Revolver.news

After you finish this blog, you’ll be asking the million-dollar question: Why is Chief Justice John Roberts hanging out with the Deep State’s #1 color revolution architect?

Turns out the left’s favorite “Republican” has some very interesting buddies.

According to Norm Eisen—the man who practically wrote the Deep State’s playbook on color revolutions, all things anti-Trump, and lawfare in the US—he and Chief Justice John Roberts are not only good pals, but they even spent a week together in the Czech Republic. According to Norm, the two BFFs were there working on “American rule of law” issues.

Hmm…

Norm was so proud of this that he actually bragged about the trip and made it very clear that Roberts isn’t corrupt—he’s just a “close friend” who happened to fly overseas and stay at Eisen’s posh 150-room palace to collaborate on transatlantic political projects.

Really…

DailyCallerNewsFoundation.org

Justice Samuel Alito wrote Wednesday that he is “stunned” by the majority’s failure to call out a lower court’s “judicial hubris” in the case considering the Trump administration’s foreign aid spending freeze.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court declined to block U.S. District Judge Amir Ali’s order requiring the government to pay $2 billion in foreign aid. Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused the order last week after Ali gave the Trump administration just a day to resume the payments.

TheGatewayPundit.com

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) is calling on Congress to take immediate action to defund the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) following an outrageous SCOTUS ruling.

In a jaw-dropping betrayal of American taxpayers and constitutional integrity, the Supreme Court has caved to the radical left, stomping all over President Donald Trump’s rightful executive authority.

On Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must IMMEDIATELY fork over $1.9 billion in foreign aid payments—money that hardworking Americans never signed up to ship overseas.

This disgraceful ruling upholds a rogue district court judge’s order, forcing the administration to honor bloated foreign aid agreements that predate Trump’s America First agenda.

TheDailySignal.com

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on the pivotal transgender case U.S. v. Skrmetti, and both the lawyers arguing against a Tennessee ban on “gender-affirming care” and three Supreme Court justices made dubious claims and stated outright falsehoods in support of experimental transgender “treatments.”

Tennessee’s SB1 bans medical procedures on minors for the purpose of “enabling a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or “treating purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the parents of minors who claim to identify as the opposite sex and claim to have benefited from these procedures, sued to block the law, and the Biden administration joined the lawsuit on the ACLU’s side.

TheGatewayPundit.com

Millions of women and girls across the country can breathe a sigh of relief as the Biden regime was blocked from implementing its radical changes to Title IX in several states.

The Gateway Pundit previously reported in April that the Regime proudly announced that women would be forced to allow men in their locker rooms and bathrooms with a 1577-page Title IX ruling. Moreover, they would be forced to accept men on their sports teams.

Now, this will not happen. As CNN reported, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday smacked down a request from the Regime to implement the rule in 10 states after being blocked from doing so by lower court federal judges. The rule is also blocked in 16 other states as part of ongoing lawsuits.

TheGatewayPundit.com

Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas questioned Jack Smith’s authority as special counsel in his concurring opinion on the high court’s presidential immunity ruling.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers.

Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.

The Supreme Court ruled there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

TheGatewayPundit.com

THE COURT RULES FOR TRUMP!

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers.

The court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers.”

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald J. Trump, establishing a precedent for presidential immunity in criminal cases involving official acts during a president’s tenure.

The ruling, stemming from the case Trump v. United States, underscores the constitutional protections afforded to the highest office in the land, ensuring that a former president cannot be criminally prosecuted for actions taken within the scope of their official duties.

The case arose from an indictment against Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith, accusing him of conspiring to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. The charges included spreading claims of election fraud and attempting to obstruct the certification of the election results.

Trump’s legal team argued that these actions, fell within the scope of his official duties as President, and therefore, he should be immune from prosecution.

TheGatewayPundit.com

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine, fundamentally altering the balance of power between the judiciary and federal agencies.

The ruling, which came in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al., marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the branches of government.

The Chevron doctrine, established in the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, has long been a source of contention. It granted deference to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous statutes, effectively allowing unelected bureaucrats to make laws through their regulatory actions.

However, by a 6-3 majority, the SCOTUS has now declared that such power is unconstitutional and goes against the principles of democratic governance.

__

“Today is a win for justice. It’s a win for fairness. It is a major repudiation of this vengeful, destructive, petty Department of Justice.”@julie_kelly2 joins Steve Bannon to discuss the Supreme Court’s Fischer v. United States ruling on the obstruction charges brought against… pic.twitter.com/c09EPtGUcY

— Real America's Voice (RAV) (@RealAmVoice) June 28, 2024

TheGatewayPundit.com

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has overturned the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) use of 1512(c)(2), a statute pertaining to obstruction of an official proceeding, in cases related to the events of January 6th (J6).

This ruling signifies a major win for those political prisoners and is seen as a significant setback for the Biden regime.

This decision reveals that the Department of Justice unlawfully prosecuted over 350 Americans for their participation in January 6—a blatant misuse of the law aimed at punishing those who protested Biden’s election and at criminalizing political dissent.

The DoJ and U.S. Attorney Matthew Graves are prosecuting Donald Trump under 4 counts of protesting the 2020 presidential election.  Two of the four charges are for violating 18 U.S.C. 1512(c)(2) and (k) for conspiring to do so.  Because the other two counts are fuzzy, Special Counsel Jack Smith’s case against Trump could collapse in an ocean of vagueness without the only two clear counts.

TheDailySignal.com

The Supreme Court struck down a lower court’s injunction preventing the federal government from pressuring Big Tech companies to suppress free speech in a pivotal ruling Wednesday.

The court did not rule on the question of whether the government may pressure social media companies to suppress speech in a way that would be illegal for the government to do itself. Instead, the court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing to bring the case.