It appears that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has quietly "un-recused" herself from the UNC affirmative action case coming before the Court during its 2022-2023 term. As Dan McLaughlin explained, the case was previously consolidated with a case implicating Harvard in a similar alleged violation:

As I set forth in detail back in February, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has an obligation to recuse herself from the pending case on racial preferences in Harvard admissions because she sat on the Harvard Board of Overseers not only during the events under challenge — which are ongoing — but also during the yearslong defense of the litigation, including at the Supreme Court. Justice Jackson agreed, and testified at her confirmation hearing that she would recuse. But Jackson’s recusal obligation should have extended as well to the consolidated case, for two reasons: because Harvard was engaged in a joint defense of the case with the University of North Carolina (the two cases were consolidated) and because a victory for UNC could redound to the benefit of Harvard in the event that the Court divided 4-4 or reached a fractured outcome in the Harvard case (granting that the two legal standards could end up differing). . .

At the end of July, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) announced the creation of a new division to oversee election issues. The AP reported:

The idea behind the creation of the Election and Government Mail Services is to have a permanent division dedicated to dealing with election matters, instead of handling issues one at a time as in the past.

After the FBI’s unprecedented raid on President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, Republican House Leader Kevin McCarthy is vowing to hold the Biden Administration accountable.

Attorney General Garland: preserve your documents and clear your calendar. pic.twitter.com/dStAjnwbAT

— Kevin McCarthy (@GOPLeader) August 9, 2022

Polling recently commissioned by the Judicial Crisis Network shows that Americans wholeheartedly reject the intimidation and violence that pro-abortion activists have promoted in the wake of Roe v. Wade being overturned last month. Over half of the respondents believed that the law against protesting at Supreme Court Justices houses should be enforced by Attorney General Merrick Garland and believed that such protests undermine democracy. The Federalist reported:

Americans do not believe it is right to protest outside the home of Supreme Court justices or conduct protests that interfere with the justices’ personal lives, a new poll found.

Election after election has shown that large numbers of voters will vote in-person if given the opportunity to do so. Despite this, an Arizona county ran out of ballots in 20 precincts during Tuesday's primary election:

FOX 10 received several calls and emails on Election Day from viewers reporting a variety of problems with in-person voting, including a shortage of ballots. Some people at precinct 15 in San Tan Valley said they couldn't get a ballot to vote because the location ran out.

Whether you oppose, support, or are neutral on Electoral Count Act reform, today's Senate Rules Committee hearing showed why progressive Democrats are the extremists on any election law reform.  The Electoral Count Act (ECA) is a relatively obscure 135-year-old law that was passed to fix the day for the meeting of the electors for President and Vice President, and to provide for and regulate the counting of the votes for President and Vice President, and the decision of questions arising thereon.  While the reform effort is a technical bill that reasonable people can respectfully support, disagree with, or further discuss, it does have bipartisan support.  Yet any ultimate reform efforts may be doomed by progressives who only look for partisan advantage in elections. 

In a brazenly partisan decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld Act 77's no-excuse mail-voting law challenged last year by Bradford County election official Doug McLinko.

The majority of the @SupremeCtofPA has made clear that they are not “progressives judges” but just straight up Democrat politicians in robes. Pennsylvania voters will remember this in future judicial elections. @RepGrove https://t.co/qs8NBC6rRl 2/2

— Michael Thielen (@MB_Thielen) August 2, 2022

Allegations are piling up accusing the DOJ and the FBI of engaging in political bias in favor of the Biden family in an investigation into Hunter Biden's laptop. But as Senator Ron Johnson said on Twitter: "Political bias has no place at the Department of Justice or the FBI."

Political bias has no place at the Department of Justice or the FBI.

The American people deserve the truth. I will continue to call for any potential corruption within our federal agencies to be investigated to the fullest extent of the law. https://t.co/IjF0p9TMzK

— Ron Johnson (@RonJohnsonWI) August 1, 2022

On Friday, the Biden Administration announced its 24th round of judicial nominees, bringing President Biden's total number of judicial nominees to 132. Each new slate of nominees illustrates the Administration's goal of placing radicals in the judiciary. This time, it's abortion activist Julie Rikelman, nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit:

Conservative opposition is expected in the U.S. Senate, where Democrats are facing pressure from progressive activists to speed up judicial confirmations before the Nov. 8 midterm elections, when they risk losing control of the chamber to Republicans.