Fadel Abdulghany, the founder of the Syrian Network for Human Rights, emphasized that the moment carries deep symbolic weight, as a judge once sentenced to death by the Assad regime has returned to apply the law to one of the regime's most documented violators. This reflects the promise of the rule of law, which is often unfulfilled in post-authoritarian transitions.
"By "denigrating the judiciary, Trump is basically trying to weaken one of the only remaining pillar that is standing up to prevent the total authoritarianism that he desires," Cobb said. "And that war is very dangerous for us all. We need a very strong judiciary, particularly at this time, where the constitutional stresses are extreme and Trump's abuses of power are unprecedented."
My reason is simple: I no longer can bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom. President Donald Trump is using the law for partisan purposes, targeting his adversaries while sparing his friends and donors from investigation, prosecution, and possible punishment. This is contrary to everything that I have stood for in my more than 50 years in the Department of Justice and on the bench.
Theresa May has delivered a thinly veiled rebuke to Robert Jenrick after he launched an attack on British judges earlier this month. In a wide-ranging critique on the direction of her party, the former Conservative prime minister warned against using populism for a short-term political end. She challenged the Tories' approach to net zero, the judiciary and human rights, urging the party to show leadership instead.
He recalled how one day he did a home visit with a child who was born addicted to cocaine. I was never born addicted to anything, D'Souza said. The challenges that those folks have to deal with in order to overcome and become somebody that they dream about becoming is such a huge difference between what I had to go through. It awakened my thinking about what I want to do with my life. From that moment on, D'Souza said he knew he was going to dedicate his career to public service.
Time didn't start yesterday. Conservative principles didn't just start being challenged in the last 8 years. The threat has been omnipresent. It may not have seemed as dire to some because that man was standing his post when the rest of us were not. You know why the First Amendment became a litmus test in Republican politics and in the judiciary? It was owned by the Left until McConnell started grilling every candidate, newly elected official, or prospective judge about it.
On day three of the two-week remedies trial in the Justice Department's ad tech case against Google, Judge Leonie Brinkema boiled down the argument to one key issue: trust. Brinkema interrupted testimony from a DOJ expert with a hypothetical: should she issue a strict order modifying Google's behavior, could it resolve the issues at hand if "you had confidence that Google would actually act in complete good faith?"
Let's see, so, conflicts between the president and the judiciary are not new, Barrett said. They existed between Andrew Jackson and the Supreme Court. Even Abraham Lincoln, you know, there was some conflict. There was some conflict between FDR and the Supreme Court. So, I think that when we talk about the separation of powers and the balance of power and there being a tug and a pull between the branches of government this is a dance that we've seen before.
The state courts handle over 95% of litigation nationwide, yet they are often overlooked compared to the federal Supreme Court, highlighting an imbalance in public awareness.
By the end of his act, which quickly went viral and has collected more than 3 million views on YouTube, Lins had made fun of Black and Indigenous people, obese people, elderly people, gay people, Jews, northeastern Brazilians, evangelicals, disabled people and those with HIV.
The chief judge emphasized that while the boycott raises ethical questions, holding Traynor accountable would be unfair given he had no prior notice of potential issues.
