Brazil ex-leader Jair Bolsonaro rallies supporters in Sao Paulo to protest his Supreme Court trial
SAO PAULO — Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro on Sunday attended a public demonstration in Sao Paulo to protest against his ongoing Supreme Court trial in the South American country .
A couple of thousand people gathered on Paulista Avenue, one of the city's main locations, in a demonstration that Bolsonaro, before the event, called 'an act for freedom, for justice.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Washington Post
an hour ago
- Washington Post
Appeals court to weigh Trump's deportation of migrants under wartime law
NEW ORLEANS — One of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the nation will weigh on Monday whether President Donald Trump has lawfully invoked a centuries-old wartime law to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to a notorious gang prison in El Salvador. Legal observers see the case set for argument before a panel of judges the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit as the most likely of several Alien Enemies Act lawsuits to land at the Supreme Court. The justices would then make the final ruling on whether the Trump administration can legally use the wartime power to fast-track removals of migrants it describes as violent gang members without the usual due process.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court to hear case that could upend campaign finance coordination rules
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a Republican-led challenge to campaign finance limits on coordinated spending between candidates and political parties, potentially blowing up the money-in-politics landscape ahead of the 2026 midterms. A ruling in favor of the Republican plaintiffs would deliver the GOP's biggest campaign-finance win since the landmark 2010 Citizens United case, fundamentally changing how party committees spend tens of millions of dollars every election cycle, particularly on TV advertising. A GOP victory could allow party groups to pour unlimited amounts into ads in competitive races across the country, making it easier for campaigns to benefit from that spending. Republicans' top congressional campaign committees — the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee — brought the case with then-Sen. JD Vance in 2023, arguing that federal law limiting coordination between candidates and political parties violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision to take up the case after the conservative 6th Circuit upheld the spending limits suggests the court is considering reversing decades-old precedent. And it comes after the Justice Department took the unusual step last month of choosing not to defend the constitutionality of the law and encouraging the high court to rule. 'In the Department's view, the challenged provision violates political parties' and candidates' core First Amendment rights under the Court's recent precedents on campaign-finance restrictions,' Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in a June letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson. Party committees can currently coordinate with candidates for between $63,600 and $127,200 in spending for House races, and $127,200 to $3,946,100 for Senate races, depending on the size of the district or state. Those funds often go to purchasing television ads, which are cheaper when bought in concert with a campaign than entirely by outside groups. If the limits on coordinated spending are overturned, party groups would dramatically accelerate their purchase of ad time. Democrats oppose the effort to overturn the limits, warning that doing so would cede political power to large donors. That would advantage Republicans, who generally rely less on small-donor fundraising. While individual donors can only give up to $3,500 to a campaign per election, they can send donations up to $44,300 per year to national party committees. The NRSC and NRCC hailed the court's decision to hear the case during its next term this fall. "The government should not restrict a party committee's support for its own candidates," Sen. Tim Scott and Rep. Richard Hudson — the chairs of the committees — said in a joint statement. 'Coordinated spending continues to be a critical part of winning campaigns, and the NRSC and NRCC will ensure we are in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond." The court on Monday also allowed the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to join the case in opposition to the GOP. Those groups sought to intervene after the Justice Department declined to defend the law, and the Justice Department and the Republican plaintiffs told the court they did not mind the intervention. A victory for Republicans in this case is far from guaranteed, and some legal experts have already argued there's plenty of precedent to counter the core argument. They point to a 2001 Supreme Court ruling in which the court found 'little evidence to suggest that coordinated party spending limits adopted by Congress have frustrated the ability of political parties to exercise their First Amendment rights to support their candidates." But the ideological makeup of the court was much different that year, and in that ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas — the only justice still serving from that time — dissented. 'This provision sweeps too broadly, interferes with the party-candidate relationship, and has not been proved necessary to combat corruption,' Thomas wrote at the time.
American Press
2 hours ago
- American Press
Chief Justice Roberts warns against heated political words about judges
Supreme Court. (Associated Press Archives) Chief Justice John Roberts, speaking at a moment when threats against judges are on the rise, warned on Saturday that elected officials' heated words about judges can lead to threats or acts of violence by others. Without identifying anyone by name, Roberts clearly referenced Republican President Donald Trump and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York when he said he has felt compelled to issue public rebukes of figures in both parties in recent years. 'It becomes wrapped up in the political dispute that a judge who's doing his or her job is part of the problem,' Roberts said at a gathering of lawyers and judges in Charlotte, North Carolina. 'And the danger, of course, is somebody might pick up on that. And we have had, of course, serious threats of violence and murder of judges just simply for doing their work. So I think the political people on both sides of the aisle need to keep that in mind.' Roberts appeared at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judicial conference on the day after the Supreme Court issued the final decisions of its term, including a major victory for Trump that limits judges' ability to use court orders with nationwide reach to block his agenda. C-Span carried Roberts' conversation with Judge Albert Diaz, the 4th Circuit's chief judge. Roberts first took issue with Trump's comments in 2018, when Roberts responded to Trump's description of a judge who rejected his migrant asylum policy as an 'Obama judge.' In March, Roberts rejected calls for impeaching judges, shortly after Trump demanded the removal of one who ruled against his deportation plans. In 2020, Roberts called out Schumer for remarks that Roberts termed inappropriate and threatening after the senator said Trump-nominated Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch 'will pay the price' for votes in a then-pending Louisiana abortion case. Schumer later said he should not have used those words. Two years later, with the court on the verge of overturning Roe v. Wade's constitutional protections for abortion, police arrested an armed man outside Kavanaugh's home in suburban Washington. In April, Nicholas John Roske pleaded guilty to trying to kill Kavanaugh.
