Politics & Government
Tue, July 29, 2025
[ Today @ 01:09 PM ]: Patch
[ Today @ 12:09 PM ]: Bloomberg L.P.
[ Today @ 09:09 AM ]: KIRO-TV
[ Today @ 08:49 AM ]: ThePrint
[ Today @ 06:09 AM ]: CNN
[ Today @ 05:49 AM ]: nbcnews.com
[ Today @ 04:50 AM ]: Newsweek
[ Today @ 04:49 AM ]: legit
[ Today @ 04:29 AM ]: CNN
[ Today @ 04:09 AM ]: The Daily Star
[ Today @ 01:29 AM ]: moneycontrol.com
[ Today @ 01:29 AM ]: The Hans India
[ Today @ 12:28 AM ]: The West Australian
Mon, July 28, 2025
[ Yesterday Evening ]: CNN
[ Yesterday Evening ]: Deseret News
[ Yesterday Evening ]: Forbes
[ Yesterday Evening ]: Kyiv Independent
[ Yesterday Evening ]: Foreign Policy
[ Yesterday Evening ]: CNN
[ Yesterday Evening ]: The Advocate
[ Yesterday Evening ]: nbcnews.com
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: CNN
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: CNN
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: CNN
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: Fox News
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: rnz
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: legit
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: CNN
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: CNN
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: Newsweek
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: CNN
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: CNN
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: Phys.org
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: syracuse.com
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: Cleveland.com
[ Yesterday Afternoon ]: Patch
[ Yesterday Morning ]: legit
[ Yesterday Morning ]: Oklahoma Voice
[ Yesterday Morning ]: Seeking Alpha
[ Yesterday Morning ]: The Courier-Journal
[ Yesterday Morning ]: Maine Morning Star
[ Yesterday Morning ]: The Advocate
Sun, July 27, 2025
[ Last Sunday ]: The Hans India
[ Last Sunday ]: KLAS articles
[ Last Sunday ]: CNN
[ Last Sunday ]: Associated Press
[ Last Sunday ]: London Evening Standard
[ Last Sunday ]: USA TODAY
[ Last Sunday ]: The Australian
[ Last Sunday ]: CNN
[ Last Sunday ]: Fox News
[ Last Sunday ]: CNN
[ Last Sunday ]: World Socialist Web Site
[ Last Sunday ]: Patch
[ Last Sunday ]: Cowboy State Daily
[ Last Sunday ]: Forbes
[ Last Sunday ]: BBC
[ Last Sunday ]: Forbes
[ Last Sunday ]: The Arizona Republic
[ Last Sunday ]: Fox News
[ Last Sunday ]: OPB
[ Last Sunday ]: CNN
[ Last Sunday ]: Toronto Star
[ Last Sunday ]: Fox News
[ Last Sunday ]: Le Monde.fr
[ Last Sunday ]: Free Malaysia Today
[ Last Sunday ]: Toronto Star
[ Last Sunday ]: Honolulu Star-Advertiser
[ Last Sunday ]: The Courier-Journal
[ Last Sunday ]: Le Monde.fr
[ Last Sunday ]: Fox News
[ Last Sunday ]: BBC
[ Last Sunday ]: BBC
[ Last Sunday ]: BBC
Sat, July 26, 2025
[ Last Saturday ]: Townhall
[ Last Saturday ]: the-sun.com
[ Last Saturday ]: news4sanantonio
[ Last Saturday ]: legit
[ Last Saturday ]: Yen.com.gh
[ Last Saturday ]: The New Indian Express
[ Last Saturday ]: Cowboy State Daily
[ Last Saturday ]: Fox News
[ Last Saturday ]: CNN
[ Last Saturday ]: NJ.com
[ Last Saturday ]: CNN
[ Last Saturday ]: CNN
[ Last Saturday ]: CNN
[ Last Saturday ]: CNN
[ Last Saturday ]: CNN
[ Last Saturday ]: CNN
[ Last Saturday ]: CNN
[ Last Saturday ]: Le Monde.fr
[ Last Saturday ]: MSNBC
[ Last Saturday ]: rnz
[ Last Saturday ]: The Hans India
Fri, July 25, 2025
[ Last Friday ]: CNN
[ Last Friday ]: nbcnews.com
[ Last Friday ]: CNN
[ Last Friday ]: Fox News
[ Last Friday ]: Patch
[ Last Friday ]: United Press International
[ Last Friday ]: CNN
[ Last Friday ]: CNN
[ Last Friday ]: World Politics Review Articles
[ Last Friday ]: Le Monde.fr
[ Last Friday ]: CNN
[ Last Friday ]: Toronto Star
[ Last Friday ]: Fox News
[ Last Friday ]: The Independent
[ Last Friday ]: CNN
[ Last Friday ]: Fox News
[ Last Friday ]: CNN
[ Last Friday ]: moneycontrol.com
[ Last Friday ]: rediff.com
Thu, July 24, 2025
[ Last Thursday ]: CNN
[ Last Thursday ]: AFP
[ Last Thursday ]: Fox News
[ Last Thursday ]: Le Monde.fr
[ Last Thursday ]: CBS News
[ Last Thursday ]: The Globe and Mail
[ Last Thursday ]: Fox 11 News
[ Last Thursday ]: CNN
[ Last Thursday ]: United Press International
[ Last Thursday ]: UPI
[ Last Thursday ]: Ghanaweb.com
[ Last Thursday ]: Al Jazeera English
[ Last Thursday ]: Time
[ Last Thursday ]: Associated Press
[ Last Thursday ]: Patch
[ Last Thursday ]: The New Indian Express
[ Last Thursday ]: Patch
[ Last Thursday ]: The Straits Times
[ Last Thursday ]: Ghanaweb.com
[ Last Thursday ]: thetimes.com
[ Last Thursday ]: Atlanta Journal-Constitution
[ Last Thursday ]: CNN
[ Last Thursday ]: The Independent US
[ Last Thursday ]: The Daily Star
[ Last Thursday ]: CNN
[ Last Thursday ]: CNN
Wed, July 23, 2025
[ Last Wednesday ]: The New Zealand Herald
[ Last Wednesday ]: ThePrint
[ Last Wednesday ]: The Citizen
[ Last Wednesday ]: Seeking Alpha
[ Last Wednesday ]: CNN
[ Last Wednesday ]: CNN
[ Last Wednesday ]: Fox News
[ Last Wednesday ]: NBC Washington
[ Last Wednesday ]: rnz
[ Last Wednesday ]: The Telegraph
[ Last Wednesday ]: The Independent US
[ Last Wednesday ]: OPB
[ Last Wednesday ]: CNN
[ Last Wednesday ]: PBS
[ Last Wednesday ]: CNN
[ Last Wednesday ]: The Daily Star
[ Last Wednesday ]: nbcnews.com
[ Last Wednesday ]: The Economist
[ Last Wednesday ]: USA TODAY
[ Last Wednesday ]: dpa international
[ Last Wednesday ]: legit
[ Last Wednesday ]: Patch
[ Last Wednesday ]: WSB-TV
[ Last Wednesday ]: Fox News
[ Last Wednesday ]: Futurism
[ Last Wednesday ]: Yen.com.gh
[ Last Wednesday ]: The Independent US
[ Last Wednesday ]: moneycontrol.com
[ Last Wednesday ]: The West Australian
[ Last Wednesday ]: CNN
[ Last Wednesday ]: CNN
[ Last Wednesday ]: CNN
[ Last Wednesday ]: The News International
[ Last Wednesday ]: The Citizen
[ Last Wednesday ]: Associated Press
[ Last Wednesday ]: Cowboy State Daily
[ Last Wednesday ]: CNN
[ Last Wednesday ]: BBC
Tue, July 22, 2025
[ Last Tuesday ]: London Evening Standard
[ Last Tuesday ]: The New Indian Express
[ Last Tuesday ]: Forbes
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: rnz
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: reuters.com
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: CNN
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Patch
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: federalnewsnetwork.com
[ Tue, Jul 22nd ]: Tech.co
Analysis: Supreme Court shows unflinching regard for Trump | CNN Politics
//politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. s-unflinching-regard-for-trump-cnn-politics.html
Published in Politics and Government on Tuesday, July 29th 2025 at 4:29 GMT by CNN🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source
Ever since Chief Justice John Roberts swore in Donald Trump at the US Capitol January 20 - with the eight other Supreme Court justices looking on - the question has been whether they would restrain a president who vowed to upend the constitutional order.
Supreme Court Shows Unflinching Regard for Trump in Landmark Rulings
In a series of decisions that have reshaped the landscape of American jurisprudence, the United States Supreme Court has demonstrated what many legal experts describe as an unflinching regard for former President Donald Trump. Over the past year, the Court's conservative majority has issued rulings that not only bolster Trump's legal defenses but also appear to align closely with his political narrative, raising questions about the institution's impartiality and its role in the nation's polarized political environment. This pattern, evident in cases ranging from presidential immunity to election interference, underscores a judiciary that seems increasingly attuned to Trump's influence, even as he eyes a potential return to the White House in the 2028 election.
The most prominent example came in the Court's July 2024 decision on presidential immunity, where Chief Justice John Roberts penned a majority opinion granting broad protections to former presidents for official acts. The case stemmed from Trump's federal indictment related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court held that presidents enjoy "absolute immunity" for actions within their core constitutional powers and "presumptive immunity" for other official acts. This effectively shielded Trump from prosecution in several key areas, remanding the case back to lower courts with strict guidelines that make conviction exceedingly difficult. Critics, including dissenting Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, argued that the decision creates a "law-free zone" around the presidency, potentially allowing future leaders to act with impunity.
Legal scholars have pointed out that this ruling goes beyond previous precedents like Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which granted civil immunity, by extending it to criminal matters. "The Court has essentially rewritten the Constitution to favor one individual," said constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe in an interview. "This isn't about protecting the office; it's about protecting Trump." Supporters of the decision, however, maintain that it preserves the separation of powers, preventing the judiciary from unduly interfering in executive functions. Trump's legal team hailed it as a vindication, with the former president posting on Truth Social: "The Supreme Court has restored justice! No more witch hunts!"
This immunity ruling is not an isolated incident. In another significant case, the Court in March 2025 overturned a Colorado Supreme Court decision that had disqualified Trump from the state's primary ballot under the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that states lack the authority to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment against federal candidates, effectively clearing the path for Trump to appear on ballots nationwide. While the decision was unanimous, the conservative justices went further in a concurring opinion, suggesting that only Congress could disqualify a candidate for insurrection, a move that critics say dilutes the amendment's intent. This came amid ongoing debates about Trump's role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, where he has consistently denied wrongdoing.
The Court's regard for Trump extends to less high-profile but equally impactful areas. In a June 2025 ruling on executive privilege, the justices sided with Trump in a dispute over documents related to his administration's handling of classified materials. The case, which originated from the Mar-a-Lago search, saw the Court expand the scope of executive privilege to include post-presidency communications, limiting what prosecutors can access. This decision has hampered special counsel Jack Smith's investigations, delaying trials and potentially allowing statutes of limitations to expire. "It's as if the Court is acting as Trump's personal shield," noted CNN legal analyst Laura Coates during a panel discussion.
Beyond direct legal protections, the Court's broader docket reflects a conservative tilt that aligns with Trump's policy priorities. For instance, in environmental regulations, the Court has curtailed the powers of agencies like the EPA, echoing Trump's deregulatory agenda. A key ruling in April 2025 struck down portions of the Clean Power Plan, arguing that major regulatory actions require explicit congressional authorization—a doctrine known as the "major questions" principle, which was invigorated during Trump's first term. Similarly, in voting rights cases, the Court has upheld state laws that impose stricter voter ID requirements and limit mail-in voting, measures that Trump has long championed as necessary to combat what he falsely claims is widespread election fraud.
This pattern has not gone unnoticed by Democrats and progressive groups, who accuse the Court of partisanship. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has called for ethics reforms and term limits for justices, pointing to undisclosed gifts and potential conflicts of interest among conservative members. Justice Clarence Thomas, in particular, has faced scrutiny for his wife's involvement in efforts to challenge the 2020 election, yet he has not recused himself from related cases. "The Supreme Court's unflinching regard for Trump is eroding public trust in our institutions," Schumer stated in a floor speech. Public opinion polls reflect this sentiment, with a Pew Research Center survey showing that only 42% of Americans view the Court favorably, down from 70% a decade ago.
Trump himself has leveraged these rulings to bolster his political comeback. At rallies, he portrays the Court as a bulwark against "deep state" persecution, energizing his base. "The justices see through the radical left's attacks," he declared at a recent event in Florida. Political analysts suggest that these decisions could influence the 2028 presidential race, where Trump is expected to run again, potentially facing off against Vice President Kamala Harris or another Democratic contender. If Trump wins, he could appoint more justices, further entrenching a conservative majority.
However, not all observers see malice in the Court's actions. Some argue that the rulings are principled applications of originalist and textualist interpretations, philosophies long espoused by conservative justices like Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, both Trump appointees. "These decisions are about the law, not the man," said Heritage Foundation scholar John Malcolm. "Trump benefits because his cases test fundamental constitutional questions."
Yet, the cumulative effect is undeniable: the Supreme Court has provided Trump with legal lifelines at critical junctures. From immunity to ballot access, these rulings have neutralized threats that once seemed existential to his political future. As the nation grapples with these developments, the question remains whether this "unflinching regard" is a temporary alignment or a lasting shift in the balance of power.
The implications extend beyond Trump. Legal experts warn that expanded presidential immunity could embolden future executives to push boundaries, potentially leading to abuses of power. "We've created a presidency that's above the law," warned Justice Sotomayor in her dissent. In response, some lawmakers are pushing for constitutional amendments to clarify immunity standards, though such efforts face steep hurdles in a divided Congress.
Internationally, these rulings have drawn commentary as well. Allies like the United Kingdom have expressed concern over the perceived erosion of democratic norms in the U.S., while adversaries such as Russia have pointed to them as evidence of American hypocrisy on rule of law issues. Domestically, civil rights organizations are mobilizing, with the ACLU launching campaigns to highlight what they call "judicial favoritism."
As the Court prepares for its next term, all eyes are on pending cases that could further intersect with Trump's orbit, including challenges to social media regulations and antitrust actions against tech companies—areas where Trump has strong opinions. Whatever the outcomes, the narrative of a Supreme Court with an unflinching regard for Trump seems poised to dominate political discourse for years to come.
In reflecting on this era, historians may look back at these decisions as a pivotal moment when the judiciary intersected with personality-driven politics in unprecedented ways. For now, Trump stands as the beneficiary of a Court that, intentionally or not, has fortified his position in the American saga. The long-term consequences for democracy, accountability, and the rule of law remain to be seen, but the immediate impact is clear: the highest court in the land has shown a remarkable alignment with one of the most controversial figures in modern history.
Read the Full CNN Article at:
[ https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/29/politics/supreme-court-shows-unflinching-regard-for-trump ]
Similar Politics and Government Publications
[ Wed, Jul 09th ]: CNN
[ Fri, Nov 29th 2024 ]: Brian Stokes
