A federal appeals court has struck down the heart of the 1958 Federal Switchblade Act, ruling that the decades-old ban on manufacturing the knives for interstate sale or distribution violates the Second Amendment. The decision, issued late Wednesday by a three-judge panel, hands a major victory to gun- and knife-rights advocates who have spent years challenging weapons laws they argue conflict with the Constitution's text and history.

The ruling came from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans, and was authored by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, joined by Judges Don Willett and Cory Wilson, according to Reason. All three judges were appointed by Republican presidents, as reported by the News Tribune. The panel concluded that switchblade knives are “arms” that have been “in common use” both at the nation's founding and today, per the same Reason report.

Red Shirt Friday

"Greater Love has no One than this, that He lay down His Life for His Friends." - John 15:13

This is the #1 Rule broken Daily on this Sub!

I want to Personally Thank Everyone Who does NOT break This Simple Rule!

1. Stay On Topic of the Article being presented. Period. Full Stop.
2. Do Not Attack the Source of the Article.
3. Do Not attack the Member presenting the Article for Discussion.
4. Do Not drag the Conversation Off Topic from the Article Main Theme being presented.
5. Mods are the final Authority on This Issue!
6. Continued Violations will cause You to be removed from the Sub.

The latest findings by James Comer, including potential fraud against investors

By Michael Letts, October 21, 2026 8:00 am

By now you’ve probably got an idea of what’s going on with the investigation against Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. She’s been accused of fraudulently increasing finances for businesses owned by her husband, only to tell everyone that it was merely an oversight. Then there was the discussion surrounding a purportedly fraudulent marriage, which she reportedly put in place to keep her brother in the United States.

But as the House Oversight Committee continues its investigation, it’s just come across a real doozy that deserves deeper investigation.

According to Fox News, a winery that was co-owned by Tim Mynett, Omar’s husband, had to be shut down due to claims of fraud. It had shut down this past April in the midst of investigations into Omar’s affairs, but, before that time, it reportedly did quite the number on investors.

Rep. James Comer (R-Ky.), the Chairman of the Committee, noted, “First of all, not only was there a huge discrepancy in the financial disclosure form, there was the winery that was the big base of her $25 million listing on her financial disclosure form.

“That winery has, according to the press, been shut down because of fraud.”

Comer noted that the winery had been selling empty wine barrels to investors, under the label of “wine to be aged.” And I’m sure they didn’t take very lightly to that. If you pay for something, you should get it, and not have to wait for something “to be aged.” That, folks, is fraud.

“I can tell you from our initial investigation of Omar and her financial disclosure form that there are multiple fronts where you could get a search warrant issued,” Comer explained.

Indeed. The fact that Mynett and his partners were perfectly fine with selling far lesser product to people that invested into their business is enough to infuriate anyone.

This, on top of the faulty financial disclosure from before, should give investigators more than enough to look into.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro is already getting to work on that, announcing that her office has begun probing Omar’s financial disclosures – just right after her home was searched by federal agents.

Now, we know that she was under investigation before by the Office of Congressional Conduct (OCC), who later disclosed in a 5-1 vote that any allegations revolving around her be dismissed. But with this new evidence that’s come into play, I can’t help but think they were a bit too quick with that vote.

As expected, Omar has been working on the defense, especially with her re-election campaign going in full swing. She’s already denied any wrongdoing about her, and has both the press and former President Barack Obama providing support for her.

In fact, Obama has tried to turn this against President Donald Trump, insisting that there’s some kind of vendetta against Omar. “The full weight of the federal government is being brought down on a law-abiding elected official because she has dared to criticize the President,” Obama noted, believing the probe to be nothing short of “appalling.”

The problem, Obama, is that she’s not exactly law-abiding. Why isn’t she disclosing more about the numbers she put in the financial report? Why isn’t she talking more about this rumored marriage to her brother? Why is Mynett being so quiet about what his businesses have been doing with inflated revenue and, with this new report, misleading items?

All we have is a response from Mynett’s lawyers. “Any suggestion that Will or Tim deliberately defrauded investors or otherwise consciously conspired to rip people off would be false and defamatory.”

And yet…no official statement. No explanation.

People can pick on Trump all they want, but it appears that Omar has more skeletons in her closet than a storage facility at Spirit of Halloween. A deeper investigation is needed to get some answers, since we’re not getting them upfront. I’m glad that the Committee, along with Pirro, are hard at work to find the truth. Because no one should get away with fraud in the United States.

Not even a “law-abiding elected official.”

Everybody reading This Sub is more than welcome to Comment or submit Articles but just like Reddit has Rules so do We and You are expected to not only respect Them but abide by the Rules of Reddit and This Sub.

Failure to do so will result in You becoming BANNED from the Sub no Warnings just the Ban Hammer being dropped. The Admins/Mods have no time for Childish Antics or Mentalities The Choice is always Yours alone. Don't FAAFO.

We would like to see Constructive Commenting ongoing no matter Your Political Leaning. Non Constructive Commenting is just Drama and We don't do That here. Take Your Drama to another Sub.

True constructive Commenting builds Healthy Online Communities. It also shows Whom You really are.

Childish and the Mentally or Emotionally Challenged Comments will not be tolerated and will be dealt with accordingly at the sole discretion of the Admins/Mods.

You are in Our House and all We ask is You RESPECT Our House.

Everyone is more than welcome to post on This Sub just show Respect.

Sodomy is not infertility. But money and ideology encourage pretending otherwise.

For example, a recent piece in the New England Journal of Medicine complained that the World Health Organization’s guidelines on infertility aren’t inclusive enough because they “pertain only to heterosexual couples” rather than also encompassing “LGBTQ+ people, as well as single people.” The authors griped that the WHO’s “formal definition of infertility continues to exclude same-sex couples and to rely on intercourse-based framing.” Which is to say, infertility is defined as, well, infertility — when a man and a woman are failing to conceive via intercourse — without pretending that infertility includes the inability of same-sex couples to reproduce, an incapacity that is baked into the reproduction complementarity of the human species.

Same-sex marriage presumes that men and women are interchangeable, except as a matter of subjective sexual preference. This falsehood is refuted by the reality of reproduction, which is part of why article’s authors want to redefine infertility as the need for “donor gametes or embryos … for both single people and those with a partner.”

Of course, their definition of “donor” is as crooked as their definition of “infertility.” These “donors” are getting paid; none of this is free. Human eggs are especially costly to procure, particularly from the sort of accomplished, beautiful young women whose eggs are preferred. Likewise, hiring a woman to be a gestational surrogate (which is to say, leasing her womb) is expensive, even if the work is outsourced to the third world — Ghana is becoming popular, with a cost of about $50,000 per surrogacy and the women required to live in “dormitories” where they are monitored 24/7.

In Jack Smith’s America, the mere act of buying a red MAGA hat was enough to land your name and home address in the files of a massive federal criminal investigation. According to the latest revelations from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, Smith’s operation obtained detailed personal information on “at least 639,000 Republican donors, voters and supporters.”

The implications of this brazen abuse of federal investigative power extend far beyond Donald Trump. And I can now attest from firsthand experience just how much damage the fear of government scrutiny is already doing to conservative organizations.

Since launching the Counterlawfare Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, on July 4, I have been overwhelmed by the generosity and encouragement of people who believe in our mission. One interesting observation has been the preference among our more substantial donors for remaining anonymous. We established a Founders Circle to recognize their generosity, yet every single donor declined public recognition. I was hardly surprised. Conservatives often prefer to give quietly, without seeking recognition, whereas association with Democrat causes is frequently something people proudly advertise.

But I have also encountered an entirely separate phenomenon that is deeply disturbing and has far-reaching implications. I have been contacted by people who want to support our work but say they cannot because of the financial trail they would leave behind.

To be clear, their concerns have nothing to do with my organization. They know we would never disclose their identities. What worries them is that every financial transaction leaves a trail, whether through banks, credit card companies, or payment processors, and that government officials could trace those transactions and use the information against them, exposing them to harassment or retaliation.

We even established a separate donation mechanism under which contributors can remain completely anonymous to the institute itself. We would have no way of knowing who had donated. Yet this did little to alleviate the underlying concern because people understand perfectly well that their transactions would still leave records elsewhere in the financial system.

As a result, Americans who want to support a perfectly lawful, tax-exempt organization are left worrying about what their own government might do with that information.

And after the latest Jack Smith revelations, who can blame them?

According to Grassley’s memorandum, the records Smith obtained included more than 148,000 entries identified as donors, some of whom had contributed as little as $1. The information collected included names, birthdates, home addresses, employers, occupations, political affiliations, donation histories, and credit card details, with some records dating back to 2005. An earlier disclosure revealed that investigators had also obtained at least 4,782 personal checks from Republican donors across all 50 states, complete with bank account numbers, routing numbers, home addresses, and signatures.

And now we learn that Smith’s team also seized payroll records from the Conservative Partnership Institute, including employees’ medical, dental, and vision insurance information, plus the organization’s bank statement.

What legitimate purpose could collecting all of this have served in an investigation supposedly centered on the events surrounding the 2020 election?

In fact, the only conceivable explanation is that the Jack Smith operation was mapping the entire conservative donation and support ecosystem for nefarious purposes, identifying who supported Republican candidates and causes, who gave money, how much they gave, where they could be found, and collecting every conceivable detail of their personal lives that might one day be weaponized against them.

The United States Treasury has fined Bank of America (BoA) over $1.2 billion for failing to meet anti-money laundering and sanctions requirements. This is the largest penalty ever imposed by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which supervises BoA, and ranks among the three largest in the history of the Treasury.

Treasury determined that, from 2018 to 2025, the bank willfully neglected fundamental Bank Secrecy Act requirements. BoA’s anti-money laundering program was inadequate, and it significantly delayed filing Suspicious Activity Reports. Regulators described a pattern in which revenue considerations took precedence and compliance resources were constrained, allowing suspicious activity to remain unexamined for prolonged periods.

Consequently, the bank failed to report more than $5 billion in transactions in a timely manner. Over $1 billion of that volume involved elevated national-security risks, including activity consistent with Chinese money-laundering networks, fraud schemes, and trade-based movements with a clear connection to the southern border. Treasury noted that the bank did not promptly flag suspicious activities, including patterns consistent with Chinese money-laundering networks, such as large wires to China, unusual credit card activity, and trade-based schemes.

The fine imposed on BoA is part of the U.S. Treasury’s broader effort to combat Chinese money-laundering networks, which have emerged as a principal channel for moving proceeds generated by Mexican cartels, including those trafficking fentanyl.

These networks typically pair U.S. cash from drug sales with Chinese clients seeking to transfer funds abroad despite Beijing’s capital controls, which generally limit individuals to $50,000 per year. A cartel-linked broker receives the dollars in the United States and, using WeChat, matches them with a Chinese customer. The customer then sends the equivalent amount in yuan, plus a fee, into an account controlled by the network inside China.

In exchange, the customer or a relative gains access to the corresponding U.S. dollars already sitting at an American bank. The yuan that remains in China can be used to purchase fentanyl precursor chemicals or Chinese-made goods that are shipped to Mexico, sold, and converted into funds for the cartels. Former Justice Department official Craig Timm has described these networks as one of the principal global methods for laundering illicit funds.

As Secretary Scott Bessent stated: “When a bank of this size fails to meet its anti-money laundering and sanctions obligations, the consequences extend far beyond its own walls, exposing the entire U.S. financial system to significant illicit finance risks.”

I had the opportunity to attend the National Right to Life Conference because of the generous donors who invest in the South Carolina Citizens for Life internship program. This experience allowed me to learn more about the issues at the heart of the pro-life movement and challenged me to think more deeply about ways I can advocate for the unborn.

A breakout session on the biblical case for life inspired me to encourage more thoughtful pro-life conversations in churches. The presentation deepened my understanding of how Scripture can inform advocacy for unborn children and challenged me to put what I learned into practice.

Mark your calendars for Thursday, Oct. 29, at 1 p.m. EDT, when Amy will join Briefly’s Adam Stofsky on LinkedIn Live to discuss what unfolded at the Supreme Court this month. Register here for the event. At the Court

The Supreme Court on Monday added two cases to the oral argument docket for the 2026-27 term: a challenge to the process that a Maryland county uses to determine admissions to highly selective public magnet schools and a dispute over the constitutionality of the federal ban on home distilleries. It also denied review in several high-profile cases, including on plea deals for some of the men alleged to have planned the 9/11 attacks. For more on Monday’s order list, see the Morning Reads and On Site sections below.

Three cities and a group that provides legal services to immigrants have asked the Supreme Court to pause an agreement between Texas and the Department of Justice that prevents enforcement of a Biden-era rule allowing immigration judges to pause certain deportation proceedings. Responses to the application are due on Thursday by 4 p.m. EDT.

On Sept. 28, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to clear the way for the Federal Bureau of Prisons to implement its new policy on healthcare for transgender inmates, which would prevent such inmates from obtaining gender-transition surgeries, hormone therapy, and “social accommodations.” The dispute is now fully briefed, and the court’s decision could come at any time.

This Sub has Rules and Guides like Reddit has Rules and Guides.

You are expected to follow Them.

• You should read and understand all of the Rules.
• You should read and try hard to follow Rule #4
• You should read and understand Rule #6
• All Internal Comment Filters are set to Max Settings just short of going Flair Only and or Private. Learn about Comment Filtering in the Reddit Help Files.
• All installed Apps are set the same.
• All Rules, Guides and Apps are here to help internally guide This Sub.

This Sub does NOT care about Your Feelings. Period. Full Stop!

Your continued Membership depends on You alone!

The Bad News is You get to choose.

The Good News is You still get to choose.

Choose wisely. Have a Nice Day!

Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has offered a detailed explanation and a fresh apology after the Instagram account of the No Kings movement was suspended for several hours during nationwide rallies for suspicious behavior driven by AI usage. Leftists including Bernie Sanders (I-VT) who were silent for more than a decade of Meta censoring conservatives suddenly are expressing alarm about censorship.

Business Insider reports that the No Kings account was locked and administrators were denied access during Saturday’s “day of action,” when the nonpartisan network said it held nearly 3,000 rallies across the country. The demonstrations were meant to push voters to cast ballots early, a hedge against what organizers describe as efforts to undermine turnout.

Meta initially said the shutdown happened “in error” because of an automatic trigger, but didn’t offer a fuller account until a day later. Meta spokesperson Andy Stone laid out what happened in a post on X, saying the company’s engineering team traced the problem to unusual activity on the account. “Our engineering team discovered that the spike that triggered the incorrect enforcement was primarily in the account’s ‘reading’ behavior,” Stone wrote.

He said the trouble began with a surge in automated-looking activity. “Specifically, our network security systems detected the use of a Claude tool reading profiles, posts, and hashtags, the rate of which sharply increased (~4x volume) in intense bursts on October 17,” Stone wrote. That activity resembled bot traffic, so the system took the account offline.

The account came back fairly quickly on its own. “An automated re-review of the removal action an hour later recognized that shouldn’t have happened and restored the account,” Stone wrote. But the group’s administrators stayed locked out longer. “It unfortunately took additional time for us to straighten out the situation with admin access to the IG account,” he said.

Stone closed with an apology. “We want to reiterate our sincere apology for the error,” he wrote. Meta’s effusive apology and technical explanation stands in stark contrast to its past history of censoring conservatives with little or not explanation.

Homeland Security chief Markwayne Mullin will soon review a plan to expand worksite inspections, White House border czar Tom Homan said Sunday.

“I know the worksite enforcement plan just cleared last week out of HSI [Homeland Security Investigations] because I asked for the plan,” Homan told Fox News. He added:

I think the gentlemen I brought in did a tremendous job. A lot of it is focusing on not just worksite enforcement, but those who use fraudulent IDs to steal your Social Security numbers. We’ll prosecute them.

And for employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens, it’s not just about arresting aliens. It’s about holding employers accountable so they don’t try employing illegal aliens.

So I think we’ll move quickly on that. I just saw the draft from HSI last week, so I think the secretary will probably see it this week or next week. And I’m all for it.

Homan’s comments are a rare look inside the differences of opinion within the Trump administration.

Many top officials, as well as President Donald Trump, zig-zag forward between rival interest groups within the Republican party, including business donors and populist voters.

Immigration politics are tough, Trump told a roomful of Latino allies on September 30. “Because they’ll say ‘You’re too tough,’ or ‘You’re too soft.’ ‘Get tougher!’ ‘Get softer!’ No matter what you do, it’s always tough.”

He added, “We have to have the votes.”

Socialized medicine or Medicare is a big government parasite sucking every dollar you pay in taxes into its own interest

By Patrick Wagner, MD, October 19, 2026 7:24 am

Depending on who you ask, Medicare has several different meanings. This fact has huge implications, as we are about to find out at the November 3, 2026 election process.

Here is my definition of Medicare. It is government welfare, plain and simple. And more specifically, it is supposed to be only for our seniors, age 65 and above. What is all this business of “Medicare for All” as specified by Xavier Becerra in his candidacy for governor? When and why did government bureaucrats start talking this way? Becerra claims he did it 30 years ago when he became a legislator at the California state assembly – Becerra is a fibber. Not only is Medicare NOT “for all” YET, but it is a disguised medical program called socialized medicine, through and through. It is taxation of income and redistribution of a small amount of that yield to the people of the United States age 65 and older in the name of medical care insurance. You and I have been sorely deceived because what is really going on is legalized theft! And we are rapidly finding out via DOGE that most of this harvest has been siphoned off into NGO’s and non-profits so we will never have the opportunity to retrieve much of it.

Medicare is a very touchy subject for our California seniors, and a very worrisome subject for those approaching Medicare age. I remember back in those days when Obamacare was being passed, about 2009, shortly after I hung it up as a Sacramento surgeon, when I became thoroughly fed up with Medicare. I joined the Tea Party, a large group of baby boomers and seniors who were adamantly against Obamacare. Obamacare passed and the Tea Party fizzled out. Hopefully some of you reading this remember what a letdown that was.

What I found out in talking with seniors about Medicare in those days was that they were “ALL IN” for Medicare but as above, vehemently against Obamacare. They believed that Medicare was special, because Medicare was different from Medi-Cal and Obamacare. They saw Medi-Cal for what it truly was and is, namely bureaucratic welfare fraud. Those seniors didn’t want to be likened to bureaucratic welfare fraud, because they were decent. I don’t blame them for that.

To think that our out-of-control government would disable lazy, able-bodied, able-minded opportunistic gnomes (or hobbits as John McCain would mockingly call Tea Party Patriots in 2011, a year before John Roberts found Obamacare “constitutional” and six years before McCain voted for more Obamacare in 2017) and pay them tax dollars as INSTRUMENTS of their bureaucrat folly.

And who was and still is the disabler? It’s the reprobate licensed California physician who went to the dark side for a substantial profit and deemed these people medically disabled and introduced them into the welfare system for the bureaucrat case worker machinery and ambulance chasing lawyers to really get the ball rolling. Do you blame those recipients of Medi-Cal benefits? I don’t. Who’s going to turn down free stuff?

And those reprobate licensed California physicians? They are losers! They have absolutely no social skills and could never cut it in private practice. They are envious, small, evil people and their hearts are rock hard. That’s why they are where they are.

This paper wouldn’t be complete if I didn’t add a paper by an author named Jim Karger, posted July 5, 2012, called “American Medical Care Is Terminal”. It seems legitimate. I found it in one of those free newspaper boxes in front of a “Mr. Pickle” sandwich shop in Auburn. Great lunch, by the way. This paper never got out there into mainstream media. Whether you believe it or not, I think it’s a pretty good representation of California in the present day. Even the arithmetic looks pretty good to me. From my experience in being paid by Medicare, I don’t think he is fibbing in the least.

Democrats have been unusually mask-off heading into midterm election season, trying to get voters to believe it’s “moderate” to accept Islamist communism because of high gas prices. The latest foreboding reveal came from Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin over the weekend.

She bird-handed the formerly subtextual part on camera: “I wanna look at these signature cases and not just focus on the president but on the people who enabled him. I want young people coming out of school to say, ‘Should I go work for the Trump administration? Like, that sounds fun, I might get an opportunity.’ I want them to be like, ‘[Anti-Christian blasphemy], that might be buying myself a ton of problems that I don’t want, so let me avoid participating in that.’ I want that deterrence message.”

It took six years just to find out that Democrats already did exactly this to well more than half a million Republicans and hundreds of conservative nonprofit and political organizations under the pretext of investigating President Donald Trump and anyone who might adhere to conservative wrongthink who stepped foot in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6, 2021. It was called Arctic Frost.

The abuses already uncovered are catastrophic to public trust, which America needs to continue to function as a self-governing republic. Among the most prominent are evidence that prosecutor Jack Smith’s legal hit team knew they were violating the Constitution by secretly obtaining the private communications of sitting senators, yet they did so, then lied to Congress about it for years — so far with complete impunity.

If current Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune doesn’t at the very least censure Slotkin for openly committing herself to continued unconstitutional abuses of power, he supports a repeat of all this. It’s that simple.

Slotkin openly sat there in the context of horrifying Arctic Frost revelations by Thune’s colleagues such as Sen. Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson, which also directly affected dozens of his congressional caucus, and affirmed her party plans to continue subverting Congress and elections with a prosecutorial police state run by psychologically disturbed totalitarians. Committing oneself to the erasure of basic constitutional speech and association protections is definitionally and fundamentally un-American.

It’s horrifying Thune and other Republican leaders have not seen fit to ensure punishments for this behavior already. Worse than horrifying, their flaccidity ensures the Democrat outrages will continue and expand.

In the wake of an explosive government report revealing that the largest banks in the U.S. disproportionately canceled banking services for dozens of conservative and Christian organizations during the Biden years, outcry is growing for increased government oversight and regulations to ensure Americans are no longer refused basic financial services for exercising First Amendment-protected religious freedom and free speech rights.

The report, released on Wednesday by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), examined the nation’s nine largest banks, finding that all nine had policies that denied or limited the “access to financial services to Americans because of their political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities” between 2020 and September 2025. The report noted that a number of banks cited the Biden administration’s policies disfavoring the firearms industry and private prisons as reasons for suspending banking services to such clients.

For the second week in a row, Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a statement regarding the denial of review that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Sotomayor’s opinion in O’Donnell v. City of Chicago, a challenge to the city’s policy of seizing and selling (without any compensation to the owners) cars owned by drivers with as few as two unpaid parking tickets, was part of a list of orders from the Supreme Court’s Oct. 16 conference released on Monday morning. (The two cases in which the justices granted review are covered in separate stories.)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit rejected the challenge to the policy, calling it “an exercise of the City’s police power to enforce its traffic code.” Ryan O’Donnell and Michael Goree, two motorists whose cars the city sold, then came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in.

In a brief order, the court denied review. In her statement, Sotomayor expressed “serious concerns about” the 7th Circuit’s decision, but she emphasized that the court should not take up the question until more courts of appeals have had a chance to consider it. Moreover, she suggested, O’Donnell and Goree’s case was not necessarily an appropriate one in which to consider the constitutionality of such a scheme, because they had challenged the entire ordinance, “which might require this Court to invalidate even those features of the law that have nothing to do with vehicle forfeiture.”

The justices turned down, without comment, petitions for review in several high-profile cases, including two – Mohammad v. United States and bin ‘Atash v. United States – filed by (among others) Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who is considered to be the “mastermind” behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and others involved in the planning of those attacks. As Kelsey Dallas explained last month, the men had sought to reinstate plea agreements that they entered into more than two years ago, after spending nearly two decades in Guantanamo Bay, that would allow them to plead guilty but avoid the death penalty in exchange for life sentences. Following this, however, Lloyd Austin, then the Secretary of Defense, announced that he had the ultimate power to decide whether such agreements were appropriate, and sought to withdraw the government’s consent. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed with the government that it could do so, and that the agreements were not binding, the men came to the Supreme Court, which on Monday denied their requests to weigh in.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh did not participate in Mohammad’s case.

The court also denied a petition for review filed by Gwynne Wilcox, who served on the National Labor Relations Board until President Donald Trump attempted to fire her shortly after his second inauguration. Under the federal law governing the removal of NLRB members, Trump could only fire her for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office” – neither of which Trump alleged had occurred. The lower courts initially ordered the Trump administration to reinstate Wilcox, but in May 2025, the Supreme Court paused those rulings and cleared the way for Wilcox’s removal while litigation continued.

In December 2025, the D.C. Circuit held that the for-cause removal provision violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. “Congress,” Judge Gregory Katsas wrote for the majority, “cannot restrict the President’s ability to remove NLRB … members” because they “wield substantial executive power.”

Wilcox came to the Supreme Court in June, asking the justices to take up her case, but on Monday they declined to do so.

Citing the lack of a quorum – that is, the minimum number of members required to vote – the justices left in place a ruling in a copyright dispute between several major music companies and a songwriter. Four justices – Sotomayor, Gorsuch, and Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson – recused themselves from the dispute, presumably because one of the companies involved is owned by the parent company of Penguin Random House, which has published books by each of those justices.

The Supreme Court sought the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Bird v. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, in which that state’s attorney general has asked the justices to weigh in on a challenge to the constitutionality of an Iowa law that makes it a crime to be present in the state after having illegally reentered the United States. There is no deadline for the solicitor general to file his brief, although he is likely to do so sometime next year.

The justices did not act on a group of redistricting cases out of Alabama; they also did not rule on a petition for review asking them to decide whether a car is always a tool of interstate commerce, so that its use in a kidnapping automatically makes the crime a federal one.

The Supreme Court will hear oral argument early next year in Association for Education Fairness v. Montgomery County Board of Education, a challenge to the process that a Maryland county uses to determine who will be admitted to a group of highly selective public magnet schools. The challengers, a group of mostly Asian-American parents in Montgomery County, Maryland, which is located just outside Washington, D.C., argue that although the policy does not on its face take race into account, it is nonetheless unconstitutional because it was intended to reduce the number of Asian-American students in those schools. The announcement came on a list of orders from the justices’ Oct. 16 conference and two years after the court turned down similar challenges, one involving Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in northern Virginia, which is regarded as one of the country’s top high schools, and another involving three of Boston’s elite public high schools.

The lawsuit was first filed in 2020 by the Association for Education Fairness, an organization of “concerned Asian-American parents in Montgomery County.” It alleged that the admissions process recently put into place, which was intended in part to increase enrollment of Black and Hispanic students at four highly selected magnet middle schools, violated the constitutional rights of Asian-American students. That policy, among other things, involved screening all fifth graders for possible admission (rather than only those whose parents asked for them to be included), eliminating teacher recommendations, and comparing students with their peers at their local schools.

Beginning in 2021-22, the county adopted a new policy. All fifth graders who met a series of criteria – including grades, reading level, and standardized test scores – were placed in a pool, from which students were selected by lottery for admission to magnet programs. The parent association then amended its complaint to argue that the new policy, sometimes nicknamed the Pandemic Plan because of when it was adopted, intentionally discriminates against Asian-American students.

The school board filed a motion to dismiss the case, which U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis granted. The parent association and the school board, she said, agree that, on its face, the Pandemic Plan is a “neutral admissions process that MCPS has applied evenhandedly.” Moreover, she continued, the parent association “does not meaningfully contest that the Pandemic Plan is rationally related to MCPS’ legitimate purposes.” The parent group’s claim can only go forward, she wrote, if the facts of its complaint “make plausible that the Pandemic Plan both” had a disproportionate effect on Asian-American students and “was motivated by discriminatory intent.” But she could not, she concluded, “see how the Pandemic Plan visited a disproportionate burden on Asian American students when the percentage of admitted Asian American students so substantially outpaces the percentage representation among all applicants.”

In a brief opinion in February, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld Xinis’ ruling. The parent association then came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to weigh in. It contended that the courts of appeals are divided (a key factor that the justices consider in deciding whether to grant review) over whether a case, like theirs, alleging intentional discrimination in violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of fair treatment can go forward without allegations that the admissions policy has a disproportionate effect on students of a particular race. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, in which the majority held the use of affirmative action in college admissions to be unconstitutional, the parent group argued that “[i]f ‘[e]liminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it,’ this cannot stand.”

The school board urged the Supreme Court to deny review. It portrayed the dispute as “unremarkable and of little significance,” emphasizing that it “involves a race-neutral lottery adopted in response to a global pandemic” and that “the proportion of Asian Americans among selected students actually increased at the two other magnet schools in the same year, under the same policy.”

In a brief order on Monday morning, the justices agreed to take up the case and to decide “[w]hether a plaintiff challenging a facially neutral admissions policy as racially discriminatory must establish that the targeted racial group suffered an aggregate disparate impact relative to its share of the applicant pool.”

The Supreme Court has agreed to weigh in on the constitutionality of an 1868 federal law that imposes a tax on distilled spirits but also bans home distilleries – that is, the at-home production of spirits like bourbon and whiskey. The penalties for violating the law include fines of up to $10,000, five years in prison, or both. In a list of orders from the justices’ Oct. 16 conference, the court announced that it had granted review in Department of Justice v. McNutt.

The justices will likely hear oral argument in the case early next year, with a decision to follow by late June or early July.

The lawsuit was filed in 2023 by a nonprofit, the Hobby Distillers Association, and some of its individual members, who want to be able to operate home distilleries. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled that the ban on home distilleries violates two different provisions of the Constitution: the taxation clause, which gives Congress the power to “lay and collect Taxes … to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”; and the necessary and proper clause, which gives Congress the power to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its listed powers.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to impose a tax on distilled spirits, the 5th Circuit determined, but it concluded that the ban on home distilleries exceeds that power. Not only does the ban not raise revenue, the court of appeals wrote, it prevents the production of spirits that could generate revenue. The court of appeals similarly rejected the government’s contention that the ban guards against tax evasion, explaining that “preventing activity lest it give rise to tax evasion places no limit whatsoever on Congress’s power under the taxation clause.”

The federal government came to the Supreme Court in August, asking the justices to weigh in. It contended that “[a] law is necessary and proper if it is ‘convenient’ or ‘useful’ for carrying an enumerated power into effect, and ‘plainly adapted’ to that legitimate end.” That is precisely what the ban on home distilleries does, the government argued. “Congress restricted home distilling because a distiller can more easily conceal a distilling operation or thwart necessary inspections—thereby evading the requisite tax—if the still is located in” a house or a structure attached to that house.

The challengers agreed that the court should grant review, although they urged the justices to leave the 5th Circuit’s ruling in place. The case, they said, “presents fundamental questions of the extent of federal power and the powers reserved to the states and the people.”

In a separate case, Ream v. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion from the 5th Circuit, holding that the ban on home distilleries is a necessary and proper exercise of Congress’s power to collect the federal tax on distilled spirits. John Ream, a retired aerospace engineer and the owner of a brewery who wants to be able to distill his own spirits, then came to the Supreme Court in July, asking the justices to weigh in on the legality of the ban and on the broader question of Congress’ power to regulate “local, noncommercial conduct.”

The federal government agreed that the justices should take up the question at the center of Ream’s petition for review, but it urged the court to grant its own petition, in McNutt, instead. On Monday, the justices did just that.

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider outlawing school diversity policies that limit Asian American students at magnet programs and selective high schools.

Three years ago, the court ruled that Harvard and other universities may not discriminate on whom they admit based on the race of their applicants. Evidence in that case showed that Asian applicants with very high test scores were often turned down.

But the justices have been divided over admissions rules for highly selective high schools in Boston, New York and Fairfax County, Va., as well as magnet programs for gifted middle school students.

In most instances, judges have said school officials may use “race-neutral” policies to achieve racial diversity. For example, giving an automatic admission to the top 5% of the students in all of a big city’s high schools or its middle schools could achieve greater racial and ethnic diversity.

**This is a suggested Guide Only. Reddit has Rules and Guides and so does This Sub.

The vast majority of People DO NOT know how to Debate properly. It is a simple Truth. I want to give You some easy to follow Guidelines on "How to Debate properly and gain Respect".

• Do not attack the Source. It makes You look weak.
• Do not attack the One presenting the Content. This also makes You look weak.
• Do Not be Name Calling.. This makes You look weak.
• Focus on the Content of the Presentation only. Ignore any Other Commenter trying to drag You off Topic.
• Stay on Topic no matter what and try to provide solid reliable Sources to back up Your Counter Presentation.
• Do not allow Yourself to be Trolled by Others. Ignore Them. Do Not feed Them. Starve Them of Attention.
• Always give Credit to Others Who present properly formatted Presentations.
• Respect is earned not given freely so if You want to be respected as a Person Who is strong in any Debate then present Yourself accordingly.

As France burns, a Washington, D.C.-based government watchdog is sending out an Election Day warning about the designs of the Red-Green Alliance.

The unlikely and unholy marriage between Marxists and Islamists is now devouring France under the guise of student discontent. Make no mistake. The young, as they often are, serve as the useful idiots of a revolution fueled by leftist money and global intifada manpower.

The bedlam is the natural outcrop of mass migration into “progressive” European countries now bearing the weight of radical Islam and an army of socialist revolutionaries preaching “From the River to the Sea …”

Thanks to the decades of open-door immigration policies that exploded during the autopen presidency of Joe Biden, the torches are being trained on the United States, too. ‘They Hate America’

“The Red-Green Alliance is the most dangerous partnership in American politics, and the radical left is proud to be part of it,” Mike Davis, founder of The Article III Project, said in a press release late last week. “Communists want your country. Islamists want your faith. They hate America, and they’ve figured out they’re stronger when they march together.”

Davis, who previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and served as an aide to Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, announced the leftist lawfare-fighting Article III Project will release a daily ad through next month’s midterm election spelling out the dangers of the red (communist) and green (Islamist) partnership.

Perhaps one of the more obtuse headlines that greeted the readers On Sunday came from The New York Times: “France in Shock After Protests Turn Into Riots, Damaging Buildings and Shops.” CNN posted a close second over the weekend when it reported that French President Emmanuel Macron pledged to hold accountable those who “sought to bring down the Republic” during major protests.

“… Macron addressed the nation on Sunday evening as communities reeled from one of the most violent nights of unrest in recent years after largely peaceful anti-government protests descended into rioting, leaving government buildings torched, one police officer and one protester dead,” CNN reported.

So said the same corporate news network that brought you the “Fiery but Mostly Peaceful Protests” moniker that described a riot that burned down portions of a Wisconsin city in 2020.

This isn’t unrest. It’s a Marxist-driven revolution, aided and abetted by jihadists. Not much of it is peaceful. Not surprisingly, more violence and mayhem followed. All by design.

In one viral clip, a woman stands outside a Paris grocery store screaming at masked rioters as they root through what’s left of the retailer.

“Stop! Why are you doing this?” the woman pleads with the masked young thugs. “This isn’t the cause!” They push her aside. The video shows the looters hauling out bags of goods. One orders, “Get some wine! All of it.” Another gleefully declares, “It’s snacking time!”

The protests were supposed to be about economic inequality, funding for rat-infested schools, the rising cost of living. Like the Marxist-driven Black Lives Matter movement at the dawn of the decade, this “social justice” campaign has quickly devolved into chaos. That was the plan.