Earlier today the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Watson v. Republican National Committee, the RNC’s challenge to a Mississippi law allowing mail-in or absentee ballots to be counted up to five days of Election Day.
Many observers have noted the court seems likely to rule that ballots for federal elections must arrive on/before election day itself. The full oral argument is below. LISTEN:
.
The high court has indicated it will be releasing opinions on one or more of the previously argued cases on Friday February 20, Tuesday Feb 24, or Wednesday Feb 25. The decision over tariffs triggered by President Trump using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is one of the decisions now considered highly likely to surface.
If the decision doesn’t come this Friday, a rather interesting situation unfolds. The following week falls into the Tuesday Feb 24 State of the Union address.
Typically, several Supreme Court justices sit in front row of the House floor during the speech. The decision could be released on the morning of the speech, or justices could actually sit in the audience – knowing the outcome and the morning after the State of the Union address, the ruling could be released.
Now, there is a possibility the ruling will not come out in this cycle, but that is diminishing possibility considering the length of time the Supreme Court has sat on this opinion.
The court knows the importance of this decision, and they obviously know the State of the Union speech is scheduled to be delivered on Tuesday the 24th. This will be an interesting dynamic to watch unfold.
Highlighting exactly why Barack Obama, Joe Biden and James Clyburn needed to deploy a 2021 Machiavellian strategy to get her moved onto the Supreme Court, Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson (KBJ) argues for the supreme power of the DC bureaucracy that must not be challenged by the President of the United States (Executive Branch).
In the case of Trump v Slaughter, the removal of the FTC Chair, Justice KBJ argues that presidential authority must be kept in check by the unelected “professionals and experts” who make up the bureaucracy underneath him. The “No Kings” argument is entirely ridiculous given the plenary power of the executive and the constitutional authority of the office.
Ketanji lost it today during oral arguments and went on a “No Kings” style rant about President Trump wanting to rule like a monarch, and how we should instead have many issues handled by “the experts and PhDs” like Dr. Fauci, Dr. “Rachel” Levine, and the gay bondage AIDS dude. pic.twitter.com/Z8qFZgZzsR
— Bad Hombre (@Badhombre) December 8, 2025
Ketanji Brown-Jackson was always going to be installed in the supreme court as part of the overall Obama team’s use of Joe Biden. Merrick Garland was removed from his position specifically to create the path for KBJ to travel. Everything about this was planned well in advance of Biden’s installation. KBJ is to the judicial branch what BHO was/is to the executive branch.
It was February 25th, 2020, to be precise, just four days before the South Carolina Democrat primary. South Carolina Representative James Clyburn went backstage at the presidential debate and told Biden, “You’ve had a couple of opportunities to mention naming a Black woman to the Supreme Court,” Clyburn lectured his friend of nearly half a century, like a schoolteacher scolding a child. “I’m telling you, don’t you leave the stage tonight without making it known that you will do that.” {link}
Unbeknownst to Biden at the time, just two days earlier Barack Obama and James Clyburn came to an agreement and created the most consequential alliance of the 2020 Democrat campaign. Barack Obama the figurative and ideological leader of the movement known as “Black Lives Matter”, and James Clyburn the figurative and ideological leader of the political construct within the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) church, had struck a deal.
The authority for the United States government to capture the electronic records of all Americans without warrant falls under the auspices of FISA-702. The current authority expires in April of 2026.
Some administrative state defenders will argue this issue with me. However, having researched almost every aspect to the construct, and the argument, I am confident FISA-702 authority underpins the much bigger, quasi-constitutional justification for the wholesale collection of U.S. citizen metadata. Without the 702 authority, the legal justification for the apparatus of surveillance no longer exists. It really is that simple.
That said, there remains ZERO justification for the wholesale capture of U.S. citizen data by the government. It is not the searching of the database that presents the issue; the capture itself violates the Fourth Amendment.
The only way the government can justify the capture of U.S. Citizen data is if there is some quasi-constitutional or national security reason for it. That’s where FISA-702 comes in.
Take away “702” search authority, and the data collection argument collapses; ANY “incidental” search of the database then loses any plausible legal justification. 702 is the camel’s nose under the tent that forms the baseline for all data records to be intercepted, stored and ultimately available for review.
This is a very key component to fully understand. Most practical applications of surveillance are contingent upon the capture of electronic records for tracking. Ex. – if domestic travel records are considered private papers (never argued yet), then government agencies have no right to exploit them without a valid search warrant underpinned by a national security justification. The government, not private sector – government, tracking people becomes more difficult if privacy rules are applied.
The legal aspect runs through the 4th Amendment, which -while historically undefined in the modern era- likely stirs in the background of the recent TSA decision to provide a $45 opt-out, for the use of REAL ID in domestic transit (interstate commerce application notwithstanding).
The Fourth Amendment aspect to the ‘warrantless’ government capture of American citizen records has never been fully argued in court; the modern definitions are opaque, and the govt has a vested interest in retaining the untested status quo.
The Supreme Court has issued an emergency stay supporting President Trump and the administration’s lawful position that SNAP benefits cannot be paid without congressional funding.
In the most bizarre example of her voting record to date, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson votes against a short-term extension to the emergency stay she herself created. [SOURCE]
On Tuesday night, the Supreme Court extended the administrative stay, keeping [Rhode Island Judge] McConnell’s ruling on hold until 11:59 p.m. EST on Nov. 13. With the House of Representatives slated to vote on Wednesday on a deal to end the shutdown, the brief unsigned order presumably gives the government time to reopen, and for SNAP benefits to resume. Jackson indicated that she would not have extended the administrative stay, and that she would have turned down the government’s request. (source)
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent appears on ABC This Week to combat the narrative engineering of DNC transcriptionist George Stephanopoulos.
Sometimes it’s worth watching Stephanopoulos, Bill Clinton’s former Chief of Staff, because he frames the political position, current and future, for the Democrat party. Video and Transcript Below:
[Transcript] STEPHANOPOULOS: And we’re joined now by the Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent.
Mr. Bessent, thank you for joining us this morning.
We’ve just heard about all these impacts from the shutdown — government shutdown right now. Are we starting to see — see a permanent impact on the economy?
TREASURY SECRETARY SCOTT BESSENT: Sure, George.
And good to be with you.
And we’ve seen an impact on the economy from day one, but it’s getting worse and worse. We had a fantastic economy under President Trump the past two quarters. And now there are estimates that the economy, economic growth for this quarter, could be cut by as much as half if the shutdown continues.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick appears on NewsMax to discuss his perspective on the Supreme Court oral arguments surrounding the legal challenges to President Trump’s tariff authority.
Secretary Lutnick attended the court arguments today and is very optimistic about the outcome of the arguments. WATCH:
.
Today, the Dept of Justice Solicitor General Dean John Sauer provided oral arguments to the Supreme Court in support of President Donald Trump’s tariff authority. The issue at the heart of the matter is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the president the power to levy tariffs.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor, leaned heavily on the argument that tariffs are taxes against the American people, and all taxes must come from Congress. The ‘tariffs are taxes’ argument seems to be the linchpin for the leftists on the court and the Gorsuch ‘conservatives’.
Solicitor Sauer countered the IEEPA tariffs are “regulations” against foreign imported goods. “The power to impose tariffs is a core application of the power to regulate foreign commerce, which is what the phrase ‘regular importation of commerce’ in IEEPA naturally evokes,” Sauer said.
The full audio of the arguments is provided below. (I’m working on the transcript). WATCH (prompted):
.
President Trump posted the importance of the Supreme Court case to support presidential authority on Tariffs.
The heart of the argument really is the “trillions at stake” aspect we have discussed on these pages for the past ten years. If the institutions of our government factually want to dispatch President Trump and diminish the American middle-class, the Supreme Court will support the multinational corporations and Wall Street in decision to remove presidential tariff authority.
[Via Truth Social] – “Next week’s Case on Tariffs is one of the most important in the History of the Country. If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World, especially the “Majors.” In a true sense, we would be defenseless! Tariffs have brought us Great Wealth and National Security in the nine months that I have had the Honor to serve as President. The Stock Market has hit All Time Highs many times during my short time in Office, with virtually No Inflation, and National Security that is second to none.
Our recent successful negotiation with China, and many others, put us in a strong position only because we had Tariffs with which to negotiate fair and sustainable Deals. If a President was not able to quickly and nimbly use the power of Tariffs, we would be defenseless, leading perhaps even to the ruination of our Nation. The only people fighting us are Foreign Countries who for years have taken advantage of us, those who hate our Country and, the Democrats, because our numbers are insurmountably good.
I will not be going to the Court on Wednesday in that I do not want to distract from the importance of this Decision. It will be, in my opinion, one of the most important and consequential Decisions ever made by the United States Supreme Court. If we win, we will be the Richest, Most Secure Country anywhere in the World, BY FAR. If we lose, our Country could be reduced to almost Third World status — Pray to God that that doesn’t happen!”
President Donald J Trump – Nov 02, 2025, 6:54 PM
It’s one thing to understand that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was DEI nomination to the Supreme Court, and another thing entirely to listen to her own words as she proves it.
During oral arguments in ‘Louisiana v. Callais’, a case before the high court considering whether Louisiana’s congressional map (which includes two majority-black districts), where plaintiffs in the case argue the congressional map is unconstitutionally gerrymandered based on race; Justice KBJ compares black people to disabled people. The comparison for the argument she is trying to make is ridiculous. Listen:
Ketanji Brown Jackson literally and directly compares black people not electing their preferred candidates to disabled people not being able to enter buildings
“They don’t have equal access to the voting system. They’re disabled.” pic.twitter.com/aCJXeBwHTl
— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) October 15, 2025
[SOURCE] There is no benefit in the color of skin that makes voting easier or more difficult. The tailoring of congressional districts to cluster all the black voters into congressional districts is itself ‘racism as policy.’