In a new report, Chief Justice John Roberts details several critical concerns that he feels threaten the ability of our judicial system to carry out justice impartially and according to the rule of law. At the end of each year—only hours before a new year begins—Roberts releases his “Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.” Think of it as a written “State of the Judiciary” address. In this latest report, he focused on “four areas of illegitimate activity that … threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends.” What are those threats? According to Roberts, they’re “(1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.” The first two categories should be uncontroversial. No judges or their families should face violence or threats of violence for simply doing their jobs. And as the chief justice recounts, current efforts to intimidate judges by “protesting” outside of their homes or doxxing them (publicly releasing otherwise private information about them) must be stopped, too. And while he doesn’t name any particular politicians, he urges public officials (Chuck Schumer? Sheldon Whitehouse?) to use temperance when criticizing the courts because of the “dangerous reactions by others” such statements might prompt. So far, so good. But it’s the latter two points that have drawn questions, criticisms, and intrigue from those who have read the report. While the chief justice laments the rise of disinformation (whatever that ill-defined term means) and the judiciary’s “peculiarly ill-suited” ability to combat it, it’s his statements buried halfway through his report that might be of interest to those watching the upcoming TikTok case the Supreme Court will hear in only a few weeks. For those unfamiliar, Congress passed and President Joe Biden signed into law the Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act in April 2024 that identifies China and several other countries as “foreign adversaries” and prohibits apps controlled by those countries from being used in the United States. Particularly concerning is the ability of those countries to directly push or use an algorithm (computer code) to select what content U.S. users will see. Under the new law, TikTok, with its ties to communist China, has to be sold or shut down by Jan. 19, 2025. TikTok says this violates the First Amendment, but lower federal courts have disagreed. So, in mid-December (likely around the time the chief justice was working on his year-end report), TikTok asked the Supreme Court to intervene. While the court declined to put the law on hold, it did agree to hear the case with lightning speed and hold oral arguments on January 10th. Against this backdrop, the chief justice’s take on disinformation in his report becomes even more interesting. He says that “the modern disinformation problem is magnified by social media, which provides a ready channel to ‘instantly spread rumor and false information.’” Moreover, he says: Much more is needed—and on a coordinated, national scale—not only to counter traditional disinformation, but also to confront new and growing concern from abroad. In recent years, hostile foreign state actors have accelerated their efforts to attack all branches of our government, including the judiciary. In some instances, these outside agents feed false information into the marketplace of ideas. For example, bots distort judicial decisions, using false or exaggerated narratives to foment discord within our democracy … [B]ecause these actors distort our judicial system in ways that compromise the public’s confidence in our processes and outcomes, we must as a Nation publicize the risks and take all appropriate measures to stop them. Was the TikTok case on Roberts’ mind when he wrote this? Who knows. But it wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest it. While we don’t know whether he will agree with the lower courts that the TikTok divestiture law doesn’t violate the First Amendment, we should have a better idea of where he stands after the oral arguments. But based on his year-end report, it certainly seems like he might not be sympathetic to TikTok’s claims. Finally, in a last cryptic section of his report, he warns that the “final threat to judicial independence is defiance of judgments lawfully entered by courts of competent jurisdiction.” He goes on to allege that within “the past few years … elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings.” Who are those officials? And what have they said? Are there any specific incidents Roberts has in mind? He leaves us guessing on all counts. But the chief justice, as the head of the federal judicial branch, likely overstated his case about this supposed threat. It’s true as a general rule that officials should follow court orders (more than that, really—they should follow court orders absent their own strongly held constitutional concerns). But there may be cases where other actors in our system of government feel obligated not to follow those orders. After all, don’t the president and Congress have their own independent duty to ensure that their actions are constitutional? The Framers of our Constitution thought so. And while rare, it is possible to envision a scenario where another governmental actor could make the argument that following a court’s order would cause him or her to violate the Constitution, and so following such an order is thus forbidden. Perhaps this is a reminder that just as the chief justice warns us to take threats to judicial independence seriously, so too, should we take the threat of judicial supremacy seriously. It’s clear that certain current members of the Supreme Court do take such a threat seriously as they work to restore the court to its proper role of interpreting laws and the Constitution in disputes between identifiable litigants in specific cases instead of making broad moral pronouncements unmoored from the text of the Constitution or the history behind it. To do the latter is the rule of judges, not the rule of law. It’s clear that the federal judiciary has its work cut out for it in 2025. So, stay tuned. The post Chief Justice Reveals Threats to Independence of Judiciary—And Maybe Tips His Hand in TikTok Case? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

How's About When Teachers Don't Have to Pass the Basics They Teach

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears to have decided to start his New Year off with a bang, after he announced on Monday that he intends to resign as party leader and prime minister. "I intend to resign as party leader, as prime minister, after the party selects its next leader through a robust nationwide competitive process," Trudeau told reporters. "Last night, I asked the president of the Liberal Party to begin that process. This country deserves a real choice in the next election, and it has become clear to me that if I'm having to fight internal battles, I cannot be the best option in that election." Trudeau led the nation for nearly a decade but was facing significant drops in his approval ratings over the last few years, with many detractors citing the soaring cost of living as a reason for their disdain. “Nobody should be surprised by any of this,” Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” comments happily. “It’s like Canada handed the keys to the kingdom of a wonderful country with really amazing people for 10 years to someone who wanted absolute control — who literally wanted to make sure he could control what you say and control what you’re doing online and shut down your bank account if you protested him and allow in all sorts of people through their borders. And God knows what those people then are doing,” Rubin says. “Canada seems to be in a wakeup moment right? Like, there is a chance that things will turn around in Canada,” he adds. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

A bizarre video shows the interactions between two women who were accused of trying to run off on their bill at a nail salon in Compton, California. Diane Nguyen of Tip Top Nails Compton spoke to KTTV-TV about the incident that was posted to TikTok. 'These people are nice and you both were trying to run out on her!' Nguyen said that she rushed to shut the doors of the shop and keep the two women inside after they refused to pay for the work that had been done on their nails. Another customer sympathetic to the shop started recording video of the entire incident. The two women become more agitated and angry while being forced to wait for police to arrive. At one point, one of the women actually pulled down her pants to expose herself to the person recording the incident. "Oooh thank you! Thank you! TikTok! I'm blowin' up!" the woman responded. Nguyen said that before police arrived, the women rushed to the bathroom to flush what appeared to be $100 bills. She says that she was able to snatch one of the bills and run it through a machine that confirmed it to be counterfeit. L.A. County Sheriff's deputies arrived and questioned the two women, but after one of their boyfriends showed up and paid their bills, they were released. "Both were trynna run out on her!" said the woman recording the video as police spoke to the pair. "These people are nice and you both were trying to run out on her!" The salon now asks that first-time customers pay 70% in advance of receiving services at the shop. Much of the video from social media can be viewed on the KTTV news report on YouTube. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Health officials say the first death due to H5N1 bird flu has been documented of a person in Louisiana who is believed to have been exposed to wild birds. The Louisiana Department of Health did not release the person's identity or gender but said that they were older than 65 years old and had pre-existing conditions, according to the Los Angeles Times. 'If you develop symptoms within 10 days after exposure to sick or dead animals, tell your healthcare provider.' "While the current public health risk for the general public remains low, people who work with birds, poultry or cows, or have recreational exposure to them, are at higher risk," read a statement from the Louisiana Department of Health. The bird flu has been detected in all 50 states and has led California Gov. Gavin Newsom to order a state of emergency to activate efforts to prevent the disease from spreading further. Officials said bird flu has been detected in 900 dairy herds nationwide, and 701 of those are in California. The outbreak has led to a drop in egg production and a resultant increase in egg prices to record levels in some areas. Californians are already paying 70% more for eggs due to the bird flu. Louisiana officials warned about what symptoms would indicate a bird flu infection. "If you have been exposed to sick or dead birds or other animals or work on a farm where avian influenza has been detected, watch for respiratory symptoms or conjunctivitis," the statement read. "If you develop symptoms within 10 days after exposure to sick or dead animals, tell your healthcare provider that you have been in contact with sick animals and are concerned about avian influenza." Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Self-Proclaimed 'Journalist' John Harwood Strikes Again with Another Blatant Lie on Twitter

BOATLOAD of Crazy: Thread Highlights Some of the Left's Most Unhinged January 6 Takes

CNN's Jake Tapper Covers Grooming Gang Scandal by Focusing on Elon Musk's 'Meddling'

McDonalds Becomes Latest Corporation to Walk Away From Woke

The Department of Justice and Fulton County have reached an agreement on steps to improve conditions at the Georgia county's notorious Rice Street jail.