Donald Trump Declares “Clear Victory” As Supreme Court Partially Allows Travel Ban

UPDATED, 9:28 AM: He didn’t take to social media as many expected, but President Donald Trump didn’t wait long to hail a “clear victory” in this morning’s Supreme Court decision to hear arguments on his contentious multi-nation travel ban and lift parts of an injunction against it. Still, the President seems to be spinning what was a 6-3 split decision on implementation of the so-called Muslim Ban as being a full win in his favor because all justices agreed to hear the…

UPDATED, 9:28 AM: He didn’t take to social media as many expected, but President Donald Trump didn’t wait long to hail a “clear victory” in this morning’s Supreme Court decision to hear arguments on his contentious multi-nation travel ban and lift parts of an injunction against it. Still, the President seems to be spinning what was a 6-3 split decision on implementation of the so-called Muslim Ban as being a full win in his favor because all justices agreed to hear the…

Can Racial Slurs Be Trademarked?

When the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected an application by the rock band the Slants to trademark its name, the agency put forth a simple reason: the name disparages Asian-Americans.

The Slants’ frontman Simon Tam and his three Portland, Oregon-based bandmates are Asian-Americans who say they chose the to re-appropriate the racial slur, and strip it of its hateful meaning.

But federal trademark officials said motive didn’t matter, citing an obscure 70-year-old federal law banning government-approved trademarks that “may disparage… persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.”

Tam appealed the trademark office’s decision, and his case is now being decided by the Supreme Court. The court is expected to issue its decision in the next few weeks.

Also Read: Fox News Fires Bob Beckel After Racism Accusation

Tam’s case pits supporters on one side who argue they are fighting for free speech rights, and opponents who warn a Slants victory will require government approval of all kinds of hateful racial slurs, including the n-word.

When the government grants a trademark to a business owner, the owner gains the exclusive legal right to use the name on products and merchandise such as T-shirts. But some say the government approval of trademarks confers more than a commercial benefit and suggests tacit government approval of the slurs.

During oral argument before the Supreme Court on January 18, the justices hammered both sides with questions.

Also Read: Bill Cosby Says He Won’t Testify at Upcoming Assault Trial

Justice Elena Kagan asked whether the First Amendment rule that prohibits the government from discriminating against disfavored views applies to the trademark’s ban on “bad” trademarks.

“The point is that I can say good things about something, but I can’t say bad things about something” in a trademark, she said. “And I would have thought that that was a fairly classic case of viewpoint discrimination.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed skepticism at the government’s argument that trademarks are commercial speech that do not express ideas.

“We have a culture in which we have T-shirts and logos and rock bands and so forth that are expressing a point of view,” Kennedy said. “They are using the market to express views.”

Also Read: ESPN’s Stephen A Smith Accuses Jeff Pearlman of Racism: ‘Why Are You Focusing on Me?’

Tam won an important court victory last year, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that the government cannot disfavor some speech when giving government benefits like trademark registrations.

“The First Amendment forbids government regulators to deny registration because they find the speech likely to offend others,” Judge Kimberly Moore wrote in the court opinion.

Also Read: Google Searches Reveal Less Racism West of the Mississippi

Among those opposing the Slants in the Supreme Court is the group of Native American that won cancellation of the Redskins football team trademark in a 2014 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, on the grounds that the name is disparaging of Native Americans. The Redskins case is on hold pending the Supreme Court decision in the Slants case.

“If this Court rules that [the disparagement ban] is unconstitutional, the USPTO would have to issue registration certificates with ugly racist images,” warned the lawyers for Amanda Blackhorse and four other Native Americans in their friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court in 2016.

If the disparagement ban is thrown out by the court, the group warned in its brief, the trademark office will go back to the days before Congress banned disparaging trademarks in the 1946 Lanham Act. Prior to that law, the government approved several trademarked variations of the n-word, including “N- Head Prize Ice Cream,” “N- In De Cane Patch,” “N- Baby Brand,” and “N- Head Coal.”

No one mentioned the n-word during oral argument before the Supreme Court, but Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor expressed concern that requiring the government to approve racist trademarks would suggest that the government approves the message of hate.

Also Read: New ‘Dear White People’ Trailer Doesn’t Let Up, Starts With a Trigger Warning (Video)

“But doesn’t the government have some interest in disassociating itself from racial [and] ethnic slur — slurs?” Justice Ginsberg asked Slants lawyer John Connell.

Justice Sotomayor asked the Slants lawyer if the First Amendment required the government to issue a trademark for the phrase “Trump is a thief,” even if the phrase disparaged him and was false and defamatory.

“I believe that’s correct,” Connell said.

“That makes no sense,” Justice Sotomayor responded.

Also Read: Bill O’Reilly Accused of Racism, Sexism Over Maxine Walters, James Brown Diss (Video)

Georgetown Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet filed a friend-of-the court brief on behalf of a group of law professors who argue that the ban on disparaging trademarks does not violate the First Amendment because the Slants can use their name in any way they want, just not in a government-approved trademark.

“The brief basically argues that denying registration is not the same thing as suppressing speech,” Tushnet told TheWrap in an email.

“The Slants can call themselves that, and register some other trademark image or design they use, just as someone can put a Confederate flag bumper sticker on their car when they can’t get a Confederate flag license plate,” Tushnet said, referring to the 2015 Supreme Court decision allowing the State of Texas to reject government-issued Confederate flag license plates to avoid the appearance of government endorsement of a symbol of slavery.

Also Read: 17 Memes That Show What Explaining Racism to White People is Like (Photos)

In addition to arguing that the ban on disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, the Slants also argue that the anti-disparagement provision is unconstitutional because it is too vague for anyone to obey. Justice Ginsburg seemed to agree, noting that the anti-Semitic slur “Heeb” was permitted to be trademarked in some cases but not others.

The government lawyer, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, said those seemingly conflicting decisions were the result of human error during evaluations of 300,000 annual trademark applications, not because the statute was too vague.

Justice Sotomayor suggested the government denial of the trademark did not restrict the Slants’ freedom of speech outside of the trademark realm. “No one’s stopping your clients from calling themselves ‘the Slants’ [or] from advertising themselves that way,” she said during oral argument.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Fox News Fires Bob Beckel After Racism Accusation

Zoe Saldana Says Sexism Is ‘Much More Aggressive’ Than Racism in America (Video)

Boston Red Sox Apologize to Adam Jones for ‘Ignorant’ Fan Racism

Bill O’Reilly Accused of Racism, Sexism Over Maxine Walters, James Brown Diss (Video)

When the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected an application by the rock band the Slants to trademark its name, the agency put forth a simple reason: the name disparages Asian-Americans.

The Slants’ frontman Simon Tam and his three Portland, Oregon-based bandmates are Asian-Americans who say they chose the to re-appropriate the racial slur, and strip it of its hateful meaning.

But federal trademark officials said motive didn’t matter, citing an obscure 70-year-old federal law banning government-approved trademarks that “may disparage… persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.”

Tam appealed the trademark office’s decision, and his case is now being decided by the Supreme Court. The court is expected to issue its decision in the next few weeks.

Tam’s case pits supporters on one side who argue they are fighting for free speech rights, and opponents who warn a Slants victory will require government approval of all kinds of hateful racial slurs, including the n-word.

When the government grants a trademark to a business owner, the owner gains the exclusive legal right to use the name on products and merchandise such as T-shirts. But some say the government approval of trademarks confers more than a commercial benefit and suggests tacit government approval of the slurs.

During oral argument before the Supreme Court on January 18, the justices hammered both sides with questions.

Justice Elena Kagan asked whether the First Amendment rule that prohibits the government from discriminating against disfavored views applies to the trademark’s ban on “bad” trademarks.

“The point is that I can say good things about something, but I can’t say bad things about something” in a trademark, she said. “And I would have thought that that was a fairly classic case of viewpoint discrimination.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed skepticism at the government’s argument that trademarks are commercial speech that do not express ideas.

“We have a culture in which we have T-shirts and logos and rock bands and so forth that are expressing a point of view,” Kennedy said. “They are using the market to express views.”

Tam won an important court victory last year, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed that the government cannot disfavor some speech when giving government benefits like trademark registrations.

“The First Amendment forbids government regulators to deny registration because they find the speech likely to offend others,” Judge Kimberly Moore wrote in the court opinion.

Among those opposing the Slants in the Supreme Court is the group of Native American that won cancellation of the Redskins football team trademark in a 2014 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, on the grounds that the name is disparaging of Native Americans. The Redskins case is on hold pending the Supreme Court decision in the Slants case.

“If this Court rules that [the disparagement ban] is unconstitutional, the USPTO would have to issue registration certificates with ugly racist images,” warned the lawyers for Amanda Blackhorse and four other Native Americans in their friend-of-the-court brief filed with the Supreme Court in 2016.

If the disparagement ban is thrown out by the court, the group warned in its brief, the trademark office will go back to the days before Congress banned disparaging trademarks in the 1946 Lanham Act. Prior to that law, the government approved several trademarked variations of the n-word, including “N- Head Prize Ice Cream,” “N- In De Cane Patch,” “N- Baby Brand,” and “N- Head Coal.”

No one mentioned the n-word during oral argument before the Supreme Court, but Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor expressed concern that requiring the government to approve racist trademarks would suggest that the government approves the message of hate.

“But doesn’t the government have some interest in disassociating itself from racial [and] ethnic slur — slurs?” Justice Ginsberg asked Slants lawyer John Connell.

Justice Sotomayor asked the Slants lawyer if the First Amendment required the government to issue a trademark for the phrase “Trump is a thief,” even if the phrase disparaged him and was false and defamatory.

“I believe that’s correct,” Connell said.

“That makes no sense,” Justice Sotomayor responded.

Georgetown Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet filed a friend-of-the court brief on behalf of a group of law professors who argue that the ban on disparaging trademarks does not violate the First Amendment because the Slants can use their name in any way they want, just not in a government-approved trademark.

“The brief basically argues that denying registration is not the same thing as suppressing speech,” Tushnet told TheWrap in an email.

“The Slants can call themselves that, and register some other trademark image or design they use, just as someone can put a Confederate flag bumper sticker on their car when they can’t get a Confederate flag license plate,” Tushnet said, referring to the 2015 Supreme Court decision allowing the State of Texas to reject government-issued Confederate flag license plates to avoid the appearance of government endorsement of a symbol of slavery.

In addition to arguing that the ban on disparaging trademarks is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, the Slants also argue that the anti-disparagement provision is unconstitutional because it is too vague for anyone to obey. Justice Ginsburg seemed to agree, noting that the anti-Semitic slur “Heeb” was permitted to be trademarked in some cases but not others.

The government lawyer, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, said those seemingly conflicting decisions were the result of human error during evaluations of 300,000 annual trademark applications, not because the statute was too vague.

Justice Sotomayor suggested the government denial of the trademark did not restrict the Slants’ freedom of speech outside of the trademark realm. “No one’s stopping your clients from calling themselves ‘the Slants’ [or] from advertising themselves that way,” she said during oral argument.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Fox News Fires Bob Beckel After Racism Accusation

Zoe Saldana Says Sexism Is 'Much More Aggressive' Than Racism in America (Video)

Boston Red Sox Apologize to Adam Jones for 'Ignorant' Fan Racism

Bill O'Reilly Accused of Racism, Sexism Over Maxine Walters, James Brown Diss (Video)

President Trump Can’t Jail Journalists for Reporting Leaks – Or Can He?

No president has ever sent a reporter to jail for publishing embarrassing government leaks.

But President Donald Trump may want to change that. During a Feb. 14 meeting, the president urged then-FBI director James Comey to investigate and jail journalists for reporting leaks, according to the New York Times and Washington Post.

“Mr. Trump began the discussion by condemning leaks to the news media, saying that Mr. Comey should consider putting reporters in prison for publishing classified information,” the Times reported, citing unnamed officials who had seen a memo Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.

Could reporters really go to jail for publishing leaks?

Also Read: The Rock Is Already Leading Trump in the 2020 Presidential Race

The answer is probably not. But we don’t really know with 100 percent certainty because the federal government has never tried to jail reporters under such circumstances before. The wild card is a federal law called the Espionage Act of 1917.

The Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press noted that all three branches of government have resisted calls to jail reporters. “No president gets to jail journalists,” the group said in a written statement on Tuesday.

“Reporters are protected by judges and juries, by a congress that relies on them to stay informed, and by a Justice Department that for decades has honored the role of a free press by spurning prosecutions of journalists for publishing leaks of classified information,” it continued.

Also Read: Comey Chaos Pays Off: CNN’s Primetime Ratings Up 53 Percent Last Week

Most of press freedoms have come from Supreme Court decisions involving civil lawsuits, not criminal cases.

The press relies heavily on the landmark Pentagon Papers case from 1971 in which the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot block publication of classified federal documents without concrete evidence of immediate, irreparable harm, akin to publishing the location of U.S. troops during war.

Also Read: Kellyanne Conway Insists She Doesn’t Secretly Hate Trump

The court rejected the Nixon administration’s request to stop the New York Times and Washington Post from reporting about secret documents revealing that the government knew the Vietnam War was fruitless.

But three justices suggested that the Nixon administration could prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing classified documents. The Nixon administration, however, did not try to prosecute the newspapers.

The two men who leaked the Pentagon Papers — including military analyst Daniel Ellsberg — were charged with a felony under the Espionage Act, but the case was thrown out by a Los Angeles judge due to misconduct by the Nixon administration.

Also Read: Fox News’ Kimberly Guilfoyle Says She’s in Talks With Trump Team to Replace Sean Spicer

In a different case, Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Supreme Court ruled that a news organization cannot be sued for reporting about materials even though the materials were illegally obtained by a third party. But the news organization is free from liability only if it did not directly encourage someone to act illegally to get the documents and the materials are a matter of public concern.

But now we come to the Espionage Act of 1917. The federal law was created to prosecute spies, but it is so broadly worded that some fear it could be used against journalists.

The law makes it a felony for an unauthorized person to receive or “communicate” “national defense” information to others with reason to believe that it could harm the United States or assist a foreign enemy. The punishment ranges from a $10,000 fine to imprisonment.

The law has never been used against a journalist. Some legal experts argue that the law, if applied to journalists, is unconstitutional because it is vague, overbroad, and allows censorship of the press for lawfully obtained, critically important information.

Also Read: John Oliver Urges Congress to Intervene After James Comey Firing: ‘It’s On You’ (Video)

Already, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice is weighing filing Espionage Act charges laws against members of the WikiLeaks organization for its 2010 leak of diplomatic cables and military documents as well as the website’s disclosure of the CIA’s cyber-tools, the Post reported in April.

During President Barack Obama’s administration, an FBI agent alleged in a 2013 affidavit that a Fox News reporter who received leaked government information was a “co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act, but the reporter was never charged.

In 2005, an independent prosecutor persuaded a judge to jail New York Times reporter Judith Miller for contempt of court for three months for refusing to name her source in President George W. Bush’s administration. She was released after her source gave her permission to testify before a grand jury.

President John F. Kennedy lamented that if only his Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba had been leaked to the press before it took place, he might have called it off and saved himself and the country from the disastrous mission, according to a law review article about the Espionage Act and the First Amendment.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Hollywood Exasperated Over Trump’s Botched Handling of Israel: ‘It’s a Mess’

Kellyanne Conway Insists She Doesn’t Secretly Hate Trump

The Rock Is Already Leading Trump in the 2020 Presidential Race

No president has ever sent a reporter to jail for publishing embarrassing government leaks.

But President Donald Trump may want to change that. During a Feb. 14 meeting, the president urged then-FBI director James Comey to investigate and jail journalists for reporting leaks, according to the New York Times and Washington Post.

“Mr. Trump began the discussion by condemning leaks to the news media, saying that Mr. Comey should consider putting reporters in prison for publishing classified information,” the Times reported, citing unnamed officials who had seen a memo Comey wrote shortly after the meeting.

Could reporters really go to jail for publishing leaks?

The answer is probably not. But we don’t really know with 100 percent certainty because the federal government has never tried to jail reporters under such circumstances before. The wild card is a federal law called the Espionage Act of 1917.

The Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press noted that all three branches of government have resisted calls to jail reporters. “No president gets to jail journalists,” the group said in a written statement on Tuesday.

“Reporters are protected by judges and juries, by a congress that relies on them to stay informed, and by a Justice Department that for decades has honored the role of a free press by spurning prosecutions of journalists for publishing leaks of classified information,” it continued.

Most of press freedoms have come from Supreme Court decisions involving civil lawsuits, not criminal cases.

The press relies heavily on the landmark Pentagon Papers case from 1971 in which the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot block publication of classified federal documents without concrete evidence of immediate, irreparable harm, akin to publishing the location of U.S. troops during war.

The court rejected the Nixon administration’s request to stop the New York Times and Washington Post from reporting about secret documents revealing that the government knew the Vietnam War was fruitless.

But three justices suggested that the Nixon administration could prosecute the Times and the Post for violating the Espionage Act by publishing classified documents. The Nixon administration, however, did not try to prosecute the newspapers.

The two men who leaked the Pentagon Papers — including military analyst Daniel Ellsberg — were charged with a felony under the Espionage Act, but the case was thrown out by a Los Angeles judge due to misconduct by the Nixon administration.

In a different case, Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Supreme Court ruled that a news organization cannot be sued for reporting about materials even though the materials were illegally obtained by a third party. But the news organization is free from liability only if it did not directly encourage someone to act illegally to get the documents and the materials are a matter of public concern.

But now we come to the Espionage Act of 1917. The federal law was created to prosecute spies, but it is so broadly worded that some fear it could be used against journalists.

The law makes it a felony for an unauthorized person to receive or “communicate” “national defense” information to others with reason to believe that it could harm the United States or assist a foreign enemy. The punishment ranges from a $10,000 fine to imprisonment.

The law has never been used against a journalist. Some legal experts argue that the law, if applied to journalists, is unconstitutional because it is vague, overbroad, and allows censorship of the press for lawfully obtained, critically important information.

Already, the Trump administration’s Department of Justice is weighing filing Espionage Act charges laws against members of the WikiLeaks organization for its 2010 leak of diplomatic cables and military documents as well as the website’s disclosure of the CIA’s cyber-tools, the Post reported in April.

During President Barack Obama’s administration, an FBI agent alleged in a 2013 affidavit that a Fox News reporter who received leaked government information was a “co-conspirator” under the Espionage Act, but the reporter was never charged.

In 2005, an independent prosecutor persuaded a judge to jail New York Times reporter Judith Miller for contempt of court for three months for refusing to name her source in President George W. Bush’s administration. She was released after her source gave her permission to testify before a grand jury.

President John F. Kennedy lamented that if only his Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba had been leaked to the press before it took place, he might have called it off and saved himself and the country from the disastrous mission, according to a law review article about the Espionage Act and the First Amendment.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Hollywood Exasperated Over Trump's Botched Handling of Israel: 'It's a Mess'

Kellyanne Conway Insists She Doesn't Secretly Hate Trump

The Rock Is Already Leading Trump in the 2020 Presidential Race

President Trump’s Twitter-Bashing of Judges Used to Be Against the Law

President Donald Trump took to Twitter on Wednesday to bash yet another judge who ruled against him.

But Trump should be glad that judges have expanded First Amendment rights over the past century, because back in the good old days of the early 1900s, criticizing a judge meant a jail term in some states, according to esteemed First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams.

“He’s certainly supported in that speech. Presidents have first amendment rights too,” Abrams told TheWrap. “But it is amazing to even contemplate that at the beginning of the 20th century that he could have been severely punished … for saying just what he said.”

Also Read: Caitlyn Jenner to Seth Meyers: ‘My Loyalty Is Not With Donald Trump’ (Video)

In a series of tweets Wednesday, Trump blasted judges in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for blocking his immigration ban that has been dubbed a “Muslim ban” and blocking his bid to withdraw federal funding from sanctuary cities.

“First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities — both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!” Trump wrote.

Trump has criticized several judges for ruling against him, calling them “so-called judges,” “biased,” among other jabs.

But thanks to the free speech protections created by more modern Supreme Court rulings, Trump can continue his controversial practice of tweeting out criticisms of court decisions he doesn’t like without fear of going to jail. “He should be grateful indeed that he lives in a country with our level of protection,” Abrams said.

First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 26, 2017

 

Also Read: State Department Cuts Blog Post That Touts Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Resort

In his new book, “The Soul of the First Amendment,” Abrams recounts how a managing editor and reporter for the Chicago American were sentenced to jail in 1901 for criticizing a court decision. The sentencing judge said “if the matter published were to go unnoticed by the court it paved the way for other attacks, and that the judiciary, if not held, in respect, would fall, with all democratic government,” Abrams reported.

While Trump has broad free speech rights, the one thing he cannot do under the First Amendment is use the courts to block media reports about leaked documents, Abrams told TheWrap.

Abrams gives the example of Trump’s tax income returns, which were leaked to the New York Times last year.

“With Trump’s taxes . . . because it is so hard to get a prior restraint,” Abrams said, reporters are free to call Trump and ask him to comment about leaked documents without any fear that he could run to court and win an order blocking publication.”

Also Read: ACLU Backs Trump on First Amendment Right to Shout ‘Get ‘Em Out of Here!’ at Rally (Video)

Abrams should know: He helped win the 1971 Supreme Court decision allowing the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish the Pentagon Papers.

In that case, the Court unanimously denied the Nixon administration’s demand for a court order blocking publication of 7,000 pages of classified government documents that revealed four administrations had lied to the American public and Congress about the Vietnam War, and that Nixon had secretly expanded bombing to neighboring countries.

But Abrams has gone from First Amendment hero in the Pentagon Papers case to somewhat of a First Amendment pariah for his work in the notorious 2010 Citizens United case. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its ruling that money is speech, and that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns through independent advocacy campaigns.

“[Keith] Olbermann compared me to a Nazi” for helping win the Citizens United case, Abrams said, referring to the then-MSNBC commentator. “He said I was the Quisling of the First Amendment, and I thought, wow, that’s not just . . . over the top, but it was strange, the very the brutality of the comment, the degree to which that case seemed to so many people to be not just wrong, but illegitimate.”

Also Read: State Department Cuts Blog Post That Touts Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Resort

Abrams is quick to point out that he did not represent the plaintiff, nonprofit corporation Citizens United, but he did represent Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell in a friend-of-the-court brief that advocated on behalf of  Citizens United. Abrams participated in oral arguments, urging the court to issue an expansive ruling.

Abrams does not regret working for the side of the corporations in Citizens United. “It’s a learning process, to be in a First Amendment case . . . on the less popular side,” he said. “I’m not sorry.”

The New York-based attorney, who is 80 and still carries a full case load, said he wrote his 137-page book to teach non-lawyers about the history of the First Amendment and how its expansive protection for ordinary citizens and reporters has created a more open society than in Europe.

Related stories from TheWrap:

State Department Cuts Blog Post That Touts Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Resort

ACLU Backs Trump on First Amendment Right to Shout ‘Get ‘Em Out of Here!’ at Rally (Video)

Ivanka Trump Booed at Women’s Panel in Germany After Praising Her Dad

Trevor Noah Rips Trump’s First 100 Days: ‘You Don’t Get to Disregard the Number’ (Video)

Trump Jokes About Firing Nikki Haley – in Front of Nikki Haley (Video)

Obama Skips the Trump Jabs in Return to Public Eye

President Donald Trump took to Twitter on Wednesday to bash yet another judge who ruled against him.

But Trump should be glad that judges have expanded First Amendment rights over the past century, because back in the good old days of the early 1900s, criticizing a judge meant a jail term in some states, according to esteemed First Amendment attorney Floyd Abrams.

“He’s certainly supported in that speech. Presidents have first amendment rights too,” Abrams told TheWrap. “But it is amazing to even contemplate that at the beginning of the 20th century that he could have been severely punished … for saying just what he said.”

In a series of tweets Wednesday, Trump blasted judges in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for blocking his immigration ban that has been dubbed a “Muslim ban” and blocking his bid to withdraw federal funding from sanctuary cities.

“First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities — both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!” Trump wrote.

Trump has criticized several judges for ruling against him, calling them “so-called judges,” “biased,” among other jabs.

But thanks to the free speech protections created by more modern Supreme Court rulings, Trump can continue his controversial practice of tweeting out criticisms of court decisions he doesn’t like without fear of going to jail. “He should be grateful indeed that he lives in a country with our level of protection,” Abrams said.

 

In his new book, “The Soul of the First Amendment,” Abrams recounts how a managing editor and reporter for the Chicago American were sentenced to jail in 1901 for criticizing a court decision. The sentencing judge said “if the matter published were to go unnoticed by the court it paved the way for other attacks, and that the judiciary, if not held, in respect, would fall, with all democratic government,” Abrams reported.

While Trump has broad free speech rights, the one thing he cannot do under the First Amendment is use the courts to block media reports about leaked documents, Abrams told TheWrap.

Abrams gives the example of Trump’s tax income returns, which were leaked to the New York Times last year.

“With Trump’s taxes . . . because it is so hard to get a prior restraint,” Abrams said, reporters are free to call Trump and ask him to comment about leaked documents without any fear that he could run to court and win an order blocking publication.”

Abrams should know: He helped win the 1971 Supreme Court decision allowing the New York Times and the Washington Post to publish the Pentagon Papers.

In that case, the Court unanimously denied the Nixon administration’s demand for a court order blocking publication of 7,000 pages of classified government documents that revealed four administrations had lied to the American public and Congress about the Vietnam War, and that Nixon had secretly expanded bombing to neighboring countries.

But Abrams has gone from First Amendment hero in the Pentagon Papers case to somewhat of a First Amendment pariah for his work in the notorious 2010 Citizens United case. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its ruling that money is speech, and that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns through independent advocacy campaigns.

“[Keith] Olbermann compared me to a Nazi” for helping win the Citizens United case, Abrams said, referring to the then-MSNBC commentator. “He said I was the Quisling of the First Amendment, and I thought, wow, that’s not just . . . over the top, but it was strange, the very the brutality of the comment, the degree to which that case seemed to so many people to be not just wrong, but illegitimate.”

Abrams is quick to point out that he did not represent the plaintiff, nonprofit corporation Citizens United, but he did represent Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell in a friend-of-the-court brief that advocated on behalf of  Citizens United. Abrams participated in oral arguments, urging the court to issue an expansive ruling.

Abrams does not regret working for the side of the corporations in Citizens United. “It’s a learning process, to be in a First Amendment case . . . on the less popular side,” he said. “I’m not sorry.”

The New York-based attorney, who is 80 and still carries a full case load, said he wrote his 137-page book to teach non-lawyers about the history of the First Amendment and how its expansive protection for ordinary citizens and reporters has created a more open society than in Europe.

Related stories from TheWrap:

State Department Cuts Blog Post That Touts Trump's Mar-a-Lago Resort

ACLU Backs Trump on First Amendment Right to Shout 'Get 'Em Out of Here!' at Rally (Video)

Ivanka Trump Booed at Women's Panel in Germany After Praising Her Dad

Trevor Noah Rips Trump's First 100 Days: 'You Don't Get to Disregard the Number' (Video)

Trump Jokes About Firing Nikki Haley – in Front of Nikki Haley (Video)

Obama Skips the Trump Jabs in Return to Public Eye

ACLU Backs Trump on First Amendment Right to Shout ‘Get ‘Em Out of Here!’ at Rally (Video)

Talk about strange bedfellows.

In a rare show of unity with President Donald Trump, the American Civil Liberties Union agrees with the chief executive’s argument that he had a First Amendment right to yell “Get ‘em out of here!” at his campaign rallies last year even if protesters ended up “manhandled by the crowd.”

“There is no question that Trump’s decision to use his bully pulpit to actually bully protesters and to rile up his crowds against them is morally despicable,” Lee Rowland, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, wrote in her April 20 blog post about the lawsuit.

But Trump should be dismissed from a Kentucky lawsuit brought against the president by three protesters who claim Trump’s words intentionally incited violence against them, Rowland wrote.

Also Read: Ivanka Trump Booed at Women’s Panel in Germany After Praising Her Dad

“It’s important to remember that political candidates — including Donald Trump — have constitutional rights, too,” Rowland wrote.

“It is never a good time to alter the law so that more speech can be punished, the ACLU lawyer said in her post. “Political speech should qualify as incitement only if it is unequivocally and inherently a request for violent and unlawful action.

“‘Get ‘em out’ just doesn’t meet that bar,” she said.

Also Read: Every ‘SNL’ Alec Baldwin Donald Trump Sketch Ranked, From Least to Most Retweetable (Photos)

The ACLU is publicly supporting Trump in the Kentucky lawsuit at the same time the civil rights group has filed several lawsuits against Trump over his now-delayed ban on travel from Muslim-majority countries on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment prohibition against religious discrimination.

Rowland wrote in her post that there is insufficient evidence that Trump intentionally incited violence and the protesters’ claim of negligent incitement of violence is barred by the First Amendment.

She cited several Supreme Court decisions that found First Amendment protections for emotionally charged, controversial political speeches so long as they are not “likely to cause imminent and serious lawlessness.”

Incitement allegations are dangerous because they can be used to chill legitimate speech, she warned. “Incitement charges have been used to jail anti-war protestors, labor picketers, Communists, and civil rights activists,” Rowland said in her post.

Also Read: Twitter Looks At Movies From a Trump Angle with #SpicerSpinsMoviePlots (Photos)

Trump’s lawyers have argued in the Kentucky case that his campaign speech was not intended to incite violence, the protesters did not have a First Amendment right to protest at the rally, and his speech is absolutely protected by the First Amendment as a political speech.

A judge rejected Trump’s arguments and refused to dismiss the case, at least at the early stage. The three plaintiffs, Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah and Henry Brousseau, allege that Trump knew about the history of violence against protesters at his rallies and his “Get ‘em out of here” instruction was intended to incite further violence by his supporters against protesters.

The protesters point to Trump’s statements at earlier rallies that “maybe [a protester] should have been roughed up,” his urging to supporters to “knock the crap” out of anyone “ready to throw a tomato,” and he would “like to punch [a protester] in the face,” as well as Trump’s pledge to pay for his supporters’ legal fees if they were sued by protesters.

Nwanguma, who is African-American, alleges she was repeatedly shoved by Matthew Heimbach, who is affiliated with the Traditional Worker Party and is opposed to interracial marriage. She also alleges she was shoved and hit by Alvin Bamberger.

Also Read: The 28 Most-Watched Cable News Shows of 2017 So Far, From Rachel Maddow to Tucker Carlson (Photos)

Shah also claims she was repeatedly shoved by Bamberger.

Brousseau, a 17-year-old high school student, claims he was punched in the stomach by an unknown Trump supporter.

Bamberger is seen on several videos at the March 1, 2016 rally wearing a Korean War Veterans hat and repeatedly shoving Nwanguma. He said in his court answer to the lawsuit that he “admits only that he touched a woman” and “denies that he assaulted that woman.”

Bamberger’s lawyers wrote that “to the extent that Bamberger acted, he did so in response to — and inspired by — Trump and/or the Trump Campaign’s urging to remove the protesters.”

Bamberger also filed a counterclaim against Trump and his campaign, arguing that Trump or his campaign should pay for any legal judgment Nwanguma wins against him.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Trump Jokes About Firing Nikki Haley – in Front of Nikki Haley (Video)

Trump Pins 100-Day Plan He Put Out on ‘Somebody’ Else

Trump Is ‘Unintelligible’ in AP Interview, Twitter Responds: ‘No Kidding’

Trump Lawyers: Demonstrators Had No Constitutional Right to Protest at His Campaign Rally

Talk about strange bedfellows.

In a rare show of unity with President Donald Trump, the American Civil Liberties Union agrees with the chief executive’s argument that he had a First Amendment right to yell “Get ‘em out of here!” at his campaign rallies last year even if protesters ended up “manhandled by the crowd.”

“There is no question that Trump’s decision to use his bully pulpit to actually bully protesters and to rile up his crowds against them is morally despicable,” Lee Rowland, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, wrote in her April 20 blog post about the lawsuit.

But Trump should be dismissed from a Kentucky lawsuit brought against the president by three protesters who claim Trump’s words intentionally incited violence against them, Rowland wrote.

“It’s important to remember that political candidates — including Donald Trump — have constitutional rights, too,” Rowland wrote.

“It is never a good time to alter the law so that more speech can be punished, the ACLU lawyer said in her post. “Political speech should qualify as incitement only if it is unequivocally and inherently a request for violent and unlawful action.

“‘Get ‘em out’ just doesn’t meet that bar,” she said.

The ACLU is publicly supporting Trump in the Kentucky lawsuit at the same time the civil rights group has filed several lawsuits against Trump over his now-delayed ban on travel from Muslim-majority countries on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment prohibition against religious discrimination.

Rowland wrote in her post that there is insufficient evidence that Trump intentionally incited violence and the protesters’ claim of negligent incitement of violence is barred by the First Amendment.

She cited several Supreme Court decisions that found First Amendment protections for emotionally charged, controversial political speeches so long as they are not “likely to cause imminent and serious lawlessness.”

Incitement allegations are dangerous because they can be used to chill legitimate speech, she warned. “Incitement charges have been used to jail anti-war protestors, labor picketers, Communists, and civil rights activists,” Rowland said in her post.

Trump’s lawyers have argued in the Kentucky case that his campaign speech was not intended to incite violence, the protesters did not have a First Amendment right to protest at the rally, and his speech is absolutely protected by the First Amendment as a political speech.

A judge rejected Trump’s arguments and refused to dismiss the case, at least at the early stage. The three plaintiffs, Kashiya Nwanguma, Molly Shah and Henry Brousseau, allege that Trump knew about the history of violence against protesters at his rallies and his “Get ‘em out of here” instruction was intended to incite further violence by his supporters against protesters.

The protesters point to Trump’s statements at earlier rallies that “maybe [a protester] should have been roughed up,” his urging to supporters to “knock the crap” out of anyone “ready to throw a tomato,” and he would “like to punch [a protester] in the face,” as well as Trump’s pledge to pay for his supporters’ legal fees if they were sued by protesters.

Nwanguma, who is African-American, alleges she was repeatedly shoved by Matthew Heimbach, who is affiliated with the Traditional Worker Party and is opposed to interracial marriage. She also alleges she was shoved and hit by Alvin Bamberger.

Shah also claims she was repeatedly shoved by Bamberger.

Brousseau, a 17-year-old high school student, claims he was punched in the stomach by an unknown Trump supporter.

Bamberger is seen on several videos at the March 1, 2016 rally wearing a Korean War Veterans hat and repeatedly shoving Nwanguma. He said in his court answer to the lawsuit that he “admits only that he touched a woman” and “denies that he assaulted that woman.”

Bamberger’s lawyers wrote that “to the extent that Bamberger acted, he did so in response to — and inspired by — Trump and/or the Trump Campaign’s urging to remove the protesters.”

Bamberger also filed a counterclaim against Trump and his campaign, arguing that Trump or his campaign should pay for any legal judgment Nwanguma wins against him.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Trump Jokes About Firing Nikki Haley – in Front of Nikki Haley (Video)

Trump Pins 100-Day Plan He Put Out on 'Somebody' Else

Trump Is 'Unintelligible' in AP Interview, Twitter Responds: 'No Kidding'

Trump Lawyers: Demonstrators Had No Constitutional Right to Protest at His Campaign Rally

Donald Trump Takes Victory Lap At Neil Gorsuch SCOTUS Swearing In: “You Think That’s Easy?”

President Donald Trump took a victory lap this morning at the swearing in of his pick for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch.
At the Rose Garden ceremony, Trump boasted the swearing in of a new Supreme Court justice “is something so special. I’ve always heard that the most important thing that a President of the United States does…I can say, this is a great honor – and I got it done in the first 100 days!”
“You think that’s easy?” Trump boasted at the swearing…

President Donald Trump took a victory lap this morning at the swearing in of his pick for the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch. At the Rose Garden ceremony, Trump boasted the swearing in of a new Supreme Court justice "is something so special. I've always heard that the most important thing that a President of the United States does…I can say, this is a great honor – and I got it done in the first 100 days!" "You think that's easy?" Trump boasted at the swearing…

Senate Confirms Neil Gorsuch to Supreme Court

Neil Gorsuch won confirmation as an associate justice to the Supreme Court, one day after Senate Republicans abandoned longtime tradition to overcome a Democratic filibuster. Senate Republicans obtained 51 votes to confirm his nomination just before noon on Friday, as the roll call continued. Gorsuch’s confirmation was a given after the Senate on Thursday voted… Read more »

Neil Gorsuch won confirmation as an associate justice to the Supreme Court, one day after Senate Republicans abandoned longtime tradition to overcome a Democratic filibuster. Senate Republicans obtained 51 votes to confirm his nomination just before noon on Friday, as the roll call continued. Gorsuch’s confirmation was a given after the Senate on Thursday voted... Read more »

Al Franken Grills Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch: “I Had A Career Identifying Absurdity And I Know It When I See It”

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch kept his cool for the most part during today’s one-part-contentious-one-part-treacle confirmation hearing. Mostly the TV news cameras following the hearing lapped up his Mr. Smith Goes To Washington routine, complete with lengthy explanation to bemused Washingtonians about the fine art of “mutton busting,” and the annual stock show parade that makes its way up Denver’s 17th Avenue each year.
But Gorsuch seemed to drop the Jimmy Stewart…

Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch kept his cool for the most part during today's one-part-contentious-one-part-treacle confirmation hearing. Mostly the TV news cameras following the hearing lapped up his Mr. Smith Goes To Washington routine, complete with lengthy explanation to bemused Washingtonians about the fine art of “mutton busting,” and the annual stock show parade that makes its way up Denver's 17th Avenue each year. But Gorsuch seemed to drop the Jimmy Stewart…

Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Cites His Decision in A&E Case in Query Over Libel Laws

Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s pick to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, was asked at Tuesday’s Senate confirmation hearing whether he agreed with longstanding precedent when it came to libel and defamation. It’s a key concern in media circles, as Trump said during the campaign that he wanted to “open up” libel laws… Read more »

Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s pick to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, was asked at Tuesday’s Senate confirmation hearing whether he agreed with longstanding precedent when it came to libel and defamation. It’s a key concern in media circles, as Trump said during the campaign that he wanted to “open up” libel laws... Read more »

Neil Gorsuch Nominated To Supreme Court — D.C. and Hollywood React

Donald Trump announced his nomination for the Supreme Court of the United States Tuesday evening. President Trump said Judge Gorsuch possessed “outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, and tremendous discipline.” “The qualifications of Judge Gorsuch are beyond dispute,” he added. “I only hope Democrats and Republicans can come together — for once — for the good of the… Read more »

Donald Trump announced his nomination for the Supreme Court of the United States Tuesday evening. President Trump said Judge Gorsuch possessed “outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, and tremendous discipline.” “The qualifications of Judge Gorsuch are beyond dispute,” he added. “I only hope Democrats and Republicans can come together — for once — for the good of the... Read more »

Donald Trump Names Neil Gorsuch Winner Of ‘Extreme Makeover: SCOTUS Edition’ In Primetime Special

President Donald Trump named Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Antonin Scalia as Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, in a reality-TV-like primetime TV reveal.
Trump had narrowed the field from an announced roster of 21 hopefuls and named Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman as finalists to take the seat on the Supreme Court that has been vacant since Scalia died nearly a year ago. On Monday, Trump announced he would reveal the winner tonight in a primetime TV special.
“When…

President Donald Trump named Neil Gorsuch to replace the late Antonin Scalia as Associate Justice on the Supreme Court, in a reality-TV-like primetime TV reveal. Trump had narrowed the field from an announced roster of 21 hopefuls and named Gorsuch and Thomas Hardiman as finalists to take the seat on the Supreme Court that has been vacant since Scalia died nearly a year ago. On Monday, Trump announced he would reveal the winner tonight in a primetime TV special. “When…

Donald Trump Picks Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court Justice

President Trump selected Neil Gorsuch as his nominee to the Supreme Court, as both appeared at the White House in a primetime announcement that had shades of reality, drama, and suspense. “I pledge that if I am confirmed I will do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant of the Constitution and laws,”… Read more »

President Trump selected Neil Gorsuch as his nominee to the Supreme Court, as both appeared at the White House in a primetime announcement that had shades of reality, drama, and suspense. “I pledge that if I am confirmed I will do all my powers permit to be a faithful servant of the Constitution and laws,”... Read more »

He’s Hired: Trump Taps Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court

With the drama usually reserved for a “Bachelor”-like final rose ceremony, President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Neil Gorsuch was his pick for the empty seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I have selected an individual whose qualities define, really and I mean closely define, what we’re looking for,” Trump said in the East Room of the White House. “Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bi-partisan support.”

The 49-year-old Gorsuch is a conservative known as a strict originalist in interpreting the Constitution like Justice Antonin Scalia, whose seat he would fill if confirmed by the Republican-led Senate.

“Justice Scalia was a lion of the law,” Gorsuch said.

Also Read: Donald Trump Will Reveal Supreme Court Pick on Primetime TV

The White House made its announcement two days earlier than expected, following the administration’s contentious executive order last week banning immigration and travel from seven Muslim countries.

In true reality-show fashion, Trump tweeted that he was about to announce new pick for SCOTUS, telling his followers: “I have made my decision on who I will nominate for The United States Supreme Court. It will be announced live on Tuesday at 8:00 P.M. (W.H.).”

Adding to the cliff-hanger suspense, CNN reported Tuesday that Gorsuch and another candidate, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge Thomas Hardiman, were both brought to Washington ahead of the announcement.

Also Read: President Trump Won’t Roll Back Obama’s LGBTQ Protections, White House Says

Gorsuch was appointed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush in May 2006. If confirmed, the he would be the youngest nominee to the Supreme Court in the last 25 years.

A graduate of Harvard Law School with a Ph.D. from Oxford University, he clerked for prominent conservative judges such as Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Judge David Sentelle, Supreme Court Justice Byron White and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Gorsuch is best known for siding with religious organizations opposed to parts of the Affordable Care Act that required coverage of contraceptives.

In 2014’s landmark case Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Oklahoma-based Christian chain of retail arts and crafts stores, Gorsuch wrote in his concurrence  that the contraception mandate substantially burdened the company’s religious exercise.

Also Read: ‘Morning Joe’ Rips Trump Administration for ‘Frightening’ Language in Sally Yates Firing (Video)

While on the campaign trail, Trump released a list of 11 names of possible Supreme Court candidates to fill the vacancy left by the death of Scalia last February at age 79. Both Grouch and Hardiman were on the list.

Barack Obama had named Merrick Garland, chief justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, to fill Scalia’s vacancy. The Republican-led Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, creating a major issue in the presidential campaign.

I have made my decision on who I will nominate for The United States Supreme Court. It will be announced live on Tuesday at 8:00 P.M. (W.H.)

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 30, 2017

Related stories from TheWrap:

Thousands Demand Disney CEO Bob Iger Speak Out Against Trump Travel Ban

AFI Slams Trump’s Travel Ban: ‘Against All Values We Cherish’

President Trump Won’t Roll Back Obama’s LGBTQ Protections, White House Says

With the drama usually reserved for a “Bachelor”-like final rose ceremony, President Donald Trump announced Tuesday that 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Neil Gorsuch was his pick for the empty seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I have selected an individual whose qualities define, really and I mean closely define, what we’re looking for,” Trump said in the East Room of the White House. “Judge Gorsuch has outstanding legal skills, a brilliant mind, tremendous discipline and has earned bi-partisan support.”

The 49-year-old Gorsuch is a conservative known as a strict originalist in interpreting the Constitution like Justice Antonin Scalia, whose seat he would fill if confirmed by the Republican-led Senate.

“Justice Scalia was a lion of the law,” Gorsuch said.

The White House made its announcement two days earlier than expected, following the administration’s contentious executive order last week banning immigration and travel from seven Muslim countries.

In true reality-show fashion, Trump tweeted that he was about to announce new pick for SCOTUS, telling his followers: “I have made my decision on who I will nominate for The United States Supreme Court. It will be announced live on Tuesday at 8:00 P.M. (W.H.).”

Adding to the cliff-hanger suspense, CNN reported Tuesday that Gorsuch and another candidate, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge Thomas Hardiman, were both brought to Washington ahead of the announcement.

Gorsuch was appointed to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals by President George W. Bush in May 2006. If confirmed, the he would be the youngest nominee to the Supreme Court in the last 25 years.

A graduate of Harvard Law School with a Ph.D. from Oxford University, he clerked for prominent conservative judges such as Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Judge David Sentelle, Supreme Court Justice Byron White and Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Gorsuch is best known for siding with religious organizations opposed to parts of the Affordable Care Act that required coverage of contraceptives.

In 2014’s landmark case Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby Stores, the Oklahoma-based Christian chain of retail arts and crafts stores, Gorsuch wrote in his concurrence  that the contraception mandate substantially burdened the company’s religious exercise.

While on the campaign trail, Trump released a list of 11 names of possible Supreme Court candidates to fill the vacancy left by the death of Scalia last February at age 79. Both Grouch and Hardiman were on the list.

Barack Obama had named Merrick Garland, chief justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, to fill Scalia’s vacancy. The Republican-led Senate refused to hold a hearing or vote on his nomination, creating a major issue in the presidential campaign.

Related stories from TheWrap:

Thousands Demand Disney CEO Bob Iger Speak Out Against Trump Travel Ban

AFI Slams Trump's Travel Ban: 'Against All Values We Cherish'

President Trump Won't Roll Back Obama's LGBTQ Protections, White House Says

Donald Trump To Reveal Winner Of ‘Extreme Makeover: SCOTUS Edition’ At 8 PM ET

In what could be the largest audience ever for a reality TV series reveal, President Donald Trump will tonight unveil the winner of Extreme Makeover: SCOTUS Edition, carried live by the broadcast networks, the cable news networks, and streamed live on Facebook.
Trump has narrowed the field from 21 hopefuls selected for him by a conservative think tank, and will announce tonight at 8 PM ET whether Neil Gorsuch or Thomas Hardiman take the seat on the Supreme Court that has…

In what could be the largest audience ever for a reality TV series reveal, President Donald Trump will tonight unveil the winner of Extreme Makeover: SCOTUS Edition, carried live by the broadcast networks, the cable news networks, and streamed live on Facebook. Trump has narrowed the field from 21 hopefuls selected for him by a conservative think tank, and will announce tonight at 8 PM ET whether Neil Gorsuch or Thomas Hardiman take the seat on the Supreme Court that has…

Trump to Announce Supreme Court Nominee on Facebook Live, YouTube

President Trump will announce his pick for the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday at 8 p.m. Eastern — and he’s playing up the broadcast of the announcement live on Facebook. The president will announce the pick on the POTUS Facebook page starting at 8 p.m., and the White House also will live-stream the announcement on YouTube (at… Read more »

President Trump will announce his pick for the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday at 8 p.m. Eastern — and he’s playing up the broadcast of the announcement live on Facebook. The president will announce the pick on the POTUS Facebook page starting at 8 p.m., and the White House also will live-stream the announcement on YouTube (at... Read more »

Jimmy Fallon’s Donald Trump Demonstrates Why First Week In Office Not Chaotic

Jimmy Fallon brought back his Donald Trump, to respond to critics by explaining the scientific process behind his executive orders during his first week in the Oval Office.
“I want to address the complaints that two or three dozen people had over the weekend. I’m talking about the immigration ban,” President Trump said. “Look people, I’ve made my position on immigration very clear: when it comes to immigrants you have two choices, either get out of here, or marry…

Jimmy Fallon brought back his Donald Trump, to respond to critics by explaining the scientific process behind his executive orders during his first week in the Oval Office. "I want to address the complaints that two or three dozen people had over the weekend. I'm talking about the immigration ban,” President Trump said. “Look people, I've made my position on immigration very clear: when it comes to immigrants you have two choices, either get out of here, or marry…

Donald Trump Moves Supreme Court Choice Reveal To Tuesday Primetime, Sending Networks Scrambling

President Donald Trump, master showman, tweeted an announcement this morning that he will reveal the name of his Supreme Court pick on Tuesday night – in primetime.
Broadcast networks are exploring their options after this morning’s switcheroo, and trying to get more information which is to say trying to find out how longer the former Celebrity Apprentice star intends to speak.
Trump previously had said he would reveal the winner of the competition to replace Supreme…

President Donald Trump, master showman, tweeted an announcement this morning that he will reveal the name of his Supreme Court pick on Tuesday night – in primetime. Broadcast networks are exploring their options after this morning’s switcheroo, and trying to get more information which is to say trying to find out how longer the former Celebrity Apprentice star intends to speak. Trump previously had said he would reveal the winner of the competition to replace Supreme…

Brexit: U.K. Parliament Wins Power to Trigger Departure from European Union

Britain’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that only Parliament has the power to trigger the country’s exit from the European Union, not the government, dealing a blow to Prime Minister Theresa May but probably not impeding the withdrawal process. To leave the E.U., Parliament has to invoke Article 50, the E.U. treaty provision that initiates a… Read more »

Britain’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that only Parliament has the power to trigger the country’s exit from the European Union, not the government, dealing a blow to Prime Minister Theresa May but probably not impeding the withdrawal process. To leave the E.U., Parliament has to invoke Article 50, the E.U. treaty provision that initiates a... Read more »

Donald Trump Proposes Jail For Flag Burners, Triggers Morning TV News

Perpetually pivoting President-elect Donald Trump took a break from CNN bashing this morning to state people who burn the American flag should be stripped of their citizenship or spend a year in the slammer:

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016

The Supreme Court decades ago determined flag burning in protest is…

Perpetually pivoting President-elect Donald Trump took a break from CNN bashing this morning to state people who burn the American flag should be stripped of their citizenship or spend a year in the slammer: Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag – if they do, there must be consequences – perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2016 The Supreme Court decades ago determined flag burning in protest is…