The RedState Weekly Briefing rounds up the biggest stories that drew attention this week: unrest in Iran and Operation Epic Fury, records and accountability surrounding the Biden administration, reactions to Barack Obama’s presidential center, a rare Supreme Court clash over emergency appeals tied to Trump policies, and a Seventh Circuit rebuke of a Chicago judge’s orders. Below you’ll find concise, punchy summaries of each item with original quoted passages preserved where provided.
First up: reports from Iran and the fallout of Operation Epic Fury have energized conservative observers who see the regime weakening. The piece highlights grassroots resistance against Basij checkpoints and suggests regime defections could follow, framing these strikes as a strategic win for those opposing the clerical leadership. The original commentary points to Mojtaba Khamenei’s apparent disappearance and suggests the regime’s grip is fraying.
This is a brilliant move. Not only does it take the oppressors out, it encourages the resistance on the ground, and it also has to have the Basij cowering in their boots. It’s likely to result in more defections from their ranks. Now, of course, you have to check and make sure the identification of the checkpoint is correct, which is what the Israelis are doing. But it’s pretty easy to identify a Basij checkpoint versus other kinds of traffic, I would think.
Their “Supreme Leader,” Mojtaba Khamenei, can’t even go out in the street. “Cardboard Mojtaba” hasn’t been seen since the start of Operation Epic Fury; it’s not even clear that he’s alive. If Israel and the U.S. are taking out everyone from leaders to the Basij forces on the street, you have to think that the regime is not going to last long.
Second: the debate over executive privilege and the National Archives has people talking about what records should be made available. Conservatives argue transparency is essential and that withheld material invites suspicion rather than trust. The reporting frames the records fight as a vehicle to expose perceived double standards and demand accountability.
So Warrington directed NARA to turn over the three sets of records to the various congressional committees requesting them.
Democrats are always screaming about transparency — while not being transparent. Why should any of that information held back by the Biden team not be released — unless there are things in there that they just don’t want us to see? We need to have it all come out if we are to have any accountability in those probes. We’ve had a glaring lack of accountability for Democrat misconduct for far too long. This may finally get us closer to some real action, in addition to exposing more of the truth.
Third: reactions to Barack Obama’s new presidential center generated sharp commentary, with critics tying past policies to present controversies. The tone in these reactions is not subtle; it recalls foreign policy mistakes and domestic divisions attributed to his administration. Observers mocked the building as symbolic of the things they believe he left undone or damaged.
Then, too, we can’t forget things like the mess Obama left behind in Libya or the lie he sold us about healthcare and keeping our plans. The worst thing, though, was the division that he sowed and the role he played in the Russia collusion hoax. That divided the country in ways we’re still suffering.
All that ugliness can’t help but rear its ugly head in his building. So laugh and mock away because he deserves every bit of it.
Fourth: a rare, public disagreement between Justices Jackson and Kavanaugh grabbed attention for its implications about how the Supreme Court handles emergency appeals tied to Trump-era policies. The exchange centered on the emergency docket and how the Court steps in when lower courts block federal initiatives. Conservatives watching see the emergency docket as a crucial battlefield for restoring policy priorities and ensuring the administration’s work isn’t permanently stalled by lower-court injunctions.
That is what happened Monday when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and Justice Brett Kavanaugh shared a stage and openly clashed over how the Supreme Court has handled emergency appeals tied to President Donald Trump’s policies.
The discussion centered on the Court’s emergency docket. These cases often arrive after lower courts block federal policies, and the administration asks the Supreme Court to allow those policies to take effect while the lawsuits continue.
That process has become one of the most important legal fronts for Trump’s agenda. The Court has repeatedly stepped in after lower-court rulings halted various policies, allowing the administration to move forward while the lawsuits continue.
Fifth: the Seventh Circuit’s decision to rebuke a Chicago judge signaled judicial pushback against perceived overreach in litigation over ICE policies. The appeals court criticized an order that could have allowed repeated relitigation of nearly identical claims, describing the potential for legal gamesmanship. Conservatives welcomed the ruling as a check on lower-court actions that could undermine enforcement policy through procedural maneuvering.
These two decisions by Ellis meant that no one else was affected by the dismissal of the case and that the plaintiffs could sue again in the future and again be certified as a class. The intent seemed to be to allow Ellis to make the same ruling again in the future, with the same or different plaintiffs, and make the administration fight the same fight again. Perhaps several times.
Ordinarily, an appeals court would have considered the case moot as both sides wanted to end the litigation. In this case, the Seventh Circuit was suspicious.
The district court’s order may also spawn adverse legal consequences. Because the district court dismissed this case without prejudice—against the plaintiffs’ unopposed request for a dismissal with prejudice—any class members or the lead plaintiffs could refile these claims tomorrow. They could ask the district court to reinstate a near-identical preliminary in junction, adopting the facts and legal reasoning from the district court’s order.
If you followed the Weekly Briefing, these items capture the energy of the week: foreign pressure on Iran, fights over presidential records and transparency, cultural sniping at Obama’s legacy, high-stakes Supreme Court procedure, and appellate safeguards against courtroom tactics that could hamper enforcement. The week delivered plenty of fodder for those focused on policy and accountability, and these snippets represent the highlights conservatives were most likely to share and debate.
Add comment