Joe Biden just refused to answer whether he will support packing the Court with new members once elected. That is an extraordinary position. Many of us would not vote for a candidate who supports a court packing plan. usatoday.com/story/opinion/…
...Presidential election are not supposed to be constitutional blind dates. His running mate, Kamala Harris, has already come out in support of a court-packing scheme as have some of his top political allies...
...Schumer also insisted "everything is on the table." It is akin to Speaker Pelosi refusing to rule out the clearly abusive use of impeachment as a method of opposing a lame duck nomination. If Biden considers this a viable option, he is not a viable candidate for many of us.
This is not the Biden that we knew in the Senate and the person who once ruled out this option. He said today it is a "legitimate question" but will not answer it. If the question is legitimate, the refusal is not. foxnews.com/politics/biden…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Judge James Boasberg has another controversial decision in throwing out a duly issued grand jury subpoena of Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Boasberg declared that “There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell."...
...I have been skeptical of the basis and motivation of the criminal investigation into Powell. However, Boasberg could face serious appellate questions over his basis to toss out a valid subpoena based entirely on his view of the underlying criminal investigation...
...This is not something that courts can take judicial notice over the lack of criminal conduct. The subpoena is part of an investigation into such conduct. This is a very rare such order at this stage in an investigation and could raise difficult appellate issues.
The Judicial Conference has released a new policy that could materially alter the character of the federal courts, allowing judges to comment on what they deem “illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks.” It is not just injudicious, it is dangerous... jonathanturley.org/2026/02/18/rul…
...The added freedom afforded to judges to engage in commentary will do little to change the debate. It may, however, greatly erode the trust in what was once considered “our least dangerous branch.”
...Given increasingly injudicious comments, one would think that Chief Justice John Roberts and the Judicial Conference would seek to tighten, not loosen, the limits on judicial commentary. I am not suggesting that these past statements would be viewed as acceptable under the new rules. However, I fail to understand, in light of such controversial statements, the Conference elected to relax the rules at this time.
The Clintons are again suggesting that they might not agree to a deposition after previously yielding to the threat of a contempt vote. Today, Bill Clinton declared on X that "I will not sit idly as they use me as a prop in a closed-door kangaroo court"...jonathanturley.org/2026/01/14/now…
...Clinton is not being asked to "sit idly by" but to sit for a deposition like other citizens. His posting suggests that he is again opposed to compliance after a bipartisan vote was again delayed by the earlier concession...
...The reason for these depositions is that they can gain greater depth in questioning. This is vintage Clinton in delaying and evading accountability. For decades, they have gamed the system with such tactics...
The decision of the federal court to reject the effort to enjoin the immigration operations means that Attorney General Keith Ellison could not come up with a single cognizable claim of illegality to shoulder this burden...
...Now that a Biden appointee judge has rejected this meritless effort, will Gov. Walz, Attorney General Ellison, and Mayor Frey finally come clean and admit that these operations are lawful? One can disagree with them, but they are solidly within federal law...
...Instead, Ellison has been spreading clearly false information like claiming that the FACE Act only applies to abortion clinics and not places of worship. jonathanturley.org/2026/01/20/thi…
Gov. Walz is again inflaming the mob. He is effectively declaring this to be the murder of a citizen who had a permit to carry this weapon. He is saying that the state not the federal government will control the investigation. He does not have that authority...
...The state can clearly have a parallel investigation and the federal government can do a joint investigation. However, he cannot dictate how or who will conduct the investigation...
...With thousands in the streets, Walz just did all that he could to give them license for their rage. Most of us would never call this a lawful or unlawful shooting based on one videotape...
Frey is again denouncing the officers in the latest shooting before any investigation into the shooting. Gov. Walz preceded him. Frey just said "your children will ask you what side you are on" and "what did you do?" Those words will be taken as a license for escalating these confrontations...
...Many of us have watched this videotape. The view of the hands of the suspect are not clear. We hear the shoot followed by a series of shots. We need to know if the suspect had pulled the gun or the reason for the officers to use lethal force. That would not seem an unreasonable expectation before public condemnations from the governor and the mayor...
...Rachel Sayre, Minneapolis Emergency Management Director, just said that the federal government is terrorizing the city...