratic Party, and some affected voters said Griffin was trying to change the 2024 election outcome after the fact by removing ballots cast by voters who complied with voting rules as they were written last fall.
Myers wrote that Griffin's formal protests after the election, which were rejected by the State Board of Elections, constituted efforts to make retroactive changes to the voting laws that would arbitrarily disenfranchise only the voters who were targeted by Griffin. Griffin's challenges over photo ID only covered at most six Democratic-leaning counties in the state.
"You establish the rules before the game. You don't change them after the game is done," Myers wrote in a 68-page order.
"Permitting parties to 'upend the set rules' of an election after the election has taken place can only produce 'confusion and turmoil'" that "'threatens to undermine public confidence in the federal courts, state agencies, and the elections themselves,'" he added while citing other cases.
Democrats and voting rights groups raised alarms about Griffin's efforts.They called it an attack on democracythat would serve as a road map for the GOP to reverse future election results in other states.
The state Republican Party said Griffin was seeking to ensure that only legal votes are counted.
https://abc11.com/post/riggs-griffin-nc-supreme-court-federal-judge-orders-results-race-certified/16333895/
Good news
Newt Gingrich: The left is 'terrified' and lying relentlessly
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich weighs in on polls regarding President Donald Trump's first 100 days in office and describes his 'opponents' on 'Life, Liberty & Levin.'
4:51
https://youtu.be/nfvAAPQAcXw