Law schools across the country are abandoning their decades-long principles going woke and the move could prove disastrous for attorneys, current law students, and prospective law students across the nation.
Let Amanda break down the situation in the video below.
Opinions expressed by contributors do not necessarily reflect the views of Great America News Desk.
A federal appeals court has upheld almost $1 million in financial penalties imposed on President Trump and his attorney Alina Habba for filing what a lower court labeled “frivolous” lawsuits connected to the long-running Russia-collusion controversy—an episode many conservatives continue to view as a politically motivated attempt to damage Trump’s presidency.
The case centers on Trump’s 2022 lawsuit alleging that Hillary Clinton, the Democratic National Committee (DNC), former FBI Director James Comey, and more than two dozen other political and government figures conspired to falsely tie his 2016 presidential campaign to Russia. Trump argued that this network of Democratic operatives and intelligence officials sought to “discredit, delegitimize and defame” him through misleading documents and coordinated political attacks—what he has consistently referred to as the “Russia, Russia, Russia” hoax.
On Wednesday, Chief Judge William Pryor Jr. of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals—appointed by President George W. Bush—affirmed the lower court’s decision, concluding that Trump and Habba engaged in “sanctionable conduct.”
Pryor wrote that the pair “give us no reason to reverse the district court’s ruling that these claims were frivolous,” a position supported by the full appellate panel, including Circuit Judges Andrew Brasher (a Trump appointee) and Embry Kidd (appointed by President Biden).
Their decision leaves in place the original sanctions imposed by District Judge Donald Middlebrooks, an appointee of former President Clinton, who ruled in January 2023 that the lawsuit “should never have been brought.” Middlebrooks ordered Trump and Habba to pay nearly $1 million in legal fees to the defendants—many of whom were high-profile Democratic figures or Trump rivals.
In response to Wednesday’s ruling, a spokesperson for the president’s legal team told The Hill that Trump “continues to fight back against all Democrat-led Witch Hunts, including the ‘Russia, Russia, Russia’ hoax and un-Constitutional and un-American weaponization of our justice system” by the Biden administration.
The spokesperson added that the president would “continue to pursue this matter to its just and rightful conclusion,” signaling that his team may take further legal steps, potentially including an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Former President Donald Trump harshly criticized Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Fox News after Jesse Watters interviewed Kennedy on Wednesday evening.
“So bad that FoxNews [sic] puts RFK Jr., considered the dumbest member of the Kennedy Clan, on their fairly conservative platform so much. Competitive networks don’t want anything to do with him. He’s a Radical Left Lunatic whose crazy Climate Change views make the Democrat’s Green New Scam look Conservative. He’s polling badly, 8% at best, but says he does well against Crooked Joe and me, one on one. WRONG, he gets trounced!” Trump posted on Truth Social.
“Junior said I’m the ‘best debater’ in generations, and I want to debate him, and Crooked, but first he’s got to get his bad poll numbers up – a lot! He would be ‘easy pickins,’” Trump boasted.
“With all of that said, he probably hurts Sleepy Crooked Joe more than ‘US!’”
A recent survey from Emerson College suggests that Kennedy’s presence has benefited Trump’s campaign and harmed Biden’s, eroding the latter’s support in several crucial swing states.
Nevertheless, Trump and his supporters have increased their criticism of Kennedy’s campaign, indicating concerns on both sides about his impact.
Trump posted repeatedly about Kennedy on Truth Social following his appearance on “Real Time With Bill Maher” on HBO.
The former president accused Kennedy of being a “plant” to help Biden win reelection and claimed that voting for him would be a “WASTED PROTEST VOTE,” which could “swing either way.”
Article Published With The Permission of American Liberty News.
In a pivotal decision on Wednesday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that voters whose mail-in ballots were rejected due to errors—including missing signatures, incorrect dates or absence of a required secrecy envelope—can still cast their vote on Election Day. The 4-3 decision ensures that these individuals are allowed to submit provisional ballots at their local polling places, provided no additional disqualifying issues arise.
The ruling originated from a case in Butler County, where two voters were denied the opportunity to vote provisionally after their mail-in ballots were rejected during the April primary for missing secrecy envelopes. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center represented the voters, arguing that the county had misinterpreted the state’s Election Code.
Per Spotlight PA:
Justice Christine Donohue, writing for the majority, noted that the Republican litigants argued that in order to maintain election integrity, provisional ballots should not be counted, but said the majority was “at a loss to identify what honest voting principle is violated by recognizing the validity of one ballot cast by one voter.”
“If appellants presume that the general assembly intended to disqualify the provisional ballot of a voter who failed to effectively vote by mail in order to punish that voter, we caution that such a construction is not reconcilable with the right of franchise,” she wrote.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and the Public Interest Law Center, which brought the case on behalf of two voters, celebrated the ruling as a victory.
“Today’s decision affirms that if you make a paperwork mistake that will keep your mail ballot from counting, you have the right to vote by provisional ballot at your polling place on Election Day,” said Ben Geffen, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center. “This reinforces the right to vote in Pennsylvania.”
This decision holds broad implications for voters across Pennsylvania, offering a contentious solution for those facing similar issues in future elections. However, there was notable dissent, including from Justice P. Kevin Brobson, who contended that the state’s Election Code explicitly prohibits counting such provisional ballots.
The ruling comes as Pennsylvania takes center stage in the 2024 election. Polls suggest a highly competitive race, with the latest RealClearPolitics average showing former President Donald Trump holding a slight 0.6-point lead over Vice President Kamala Harris.
READ NEXT: Fmr. Democrat Congressman Caught Campaigning For Trump In PIVOTAL Swing State
A recent report from Reuters has liberals’ minds exploding.
A report found that all living U.S. presidents are descending from slaveholders, except for one. President Donald J. Trump.
Fox News has more:
The report detailed the ancestry of America’s leaders as of the 117th Congress. The report found that five living presidents, two Supreme Court justices, 11 governors and 100 members of Congress had ancestors who owned slaves.
Presidents Biden, Carter, George W. Bush, Clinton and Obama all have ancestors who enslaved Black people in their family trees, according to the report, with Obama’s link coming from his White mother’s side.
However, Donald Trump’s family did not immigrate to the United States until after slavery was abolished.
At the Supreme Court, only Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch had slaveholding ancestors. Meanwhile, another recent report from the Washington Post found that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had ancestors who were enslaved, while her husband, Patrick Jackson, has ancestors who were slaveholders.
In Congress, Reuters found at least 100 lawmakers who could trace their family trees to slaveholders, including 28 senators and 72 representatives.
Prominent names included Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Tom Cotton, R-Ark., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill.
A New York Times photographer was awarded with a Pulitzer Prize Monday for his photos of the assassination attempt against President Donald Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania.
The July 13 event yielded numerous historic photos and videos, such as when Trump quickly got up after being shot as Secret Service agents escorted him off the stage holding his fist in the air while shouting the words, “Fight, fight, fight.”
One iconic image by The Times’ Doug Mills managed to capture the split-second moment a speeding bullet was seen mid-air next to Trump’s head at the rally. The photo was one of several he captured that day that earned him one of the most prestigious awards in journalism.
“I just happened to be down, shooting with a wide-angle lens just below the president when he was speaking. There was a huge flag waving right above his head, and I just happened to be taking pictures at the same time,” he told “America’s Newsroom” in Milwaukee at the time.
“Then, when I heard the pops, I guess I kept hitting on the shutter, and then I saw him reach for his [ear]. He grimaced and grabbed his hand and looked. It was blood, and then he went down, and I thought, ‘Dear God, he’s been shot,'” he continued.
Mills said the moment he discovered he had captured an image of the bullet whizzing past Trump was a “surprise” to him.
Mills said he captured the rally images with a Sony a1 camera.
“Doug Mills of The New York Times won the breaking news photography prize for his photos capturing the attempted assassination of President Trump last year, including an image in which a bullet can be seen,” the New York Times’ media reporter Katie Robertson reported as she touted three other other Pulitzers The Times won for stories on Sudan, Afghanistan and Baltimore.
President Donald Trump’s sprawling White House ballroom project just dodged another potentially devastating legal roadblock.
In a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court allowed construction of the new East Wing complex to continue while the Trump administration presses its appeal against a lower-court injunction.
The unsigned majority concluded that the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely lacks the legal standing necessary to challenge the project. The justices also found that halting construction could inflict “irreparable harm” on the government and interfere with critical security work.
That means crews can keep building the massive ballroom and underground military facility—even as the explosive fight over the project’s legality remains unresolved.
Trump wasted no time celebrating.
“The United States Supreme Court has just ruled, 5-4, that the magnificent Ballroom and Military Complex can continue, without any further contingency, doubt, or threat,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, according to Fox News.
“We are living in the Golden Age of America, and this Building will be one of the Greatest ever constructed in Washington, D.C.”
Trump said the project remains on track for completion in summer 2028 and predicted it will become “something that the entire Country is very proud of.”
He also insisted the ballroom is being financed entirely by private donors and corporations, calling it a “Gift” that will come at no cost to taxpayers.
The administration has argued that the ballroom cannot simply be separated from the fortified military installation being built beneath it.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court pointed to declarations from senior national-security officials—including the directors of the FBI, CIA, Secret Service and Office of the Director of National Intelligence—warning about the dangers of freezing construction midway through the project.
The Army secretary told the court that the planned ballroom’s height and mass are crucial to shielding the underground facility from potential attacks. Officials also warned that delays could disrupt Secret Service operations, expose the unfinished site to foreign intelligence gathering and create serious structural problems.
The majority stressed that it was not issuing a final ruling on whether Trump had the legal authority to undertake the project without congressional approval.
Instead, the court concluded that the National Trust’s lawsuit likely falters at the starting line because its alleged aesthetic and historical injuries do not amount to the concrete harm required to sue in federal court.
The decision produced an extraordinary split, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent.
Roberts argued that the project is “likely unlawful” because federal law prohibits the construction of structures on government parkland in Washington without express authorization from Congress.
“The ballroom is a building or structure being erected on federal park grounds—President’s Park—in the District of Columbia,” Roberts wrote. “Yet Congress has not passed any law resembling ‘express authority’ for the Executive’s construction of it.”
Roberts accused the majority of allowing a likely infringement on Congress’ power over federal spending and property to continue.
“Today’s decision is no victory for the separation of powers,” he wrote.
The National Trust seized on that dissent while acknowledging the painful setback. President and CEO Brent Leggs said the organization was “deeply disappointed” but emphasized that the court did not decide whether the ballroom itself is legal.
“This is not the final decision on the merits of our case,” Leggs said in a statement.
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott (R) responded to former President Donald Trump’s comments over the weekend naming him as a potential running mate.
Trump revealed to Fox News’s Maria Bartiromo over the weekend he is considering Scott, along with South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem to be the next vice presidential running mate. (RELATED: Trump Names Two People When Asked About Potential VP Picks)
“The only thing I can tell you is that the one thing we need is four more years of President Donald Trump,” Scott told Fox News Digital on Monday.
“We were better off under Trump. In order for us to be successful, the one thing I can’t afford to do is take my eye off the ball. The eye on the ball means making sure that President Trump gets four more years,” he added.
Over the weekend, Trump told Bartiromo that his top priority in choosing a vice presidential candidate is selecting someone who could easily step into his shoes in case of an emergency.
“Always, it’s got to be who is going to be a good president. Obviously, you always have to think that because in case of emergency. Things happen, right? No matter who you are, things happen. That’s got to be No. 1,” Trump said.
On Monday, former Trump senior adviser Kellyanne Conway advised the President to consider choosing a person of color for VP during an op-ed published in The New York Times.
“With a crisis on the border, economic dissatisfaction, fears about crime, a parents’ rights renaissance and multiple wars and threats across the globe, Mr. Trump’s deputy must be able to navigate chaos and challenges at home and abroad,” Conway wrote.
“Taking all of this into consideration, if I were advising Mr. Trump, I would suggest he choose a person of color as his running mate, depending on vetting of all possibilities and satisfaction of procedural issues like dual residency in Florida,” Conway wrote. “Not for identity politics a la the Democrats, but as an equal helping to lead an America First movement that includes more union workers, independents, first-time voters, veterans, Hispanics, Asian Americans and African Americans.”
Conway listed Sen. Tim Scott, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) among the potential options.
Sen. Ted Cruz may be ready for another White House brawl — and this time, Vice President JD Vance could be standing in his way.
The Texas Republican has quietly begun asking political operatives whether they would consider working on a potential 2028 presidential campaign, according to The Wall Street Journal.
Cruz has not formally announced a campaign, and his spokesperson declined to comment on the report. But the behind-the-scenes recruiting represents the clearest indication yet that the senator is seriously considering another run for president.
Cruz has been making trips to Iowa, appearing on podcasts and promoting his new biography of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas — moves that could help him reconnect with Republican activists and potential donors.
He traveled to Iowa twice this year, including a May appearance before the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition and a recent campaign swing with Republican Senate candidate Ashley Hinson.
The state holds special significance for Cruz. He won the Iowa Republican caucuses in 2016 before ultimately finishing second to Donald Trump in the GOP primary.
Cruz has also become increasingly open about his lingering presidential ambitions.
“It’s no secret that I want to be president,” Cruz said during an appearance on Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick’s podcast, according to The Texas Tribune.
“This is a bug that history has proved is rarely ended,” Cruz added. “It is a permanent and often fatal bug.”
When Patrick pressed him on whether he would run in 2028, Cruz stopped short of confirming a campaign.
“Time will tell,” he said.
Any Cruz campaign would likely put him on a collision course with Vance, who leads early polls of prospective Republican candidates and is widely viewed as a possible successor to Trump.
Asked recently whether the Republican Party had already settled on Vance, Cruz immediately rejected the premise.
“Oh no,” he told MS NOW. “There’s going to be a full discussion about who we are and what we believe.”
Cruz said he would “certainly be part of the discussion,” signaling that he intends to help shape the post-Trump Republican Party whether or not he ultimately enters the race.
The senator has already begun highlighting potential differences with Vance, particularly on foreign policy. Mediaite reported that Cruz criticized Vance’s involvement in negotiations over the abandoned memorandum of understanding with Iran.
“JD negotiated the MOU with Iran,” Cruz said. “That was a terrible deal.”
He has also taken aim at Vance’s association with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, opening another potential fault line over the party’s approach to foreign affairs.
People close to Vance have reportedly dismissed Cruz as a serious threat to the vice president’s path to the nomination. But Cruz has already demonstrated that he can compete nationally, winning 11 states during the 2016 primaries.
Trump, meanwhile, has offered Cruz a notable public boost despite their vicious 2016 rivalry.
“He’s very talented. He’s a very good friend of mine,” Trump told the Daily Caller when asked about Cruz’s presidential ambitions. “I think he might do that.”
Trump has praised Vance behind the scenes, but he has resisted publicly locking in an endorsement for 2028, insisting it is too early to make that decision.
That uncertainty may be all Cruz needs to begin assembling a team — and prepare for another bare-knuckle Republican primary.
As Vice President Kamala Harris continues her campaign, avoiding direct interviews and carefully selecting debate settings, questions about the authenticity of her support base are growing. The latest example is the endorsement from a group called “Police Leaders for Community Safety,” which Harris’s campaign and media outlets touted as a “stunning endorsement” from a group that typically backs Trump.
However, scrutiny reveals that the group is far from a major law enforcement organization. USA Today notes that “Police Leaders for Community Safety” was only formed in 2024, describes itself as representing “dozens of police officials,” and is led by Sue Riseling, a former chief of the University of Wisconsin-Madison Police Department. The group is primarily composed of former law enforcement members, many of whom lean left politically.
The newspaper explained that “as the group has only been around since June, this marks the first endorsement for Police Leaders for Community Safety, with the group throwing their support for Harris.”
The group’s announcement to Fox News, however, failed to share that information:
The organization – which says it is led by a diverse group of prominent police professionals who have been at the helm of numerous major national law enforcement leadership groups – highlights that its mission is to champion “policies to make communities and the people in them safer, improve and evolve policing, and safeguard the rule of law.”
“This endorsement reflects Vice President Harris’ track record and unwavering commitment to public safety and the rule of law,” Sue Riseling, chair of Police Leaders for Community Safety, said.
Police Leaders for Community Safety board member David Mahoney, a former Dane County, Wisconsin, sheriff and past president of the National Sheriffs’ Association, said that Harris “spent her prosecutorial career protecting people, supporting victims and holding accountable those who have harmed others and betrayed the public trust. As a lawmaker, she has fought hard for the critical law enforcement-backed policies needed to fight crime and protect the public.”
Critics have accused the Harris campaign of astroturfing, creating a façade of grassroots support by highlighting endorsements from groups with little influence in the law enforcement community. This comes in stark contrast to Donald Trump’s endorsement from the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the nation’s oldest and most influential law enforcement organization, which has supported Trump in the last three elections.
FOP President Patrick Yoes emphasized the importance of public safety and border security, stating that Trump’s policies align with the values of law enforcement officers across the country.
READ NEXT: Top MAGA Republican Burned At Campaign Event, Returns To The Trail
