Democrats committed earlier this year to ideologically flipping the Georgia Supreme Court, where eight of the current nine justices are appointees of Republican governors, but they hit a major snag: Georgia voters.
Democrats' plan was to oust a pair of incumbents in the May 19 election, replace them with a pair of pro-abortion radicals, then, in 2028, similarly knock out the trio of GOP-appointed justices who will be facing re-election.
'The people of Georgia have made clear that they want to keep politics out of Georgia's courtrooms.'
Charlie Bailey, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Georgia, said in April that his party was investing a historic sum in the campaigns of former Democrat state Sen. Jen Jordan and personal injury attorney Miracle Rankin, noting that "it's the most money that the Georgia Democratic Party has spent in judicial races in 20 years."
In addition to outside money, the liberal challengers enjoyed the support of outsiders, including pro-abortion groups and former President Barack Obama.
Obama, who endorsed both Jordan and Rankin, issued a reminder on Tuesday afternoon that "the decisions made by state supreme courts touch every part of our lives" and implored voters to "get this one right."
RELATED: Trump accuses Democrat governor of MASSIVE election fraud; officials say it was a printer error
Twice-failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris also weighed in from afar, telling Georgia voters to back Rankin and Jordan, whom she characterized as "extraordinary leaders."
Just as Democrats wasted millions of dollars on the unlawful, Obama-backed redistricting power-grab in Virginia — which the Old Dominion's Supreme Court torpedoed on May 8 — their court-flipping scheme in Georgia similarly proved to be a humiliating failure.
Georgia Supreme Court Justices Sarah Warren and Charlie Bethel, the Republican-appointed incumbents whom Gov. Brian Kemp threw his support behind, handily crushed their Democrat-backed challengers.
With over 95% of the expected votes in, Warren secured over 350,000 votes more than Jordan, beating the former Democrat lawmaker 59.3% to 40.7%.
Warren said in a statement following her decisive victory, "Today, the people of Georgia have made clear that they want to keep politics out of Georgia's courtrooms. The Supreme Court of Georgia is a nonpartisan court by constitutional design, and I am thankful that it will stay that way."
Bethel, a former Republican state senator, had a closer race but still came out on top, taking 51.1% of the total vote.
Whereas his challenger, Rankin, demonstrated on the campaign trail that she was sensitive and receptive to the ideological fads of the day, Bethel made clear on the campaign trail that he remains "committed to following Georgia law without respect to my personal preferences or the popular sentiment of the day."
According to AdImpact, over $4 million was blown on ads across the two races.
Kemp congratulated the victors and stressed that "the Democrats are not going to take their foot off the gas heading into November, and neither will we. Keep Choppin'!"
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
As Britain cracks down on free speech and heightens surveillance measures, it’s becoming a cautionary tale for the rest of the Western world — one that Tommy Robinson has experienced firsthand.
“They wanted us isolated, they wanted us alone, wanted total control, which they had. Total control. I was invisible,” Robinson tells Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck, explaining that the media in the U.K. has branded him as one of the “far-right, racist, extremist agitators who are intent on violence.”
“You couldn’t even mention my name ... deleted from society for daring to show — and what was I showing? The problems of mass open-border immigration,” Robinson says.
“Why do they want to hide it?” he asks. “Because it lays at their feet.”
And U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s latest ad is only proving Robinson right.
“This is our country with a majority who share those values. A majority who may not always be as loud but must always define who we are. So my government will not stand in the way of peaceful protest,” Starmer said, adding, “But we will act decisively against hatred.”
“We will use the full force of the law when that hatred manifests as violence. And we will ban those coming into the U.K. who seek to stir it up as we have done already because this country belong to all of us, and I will not tolerate anyone who seeks to stand in the way of that,” Starmer finished.
Robinson notes that Starmer has already made his last few points in the video crystal clear.
“After the 2024 riots ... he politicized the judiciary, weaponized the media, and he sent mothers to jail for 31 months for tweets. He sent Peter Lynch, a grandfather, to jail, who has died in jail. He sent innocent people to jail,” he explained, noting that Starmer did it to “instill fear in the British public.”
“The problem he’s got is he didn’t instill fear. It lit a fire in the heart of us. ... This is a battle for the soul of this nation, and it’s a battle he’s going to lose. He’s losing,” he continues, adding, “They’re losing. We’re winning the hearts and minds of the public whether he likes it or not.”
To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
Nearly 30 years ago, Congress recognized that the country could not litigate its way out of an immigration crisis.
As part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, bipartisan majorities created expedited removal for anyone who failed to prove two years of physical presence in the United States. Anticipating a cottage industry of defense attorneys forcing the government to prove duration of unlawful stay, Congress also stripped federal courts of jurisdiction to review expedited removal orders.
At some point, the executive must defend not only its own authority but Congress’ authority to restrain the courts.
Three decades passed with little enforcement. Now, after that long dormancy, federal judges have begun reviewing cases they have no statutory authority to hear and are attempting to block President Trump from using expedited removal nationwide.
On November 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit refused the Justice Department’s request for a stay in Make the Road New York v. Noem. The case challenges Trump’s policy expanding expedited removal to illegal aliens apprehended anywhere in the country, provided they cannot prove two years of continuous presence. Administrations since the 1990s ignored the statute and limited expedited removal to aliens caught at or near the border.
A district judge, despite clear statutory limits, reviewed the case and issued an injunction against most uses of expedited removal. That move set the stage for this week’s order from the D.C. Circuit — another step in a long pattern of courts seizing authority Congress explicitly withheld.
The Supreme Court recently upheld the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to quickly remove alien gang members. That ruling helped, but it cannot resolve the broader problem: Most illegal entrants do not fall into the “enemy combatant” category. If every non-gang-member can exhaust layer after layer of due process after invading our country, immigration enforcement collapses under its own weight.
But the central issue in this dispute is not due process at all. The decisive point is that IRAIRA explicitly authorizes expedited removal anywhere in the country and explicitly bars the federal courts from issuing “declaratory, injunctive, or other equitable relief” in any action challenging an expedited removal order.
The lone exception applies to aliens who can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they possess a lawful right to remain — such as a granted asylum application. Even then, Congress set a firm 60-day window to bring such a claim. The plaintiffs in this case missed that deadline.
This challenge does not implicate the validity of an executive action. It represents a double violation of statute: courts ignoring the law that authorizes expedited removal and ignoring the law that strips them of jurisdiction to review it. Congress anticipated this exact scenario and barred it.
Congress holds plenary authority over immigration and total authority over the structure and jurisdiction of federal courts. Only adjudication of a specific case lies beyond congressional reach. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in Patchak v. Zinke, “When Congress strips federal courts of jurisdiction, it exercises a valid legislative power no less than when it lays taxes, coins money, declares war, or invokes any other power that the Constitution grants it.”
If judges can decide every political question, define the scope of their own power, override Congress’ limits, and bind the executive even when Congress lawfully precludes them from hearing a case, the separation of powers collapses. At some point, the executive must defend not only its own authority but Congress’ authority to restrain the courts.
RELATED: The imperial judiciary strikes back
Many of us have called for broader statutes stripping courts of jurisdiction over deportation. But that effort means nothing if judges can simply declare those statutes unconstitutional. Judicial supremacism has no end when the executive enforces judicial usurpation against itself.
That dynamic played out again last week. A federal judge ruled that ICE may not arrest illegal aliens solely for being in the country unlawfully unless agents obtain a warrant or prove a specific flight risk — an order that contradicts decades of law. In another case, Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes in California certified a class granting relief to migrants who “have entered or will enter the United States without inspection” as well as those not initially detained after crossing the border.
A government that treats judicial decrees as binding even when Congress denies jurisdiction invites a permanent veto from judges over immigration enforcement. It won’t stop until the president simply says no.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously sided with the Trump administration on Monday in a dispute involving its policy regulating immigration judges’ “work-related speech.” In its per curiam opinion, the high court vacated and remanded a decision by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that centered around the government’s rules governing the executive’s immigration courts. The […]
Georgians handed Democrats a decisive defeat on Tuesday by reelecting two Republican-backed candidates in a pair of highly contested state Supreme Court races. In one race, incumbent Justice Charles Bethel is projected to defeat leftist Miracle Rankin. Unofficial results show the former beating the latter by 2.2 points, with more than 95 percent of votes […]
'Rather than offering the federal judiciary an objective guide to scientific principles, the chapter functions as an ex parte brief for one side of ongoing litigation.'
Two Democrat-backed candidates running for Georgia Supreme Court seats violated existing judicial conduct rules, the state’s judicial watchdog agency found. According to a Monday report by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (AJC), the Georgia Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) determined that left-wing attorneys Jen Jordan and Miracle Rankin broke the Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct by publicly endorsing […]
A Federalist investigation found that a key section of a manual advising federal judges on science-related matters was authored by Democrat donors.
A deep dive into the Federal Judicial Center's climate guide scandal reveals its authors' left-wing partisanship.
Federal courts have done the worst damage to themselves with a century of outrageous and abusive rulings like this one from the Ninth Circuit.
www.theblaze.com
thefederalist.com