
Peace rally attendees in Geneva Saturday prevail through rain
'I've been to like my fifth or sixth rally that I've come to now, and I feel these are making a difference,' Wilson said as rain fell heavily just before 11:30 a.m. 'I feel like this draws attention to things and people are willing to speak out and maybe we can change some minds.'
Saturday in Geneva brought together hundreds as the grass roots Fox Valley-based We Can Lead Change group gathered along south Randall Road and Gleneagle Drive in Geneva for a rally/protest called 'Together for Justice.'
The 90-minute event represented the 10th held by the group, and they have continued to draw thousands, organizers said.
Ellen Ljung of Geneva, one of the 10-member steering committee that leads the organization, spoke an hour before the start of the rally, which was already threatening to be cancelled due to severe weather.
'This is our 10th rally and people keep asking for them and so – we just do it. We have raincoats, we've done it [rallies] in bitter cold but people are asking for the opportunity to come together and we're getting people that have never been involved before,' Ljung said. 'When we started, we had 300 people on April 5th and our No Kings event had close to 10,000 people. I think today will be small because of the weather and it's not a national thing but we're talking thousands that have gotten involved. We're not small anymore.'
Ljung spoke about the impact of the rallies on national government officials and said despite being locally based, 'They are having an effect.'
'We are giving people a way to connect and to show them our initiatives and to help people get involved,' she said. 'I think the sense of pressure is being felt by Washington because it's not just us – it's nationwide. A lot of the rallies have been on nationally-designated days and I feel the pressure is being felt. I also think it's absolutely critical for people to have an outlet to work for change.'
Ljung noted that the group also offers educational programs and initiatives and 'has written representatives about the latest budget bill.'
'We've written senators and the Supreme Court asking them to protect due process,' she said. 'We worked on immigrations and met with libraries and school superintendents. Our goal is to bring people together to work for change. I'm 78 now and I never thought we'd be doing this in the last chapter of our life, but the only way to make change happen is grassroots organizing. What we do here in Kane County is a drop-in-the-bucket, but we're filling buckets around the nation and that pressure will come to bear.'
Despite an 11:30 a.m. official start time, supporters were already present an hour before and drew plenty of honking horns and cheers as motorists drove by.
Rain and lightning forced an early cancellation just before noon but not before Wilson and others in attendance had their say.
'We had 10,000 people at the Kings Rally we had and then we did the bridge rally with 5,000 on the Geneva Bridge,' Wilson said. 'This is a good way to build community and maybe fight.'
Pamela O' Brien of Batavia sat under an umbrella and said she has been 'at every rally since [President] Trump was elected.'
'I was at a lot of the other ones – maybe eight or 10 altogether and when I know something is coming up – I cancel everything else I'm doing because I feel it's the most important thing to do right now,' she said. 'I'm surprised when other people don't.'
O'Brien said looking back on the rallies she has attended, 'I see an engaged yet peaceful group of people, very passionate about keeping democracy.'
'It's a very diverse group of people as well as all kinds of issues – everything from young people afraid of what the future will bring to someone from Mexico,' she said. 'Community wise – compared to when the presidential election was over – there's been much more engagement. This whole Randall Road is touching more people and they are starting to wake up.'
JoAnn Vanthournout of St. Charles, 92, attended her first rally and admitted 'I never thought I'd be a protestor at my age.'
'I never thought someone we have as president would be elected. I remember the Vietnam protests and it does feel at least like I'm trying,' she said. 'I was afraid at first but they said I could bring a chair. I'd like to come again but I'd prefer it not be raining.'
Denise Ward of Geneva said this was her sixth rally and was encouraged by the turnout despite the rain.
'These rallies are making a difference,' she insisted. 'At least it shows we're not going to sit here and let things happen.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
18 minutes ago
- CBS News
Jim speaks with Jose Javier Rodriguez about his run for Florida attorney general
Jim talks to the former democratic state senator who is running to be the next Florida attorney general. James Uthmeier, a Republican, is Florida's current attorney general. Guest: José Javier Rodriguez/D- Florida Attorney General candidate Republican leaders from 17 other states Tuesday filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court backing Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier's push to enforce a law targeting undocumented immigrants who enter Florida. The brief came after Uthmeier last week asked the Supreme Court to step in and at least temporarily allow enforcement of the state law after a federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction to block it. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in April ruled that the law likely was preempted by federal immigration authority. Uthmeier appealed the preliminary injunction, but a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his request for a stay of Williams' ruling. Uthmeier last week asked for the Supreme Court to issue a stay, which would effectively allow the state to enforce the law while the underlying legal battle plays out.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court Lets Trump Enact His Authoritarian Agenda on Its ‘Shadow Docket'
The Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority helped put President Donald Trump back in office. Now it's letting him run rampant, often without even bothering to give us an explanation. In 17 straight cases — 'an unprecedented number compared to every prior presidency,' according to Georgetown Law professor Stephen Vladeck — the Supreme Court granted the Trump Justice Department's emergency requests, halting orders from lower courts that had temporarily blocked the administration's overreach. In doing so, the court has allowed the key planks of Trump's Project 2025 agenda to take effect. Some of the Trump 2.0 policies the high court has greenlit include: Dropping noncitizens into war-torn countries they've never stepped foot in, where they face the possibility of torture or death. Revoking temporary protected status for half a million noncitizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. Ordering the mass firings of federal workers. Gutting the Department of Education. Giving Trump's so-called Department of Government Efficiency access to millions of Americans' private information. Purging transgender servicemembers from the military. Illegally firing the Democratic members of independent agencies like the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Review Board, and the Consumer Products Safety Commission. It would, however, be too simple to say the Supreme Court has rolled over because it's gone full MAGA — though that is quite true for at least a couple members of the Republican majority. The Roberts Court's capitulation is also an act of appeasement designed to preserve its power by avoiding confrontation with a would-be autocrat. Chief Justice John Roberts has spent his two decades on the bench building up his court as the country's main policymaking and -breaking body of government. Yet the Roberts Court's landmark antidemocratic rulings unleashing money in politics, gutting the Voting Rights Act, and granting Trump sweeping criminal immunity for trying to overturn the 2020 election, all led directly to Trump 2.0. And within weeks of regaining power, Trump began attacking — and defying — judges who stood in the way of what he regarded as his electoral mandate to do whatever he wanted, Constitution be damned. At first, Roberts spoke out against Trump's calls to impeach lower court judges for daring to rule against him. In a statement, the chief justice wrote, 'For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.' But what seemed at the time like a rebuke now reads more like friendly advice, given how Trump has fared before the chief. The appellate review process of Trump's authoritarian agenda has so far been anything but normal. Virtually all of Trump's wins have come on the Supreme Court's emergency — or 'shadow' — docket, where the justices make decisions without the benefit of full briefing or oral argument and, often, provide no reasoning for their votes. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court's solicitude towards Trump on the shadow docket suggests Trump's attacks against lower court judges have influenced the votes of the members of the high court's right-wing supermajority that have not gone totally MAGA. To those justices — Roberts chief among them — Trump's ever-present threat of defiance has presented the Supreme Court with a choice: be a rubber stamp to appease Trump and preserve the prospect that he will obey future adverse rulings, or refuse to be a rubber stamp even just once and reveal just how illusory the court's power has always been. Chief Justice Roberts has chosen appeasement, and without any guarantee that Trump will honor the court's credit should the chief ever lead his colleagues in declaring Trump has gone too far. Indeed, the justices have already shied away from such a confrontation in the one Trump case the Supreme Court did move to the merits docket. Rather than resolve whether Trump's executive order attacking birthright citizenship is constitutional, the Roberts majority instead accepted the Trump DOJ's argument that the lower courts had no power to issue a universal injunction against the policy. The ruling only indefinitely delays the Supreme Court from ruling on the merits of the citizenship-stripping order while the lower courts wrestle with ancillary questions over the proper scope of potential relief. For all intents and purposes, the damage has been done. While the Roberts majority cowers from Trump to preserve its own relevance, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is calling her colleagues to account over the real-world effects of their capitulation. She's also showing us a path forward. In a series of dissents at the end of this term, Justice Jackson all but accused the Roberts majority of being in the pocket of 'moneyed interests' on the merits docket (i.e. in fully briefed and argued cases), and in Trump's pocket on the shadow docket, pointing to the 'court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.' In a series of posts on BlueSky, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) applauded Jackson for dispensing with the 'collegiality' befitting 'ordinary times.' 'What if we are in a time when a billionaire-funded scheme has spent decades trying to pack the court with billionaire-agreeable justices, so as to 'capture' the court in the sense of 'regulatory capture' or 'agency capture' — and what if the billionaires have finally succeeded,' Sen. Whitehouse asked in a series of rhetorical questions. And speaking to the Indianapolis Bar Association recently, Jackson said her separate opinions this term reflect her concerns about the state of our democracy. 'I'm really very interested in getting people to focus and to invest and to pay attention to what is happening in our country and in our government,' Jackson told the audience, according to a report from The New York Times. But Justice Jackson is doing more than calling out her colleagues. In separate opinion after separate opinion, she is also articulating a pro-democracy vision for a court that defers to the people, facilitates a truly representative and multiracial republic, and polices clear constitutional limits. '[W]hen Congress speaks, courts should listen,' she wrote in an April concurrence. But, she's chronicled her colleagues' 'aggrandizement of judicial power' while insisting on the courts' role to stop the executive branch's lawlessness. 'The court has cleared a path for the executive to choose law-free action at this perilous moment for our Constitution,' she wrote in her dissent to June's birthright citizenship decision, 'right when the judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law's constraints.' In other words, the Roberts majority makes stuff up to get in the way of the people's will and ignores clear constitutional and statutory commands to let Trump run rampant. That is exactly backwards. We need a Supreme Court that — absent clear constitutional or statutory commands — gets out of the way of the people's will. While our current court charts a path of quiet appeasement, Justice Jackson is reminding us how to fight, boldly and unapologetically. Mike Sacks is a senior advisor with Court Accountability, an organization focused on fighting court corruption. More from Rolling Stone Trump's Senior Moments Are Getting Worse Israel Seizes Aid Flotilla Bringing Baby Formula, Medicine to Gaza Oklahoma's Trump-Loving, Bible-Thumping Superintendent Faces Porn Probe Best of Rolling Stone The Useful Idiots New Guide to the Most Stoned Moments of the 2020 Presidential Campaign Anatomy of a Fake News Scandal The Radical Crusade of Mike Pence


Politico
3 hours ago
- Politico
‘A nightmare that no one wants': GOP fears Mastriano's down-ballot drag in Pennsylvania
A person close to Trump's political operation — one of the four aforementioned Republicans — described the president's team as 'very concerned' that a Mastriano campaign 'could jeopardize or add to the jeopardization of multiple down-ballot congressional races.' Pennsylvania Republicans went even further, saying a Mastriano candidacy would all but certainly unleash a bloodbath across the state next November. 'If he's our nominee, we lose four House seats,' Pennsylvania-based GOP consultant Josh Novotney said. 'He's a nightmare that no one wants.' Asked for comment, Mastriano said POLITICO is 'not letting facts getting [sic] in the way of a good story.' 'I can tell you that I have President Trump's direct line,' he said in a direct message on X. 'And he ain't saying this.' Despite perennially alarming Republican leaders, Mastriano, a state senator, still appears to have a grip on MAGA voters. A private Public Policy Polling survey conducted in May and obtained by POLITICO shows him leading state Treasurer Stacy Garrity, a likely candidate favored by much of the party establishment, by 21 points. His perceived strength is springing national and Pennsylvania Republicans into action. Some state GOP operatives said they hope Trump will back Garrity in a bid to block Mastriano. For now his plans for Pennsylvania's nascent gubernatorial primary are unclear, particularly since Shapiro is widely seen as the favorite in the general election. Even if Garrity wins the nomination, several state and national Republicans expressed pessimism that anyone can defeat the incumbent, though they believe Garrity would outperform Mastriano.