Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the SCOTUS category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘SCOTUS’ Category

It didn’t take long for Keith Ellison to admit that he’s running for the Minnesota Attorney General job to harass President Trump. Ellison said “It was attorneys general who led the fight against the Muslim ban. I want to be a part of that fight.”

What Rep. Ellison omits from his cheap shot statement is that a) it isn’t a Muslim ban and b) these attorneys general’s cases are flimsier than wet cardboard. The Supreme Court will rule that a) presidents have sole authority to set U.S. foreign policy and b) courts don’t have the intel or authority to set U.S. foreign policy.

What’s clear is that Ellison knows Republicans will maintain control of the U.S. House of Representatives for the foreseeable future and that he’s likely to not be able to impact policy anytime soon. Ellison is an agitator. Being unable to be influential in DC, Ellison left.

GOP endorsed candidate Doug Wardlow didn’t waste time before attacking Ellison:

“Keith Ellison supports open borders, meaning he does not support the laws America currently has in place. How can he be the state’s top law enforcement official if he is unwilling to enforce our immigration laws?”

The thought of Ellison being Minnesota’s chief law enforcement officer is laughable. Ellison is famous for selectively enforcing laws:

Ellison also spoke favorably of convicted cop killer Assata Shakur and expressed his opposition to any attempt to extradite her to the United States from Cuba, where she had fled after escaping prison. “I am praying that Castro does not get to the point where he has to really barter with these guys over here because they’re going to get Assata Shakur, they’re going to get a whole lot of other people,” Ellison said at the event, which also included a silent auction and speech by former Weather Underground leader Bernardine Dohrn. “I hope the Cuban people can stick to it, because the freedom of some good decent people depends on it.”

Isn’t that great? The man that wants to be our attorney general wants cop-killers protected. Seriously?

Here’s Assata Shakur, aka Joanne Chesimard, in her own words:

That’s who Rep. Ellison fought for. Electing Ellison to be Minnesota’s Attorney General would be spitting in the face of Minnesota’s law enforcement personnel. Ellison has been a defense attorney his entire legal life. Why would we think that he’s capable of enforcing laws, especially when he’s had a history of ignoring laws he doesn’t like?

When the American Mining Rights Association, aka AMRA, tried planning an event near Barstow, Calif., the BLM posted Route Closed signs on the trail event participants were scheduled to take. When “AMRA President Shannon Poe caught wind of the BLM scheme”, he called “the BLM office in Barstow and spoke to a guy by the name of Jeff Childers. And Childers, while he presented himself as the manager of the BLM office, was not … but he told me that they put the signs in the roads there and that the roads were now closed as part of the WEMO Plan.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Childers, a multitude of laws were against him. For instance, “the Mining Law of 1872 as amended” makes “blocking access to an active mining claim … illegal.” That isn’t the only statute that the BLM ignored. When Poe spoke with Childers, Poe “explained to Mr. Childers in a rather lengthy—probably a 45-minute call—that they cannot lock and block mining claim owners for a variety of reasons, the first being the Americans with Disabilities Act. Making a 70-year-old man with a fake knee and a fake hip pack in and walk two miles through the Mojave Desert to access his mining claim isn’t just immoral; it is illegal under the ADA as well as under the RS 2477 or Revised Statue 2477 law which states that all roads prior to 1976 must remain open.”

The night before the event, Katrina Symons, the “field manager of the Barstow District Office” of the BLM, met with Mr. Poe:

Symons agreed to meet Poe at his campsite at the Slash X Ranch on Friday, Oct. 13, preceding the outing. When Symons arrived about 5:30 p.m., she met with Poe and two senior members of the AMRA board of directors, Jere and Connie Clements, at a picnic table. “She had Jeff Childers with her and we talked for about 15 minutes about the desert tortoise and how we could protect them — just common sense stuff, and she had a big stack of pamphlets,” Poe said. According to Poe, Symons said the BLM would go a step further and check the roads the miners planned to use for tortoises on the Saturday morning of the outing. “I said, ‘Great. We’ll be out there at 9 o’clock. That’s fantastic! We’ll wait until you guys clear the road, and then we’ll go in.’”

Problem solved. Or, so he thought.

Then, in a shocking turn of events according to Poe, Symons threatened Poe with criminal prosecution, adding she would take photos of his vehicle and license plate once he had driven past the BLM road closure signs.
Poe then asked Symons to explain her sudden about-face change in position, he said. “She said: ‘I’m going to take picture of your truck, fill out an affidavit and send it to our law enforcement division for criminal prosecution,'” Poe said. “So, I said: ‘Last night, Katrina, you told me on the phone—and I have a witness—that you were going to give us unrestricted access,'” Poe said.

Predictably, Symons insists that there’s been a misunderstanding:

Federal misdirection?

“Well, I believe that Mr. Poe misunderstood,” said Symons. “Because, as I understand it, Mr. Poe had sent Mr. Childers a Utah Supreme Court ruling. Mr. Childers had informed him that it was basically a state ruling; it’s not federal—and that BLM will and does comply with the 1872 Mining Law and the associated mining regulations. So, I think that was more of a miscommunication or misunderstanding.” In a follow-up interview Dec. 1, Poe responded that the Utah case involving RS 2477 laws on rights-of-way and the Hicks case are two separate cases, and that the United States v. Steve A. Hicks case is obviously federal.

AMRA appears to know its rights based on federal law. It’s difficult to believe that they’d highlight a tangential state court ruling as the centerpiece of their argument. A state court case might or might not be applicable. The U.S. v. Steve Hicks isn’t just important. It’s on point, too.

Based on AMRA’s detailed understanding of the laws applicable to their mining claims, it’s difficult to believe the BLM’s statements. I’m inclined to believe AMRA’s statements because the BLM’s statements seem to be federal misdirection.

My conservative friends, it’s time to be honest about a few things. It’s time we admitted that the first 6 months of the Trump administration were stressful, sometimes heartbreaking times. When Sen. McCain gave the thumbs-down to eliminating Obamacare, Republicans’ spirits were pretty low. It’s also time we admitted that the past 6 months have improved significantly. The highlight of the first 6 months was confirming Justice Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The past 6 months, though, have been just as consequential to the judiciary.

Since confirming Justice Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, the Senate has confirmed 12 highly qualified judges to the appellate courts, the most confirmations in the first year of a president’s term in office since our republic was established. To steal a slightly modified version of Joe Biden’s phrase, it’s a big deal to change the direction of the federal judiciary for a generation or more. Hold that thought, though.

Next, picture Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. The thought of a Senate Majority Leader Schumer should frighten conservatives who care about the court more than a Speaker Pelosi. Seriously. Pelosi can’t pass anything that can’t be undone the minute Republicans retake control, most likely in 2020. Sen. Schumer, though, can halt the confirmation of great conservative judges in a heartbeat. Judges like Gorsuch, Willett and others would be flushed down the toilet in a heartbeat because Sen. Schumer would demand ‘consensus’ judges. That’s liberalspeak for liberal judges in the mold of David Souter.

That’s just one thing that should get Republicans fired up. Another thing that should get us fired up is undoing more of the Obama legacy. I don’t have to be the world’s greatest salesperson to convince Republicans that Obamacare and Dodd-Frank were disastrous pieces of legislation. In order to kill those bills outright, we need the House and Senate under GOP control.

Thus far, the MSM has insisted that there’s a blue wave building. I haven’t bought into that, though I agree that there’s an enthusiasm gap favoring Democrats right now. The good news is that Republicans can make that disappear in a heartbeat if they get inspired to turn out and vote for a new wave of GOP senators, congressmen, state legislators and governors. Picture this guy getting sworn in as Minnesota’s next governor:

Whether you support him or not, there’s no disputing that, as a conservative, I’d rather have him as governor as opposed to having her as our next governor:

Making Minnesota great is totally possible. Making America great is possible, too. Now’s the time to realize just how much we’ve accomplished in DC thanks to one-party rule. Now’s the time to realize how much more we could’ve accomplished in St. Paul if we’d had a Republican to go along with Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The MSM have constantly criticized President Trump, mostly for his tweets but also for his lack of legislative accomplishments. Yesterday, the House and Senate passed the most sweeping tax policy changes in a generation. (Because of a couple provisions that ran afoul of the Senate’s parliamentarian, the Senate had to make a couple changes to the bill before voting on final passage. Because the 2 bills aren’t perfectly aligned, the House will vote this morning on the bill the Senate passed last night.) Once the identical bill is passed in both the House and Senate, it will be sent to the White House for President Trump’s signature.

This article is the first of its kind in the MSM, which has been all-criticism-all-the-time until now. Let’s get started with the things Axios reports President Trump has gotten right. First, Axios reports that “The tax bill passed with almost unanimous Republican support, before the end of the year, and in keeping with mostly mainstream conservative orthodoxy. Trump won a bigger corporate tax break than either Bush ever got, and will sign the most consequential new tax law in 30 years.”

Without question, this is a signature issue that’s worth trumpeting to the world. The economy is already going strong. It’s about to get stronger. While the Berniecrats advocate for stifling tax rate hikes and slow economic growth, President Trump and the Republicans are pushing policies that have consumer confidence soaring, 401(k)s growing, small business enthusiasm increasing and big corporations returning to the United States. It won’t take long for people to notice that their lives just got better. This is another major accomplishment:

Trump has followed through on eviscerating regulations, many of them imposed by Obama. He has revoked 67, and delayed or derailed more than 1,500 others.

This has helped spur economic growth. It’s the single-biggest reason why the economy is robustly growing thus far. All the time that the MSM highlighted that Trump didn’t have any major legislative accomplishments, President Trump worked with Congress to eliminate tons of counterproductive regulations. That’s the single-biggest reason why economic growth took off when he took over from President Obama.

This is the biggest accomplishment for full-spectrum conservatives:

Trump has tilted the court rightward in lasting ways. Justice Neil Gorsuch was a substantial, conservative addition to the Supreme Court. And it wasn’t a one-off: The dozen new U.S. Circuit Court judges he has named is the most during a president’s first year in office in more than a century.

It’s impossible to overstate this accomplishment. President Trump worked with the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society to pull together a ton of highly qualified judicial nominees. In his first year alone, he’s got conservatives thrilled with his nominees. (Noteworthy: For all those criticizing Mitch McConnell, his understanding of Senate procedures and bold decisions have contributed mightily to this accomplishment.)

Before wrapping up this post, I highly recommend you watch the first 2+ minutes of this video:

Isn’t it fun watching Gutfeld stick the shiv into liberals, then giving it a sharp twist?

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

I wasn’t surprised that the Supreme Court ruled in President Trump’s favor in the lawsuit that restricts travel from 6 majority Muslim nations. I’m definitely surprised that it was a 7-2 verdict.

According to the article, “The Supreme Court is allowing the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries. The justices, with two dissenting votes, said Monday that the policy can take full effect even as legal challenges against it make their way through the courts. The action suggests the high court could uphold the latest version of the ban that Trump announced in September.” The article additionally said that “Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor would have left the lower court orders in place.”

I can’t imagine the Supreme Court not ruling in President Trump’s favor in its final ruling after making this ruling.

Finally, the article said “Both courts are dealing with the issue on an accelerated basis, and the Supreme Court noted it expects those courts to reach decisions ‘with appropriate dispatch.’ Quick resolution by appellate courts would allow the Supreme Court to hear and decide the issue this term, by the end of June.”

Jonathan Turley’s op-ed highlights the Democrats’ illogical health care hissy fit. In his op-ed, Turley wrote “There appears no end to the villainy of President Trump. This week, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra denounced Trump as nothing short of a saboteur while members have lined up before cameras to denounce his latest executive order as tantamount to murder. His offense? He rescinded an unconstitutional order by President Obama and restored the authority of Congress over the ‘power of the purse.’ The response to what Becerra called “sabotage” has been a call for a rather curious challenge where Democrats want the judicial branch to enjoin the executive branch from recognizing the inherent authority of the legislative branch. It is an institutional act that would have baffled the Framers.”

He continued, writing “I had the honor of serving as lead counsel, with an exceptionally talented team from Capitol Hill, for the U.S. House of Representatives in its challenge to unilateral actions taken by the Obama administration under the Affordable Care Act. In a historic ruling, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled in favor of the House of Representatives and found that President Obama violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the U.S. Treasury without the approval of Congress.”

If I had to bet, I’d bet that Gen. Becerra knew he was grandstanding when he did this interview:

In the interview, Becerra said that President Trump either made illegal payments during his first few months in office or he’s breaking the law now. That’s the truest statement he made in the interview. Prior to this decision, President Trump made unlawful payments. Now that that’s ending, Democrats have 2 options. They can either engage in some good-faith negotiations to fix all that’s broken with the ACA or they can get rejected in court, which will certainly happen.

These Democrat attorneys general might win in the 9th Circuit. There’s no doubt that they’ll get stopped in the Supreme Court, though.

Al Franken’s anti-religious bigotry is getting more disgusting by the day. Last week, Franken criticized Amy Coney-Barrett, President Trump’s nominee to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, for being associated with a civil rights law firm that the Southern Poverty Law Center, aka SPLC, has designated as a hate group.

First, the name of the civil rights group is the Alliance for the Defense of Freedom, aka ADF. ADF represented Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, MO in the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer in the Supreme Court. According to that ruling, the Trinity Lutheran Church Child Learning Center ran a “preschool and daycare center.” The Center applied to “replace a large portion of the pea gravel with a pour-in-place rubber surface by participating in Missouri’s Scrap Tire Program.” ADF not only won the case. They won by a 7-2 margin, meaning it was a pretty clear-cut case.

After Ms. Barrett’s confirmation hearing, “ADF president, CEO and general counsel Michael Farris” issued this statement. The statement said “It is deeply regrettable that Sen. Franken is misinformed about our work on behalf of religious freedom, something so ‘extreme’ that even seven justices of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with our position three months ago in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Comer. There is a real danger of conflating genuine hate groups, like the Ku Klux Klan, with mainstream religious beliefs that are shared by millions of Americans and people from all walks of life across the world. As a member of Congress, Sen. Franken needs to fact-check before parroting discredited attacks by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a once-proud civil rights organization that is now a left-wing smear machine known to incite violence. Alliance Defending Freedom is the largest religious liberty legal advocacy organization in the world and advocates for the freedom of all people—including Sen. Franken’s constituents—to peacefully live, speak, and work consistently with their convictions without fear of government punishment.”

Greg Gutfeld summed up the SPLC perfectly in this segment:

This week, Sen. Franken’s credibility as a legislator took a major hit. You wouldn’t know that by the Twin Cities media but it’s there. Franken is still pouring through the handful of Minnesota Supreme Court rulings that Justice David Stras participated in but the SPLC has gotten a total pass by Franken. Sen. Franken accepts the SPLC’s hateful statements as though they were carved on stone tablets without examining their principles but he criticizes organizations he knows nothing about because they don’t share his warped ideology.

Sen. Franken is a shill and ideologue. He isn’t a serious legislator. His accomplishments are virtually nonexistent. He reflexively rejects opinions held by people he ideologically disagrees with. This is consistent with the alt-left’s practices. Sen. Franken and the alt-left don’t believe in compromise, discussion or coming together based on principle. This is the end result:

Based on Sen. Franken’s affiliation with Antifa’s thugs, it’s fair to ask if we have more to fear from Sen. Franken and Antifa than we have to fear from Prof. Coney-Barrett and ADF.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Eric Holder’s op-ed doesn’t sound like a man defending the principle of prosecutorial discretion. It sounds like a man rationalizing the Obama administration’s not enforcing existing immigration law.

In the opening paragraph of Holder’s op-ed, he writes “Our nation’s sense of morality — and of itself — is once again being tested.” Shortly thereafter, Holder wrote “DACA, which gave undocumented young people brought to the United States as children a chance to work and study here without fear of deportation, has been a dramatic success. The program provided a two-year grant of protection and a permit to work legally in the United States, after which enrollees were required to go through a renewal process. To qualify, immigrant youths had to meet a set of stringent criteria: When applying, they were required to have been enrolled in high school, have a high school diploma or equivalent, or have been an honorably discharged military veteran. In addition, they must have lived in the United States continuously at least since June 15, 2007, and not have a criminal record suggesting they pose a threat to national security or public safety.”

First, I’d question why Mr. Holder thinks our “nation’s sense of morality … is once again being tested.” Is it against our nation’s sense of morality to enforce this nation’s laws? Is it against our nation’s sense of morality to give lawbreakers an edge over people who follow the rules? Is it against our nation’s sense of morality to tell law enforcement, in this case border patrol and our nation’s sheriffs, not to enforce this nation’s immigration laws?

Next, I’d like to ask Mr. Holder what he meant when he wrote “Of course, as Sessions emphasized, we are a nation of laws, and the immigration system is no different. We must ensure that our laws are enforced to maintain the vitality, prosperity and security of our polity. But in painting DACA as a flagrant disregard for our constitutional separation of powers, Sessions exhibited a fundamental misunderstanding of what DACA did.” Did Mr. Holder mean that he thinks that presidents should have the authority to unilaterally write new laws? After all, that’s what President Obama did when his EO gave illegal immigrants the ability to get a social security card and to apply for the EITC tax credit. Does Mr. Holder seriously think that President Obama never tried appropriating to the executive branch things that the legislative branch was authorized to do?

If Mr. Holder thinks that then-President Obama didn’t try doing things that only the legislative branch is authorized to do, then I’ll throw the National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning ruling in his face. That’s the case where SCOTUS ruled that only the Senate could determine when the Senate was in recess. President Obama’s solicitor general essentially argued that President Obama determined that the Senate wasn’t in session. President Obama lost that lawsuit 9-0.

I’d submit that President Obama and Mr. Holder “exhibited a fundamental misunderstanding of” the Constitution. Further, I’d submit this video as proof that the Trump administration, especially Attorney General Sessions, knows exactly what he’s talking about:

At what point will Mr. Holder admit that he’s a political hack working for the Democratic Party? It’s painfully obvious that he isn’t constitutional lawyer with integrity.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

According to this article, Chicago’s Democrat Mayor Rahm Emanuel will file a lawsuit against the Trump administration on Monday.

According to the article, Mayor Emanuel said “We are not going to be put in a position of choosing who we are as a welcoming city and strengthening our police dept. These are exactly the kind of training and technology you want to be investing in right now and also do it in a way that the community’s involved.” While it’s possible to find sympathetic judges who will side with Mayor Emanuel, it isn’t possible to a constitutional footing that permits cities to set immigration law.

Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution lists that one of the federal government’s responsibilities is to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” Nowhere in the Constitution does it give mayors of U.S. cities the authority to establish immigration or naturalization policy. Notice that the clause says its goal is to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”

Financially, Emanuel can’t afford to lose these federal grants. Politically, Emanuel can’t afford to upset Chicago’s Hispanic population. Emanuel’s problem is that he doesn’t control the federal budget. If he wants that money, he’ll have to follow the federal government’s rules.

Emanuel is hoping for a favorable ruling by the Supreme Court or, short of that, to appear to have fought the good fight. At least then, he can spin it that ‘Hey, I tried maintaining law and order but the federal government, especially the Trump administration, wouldn’t give us any grants.’

Emanuel is essentially caught in a Catch-22 situation. If he doesn’t bring street violence under control, he’ll lose the support of peace-loving Chicagoans. If he doesn’t appease Chicago’s immigration activists, though, he’ll lose their support. It’s essentially a lose-lose situation for Emanuel. Having surrogates like Todd Schulte isn’t helping Emanuel’s fight:

Todd Schulte’s dishonest replies suggests that he’s as willing to spin immigration issues as Jim Acosta. He’s right in saying that the term ‘sanctuary cities’ is a political term. After that, Schulte’s claims are mostly dishonest. Schulte wasn’t being honest when he said that police chiefs aren’t choosing to not enforce federal immigration laws. That’s precisely what they’re doing. The U.S. Constitution requires the federal government to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Sanctuary cities make it impossible to establish a uniform rule of naturalization across the nation.

Technorati: , , , ,

Greg Jarrett’s op-ed highlights Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s hostility towards President Trump. It also explains why she must disqualify herself on President Trump’s’ travel ban lawsuit.

Jarrett first highlighted RBG’s comments about Trump last summer when she said “I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president.  For the country, it could be four years.  For the court, it could be –I don’t even want to contemplate that.” Later, she said “He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?”

Jarrett then makes the case that these statements Justice Ginsburg’s “words reflect a clear bias, if not personal animus, toward the man who would go on to become president.” Finally, Jarrett cites the federal statute that requires her disqualification from President Trump’s travel ban case if it’s heard by the SCOTUS. Jarrett notes that “28 USC 455” states that “Any justice…shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.  He shall also disqualify himself…where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”

Finally Jarrett puts a finer point on his argument, noting that “the language of the statute is mandatory: “Any Justice shall disqualify” him or herself.”

There’s no question that Justice Ginsburg’s statements highlight a strong anti-Trump political bias. RBG’s statements can’t be taken as anything except her distrust for President Trump.

Jarrett’s closing argument is stated quite eloquently:

The noble traditions of the Supreme Court will be compromised should Ruth Bader Ginsburg decide she is above the law and beyond the scruples it demands.

Technorati: , , , ,