Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on February 09, 2017, 03:45:00 PM
-
President Trump checked x 2. Will see what happens at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Appeals court upholds ruling blocking Trump's immigration order
Published February 09, 2017
FoxNews.com
BREAKING: A federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld the suspension of President Trump's controversial immigration order Thursday -- a decision that could end up in front of the Supreme Court.
The panel of three judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the order after a federal judge had issued a halt to the order last week.
Trump issued the executive order, which placed a 90-day pause on immigrants from Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Sudan, on Jan. 27, causing chaos and outrage at airports across the country. The order also imposed a 120-day pause on all refugees, and an indefinite pause on refugees from Syria.
The case was given to the appeals court after a Seattle federal judge last week ordered a halt to Trump’s order. Judge James Robart issued a temporary restraining order after Washington state and Minnesota both sued. Attorneys from the Justice Department appealed Robart’s ruling, arguing that the president’s executive power gives him the authority to place restrictions on people coming into the country.
It is possible the case will next be reviewed by the Supreme Court, although Trump’s nominee for its vacant seat, Judge Neil Gorsuch, is unlikely to be in place by the time it would reach the court. It is also possible that if it goes to the high court, by that time the temporary restrictions would have expired.
Supporters of Trump's order argue it will help keep America safe from terrorists looking to infiltrate the United States from terror hotspots that often have inadequate vetting procedures. Opponents have argued it is unconstitutional and discriminatory – claiming that it is a “Muslim ban” and that it has harmed individuals and businesses.
During arguments before the court, Washington state Solicitor General Noah Purcell argued that Trump campaign statements about a Muslim ban showed discriminatory intent.
"There are statements that we've quoted in our complaint that are rather shocking evidence of intent to discriminate against Muslims, given that we haven't even had any discovery yet to find out what else might have been said in private," Purcell said.
Trump had been outspoken in his criticism of the case, calling Robart a “so-called judge” on Twitter, and on Wednesday warning that “if the U.S. does not win this case as it so obviously should, we can never have the security and safety to which we are entitled.”
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/appeals-court-upholds-ruling-blocking-trumps-immigration-order.html
-
In the meantime:
Republicans push bill to split up ‘nutty 9th Circuit’
As judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals weigh the legality of President Trump’s immigration executive order, a Republican push to split up the controversial court -- and shrink its clout -- is gaining steam on Capitol Hill.
Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona introduced legislation last month to carve six states (Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Washington) out of the San Francisco-based court circuit and create a brand new 12th Circuit.
They argue that the 9th is too big, too liberal and too slow resolving cases. If they succeed, only California, Oregon, Hawaii and two island districts would remain in the 9th's judicial fiefdom.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/bill-to-split-nutty-9th-circuit-gains-momentum.html
-
Link to the decision: http://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=3457942-Travel-Ban-9th-Circuit&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170209
-
In the meantime:
Republicans push bill to split up ‘nutty 9th Circuit’
As judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals weigh the legality of President Trump’s immigration executive order, a Republican push to split up the controversial court -- and shrink its clout -- is gaining steam on Capitol Hill.
Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona introduced legislation last month to carve six states (Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Washington) out of the San Francisco-based court circuit and create a brand new 12th Circuit.
They argue that the 9th is too big, too liberal and too slow resolving cases. If they succeed, only California, Oregon, Hawaii and two island districts would remain in the 9th's judicial fiefdom.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/bill-to-split-nutty-9th-circuit-gains-momentum.html
Thats pretty bad if even McCain thinks they are too liberal.
-
Trump seizes on omission in court's travel ban ruling, plots next move
By Judson Berger
Published February 10, 2017
FoxNews.com
President Trump got to work early Friday picking apart a federal court’s decision not to reinstate his controversial travel ban, noting that the detailed 29-page order did not include one mention of the statute he claims gives him broad authority on immigration.
“A disgraceful decision!” Trump tweeted, while quoting an analyst who flagged the omission in a Lawfare blog post.
The writer, Brookings fellow and Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes, had noted the order skipped over a key part of the U.S. code on “inadmissible aliens” which Trump had publicly recited on Wednesday in defense of his immigration restrictions.
READ THE COURT ORDER
The statute reads in part: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
Wittes wrote that this statute speaks to one of two “big questions” on which the case will turn.
He said the statute indeed gives Trump “sweeping power” to restrict entry, writing: “Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this statute, which forms the principal statutory basis for the executive order (see Sections 3(c), 5(c), and 5(d) of the order). That’s a pretty big omission over 29 pages, including several pages devoted to determining the government’s likelihood of success on the merits of the case.”
The Trump administration has pointed to that statute for days in defending the controversial move to suspend refugee admissions as well as travel and immigration from seven mostly Muslim countries.
CLINTON TROLLS TRUMP
A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, though, declined to lift a lower-court ruling that suspended the policy on other grounds.
In their unanimous decision, the judges generally referred to the government’s position that such presidential decisions on immigration policy are “unreviewable” – but rejected that argument.
“There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,” the judges wrote. “…Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution.”
The ruling did address what Wittes said was the other “big” question at play: How statements from the president and his campaign team could “render an otherwise valid exercise of this power invalid.”
This aspect pertains to past statements by Trump and his advisers that they were looking at ways to suspend immigration to the U.S. for Muslims. While the administration now insists this is not a “Muslim” ban, the states challenging the order say it violates the establishment and equal protection clauses of the Constitution because it was meant to target Muslims – pointing to the president’s past statements and other factors.
The court wrote: “The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions.”
The Justice Department is now reviewing its options -- which include the possibility of appealing the matter to the Supreme Court, asking for a review from a broader panel of judges or taking the dispute back to the lower court. Or the White House could issue a revised order.
Trump tweeted overnight, “SEE YOU IN COURT,” without specifying which court.
Wittes argued that the 9th Circuit was right to leave the restraining order in place, “for the simple reason that there is no cause to plunge the country into turmoil again while the courts address the merits of these matters over the next few weeks.”
Before the measure was put on hold, Trump’s order caused chaos at airports amid confusion over which travelers were affected. Green-card holders initially were thought to be included in the freeze, though the Homeland Security Department later made clear they were exempt.
Wittes cautioned in his post that the fight over the merits is different than the battle that just played out in San Francisco: “Eventually, the court has to confront the clash between a broad delegation of power to the President—a delegation which gives him a lot of authority to do a lot of not-nice stuff to refugees and visa holders—in a context in which judges normally defer to the president, and the incompetent malevolence with which this order was promulgated.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/10/trump-seizes-on-omission-in-courts-travel-ban-ruling-plots-next-move.html
-
Andrew Napolitano: 9th Circuit Ruling ‘Intellectually Dishonest’
by Pam Key
9 Feb 2017
Thursday on the Fox News Channel, in reacting to the 9th Circuit Court ruling upholding the blocking of President Trump‘s executive order banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, network senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano called the ruling “an intellectually dishonest piece of work.”
Napolitano said, “The statute specifically says the president on his own, by proclamation, meaning he doesn’t have to consult with anybody else, can make the decision. The decision to ban is not reviewable. Judges are incapable of second-guessing the president on it. For that reason, he may be thinking the Supreme Court is going to invalidate it.”
“I don’t know which way the Supreme Court is going to go and I don’t know which court he had in mind, but this is an intellectually dishonest piece of work the 9th Circuit has produced tonight because it essentially consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction, foreign policy, exclusively to the president,” he added.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/09/napolitano-9th-circuit-ruling-intellectually-dishonest/
-
Andrew Napolitano: 9th Circuit Ruling ‘Intellectually Dishonest’
by Pam Key
9 Feb 2017
Thursday on the Fox News Channel, in reacting to the 9th Circuit Court ruling upholding the blocking of President Trump‘s executive order banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States, network senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano called the ruling “an intellectually dishonest piece of work.”
Napolitano said, “The statute specifically says the president on his own, by proclamation, meaning he doesn’t have to consult with anybody else, can make the decision. The decision to ban is not reviewable. Judges are incapable of second-guessing the president on it. For that reason, he may be thinking the Supreme Court is going to invalidate it.”
“I don’t know which way the Supreme Court is going to go and I don’t know which court he had in mind, but this is an intellectually dishonest piece of work the 9th Circuit has produced tonight because it essentially consists of substituting the judgment of three judges for the President of the United States when the Constitution unambiguously gives this area of jurisdiction, foreign policy, exclusively to the president,” he added.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/09/napolitano-9th-circuit-ruling-intellectually-dishonest/
Judge Andrew Napolitano is one of the most sensible voices on Fox News.
-
Judge Andrew Napolitano is one of the most sensible voices on Fox News.
Yeah I like him.
-
Trump administration appeals Hawaii judge's order against travel ban
Jaweed Kaleem
March 30, 2017
The Department of Justice has appealed a Hawaii court order that brought President Trump's travel ban to a national halt.
The government has argued that the president was well within his authority to restrict travel from six Muslim-majority countries and put a pause on refugee resettlement.
The appeal Thursday to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals came a day after U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Honolulu refused to dismiss his temporary block of the travel ban that he issued on March 15.
With the appeal, the government is now fighting to reinstate the travel ban in two appeals courts on opposite ends of the country. That increases the likelihood that one of the cases will make it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Earlier this month, the Department of Justice appealed a Maryland district judge's order against the travel ban to the U.S. 4th District Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.
Both rulings in Hawaii and Maryland said Trump's executive order discriminated against Muslims. Watson and U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland cited Trump's campaign promises to suspend Muslim travel to the U.S. as proof of his order's anti-Muslim bias.
The Hawaii ruling is broader than the Maryland one. It blocks a 90-day pause on travel to the U.S. from nationals of six majority-Muslim countries and a 120-day moratorium on new refugee resettlement. The Maryland ruling only halted the ban on travel into the U.S. by citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The 9th Circuit, which has jurisdiction over nine Western states, is the same court where a panel of three judges denied a government request last month to reverse ruling against the first travel ban by a federal judge in Washington state.
Trump, in turn, lambasted the "bad court" and signed a new executive order on travel on March 6 that was modified in an attempt to survive court challenges.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/washington/la-na-essential-washington-updates-trump-appeals-hawaii-judge-s-order-1490914861-htmlstory.html
-
Trump travel ban blocked by Va.-based federal appeals court
By Barnini Chakraborty
Published May 25, 2017
Fox News
A Virginia-based federal appeals court blocked the Trump administration's controversial travel ban, becoming the second circuit court to uphold lower court rulings against the policy.
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond issued the ruling Thursday, following arguments May 8.
The ruling means the Trump administration still cannot enforce its travel ban which affects six Muslim-majority countries: Iran, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Sudan.
“We remain unconvinced [the ban] has more to do with national security than it does with effectuating the President’s promised Muslim ban," the court said.
The ruling was issued by the full, or en banc, court, in a 10-3 ruling with two abstentions.
"Congress granted the president broad power to deny entry to aliens, but that power is not absolute. It cannot go unchecked when, as here, the president wields it through an executive edict that stands to cause irreparable harm to individuals across this nation," the chief judge of the circuit, Roger L. Gregory wrote.
Judge Paul Niemeyer sharply dissented from the decision, saying it will make the U.S. more dangerous.
“Regrettably, at the end of the day, the real losers in this case are the millions of individual Americans whose security is threatened on a daily basis by those who seek to do us harm," Judge Dennis Shedd wrote in a separate dissent.
Trump issued his first executive order creating a travel ban on Jan. 27. That order, which included Iraq, sparked protests at airports around the country and brief detentions of hundreds of travelers. It was met with immediate resistance from the courts, with several federal district judges issuing orders blocking aspects of the order.
On March 6, Trump issued a revised travel ban striking Iraq and excluding existing visa and green card holders.
Another federal appeals court is considering a similar appeal of a Hawaii-based judge’s ruling blocking the visa ban. The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in that case May 15.
Both cases are likely headed to the U.S. Supreme court, according to legal experts.
The first travel ban in January triggered chaos and protests across the country as travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and detained at airports for hours. Trump tweaked the order after the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reinstate the ban.
The new version made it clear the 90-day ban covering those six countries doesn't apply to those who already have valid visas. It got rid of language that would give priority to religious minorities and removed Iraq from the list of banned countries.
Critics said the changes don't erase the legal problems with the ban.
The Maryland case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center on behalf of organizations as well as people who live in the U.S. and fear the executive order will prevent them from being reunited with family members from the banned countries.
"President Trump's Muslim ban violates the Constitution, as this decision strongly reaffirms," said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, who argued the case. "The Constitution's prohibition on actions disfavoring or condemning any religion is a fundamental protection for all of us, and we can all be glad that the court today rejected the government's request to set that principle aside."
Fox News' Bill Mears and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/25/trump-travel-ban-blocked-by-va-based-federal-appeals-court.html
-
So once again they're still calling it a "Muslim ban" and ruled on feelings instead of the actual law. This will get obliterated in the Supreme Court
-
9th Circuit rules against Trump travel ban
Published June 12, 2017
Fox News
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday ruled in part against President Trump’s so-called travel ban, upholding an injunction that prevents the administration from enforcing a suspension on travel from six mostly Muslim countries.
"We conclude that the President, in issuing the Executive Order, exceeded the scope of the authority delegated to him by Congress," the opinion said.
The ruling Monday from a unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals deals the administration another legal defeat as the Supreme Court considers a separate case on the issue.
The judges say the president violated U.S. immigration law by discriminating against people based on their nationality and that Trump failed to show their entry into the country would hurt American interests.
They didn't rule on whether the travel ban violated the Constitution's ban on the government officially favoring or disfavoring any religion. The 9th Circuit, considered among the most liberal circuits in the country, did side with the administration Monday in allowing the government to review vetting procedures. The judges directed a lower court to re-issue its preliminary injunction following the new guidance.
The 9th Circuit opinion represents just one development in the fast-moving legal battle.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia also ruled against the travel ban May 25. The administration has appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.
Earlier Monday, lawyers for Hawaii also told the Supreme Court that letting the Trump administration enforce the ban would "thrust the country back into the chaos and confusion" that resulted when the policy was first announced in January.
The state urged the justices to deny the administration plea to reinstate the policy after lower courts blocked it. The high court is considering the administration's request and could act before the justices wind up their work at the end of June.
Under the Trump policy, immigration officials would have 90 days to decide what changes are necessary before people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen may resume applying for visas. The U.S. refugee program would be halted for 120 days.
It would take a majority of the Supreme Court, at least five justices, to put the policy into effect.
The 9th Circuit weighed in Monday after a federal judge in Hawaii already blocked the ban.
Trump signed his first executive order on travel a week after he took office in January. It applied to travelers from the six countries as well as Iraq and took effect immediately, leading to commotion at U.S. airports as the Homeland Security Department scrambled to figure out who the order covered and how it was to be implemented.
A federal judge blocked it eight days later.
In March, Trump issued a narrower order, but federal courts that have examined it so far have blocked it as well.
On Twitter last week, Trump said the "courts are slow and political" and he said the government already is "EXTREME VETTING people coming into the U.S."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/12/9th-circuit-rules-against-trump-travel-ban.html
-
Thats pretty bad if even McCain thinks they are too liberal.
LOL, but seriously a guy like McCain is closer to my politics then most out there.
-
In the meantime:
Republicans push bill to split up ‘nutty 9th Circuit’
As judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals weigh the legality of President Trump’s immigration executive order, a Republican push to split up the controversial court -- and shrink its clout -- is gaining steam on Capitol Hill.
Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and John McCain of Arizona introduced legislation last month to carve six states (Arizona, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Washington) out of the San Francisco-based court circuit and create a brand new 12th Circuit.
They argue that the 9th is too big, too liberal and too slow resolving cases. If they succeed, only California, Oregon, Hawaii and two island districts would remain in the 9th's judicial fiefdom.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/09/bill-to-split-nutty-9th-circuit-gains-momentum.html
" judicial fiefdom" made me spit out my drink.
This circuit court shake up appears to have some merit.
BUT, I honestly don't know enough on this issue to make an informed comment.
If McCain thinks it's good, I'll go with that.
-
White House Takes Muslim Travel Ban To Supreme Court
06/21/2017
Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall said the lower courts had wrongly second-guessed the president.
The Trump administration on Wednesday made its final plea to the U.S. Supreme Court to allow its proposed ban on travelers from six Muslim-majority countries to go into effect as the justices weigh how to handle the hotly contested dispute.
The court papers filed by President Donald Trump’s administration complete the briefing on the government’s emergency application asking the justices to block lower court injunctions in favor of challengers to the ban. The Supreme Court could now act at any time.
The lower court rulings blocked the 90-day ban on travelers from Libya, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to give the government time to implement stronger vetting procedures.
In the court papers, Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall said the lower courts had wrongly second-guessed the president on national security policy when reviewing the March 6 executive order.
“The president expressly determined that the order’s provisions are needed to promote national security, but the lower courts here ... nullified that judgment,” he wrote.
In court papers filed on Tuesday, lawyers for the state of Hawaii and individual plaintiffs in Maryland urged the high court not to allow the ban go into effect.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-takes-muslim-travel-ban-to-supreme-court_us_594aaf23e4b01cdedeffc912?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009
-
It's not a "muslim" ban. Anyways, if it deters people coming from terrorist havens, even if it's just the fact that it shows that this country is not a good place for them to come, I'm okay with it.
-
It's not a "muslim" ban. Anyways, if it deters people coming from terrorist havens, even if it's just the fact that it shows that this populace is not a good place for them to come, I'm okay with it.
Sshhhhhh..don't tell Strawman. He still thinks it's an actual "Muslim ban".
-
Supreme Court decision shifts momentum in Trump travel ban case
By Barnini Chakraborty
Published June 26, 2017
Fox News
After successive rulings by numerous federal courts against President Trump’s controversial travel ban, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday delivered what Trump is touting as a clear victory – allowing most of the policy to be enforced and teeing up a high-stakes court battle for the fall in which the administration may have the upper hand.
Monday’s ruling effectively allows part of Trump’s executive order to go into effect, including a 90-day ban on people entering the United States from six mostly-Muslim countries who “lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” such as a spouse, close relative, employer or enrollment in an American university.
It also allows a 120-day ban on all refugees entering the United States to go into effect.
The ruling, though, sets up further litigation in the courts over the coming weeks on just how far the “bona fide” exemptions can go and whether emergency exceptions will be granted.
“I fear that the Court’s remedy will prove unworkable,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote. “The compromise also will invite a flood of litigation until this case is finally resolved on the merits, as parties and courts struggle to determine what exactly constitutes a ‘bona fide relationship,’ who precisely has a ‘credible claim’ to that relationship, and whether the claimed relationship was formed ‘simply to avoid §2(c)’ of Executive Order No. 13780.”
Reaz Jafri, head of the global immigration practice at Withers Bergman law firm, told Fox News he expects a significant uptick in cases and protests. Jafri advises clients on how to navigate the U.S.’s changes in immigration policies.
“It is still unclear if a national from one of the banned countries will get a visa to visit a family member, participate in a conference, visit schools or come for a job interview,” Jafri said. “Will these be considered bona fide reasons to visit the U.S.? My sense is ‘no’ and the implication is that U.S. businesses, universities and families will be negatively impacted.”
All nine justices agreed in the 13-page decision to take up the case in the fall, setting up a showdown over the legality of the order.
Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito Jr. and Thomas wrote a three-page opinion saying they would have allowed Trump’s travel ban to take effect fully, without regard to a foreign national’s connection to the United States. Their dissent could foreshadow a tough road ahead for opponents of the travel ban.
The justices agreed to hear oral arguments on the merits of the executive order – whether the ban is lawful or exceeds the president’s powers - during the Court's next term, which begins in October.
Though Monday’s decision wasn’t the final word on the travel ban, Trump touted it as “a clear victory for our national security.”
“As president, I cannot allow people into our country who want to do us harm,” he said in a written statement. “I want people who can love the United States and all of its citizens, and who will be hardworking and productive.”
Trump has been incensed since his original executive order, signed on Jan. 27, was partially blocked by a federal court.
"What is our country coming to when a judge can halt a Homeland Security travel ban and anyone, even with bad intentions can come into U.S.?" Trump tweeted on Feb. 4.
He added on Feb. 11: "Our legal system is broken!"
In early March, Trump issued a revised executive order -- which also had key provisions blocked by federal courts.
Trump has been spoiling for the Supreme Court to take up the case and eager to get it out of the hands of what he sees as more liberal appellate judges.
Four days after signing the original ban, Trump nominated Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated when Antonin Scalia died.
Gorsuch, who has since been confirmed, is largely seen as a conservative, originalist justice in the Scalia mold and could help Trump claim an even more definitive victory after arguments.
Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, called the travel ban unconstitutional, saying, "Courts have repeatedly blocked this indefensible and discriminatory ban. The Supreme Court now has a chance to permanently strike it down."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/26/supreme-court-decision-shifts-momentum-in-trump-travel-ban-case.html
-
US Appeals Court Denies Hawaii Bid to Narrow Trump Travel Ban
Friday, 07 Jul 2017
A U.S. appeals court on Friday rejected Hawaii's request to issue an emergency order blocking parts of President Donald Trump's temporary travel ban while the state sought clarification over what groups of people would be barred from travel.
The U.S. Supreme Court last month let the ban on travel from six Muslim-majority countries go forward with a limited scope, saying it could not apply to anyone with a credible "bona fide relationship" with a U.S. person or entity.
The Trump administration then decided that spouses, parents, children, fiancés and siblings would be exempt from the ban, while grandparents and other family members traveling from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen would be barred.
Trump said the measure was necessary to prevent attacks. However, opponents including states and refugee advocacy groups sued to stop it, disputing its security rationale and saying it discriminated against Muslims.
A Honolulu judge this week rejected Hawaii's request to clarify the Supreme Court ruling and narrow the government's implementation of the ban.
Hawaii appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, saying in a filing on Friday that the appeals court has the power to narrow the travel ban while it decides how to interpret the Supreme Court's ruling.
A three-judge 9th Circuit panel on Friday rejected that argument and said it did not have jurisdiction to hear Hawaii's appeal.
The 9th Circuit said the Honolulu judge could issue an injunction against the government in the future, if he believed it misapplied the Supreme Court's ruling to a particular person harmed by the travel ban.
But the judge did not have the authority to simply clarify the Supreme Court's instructions now, the appeals court said.
The Justice Department declined to comment. Hawaii's attorney general could not immediately be reached for comment.
Justice Department lawyers have argued that its definition of close family "hews closely" to language found in U.S. immigration law, while Hawaii's attorney general's office said other parts of immigration law include grandparents in that group.
The roll-out of the narrowed version of the ban was more subdued last week than in January when Trump first signed a more expansive version of the order. That sparked protests and chaos at airports around the country and the world.
http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/us-appeals-court-hawaii/2017/07/07/id/800499/
-
Blue states sue Trump over DACA
By Tal Kopan, CNN
September 6, 2017
Washington (CNN)Conservative states may have boxed President Donald Trump into announcing an end for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program -- but Democratic state attorneys general are already fighting back.
A coalition of 16 Democratic and nonpartisan state attorneys general filed suit in New York federal court on Wednesday to stop Trump's sunset of DACA -- the Obama-era program that protected young undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children from being deported -- and they say Trump's comments about Mexicans should be used against him.
The groups laid out five different constitutional arguments against Trump's move, saying it was motivated by discriminatory reasons, that it violated due process by being "fundamentally unfair," and that it violated laws that dictate procedures for federal regulations.
The lawyers note that most DACA recipients are of Mexican origin and devote a whole section to inflammatory statements Trump has made about Mexicans, including his attacks on a federal judge of Mexican descent.
"As President Trump's statements about Mexico and those with Mexican roots show, the President has demonstrated a willingness to disparage Mexicans in a misguided attempt to secure support from his constituency, even when such impulses are impermissible motives for directing governmental policy," the attorneys general wrote.
Trump's statements as a candidate and President have been used against him in previous lawsuits, most notably challenges against his travel ban earlier this year.
The lawsuit also devotes a section to Texas, the state that pushed Trump to end the program, using a section to describe Texas as "a state found to have discriminated against Latinos/Hispanics nine times since 2012."
Trump on Tuesday moved to sunset the DACA program, acting in response to a threat from 10 states led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent in late June, threatening Trump that they'd sue in an unfriendly court if the President didn't end the program by September 5.
The President said his administration would not accept any new DACA applications from Tuesday onward and that any two-year DACA permits expiring after March 5, 2018, would not be renewed.
Now, those state officials' Democratic counterparts are hoping they can have the opposite effect on the administration, succeeding in the courts to reinstate the program that has protected nearly 800,000 young people in its time and currently has nearly 700,000 people enrolled.
"Immigration is the lifeblood of New York State," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. "The Trump administration's decision to end DACA is cruel, inhumane, and devastating to the 42,000 New Yorkers who have been able to come out of the shadows and live a full life as a result of the program."
"I filed suit against President Trump and his administration to protect DACA because Dreamers are just as American as first lady Melania Trump," New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said in a statement.
Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley said the department is ready to defend itself.
"As the attorney general said yesterday: 'No greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our Republic, than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law,'" O'Malley said. "While the plaintiffs in today's lawsuits may believe that an arbitrary circumvention of Congress is lawful, the Department of Justice looks forward to defending this administration's position."
Difficult road to success
Legal experts say attorneys general have a long road ahead of them.
Trump is not prematurely revoking any permits, choosing instead to let them expire on their normal two-year cycle but not offer any renewals. That may help the administration skirt a challenge based on the revocation of permits, as expirations were allowed for in the original implementation.
The biggest legal argument against rescinding DACA, scholars say, hinges on the federal law that dictates how agencies can make regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, which lays out a lengthy process that requires ample notice and time for the public to comment on substantive federal rulemaking.
Ironically, the main argument for that line of legal challenge comes from the former biggest threat to DACA: Texas District Judge Andrew Hanen. In his court decision forestalling an expansion of DACA and a similar program for parents, which formed the legal basis of Paxton and the other attorneys general's threats, Hanen cited the APA's regulatory requirements.
Hanen determined that move needed formal rulemaking to be put in place. Now, supporters of DACA are poised to argue formal rulemaking is necessary to unwind the program. That would open the Trump administration to a politically painful, lengthy process of getting comment on the impact of the move.
"I wouldn't say it's a long shot, (but) I would say it is challenging, just because of the tradition against reviewing prosecutorial discretion," said Washington University law professor and Obama administration alum Stephen Legomsky. "On the other hand, they do now have this precedent that establishing it requires APA procedure. ... It's a challenging issue."
Cornell law professor and immigration attorney Steve Yale-Loehr gave the lawsuit even longer odds, saying other arguments, like due process rights being violated, are similarly difficult to prove given that DACA was explicitly set up as a reprieve from deportation, not a right.
"Given the general deference that most courts provide to executive branch decisions on immigration, because immigration touches on national security and national sovereignty issues, they're going to have an uphill battle in court," Yale-Loehr said. "I wish them well, but as far as I can tell, I think they've got a less than 50% chance of winning in court."
Still, cities and states have succeeded in the courts against the Trump administration since early in his presidency, getting courts to block policies including the travel ban and sanctuary cities threats.
There is already at least one lawsuit on the books against Trump's move: An undocumented immigrant and DACA recipient filed a suit on Tuesday, largely on the same grounds discussed by Legomsky and Yale-Loehr.
The states challenging the move are New Mexico, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/06/politics/daca-trump-states-lawsuits/index.html
-
9th Circiuit is filled with liberal c unts so it's not surprising, they've continuously upheld the Stalinist gun agenda here in California.
And lol at people suing over an executive order. Even Obama admitted when he did it that it could be struck down and rightfully so. Congress has to pass legislation to make it official which with all on their plate and the historic ineptitude of the last 20 years, don't hold your breath.
Personally I think they should give a path to citizenship for everyone who is registered under DACA, it doesn't take months of negotiations to figure that one out, it's pretty clear cut IMO.
-
3 days ago no one ever FNG knew about this
Blue states sue Trump over DACA
By Tal Kopan, CNN
September 6, 2017
Washington (CNN)Conservative states may have boxed President Donald Trump into announcing an end for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program -- but Democratic state attorneys general are already fighting back.
A coalition of 16 Democratic and nonpartisan state attorneys general filed suit in New York federal court on Wednesday to stop Trump's sunset of DACA -- the Obama-era program that protected young undocumented immigrants brought to the US as children from being deported -- and they say Trump's comments about Mexicans should be used against him.
The groups laid out five different constitutional arguments against Trump's move, saying it was motivated by discriminatory reasons, that it violated due process by being "fundamentally unfair," and that it violated laws that dictate procedures for federal regulations.
The lawyers note that most DACA recipients are of Mexican origin and devote a whole section to inflammatory statements Trump has made about Mexicans, including his attacks on a federal judge of Mexican descent.
"As President Trump's statements about Mexico and those with Mexican roots show, the President has demonstrated a willingness to disparage Mexicans in a misguided attempt to secure support from his constituency, even when such impulses are impermissible motives for directing governmental policy," the attorneys general wrote.
Trump's statements as a candidate and President have been used against him in previous lawsuits, most notably challenges against his travel ban earlier this year.
The lawsuit also devotes a section to Texas, the state that pushed Trump to end the program, using a section to describe Texas as "a state found to have discriminated against Latinos/Hispanics nine times since 2012."
Trump on Tuesday moved to sunset the DACA program, acting in response to a threat from 10 states led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sent in late June, threatening Trump that they'd sue in an unfriendly court if the President didn't end the program by September 5.
The President said his administration would not accept any new DACA applications from Tuesday onward and that any two-year DACA permits expiring after March 5, 2018, would not be renewed.
Now, those state officials' Democratic counterparts are hoping they can have the opposite effect on the administration, succeeding in the courts to reinstate the program that has protected nearly 800,000 young people in its time and currently has nearly 700,000 people enrolled.
"Immigration is the lifeblood of New York State," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. "The Trump administration's decision to end DACA is cruel, inhumane, and devastating to the 42,000 New Yorkers who have been able to come out of the shadows and live a full life as a result of the program."
"I filed suit against President Trump and his administration to protect DACA because Dreamers are just as American as first lady Melania Trump," New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said in a statement.
Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley said the department is ready to defend itself.
"As the attorney general said yesterday: 'No greater good can be done for the overall health and well-being of our Republic, than preserving and strengthening the impartial rule of law,'" O'Malley said. "While the plaintiffs in today's lawsuits may believe that an arbitrary circumvention of Congress is lawful, the Department of Justice looks forward to defending this administration's position."
Difficult road to success
Legal experts say attorneys general have a long road ahead of them.
Trump is not prematurely revoking any permits, choosing instead to let them expire on their normal two-year cycle but not offer any renewals. That may help the administration skirt a challenge based on the revocation of permits, as expirations were allowed for in the original implementation.
The biggest legal argument against rescinding DACA, scholars say, hinges on the federal law that dictates how agencies can make regulations, the Administrative Procedure Act, which lays out a lengthy process that requires ample notice and time for the public to comment on substantive federal rulemaking.
Ironically, the main argument for that line of legal challenge comes from the former biggest threat to DACA: Texas District Judge Andrew Hanen. In his court decision forestalling an expansion of DACA and a similar program for parents, which formed the legal basis of Paxton and the other attorneys general's threats, Hanen cited the APA's regulatory requirements.
Hanen determined that move needed formal rulemaking to be put in place. Now, supporters of DACA are poised to argue formal rulemaking is necessary to unwind the program. That would open the Trump administration to a politically painful, lengthy process of getting comment on the impact of the move.
"I wouldn't say it's a long shot, (but) I would say it is challenging, just because of the tradition against reviewing prosecutorial discretion," said Washington University law professor and Obama administration alum Stephen Legomsky. "On the other hand, they do now have this precedent that establishing it requires APA procedure. ... It's a challenging issue."
Cornell law professor and immigration attorney Steve Yale-Loehr gave the lawsuit even longer odds, saying other arguments, like due process rights being violated, are similarly difficult to prove given that DACA was explicitly set up as a reprieve from deportation, not a right.
"Given the general deference that most courts provide to executive branch decisions on immigration, because immigration touches on national security and national sovereignty issues, they're going to have an uphill battle in court," Yale-Loehr said. "I wish them well, but as far as I can tell, I think they've got a less than 50% chance of winning in court."
Still, cities and states have succeeded in the courts against the Trump administration since early in his presidency, getting courts to block policies including the travel ban and sanctuary cities threats.
There is already at least one lawsuit on the books against Trump's move: An undocumented immigrant and DACA recipient filed a suit on Tuesday, largely on the same grounds discussed by Legomsky and Yale-Loehr.
The states challenging the move are New Mexico, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/06/politics/daca-trump-states-lawsuits/index.html
-
9th Circiuit is filled with liberal c unts so it's not surprising, they've continuously upheld the Stalinist gun agenda here in California.
And lol at people suing over an executive order. Even Obama admitted when he did it that it could be struck down and rightfully so. Congress has to pass legislation to make it official which with all on their plate and the historic ineptitude of the last 20 years, don't hold your breath.
Personally I think they should give a path to citizenship for everyone who is registered under DACA, it doesn't take months of negotiations to figure that one out, it's pretty clear cut IMO.
Agree.
-
3 days ago no one ever FNG knew about this
Probably headed to the supreme court.
-
Supreme Court issues temporary refugee ban order
Associated Press
September 11, 2017
WASHINGTON >> Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has issued a temporary order allowing the Trump administration to maintain its restrictive policy on refugees for the time being.
The order is in response to the administration’s request for the high court to block a lower court ruling that could allow up to 24,000 refugees to enter the United States.
Kennedy ordered challengers to the administration’s refugee ban to submit written arguments in support of the lower court ruling by midday Tuesday.
The appellate ruling would allow refugees to enter the United States if a resettlement agency in the U.S. had agreed to take them in. The ruling would have taken effect Tuesday without the high court’s intervention.
The Trump administration earlier today had asked the justices to continue to allow strict enforcement of a temporary ban on refugees from around the world.
The Justice Department’s high court filing today follows an appeals court ruling last week that would allow refugees to enter the United States if a resettlement agency in the U.S. had agreed to take them in. The appellate ruling could take effect as soon as Tuesday and could apply to up to 24,000 refugees.
The administration is not challenging the part of the ruling that applies to a temporary ban on visitors from six mostly Muslim countries. The appeals court ruled that grandparents and cousins of people already in the U.S. can’t be excluded from the country under the travel ban.
The Supreme Court already has weighed in twice on lower court rulings striking down or limiting the travel and refugee bans, though it has to rule on their validity.
In June, the high court said the administration could not enforce the bans against people who have a “bona fide” relationship with people or entities in the United States. The justices declined to define the required relationships more precisely.
In July, the justices issued an order that temporarily allowed strict enforcement of the exclusion of refugees. But the Supreme Court refused to go along with the administration’s view that it could keep out grandparents, cousins and some other family members.
The 90-day travel ban affects visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.
The high court is scheduled to hear arguments about the legality of the travel and refugee bans in October. By that point, the original 90-day travel ban will have lapsed and the 120-day refugee ban will have just a few weeks to run. The administration has yet to say whether it plans to renew the exclusions, expand them or make them permanent.
The administration told the court today said that changing the way it enforces the policy on refugees would allow “admission of refugees who have no connection to the United States independent of the refugee-admission process itself.”
http://www.staradvertiser.com/2017/09/11/breaking-news/supreme-court-issues-temporary-refugee-ban-order/
-
Supreme Court lifts restrictions on Trump travel ban
BY LYDIA WHEELER - 09/12/17
The Supreme Court agreed late Tuesday to lift restrictions on President Trump's travel ban until further notice, allowing the administration to continue barring most refugees under the ban.
The court granted the government's request to block a federal appeals court ruling that said the administration cannot ban refugees who have formal assurances from resettlement agencies or are in the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program.
Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a temporary stay on Monday pending a response from the state of Hawaii, which was due by noon on Tuesday. Late in the day, the court issued a one-page order blocking the decision indefinitely.
It takes a vote of five justices to grant a stay application.
The state of Hawaii is suing the Trump administration over the travel ban, which bars citizens from six majority-Muslim countries from entering the U.S. and temporarily halts the country's refugee resettlement program. Hawaii urged the court to uphold the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and continue to allow refugees into the U.S.
“Refugees with formal assurances are the category of foreign nationals least likely to implicate the national security rationales the Government has pointed to in the past,” the state’s attorney Neal Katyal argued in court documents.
“By the Government’s own admission, these refugees have already been approved by the Department of Homeland Security. It is therefore exceedingly unlikely that they represent a security threat.”
Two federal appeals courts blocked key parts of the ban earlier this year, and the Supreme Court said in June that it would hear appeals from those decisions. At that time, the court also allowed the government to enforce the ban for people without a "bonafide" relationship with a person in the U.S.
But what relationships were considered bonafide became the subject of intense debate. The Trump administration allowed only some relatives of U.S. residents to enter the U.S., while excluding others, such as grandparents, aunts and uncles.
In its opinion last week, the 9th Circuit blocked the government from denying entry to grandparents, aunts, uncles and other extended family members of a person in the U.S., but Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall said the administration had decided not to fight the “close-family aspect of the district court’s modified injunction.”
Wall said in his request to the court that that part of the ruling was “less stark” than the nullification of the order’s refugee provision.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases that have been consolidated challenging the travel ban on Oct. 10.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/350373-supreme-court-lifts-restrictions-on-trump-travel-ban
-
Supreme Court cancels travel ban oral arguments
By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Mon September 25, 2017
Washington (CNN)In an unexpected announcement, the Supreme Court said it will not hear oral arguments on the travel ban as scheduled on October 10.
The court wants to hear from both sides if the issue is moot after the proclamation President Donald Trump issued Sunday night. Those briefs are due October 5.
This is not a ruling about the constitutionality or a final decision from the court: The one-page unsigned announcement simply removes the case from the oral argument schedule for the moment.
Legal experts have said for days that they thought Travel Ban 3.0 might -- down the road -- stop the justices from weighing in on the constitutionality of the travel ban. The justices could reschedule arguments, but it's likely those arguments would focus on whether there is still a live controversy before the Supreme Court, or whether the case should be sent back down to the lower courts to review any changes in the ban.
Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco filed a letter with the Supreme Court "respectfully suggesting" that the justices request supplemental briefs from both sides by October 5 because of the new restrictions the President has outlined. In the letter, Francisco emphasized that part of the March travel ban had expired, and the administration is putting in place new restrictions after a worldwide review.
close dialog
The court's order on Monday was in response to Francisco's request.
"In general, when one policy expires and a new policy is developed, the court may consider any challenge to the expired policy to be moot," said Irv Gornstein, the executive director of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown Law. Gornstein stressed he was talking generally, but he suggested that if the parties are no longer affected by the new policy, or its impact has changed, there may not be the injury that is necessary to establish a case -- potentially meaning things will have to start anew.
The new restrictions cover eight countries -- Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Somalia and Yemen -- and replace a provision of the travel ban that expired Sunday night.
In the proclamation, Trump wrote that he was acting "by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America."
The restrictions, tailored to the individual countries, generally go into effect by October 18.
"Because the new iteration of the travel ban applies in different ways to different countries from the March executive order, it's hard to imagine that the Supreme Court wouldn't want to hear first from the lower courts," said Steve Vladeck, CNN's Supreme Court analyst and professor of law at the University of Texas School of Law. (Vladeck co-authored a brief arguing that the current case is moot and that the Supreme Court should keep on the books lower court decisions that enjoined key provisions of the March order.)
"As these developments show, the fact that the cases have now likely become moot is entirely because of the government's voluntary actions," he said. "In such circumstances, it wouldn't be fair to hand a victory to the government by wiping away the lower court decisions ruling against them."
In briefs filed with the Supreme Court on a different issue considering the entry ban's expiration, the Justice Department argued that if the court were to ultimately dismiss the case as moot it should wipe away the decisions below.
The issue of what to do with the existing lower court opinions that were heavily critical of the President's actions could become a contentious issue between the parties.
Some believe that the justices anticipated all along that a mootness issue might arise.
For instance, on June 26, when the court issued its order allowing the ban to go partly into effect and saying it will hear the merits of the case, it added this line: "We fully expect that the relief we grant today will permit the Executive to conclude its internal work and provide adequate notice to foreign governments within the 90" days.
Immigrant rights groups blasted the new restrictions and suggested that the President had added non-Muslim majority countries to the list only to shore up his legal argument that the travel ban was necessary for national security and it was not motivated by comments he made on the campaign trail suggesting the need for a "Muslim Ban."
Becca Heller, the director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, a petitioner in the case, said that her group "strongly rejects this latest attempt at banning Muslims from entering the country".
"Of those countries, Chad is majority Muslim, travel from North Korea is already basically frozen and the restrictions on Venezuela only affect government officials on certain visas,"she said.
"Adding new countries to a ban that baselessly vilifies whole populations does nothing to change the fact that this is still government-sanctioned discrimination," said Naureen Shah of Amnesty International USA. "These restrictions will likely introduce further uncertainty for ordinary people who rely on the ability to travel, study and work in the US. Amnesty will be monitoring to see the effects of this revised ban on the lives of men, women and children around the world."
This story has been updated.
-
Supreme Court Opens Momentous Term on Monday
by PETE WILLIAMS
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court returns to work Monday facing a blockbuster docket, as it roars back from last year's unusually low-key term.
Objections to same-sex marriage, state regulation of sports betting, the privacy of cellphone users and limits on political partisanship dominate the court's agenda.
"There's only one prediction that's entirely safe about the upcoming term," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said at Georgetown University's law school late last month. "And that is it will be momentous."
The court was to hear a showdown over President Trump's travel ban, but the courtroom argument scheduled for Oct. 10 was canceled after the White House issued new visa restrictions on Sept. 24. On Thursday, lawyers for both sides will tell the court what they think should be done with the challenges to the president's authority to issue the executive order.
Here are some of the issues up before the highest court in the land this term:
Opposition to same-sex weddings
Same-sex marriage is at the heart of a case brought by a Colorado baker who refused to provide a custom cake for a gay couple's wedding reception because it would violate his religious principles. That ran afoul of a Colorado law that forbids businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
The baker, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, said his cakes are works of art and the state law compels him to express a view he opposes. "I don't want to be forced to create art, sculpting, painting, any of the things that I do for an event that goes against my faith."
But the couple he turned away, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, say there's no religious exception to laws against discrimination.
"Could a hotel owner turn away an interracial couple because his religion believed that people shouldn't marry outside their race?" Mullins asks.
State-approved sports betting
New Jersey's governor, Chris Christie, is urging the court to rule that the federal government cannot prevent his state from allowing sports betting at casinos and racetracks, where it would generate millions in tax revenue. Professional sports leagues and the NCAA say in response that a federal law bans sports betting in most states.
Cellphone privacy
At a time when 95 percent of Americans own a cellphone, the court will decide whether the police need a search warrant to plot the movements of a phone's user, by analyzing data the phone companies collect as roving calls are handed off to successive cell towers.
Lower courts have generally said police don't need a warrant, relying on a Supreme Court ruling four decades ago. It said telephone customers don't expect that the numbers they dial will remain private, since the phone company needs the information for billing. The court will decide whether that reasoning should apply in the digital age, when phones are no longer hard-wired into the wall.
Nathan Wessler of the ACLU said police should be required to get a warrant from a judge before accessing the data.
"Knowing where a person's phone goes can tell you a great deal of private information about them, from where someone slept at night, whether at home, or in someone else's house three miles away, to whether someone goes to a doctor, a psychiatrist."
Compulsory union fees
In a case that could deal a crippling blow to unions representing millions of the nation's public employees, the justices will decide whether state government workers who choose not to join a union must still pay a share of union dues to cover the cost of negotiating contracts. At stake is the future power and financial health of public sector unions in the 22 states where they have a duty to bargain for both members and nonmembers alike.
States where unions have a duty to bargain for both members and non-members alike. NBC
Anti-union groups argue that requiring nonunion members to pay a portion of union dues forces them to endorse views they don't agree with, violating their First Amendment rights. But the unions say negotiating contracts, which provide benefits to nonunion members as well, is expensive. They argue that the fees prevent "free riders."
Partisan gerrymandering
And in a case that could change the future of American politics, the justices will consider whether states can become so blatantly partisan in drawing the boundary lines for voting districts that they violate the Constitution.
Wisconsin is split nearly equally between Republican and Democratic voters, but after gaining control of the legislature and the governor's office, Republicans redrew State Assembly district lines in 2011, eventually giving them 64 out of 99 seats. Lower courts said the result was so excessively partisan that it denied Democrats a fair shot at electing candidates of their choosing.
"We've reached a point here, and Wisconsin is an extreme example, where a political party ends up deciding in advance who's going to win or lose the election," said Trevor Potter of the Campaign Legal Center, which is challenging the new map.
Courts have long held that oddly shaped districts are unconstitutional if they put racial minorities at a disadvantage. But it has never set out a legal standard for blowing the whistle on excess political partisanship.
Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, said states are getting much better at using voter information to fine tune their electoral maps. "Elected officials, armed with new data, are seeking maximum partisan advantage. And if the court doesn't put the brakes on it, this is likely to accelerate and get even worse."
This Supreme Court term will end in late June.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-opens-momentous-term-monday-n805641
-
Hawaii judge blocks latest version of Trump’s travel ban
Associated Press
Updated October 17, 2017
A federal judge in Hawaii blocked the Trump administration today from enforcing its latest travel ban, just hours before it was set to take effect.
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson granted Hawaii’s request to temporarily block the federal government from enforcing the policy. It was supposed to take effect at midnight EDT Wednesday. Watson found President Donald Trump’s executive order “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor.”
The Trump administration in September announced the restrictions affecting citizens of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen — and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. The government has said the new policy was based on an objective assessment of each country’s security situation and willingness to share information with the United States.
The judge, appointed by former President Barack Obama, said the new restrictions ignore a federal appeals court ruling that found Trump’s previous ban exceeds the scope of his authority. The latest version “plainly discriminates based on nationality in the manner that the 9th Circuit has found antithetical to … the founding principles of this nation,” Watson wrote.
Hawaii argued that the updated ban is a continuation of Trump’s “promise to exclude Muslims from the United States.”
“This is the third time Hawaii has gone to court to stop President Trump from issuing a travel ban that discriminates against people based on their nation of origin or religion,” state Attorney General Doug Chin said in a written statement this morning. “Today is another victory for the rule of law. We stand ready to defend it.”
Watson’s order states, “Although national security interests are legitimate objectives of the highest order, they cannot justify the public’s harms when the President has wielded his authority unlawfully. In carefully weighing the harms, the equities tip in Plaintiffs’ favor.
Other courts are weighing challenges to the policy. In Maryland, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups are seeking to block the visa and entry restrictions in the president’s latest proclamation.
“We’re glad, but not surprised, that President Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional Muslim ban has been blocked once again,” said Omar Jadwat, the director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project who argued the case in Maryland. “Like the plaintiffs in the Hawaii case, we are working to ensure the ban never takes effect.”
Washington state, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, New York and Maryland have challenged the policy before U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, who struck down Trump’s initial ban in January. That policy led to chaos and confusion at airports nationwide and triggered several lawsuits, including one from Hawaii.
When Trump revised the ban, Chin changed the Hawaii lawsuit to challenge that version. In March, Watson agreed with Hawaii that it amounted to discrimination based on nationality and religion.
A subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowed the administration to partially reinstate that 90-day ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees. But it said the policy didn’t apply to refugees and travelers with a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the United States.
Hawaii then successfully challenged the federal government’s definition of which family members would be allowed into the country. Watson ordered the government not to enforce the ban on close relatives such as grandparents, grandchildren, uncles and aunts.
The judge’s order today prevents acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from implementing the latest travel ban.
Watson said he would set an expedited hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order should be extended.
-
Hawaii judge blocks latest version of Trump’s travel ban
Associated Press
Updated October 17, 2017
A federal judge in Hawaii blocked the Trump administration today from enforcing its latest travel ban, just hours before it was set to take effect.
U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson granted Hawaii’s request to temporarily block the federal government from enforcing the policy. It was supposed to take effect at midnight EDT Wednesday. Watson found President Donald Trump’s executive order “suffers from precisely the same maladies as its predecessor.”
The Trump administration in September announced the restrictions affecting citizens of Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen — and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. The government has said the new policy was based on an objective assessment of each country’s security situation and willingness to share information with the United States.
The judge, appointed by former President Barack Obama, said the new restrictions ignore a federal appeals court ruling that found Trump’s previous ban exceeds the scope of his authority. The latest version “plainly discriminates based on nationality in the manner that the 9th Circuit has found antithetical to … the founding principles of this nation,” Watson wrote.
Hawaii argued that the updated ban is a continuation of Trump’s “promise to exclude Muslims from the United States.”
“This is the third time Hawaii has gone to court to stop President Trump from issuing a travel ban that discriminates against people based on their nation of origin or religion,” state Attorney General Doug Chin said in a written statement this morning. “Today is another victory for the rule of law. We stand ready to defend it.”
Watson’s order states, “Although national security interests are legitimate objectives of the highest order, they cannot justify the public’s harms when the President has wielded his authority unlawfully. In carefully weighing the harms, the equities tip in Plaintiffs’ favor.
Other courts are weighing challenges to the policy. In Maryland, the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups are seeking to block the visa and entry restrictions in the president’s latest proclamation.
“We’re glad, but not surprised, that President Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional Muslim ban has been blocked once again,” said Omar Jadwat, the director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project who argued the case in Maryland. “Like the plaintiffs in the Hawaii case, we are working to ensure the ban never takes effect.”
Washington state, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, New York and Maryland have challenged the policy before U.S. District Judge James Robart in Seattle, who struck down Trump’s initial ban in January. That policy led to chaos and confusion at airports nationwide and triggered several lawsuits, including one from Hawaii.
When Trump revised the ban, Chin changed the Hawaii lawsuit to challenge that version. In March, Watson agreed with Hawaii that it amounted to discrimination based on nationality and religion.
A subsequent U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowed the administration to partially reinstate that 90-day ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen and a 120-day ban on all refugees. But it said the policy didn’t apply to refugees and travelers with a “bona fide relationship” with a person or entity in the United States.
Hawaii then successfully challenged the federal government’s definition of which family members would be allowed into the country. Watson ordered the government not to enforce the ban on close relatives such as grandparents, grandchildren, uncles and aunts.
The judge’s order today prevents acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from implementing the latest travel ban.
Watson said he would set an expedited hearing to determine whether the temporary restraining order should be extended.
Talk about going in circles. Apparently recent decision by Supreme Court meant nothing if they can just keep blocking these and wasting time.
-
Can we just send every single refugee from off the banned list to Hawaii?
-
Can we just send every single refugee from off the banned list to Hawaii?
NO. >:(
-
Talk about going in circles. Apparently recent decision by Supreme Court meant nothing if they can just keep blocking these and wasting time.
This is how wasteful the goverment really is. Such a shame.
-
Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge
Fox News
A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.
U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued the ruling Monday in lawsuits brought by San Francisco and Santa Clara counties. According to the judge, Trump can’t set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.
The judge had previously put a temporary hold on the executive order.
The Trump administration has appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/20/trump-order-on-sanctuary-cities-permanently-blocked-by-federal-judge.html
-
Damn liberal judges. This is going to have to go to the Supreme Court to get overturned.
-
Supreme Court permits full enforcement of Trump travel ban
By Barnini Chakraborty | Fox News
Reaction from former intelligence professionals Tony Shaffer and Buck Sexton on 'The Ingraham Angle.'
Handing the White House a huge judicial victory, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of President Trump’s travel ban affecting residents of six majority-Muslim countries.
The justices said the policy can take full effect despite multiple legal challenges against it that haven’t yet made their way through the judicial system.
The ban applies to people from Syria, Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.
Lower courts had said people from those countries with a "bona fide" relationship with someone in the United States could not be prevented from entry.
Grandparents and cousins were among the relatives courts said could not be excluded.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor said they would have left the lower court orders in place.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, will be holding arguments on the legality of the ban this week.
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 resolutions by appellate courts would allow the Supreme Court to hear and decide the issue this term, by the end of June.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates. Fox News' Bill Mears and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/04/supreme-court-permits-full-enforcement-trump-travel-ban.html
-
9th Circuit rules against Trump's third attempt at travel ban
BY MAX GREENWOOD - 12/22/17
A panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled against the third iteration of President Trump's travel ban, saying it goes against federal law.
"We conclude that the President’s issuance of the Proclamation once again exceeds the scope of his delegated authority," the court said in its ruling.
The most recent iteration of the ban bars people from eight countries – six of which are predominantly Muslim – from coming to the U.S.
The San Francisco-based appeals court, however, said the Trump administration could continue to bar individuals from countries in the Middle East and North Africa from entering the U.S. if they do not have a "bonafide" relationship with someone in the U.S.
The court said the ruling would be put on hold pending any review by the Supreme Court.
In the ruling, the court said that "the Proclamation’s indefinite entry suspensions constitute nationality discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas," and that it discriminates against travelers and immigrants in the same vein as Trump’s previous travel bans.
The Supreme Court decided earlier this month that it would allow the latest travel ban to take effect, while litigation ran its course.
A Richmond, Va.-based appeals court must rule on the ban before the Supreme Court revisits the matter.
The Trump administration has pushed for a travel ban since January, which it says is necessary to safeguard national security. But each iteration of the ban has run into legal disputes, prompting the administration to issue increasingly narrow orders that could muster legal challenges.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/366268-9th-circuit-rules-against-trumps-third-travel-ban
-
I remember Trump said he enacted the travel ban with short notice to catch potential terrorist by surprise... not give them time to get here. Now that the ban has been litigated for months... and any terrorist that wanted to get here before the ban took affect could have... and yet we haven't had an attack from someone outside our borders (Homegrown so far has been the problem) doesn't it kind of make his logic for a ban seem paranoia ?
-
Judge rules against Trump administration on rescinding DACA
By Edmund DeMarche | Fox News
U.S. District Judge William Alsup grants pretrial injunction barring President Trump from rescinding Obama-era DACA immigration program; chief White House correspondent John Roberts reports.
A federal judge in San Francisco on Tuesday barred the Trump administration from turning back the Obama-era DACA program, which shielded more than 700,000 people from deportation, Reuters reported.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, ruled that the program must stay intact while litigation is played out.
Alsup ordered that until a final judgment is reached, the program must continue and those already approved for DACA protections and work permits must be allowed to renew them before they expire.
Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
As I made very clear today, our country needs the security of the Wall on the Southern Border, which must be part of any DACA approval.
2:16 PM - Jan 9, 2018
38,395 38,395 Replies 22,956 22,956 Retweets 113,023 113,023 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Dreamers who have never received DACA protections, however, will not be allowed to apply, Alsup ordered. Trump last year ended the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. He gave Congress until March to find a fix.
The Department of Justice said in a statement that the ruling does not change the department's position on the facts.
President Trump is expected to make a decision on the fate of Obama-era immigration Executive Order DACA. But what is it?
"DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend these benefits to this same group of illegal aliens. As such, it was an unlawful circumvention of Congress, and was susceptible to the same legal challenges that effectively ended DAPA," the statement read.
Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program was intended to keep the immigrant parents safe from deportation and provide them with a renewable work permit good for two years, but it was blocked by a federal judge after 26 states filed suit against the federal government and challenged the effort's legality.
Trump said he was willing to be flexible on DACA in finding an agreement as Democrats warned that the lives of hundreds of thousands of immigrants hung in the balance.
“I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with,” Trump said during a Cabinet Room meeting with a bipartisan group of nearly two dozen lawmakers.
The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday that Trump appeared optimistic that Congress could reach a decision on the program.
Trump ended DACA in September. Immigration advocates estimate that more than 100 people a day lose the protected status because they did not renew their permits before the deadline, The Journal reported.
Trump is using border security—including a border wall-- as a bargaining chip and Democrats want to use their sway on the spending bill to protect immigrants under DACA.
The plaintiffs in the suit included, among others, attorneys general from California, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and the University of California
Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general, filed a motion seeking the preliminary injunction in November, saying that the move is in violation of the U.S. Constitution and causes “irreparable” harm to DACA recipients.
Becerra said in a statement late Tuesday that the ruling is a “huge step in the right direction.”
“America is and has been home to Dreamers who courageously came forward, applied for DACA and did everything the federal government asked of them,” he said. “They followed DACA’s rules, they succeeded in school, at work and in business, and they have contributed in building a better America.”
Fox News' Jake Gibson and The Associated Press contributed to this report
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/10/judge-rules-against-trump-administration-on-rescinding-daca.html
-
What a waste of taxpayer money. They ought to focus on cutting their state and local taxes and stop gouging their residents.
Cuomo says East Coast states will sue feds, looking to thwart key piece of tax overhaul
Adam Shaw By Adam Shaw | Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/26/cuomo-announces-east-coast-states-will-sue-feds-in-new-bid-to-thwart-tax-law.html
-
What a waste of taxpayer money. They ought to focus on cutting their state and local taxes and stop gouging their residents.
Cuomo says East Coast states will sue feds, looking to thwart key piece of tax overhaul
Adam Shaw By Adam Shaw | Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/26/cuomo-announces-east-coast-states-will-sue-feds-in-new-bid-to-thwart-tax-law.html
Damn retards.
-
What a waste of taxpayer money. They ought to focus on cutting their state and local taxes and stop gouging their residents.
Cuomo says East Coast states will sue feds, looking to thwart key piece of tax overhaul
Adam Shaw By Adam Shaw | Fox News
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/26/cuomo-announces-east-coast-states-will-sue-feds-in-new-bid-to-thwart-tax-law.html
Its sheer insanity
-
Second judge rules against Trump administration on ending DACA
By Samuel Chamberlain | Fox News
Lawmakers begin a week of open-ended debate on immigration reform as the families of victims of illegal immigrants have their voices heard on the issue.
For the second time in as many months, a federal judge has barred the Trump administration from ending the Obama-era DACA program next month.
U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in New York ruled Tuesday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had "erred in concluding that DACA is unconstitutional" and granted a preliminary injunction sought by state attorneys general and immigrants who had sued the administration.
The Justice Department had no immediate comment on Garaufis' ruling.
Last month, U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco ruled that DACA must remain in place while litigation surrounding the program is ongoing. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether to take up the Trump administration's appeal of that ruling.
The Senate is expected to open the immigration debate on the latest Republican proposal. Also, the media continue to grill the White House about departed aide Rob Porter.
The ruling came down as debate in the Senate on immigration reform struggled to gain traction, with Republican and Democratic leaders immediately at loggerheads over how to move forward and President Donald Trump warning this was the "last chance" to extend protections to "Dreamer" immigrants.
Trump announced this past September that he was ending the DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, program. The move gave Congress a March 5 deadline to create a legislative replacement for the program, but was almost immediately challenged in court.
The White House has sought increased funding for border security, including a wall across the U.S.-Mexico border, in exchange for providing a path to citizenship for 1.8 million immigrants.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., began the process with a proposal allowing Republicans to bring up an amendment targeting cities that don't fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities, so-called "sanctuary cities." Then, Democrats would bring up legislation of their choosing. Amendments gaining 60 votes would become part of the broader immigration bill.
Will Congress settle the DACA debate? Republican strategist John Johnson debates Democratic strategist Sascha Burns on 'Fox & Friends First.'
The Senate's top Democrat, Chuck Schumer of New York, quickly objected.
"To begin the debate as the Republican leader suggests would be getting off on the wrong foot," Schumer said. "Very partisan."
Schumer wants McConnell to bring up legislation that incorporates Trump's priorities and a second, much narrower bill from Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Chris Coons, D-Del.
His reasoning: The legislation Schumer wants considered would address the population of young immigrants that lawmakers from both parties say they want to help, rather than side issues such as how to deal with sanctuary cities.
McConnell replied: "I'm not trying to dictate to them what they offer. They shouldn't be trying to dictate to us what we offer. We ought to just get started."
The disagreement means there could be several more hours of speeches before any votes occur. That gives a group of moderate lawmakers more time to come up with a package that could generate 60 votes in the Senate.
The White House's immigration framework includes a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants; Arkansans Senator Cotton breaks down his bill on 'Fox & Friends.'
Still, many Republicans are insisting that the bill incorporating Trump's priorities is a compromise.
"The president's framework is not an opening bid in negotiations. It is a best and final offer," said Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark.
In a meeting with sheriffs at the White House, Trump continued to frame the debate in a way that depicts many of the illegal immigrants seeking to enter the U.S. as dangerous criminals.
"We're asking Congress to support our immigration policy that keeps terrorists, drug dealers, criminals and gang members out of our country. We want them out. We don't want them in and right now we're working on DACA, we're working on immigration bills and we're making them tough," Trump said.
Fox News' Jake Gibson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/13/second-judge-rules-against-trump-administration-on-ending-daca.html
-
Federal judge rules against challenge to Trump border wall
Alex Pappas By Alex Pappas | Fox News
A federal judge on Tuesday ruled against an environmental challenge to President Trump’s border wall, delivering a win to the Trump administration in a decision that allows construction plans to move forward.
In a 101-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel wrote that both Congress and the executive branch “share responsibilities in protecting the country from terrorists and contraband illegally entering at the borders.”
The case involved the Trump administration’s ability to ignore environmental laws in the construction of the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The project had been challenged by several environmental groups and the state of California.
The ruling will now allow the administration to issue waivers on environmental laws and build sections of the border wall.
JUDGE WHO TRUMP CRITICIZED MAY DECIDE FATE OF BORDER WALL
“Border security is paramount to stemming the flow of illegal immigration that contributes to rising violent crime and to the drug crisis, and undermines national security," DOJ spokesman Devin O'Malley said Tuesday. "Congress gave authority to the Department of Homeland Security to construct a border wall without delay to prevent illegal entry into the United States, and we are pleased DHS can continue this important work vital to our nation’s interests.”
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra issued a statement saying his office “will evaluate all of our options and are prepared to do what is necessary to protect our people, our values, and our economy from federal overreach.”
“A medieval wall along the U.S.-Mexico border simply does not belong in the 21st century,” Becerra said.
Brian Segee, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, which challenged the wall, said the group plans to appeal “this disappointing ruling, which would allow Trump to shrug off crucial environmental laws that protect people and wildlife.
“The Trump administration has completely overreached its authority in its rush to build this destructive, senseless wall,” Segee said. “They’re giving unprecedented, sweeping power to an unelected agency chief to ignore dozens of laws and crash through hundreds of miles of spectacular borderlands. This is unconstitutional and shouldn’t be allowed to stand.”
Had Curiel ruled against Trump, he could have undermined the construction of barriers on unfenced portions of the border.
The Trump administration was sued back in September as part of its effort to block any construction of the border wall.
Curiel is the federal judge who then-candidate Donald Trump once accused of being biased against him – due to Curiel’s Mexican ancestry – during the campaign.
Curiel, whose parents emigrated from Mexico, was attacked by Trump in 2016. Trump said the judge held “tremendous hostility” against him in a lawsuit involving Trump University because of Curiel’s Mexican descent.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/27/federal-judge-rules-against-challenge-to-trump-border-wall.html
-
so the judge Trump said couldn't be impartial because somewhere in his ancestry had Mexican descendants ruled in favor of Trump? Rhetorical question forthcoming: can we expect an apology from trump for saying the judge couldn't be impartial because his ancestors came from Mexico?
Of course not.. he never apologizes no matter how wrong he is
-
Trump Travel Ban Looks Poised for Victory at U.S. Supreme Court
By Greg Stohr
April 25, 2018
The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised to uphold President Donald Trump’s travel ban as two key justices used an argument session to aim skeptical questions at a lawyer challenging the policy.
Hearing the last case of its nine-month term Wednesday, the court took its first direct look at a policy that indefinitely bars more than 150 million people from entering the country. Opponents, led at the high court by Hawaii, say Trump overstepped his authority and was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.
Chief Justice John Roberts suggested he doubted that the policy was unconstitutionally tainted by Trump’s campaign call for a Muslim ban at the border. Roberts asked whether those types of comments would prevent a president from taking the advice of his military staff to launch an air strike against Syria.
"Does that mean he can’t because you would regard that as discrimination against a majority-Muslim country?" Roberts asked Hawaii’s lawyer, Neal Katyal.
Another pivotal justice, Anthony Kennedy, suggested he understood Katyal to be asking the court to second-guess the president on whether a national-security emergency warranted border restrictions.
"Your argument is that courts have the duty to review whether or not there is such a national exigency," Kennedy said with a tone of incredulity. "That’s for the courts to do, not the president?"
U.S. Supreme Court - Trump Travel Ban Oral Argument (Video)
The court is considering the third version of a ban that triggered chaos and protests at American airports when Trump signed the first executive order a week after taking office in January 2017. Although two federal appeals courts have ruled against Trump, the Supreme Court let the policy take full effect in December.
The travel policy bars or limits entry by people from Iran, Syria, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. It also blocks people from North Korea and a handful of Venezuelan government officials, though those aspects of the policy aren’t at issue at the high court. Trump removed Chad from the list of restricted countries earlier this month.
The high court’s decision, likely to come in the final days of June, promises to be a major pronouncement on the president’s control over the nation’s borders. It may also serve as a judgment on an unconventional presidency marked by ad-hoc policy decisions and pointed Twitter comments.
Wednesday’s session offered few reasons to expect that judgment to be anything but deferential. The toughest questions for U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, Trump’s top Supreme Court advocate, came almost entirely from the court’s most liberal members.
One of them, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said Congress had already enacted a visa waiver process that required heightened vetting in some cases. "Where does the president get the authority to do more than Congress has already decided is adequate?" she asked.
‘Out-of-the-Box’ President
Justice Elena Kagan, another Democratic appointee, raised a hypothetical issue of a president who had made anti-Semitic remarks and whose administration found security reasons to recommend a ban on travel from Israel.
"This is an out-of-the-box kind of president in my hypothetical," she said, drawing laughter from the courtroom. "We don’t have those, Your Honor," Francisco quickly shot back before saying that he doubted that any national security reasons could justify a ban on such a close ally.
"The question is, what are reasonable observers to think given this context, in which this hypothetical president is making virulent anti-Semitic comments," Kagan said.
But Justice Samuel Alito noted that Trump’s policy affects only a small percentage of the world’s Muslims.
"It does not look at all like a Muslim ban," he said. "There are other justifications that jump out as to why these particular countries were put on the list."
Katyal said the travel ban "does fall almost exclusively on Muslims."
Kennedy Questions
Kennedy, the court’s most frequent swing vote, asked questions of both sides. He asked Francisco about a hypothetical mayoral candidate who made "hateful statements" during his campaign and then acted on those comments on the second day of his administration.
"You would say whatever he said in the campaign is irrelevant?" Kennedy asked.
But Kennedy aimed his toughest questions at Katyal, the Hawaii lawyer. The justice suggested the travel ban was more flexible than opponents contended, pointing to a provision in the most recent version that he said requires officials to revisit it every 180 days. "That indicates there’ll be a reassessment and the president has continuing discretion," Kennedy said.
And the Republican-appointed justice scoffed at Katyal’s argument that the policy lacks any clear end point. "You want the president to say, ‘I’m convinced that in six months we’re going to have a safe world,’" Kennedy said.
Francisco ended his argument by offering a defense of Trump’s motives, though the lawyer stumbled slightly over his words.
"He has made crystal clear that Muslims in this country are great Americans and there are many, many Muslim countries who love this country," Francisco said. "And he has praised Islam as one of the great countries of the world."
Underscoring the widespread interest in the case, the court posted an audio recording of the argument on its website Wednesday afternoon. It’s the first time this term the court has released same-day audio.
People began lining up days in advance for one of the roughly 50 seats the court typically sets aside for members of the general public.
For more on the travel ban, check out the Decrypted podcast:
The case is Trump v. Hawaii, 17-965.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-25/trump-travel-ban-gets-support-from-key-justices-at-high-court
-
so the judge Trump said couldn't be impartial because somewhere in his ancestry had Mexican descendants ruled in favor of Trump? Rhetorical question forthcoming: can we expect an apology from trump for saying the judge couldn't be impartial because his ancestors came from Mexico?
Of course not.. he never apologizes no matter how wrong he is
I always see this in regards to something Trump has said or done. Were you liberals calling for Obama to apologize when he was bashing police, promoting racial divide and violence or running guns into mexico?
Did you guys ever once, ask for an apology from Obama?
"If I had a son...." ::)
-
I always see this in regards to something Trump has said or done. Were you liberals calling for Obama to apologize when he was bashing police, promoting racial divide and violence or running guns into mexico?
Did you guys ever once, ask for an apology from Obama?
"If I had a son...." ::)
Absolutely on the bashing police. Absolutely on gun running. If its wrong, it doesn't matter to me what party or politician is doing it. That's how it should be for everyone
-
The main reason I voted for Trump was his Supreme Court Judge pick to replace Scalia:
Supreme Court rules for Trump in challenge to his administration's travel ban
The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in favor of President Donald Trump in Trump v. Hawaii, the controversial case regarding concerning Trump's September order to restrict travel to the U.S. for citizens of several majority Muslim countries.
In the 5-4 opinion penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that Trump's immigration restriction fell "squarely" within the president's authority. The court rejected claims that the ban was motivated by religious hostility.
The Supreme Court has just upheld Trump’s travel ban, giving Trump the final victory on this issue:
#SCOTUS rules for Trump administration, rejects challenge to Sept 2017 #travelban
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 26, 2018
Scotus conservatives rule Trump travel ban proper
— Robert Barnes (@scotusreporter) June 26, 2018
JUST IN: Trump wins Supreme Court case on travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. pic.twitter.com/PUKSc2AQqJ
— Reuters Top News (@Reuters) June 26, 2018
#SCOTUS holds ban is within president's authority under immigration laws and challengers are unlikely to prevail on establishment clause claim because the ban is justified by legitimate national-security concerns
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 26, 2018
Well I don’t think this is a surprise to any of us, as the court always seemed to side with the Trump administration on this issue.
Roberts, Kennedy, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas all ruled in the majority.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/26/supreme-court-rules-in-trump-muslim-travel-ban-case.html
-
This whole concept of sanctuary cities and how they are permitted to operate is baffling. Should be a no brainer that states cannot violate federal law.
Trump 'sanctuary cities' executive order is unconstitutional, US appeals court rules
Katherine Lam By Katherine Lam | Fox News
A U.S. appeals court ruled Wednesday it is unconstitutional for the Trump administration to threaten to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities” that aren’t cooperating with immigration officials.
"Absent congressional authorization, the administration may not redistribute or withhold properly appropriated funds in order to effectuate its own policy goals," Chief Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for the majority.
In a 2-1 ruling, Thomas also said he's sending back the case back to the lower court because there wasn't enough evidence to support a nationwide ban on Trump's executive order. The case will receive more hearings on the nationwide ban question.
SANCTUARY CITIES: WHAT ARE THEY?
In November, U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued an injunction to permanently block President Trump's executive order to cut off funding to sanctuary cities. The judge said the president didn’t have the authority to attach new conditions to spending approved by Congress, adding that the president's efforts also violated the separation of power doctrines.
The ruling came in lawsuits filed by two California counties — San Francisco and Santa Clara.
A federal judge also ruled last Friday that the U.S. Justice Department cannot withhold grants from Chicago because it was providing sanctuary to immigrants.
Trump promised to crack down on sanctuary cities, claiming they were “harboring” illegal immigrants. The administration said the executive order signed in January 2017 only applies to a small monetary fund that already requires compliance with immigration law.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/08/01/trump-sanctuary-cities-executive-order-is-unconstitutional-us-appeals-court-rules.html
-
Trump Travel Ban Looks Poised for Victory at U.S. Supreme Court
By Greg Stohr
April 25, 2018
The U.S. Supreme Court appeared poised to uphold President Donald Trump’s travel ban as two key justices used an argument session to aim skeptical questions at a lawyer challenging the policy.
Hearing the last case of its nine-month term Wednesday, the court took its first direct look at a policy that indefinitely bars more than 150 million people from entering the country. Opponents, led at the high court by Hawaii, say Trump overstepped his authority and was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.
Chief Justice John Roberts suggested he doubted that the policy was unconstitutionally tainted by Trump’s campaign call for a Muslim ban at the border. Roberts asked whether those types of comments would prevent a president from taking the advice of his military staff to launch an air strike against Syria.
"Does that mean he can’t because you would regard that as discrimination against a majority-Muslim country?" Roberts asked Hawaii’s lawyer, Neal Katyal.
Another pivotal justice, Anthony Kennedy, suggested he understood Katyal to be asking the court to second-guess the president on whether a national-security emergency warranted border restrictions.
"Your argument is that courts have the duty to review whether or not there is such a national exigency," Kennedy said with a tone of incredulity. "That’s for the courts to do, not the president?"
U.S. Supreme Court - Trump Travel Ban Oral Argument (Video)
The court is considering the third version of a ban that triggered chaos and protests at American airports when Trump signed the first executive order a week after taking office in January 2017. Although two federal appeals courts have ruled against Trump, the Supreme Court let the policy take full effect in December.
The travel policy bars or limits entry by people from Iran, Syria, Somalia, Libya and Yemen. It also blocks people from North Korea and a handful of Venezuelan government officials, though those aspects of the policy aren’t at issue at the high court. Trump removed Chad from the list of restricted countries earlier this month.
The high court’s decision, likely to come in the final days of June, promises to be a major pronouncement on the president’s control over the nation’s borders. It may also serve as a judgment on an unconventional presidency marked by ad-hoc policy decisions and pointed Twitter comments.
Wednesday’s session offered few reasons to expect that judgment to be anything but deferential. The toughest questions for U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, Trump’s top Supreme Court advocate, came almost entirely from the court’s most liberal members.
One of them, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, said Congress had already enacted a visa waiver process that required heightened vetting in some cases. "Where does the president get the authority to do more than Congress has already decided is adequate?" she asked.
‘Out-of-the-Box’ President
Justice Elena Kagan, another Democratic appointee, raised a hypothetical issue of a president who had made anti-Semitic remarks and whose administration found security reasons to recommend a ban on travel from Israel.
"This is an out-of-the-box kind of president in my hypothetical," she said, drawing laughter from the courtroom. "We don’t have those, Your Honor," Francisco quickly shot back before saying that he doubted that any national security reasons could justify a ban on such a close ally.
"The question is, what are reasonable observers to think given this context, in which this hypothetical president is making virulent anti-Semitic comments," Kagan said.
But Justice Samuel Alito noted that Trump’s policy affects only a small percentage of the world’s Muslims.
"It does not look at all like a Muslim ban," he said. "There are other justifications that jump out as to why these particular countries were put on the list."
Katyal said the travel ban "does fall almost exclusively on Muslims."
Kennedy Questions
Kennedy, the court’s most frequent swing vote, asked questions of both sides. He asked Francisco about a hypothetical mayoral candidate who made "hateful statements" during his campaign and then acted on those comments on the second day of his administration.
"You would say whatever he said in the campaign is irrelevant?" Kennedy asked.
But Kennedy aimed his toughest questions at Katyal, the Hawaii lawyer. The justice suggested the travel ban was more flexible than opponents contended, pointing to a provision in the most recent version that he said requires officials to revisit it every 180 days. "That indicates there’ll be a reassessment and the president has continuing discretion," Kennedy said.
And the Republican-appointed justice scoffed at Katyal’s argument that the policy lacks any clear end point. "You want the president to say, ‘I’m convinced that in six months we’re going to have a safe world,’" Kennedy said.
Francisco ended his argument by offering a defense of Trump’s motives, though the lawyer stumbled slightly over his words.
"He has made crystal clear that Muslims in this country are great Americans and there are many, many Muslim countries who love this country," Francisco said. "And he has praised Islam as one of the great countries of the world."
Underscoring the widespread interest in the case, the court posted an audio recording of the argument on its website Wednesday afternoon. It’s the first time this term the court has released same-day audio.
People began lining up days in advance for one of the roughly 50 seats the court typically sets aside for members of the general public.
For more on the travel ban, check out the Decrypted podcast:
The case is Trump v. Hawaii, 17-965.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-25/trump-travel-ban-gets-support-from-key-justices-at-high-court
Nice, a supposedly unbiased resource. I'm impressed. :)
-
Nice, a supposedly unbiased resource. I'm impressed. :)
Whatever that means.
-
One of the judges actually said the decision to end DACA might have been based on racism. What a crock.
9TH CIRCUIT BLOCKS TRUMP’S MOVES TO END DACA
11/08/2018 | POLITICS
Kevin Daley | Supreme Court Reporter
A federal appeals court upheld a nationwide injunction against President Donald Trump’s termination of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program Thursday.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit concluded DACA’s recension “is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
Supreme Court action could soon follow. The Trump administration asked the high court to intervene in the DACA cases Monday. The move was highly unusual, as three federal appeals courts, including the 9th Circuit, are separately reviewing orders requiring the government to continue administering DACA. The justices seldom review a case before the circuit courts issue judgment.
The University of California (UC) brought Thursday’s case after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo rescinding DACA on Sept. 5, 2017. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions sent a memo to DHS advising that DACA was not lawful one day prior on Sept. 4.
The administration argues that its decision to end the program is not reviewable in court, since DACA is a purely discretionary executive branch initiative. They also say a federal law called the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) prohibits judicial review of claims arising from deportation proceedings.
Judge Kim Wardlaw, writing for the panel, rejected that argument, explaining that courts can review DHS’s decision because the government’s finding that DACA is unlawful was its primary reason for terminating it. (RELATED: Justice Ginsburg Admitted To Hospital After Serious Fall)
“With due respect for the executive branch, we disagree,” the opinion reads. “The government may not simultaneously both assert that its actions are legally compelled, based on its interpretation of the law, and avoid review of that assertion by the judicial branch, whose ‘province and duty’ it is ‘to say what the law is.'”
The court cautioned that DACA could still be legitimately discontinued, provided the government did so on a different basis.
“To be clear: we do not hold that DACA could not be rescinded as an exercise of executive branch discretion,” Wardlaw wrote. “We hold only that here, where the executive did not make a discretionary choice to end DACA — but rather acted based on an erroneous view of what the law required—the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under settled law.”
Writing separately, Judge John Owens said there was sufficient evidence that the government’s action was tainted with racism.
“I would hold that plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the rescission of DACA was motivated by unconstitutional racial animus in violation of the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment,” he wrote.
Other decisions as to DACA termination are currently pending before federal appeals courts in New York and Washington, D.C.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/08/9th-circuit-daca-donald-trump/
-
Trump sues to block Democrats’ subpoena for financial information
By Alex Pappas, John Roberts | Fox News
Lawyers for the president have sued to block a subpoena issued by members of Congress seeking Trump's financial information; Catherine Herridge reports on the complaint.
Lawyers for President Trump on Monday sued to block a subpoena issued by members of Congress that sought the business magnate's financial records.
The complaint named Rep. Elijah Cummings, the Democratic chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, and Peter Kenny, the chief investigative counsel of the House committee, as its plaintiffs.
HOUSE OVERSIGHT CHAIRMAN WILL SUBPOENA TRUMP'S ACCOUNTANT
"We will not allow Congressional Presidential harassment to go unanswered," said Jay Sekulow, counsel to the president.
Will House Oversight Committee Chairman Cummings hold Michael Cohen accountable for lying to Congress?Video
Earlier this month, Cummings, D-Md., said the committee would subpoena accounting firm Mazars USA LLC for Trump’s financial information. Cummings is seeking annual statements, periodic financial reports and independent auditors reports from Mazars, as well as records of communications with Trump.
In seeking the records, Cummings has cited the February testimony from former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, who claimed the president inflated or deflated the value of his assets when it would benefit him.
Democrats sent a letter to Mazars in March requesting information about how Trump’s financial statements were prepared, but the firm said it could not voluntarily turn over documents unless subpoenaed.
TRUMP TAX RETURNS CENTER STAGE AT DC HEARINGS
In the suit on Monday, Trump’s lawyers ask the court to declare the subpoena “invalid and unenforceable.” It also asks for a “permanent injunction quashing Chairman Cummings’ subpoena.”
Michael Cohen tweets he will soon 'be ready to tell it all and tell it myself'Video
Trump's suit also asks for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Mazars from producing the requested information.
In the suit, Trump’s legal team complain that the Democrats have “issued more than 100 subpoenas and requests to anyone with even the most tangential connection to the President.”
“Democrats are using their new control of congressional committees to investigate every aspect of President Trump’s personal finances, businesses, and even his family,” the suit says.
The case has been assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta, a 2014 appointee of then-President Barack Obama.
In a statement about Monday’s suit to block the subpoena, Trump lawyers William Consovoy, of Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC, and Stefan Passantino, of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP said, “The Committee’s attempt to obtain years’ worth of confidential information from their accountants lacks any legitimate legislative purpose, is an abuse of power, and is just another example of overreach by the President’s political opponents. We look forward to vindicating our clients’ rights in this matter.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-sues-to-block-democrats-subpoena-for-financial-information
-
Lawyer issues warning to Congress on Barr contempt: 'You are heading into a world of hurt'
By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News
House Democrats are "heading into a world of hurt" if they escalate their fight with Attorney General Bill Barr over access to the full Robert Mueller report, according to constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley.
Turley, a George Washington University law professor, issued the warning during testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. As lawmakers grilled him and other legal scholars on issues having to do with executive privilege and congressional oversight, Turley stated that while he generally tends to give weight to congressional power, they are sure to lose if they go to court for the purpose of holding Barr in contempt for not releasing the full Mueller report.
GOP'S REP. BIGGS: DEM LAWMAKER 'SPILLED THE BEANS' ON DEMS' TRUE AIMS IN BARR CONTEMPT HEARING
"You are heading into a world of hurt if you go to the D.C. Circuit," Turley warned.
House Democrats recently voted at the committee level to hold Barr in contempt for refusing to release a fully unredacted version of the Mueller report and underlying materials. Turley pointed out, as Barr has in the past, that the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not allow Barr to disclose the secret grand jury information that was redacted in the previously released version.
Attorney General William Barr assigns US Attorney to examine Russia ProbeVideo
The D.C. Circuit recently ruled on this very issue, stating in the case of McKeever v. Barr that, outside of the specific exceptions outlined in Rule 6(e), courts do not have authority to order the disclosure of grand jury information. Since any legal action taken against Barr for contempt would likely end up before the D.C. Circuit, Turley made it clear that going down that road is a bad idea for Congress.
"There’s no question that he cannot release this Rule 6(e) information," Turley said, calling Barr's position "unassailable."
The professor said that Congress may have better luck in forcing witnesses to testify and acquiring some of the underlying documents referenced in the Mueller report, but he still cautioned Democrats regarding certain matters of executive privilege, which President Trump has invoked in an attempt to keep the material secret.
TRUMP BLOCKS CONGRESS FROM FULL MUELLER REPORT
For instance, Turley warned Democrats not to challenge Trump's assertion of executive privilege with regard to information shared with the Special Counsel's Office, which is part of the executive branch. He said case law is strong on this issue.
"I strongly encourage you not to make that argument in federal court," he said.
House Democrats, though, have pressed forward, accusing the Trump administration of obstructing their efforts to learn more about the Russia investigation.
“We did not relish doing this, but we have no choice,” Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said after the contempt vote earlier this month, adding, "We’ve talked for a long time about approaching a constitutional crisis. We are now in it."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/lawyer-issues-warning-to-congress-on-barr-contempt-you-are-heading-into-a-world-of-hurt
-
Appeals court rules Trump end of DACA was unlawful
BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 05/17/19
A split federal appeals court on Friday ruled that President Trump’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was unlawful because “it was not adequately explained."
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia found that the administration's termination of the program was "arbitrary and capricious," in line with a prior ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The bulk of the ruling rests on how the administration laid out its decision to rescind the DACA program.
Attorneys for the Trump administration argued that the decision to rescind DACA was an agency decision, and therefore did not have to made available for public comment and other procedures required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
While the court agreed that the decision didn’t have to undergo a public comment period, they said administration officials still violated the federal law by not fully explaining its decision to rescind DACA.
The judges wrote in the majority opinion that then-Acting Homeland Security Secretary Elaine Duke “rescinded a general enforcement policy in existence for over five years and affecting hundreds of thousands of enrollees based on the view that the policy was unlawful.”
“Nor did the Department adequately account for the reliance interests that would be affected by its decision. Hundreds of thousands of people had structured their lives on the availability of deferred action during the over five years between the implementation of DACA and the decision to rescind,” the opinion reads. “Although the government insists that Acting Secretary Duke considered these interests in connection with her decision to rescind DACA, her Memo makes no mention of them.”
The appeals court decision stems from a lawsuit arguing that the decision to end DACA needed to undergo public comment and other APA procedures.
The complaint also alleged that the proposed policy changes on how the personal information of DACA applicants would be shared were similarly unlawful, and violated due process protections guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
The court found that while the administration argued that DACA was unlawful in its decision to end the program, the documents used to back up those claims did not “identify any statutory provision with which the DACA policy conflicts.”
The judges noted that then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions wrote in a memo that courts had ruled against the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program, which was similar to DACA and partly expanded the protections for children.
But they said that DACA and DAPA are still two separate programs, and the administration failed to state exactly how court rulings against one program would impact the other.
The judges also reversed a lower court ruling about blocking information on DACA applicants from being shared for immigration enforcement purposes.
They found that the department had told applicants that policies that protected some of their information from immigration officials “could be ‘modified, superseded, or rescinded at any time without notice’ and were ‘not intended to’ and did not ‘create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by any party.’”
Friday’s ruling was not unanimous: In a separate opinion, Judge Julius Richardson wrote that the administration had the authority to “decide to prosecute, or not prosecute, an individual or a group” as long it’s permitted under the Constitution and doesn’t go beyond officials’ duties under federal law.
“Here, the Executive’s proper exercise of that discretion to rescind DACA is judicially unreviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act, regardless of one’s view of the policy questions underlying DACA. To hold otherwise permits the Judicial Branch to invade the province of the Executive and impair the carefully constructed separation of powers laid out in our Constitution,” Richardson, a Trump appointee, wrote.
And while the majority opinion did not take up the lawsuit’s constitutional arguments, Richardson stated that he would have ruled against them.
“The plaintiffs may have serious concerns about our nation’s immigration laws and the Department’s policy of enforcing those laws. But an understandable policy concern is not a legally cognizable right. The rescission of DACA simply does not generate a due process claim,” he wrote.
Richardson did agree with the majority’s opinion to vacate an injunction blocking officials from sharing information on DACA applications with immigration enforcement.
The ruling comes as the legal battle over the termination of DACA continues. The Supreme Court is weighing whether to hear several cases over the end of the program.
The Trump administration was dealt a blow last year when the justices declined to take up their challenge to a ruling that temporarily blocked officials from rolling back the Obama-era immigration program.
Friday’s ruling also landed one day after Trump unveiled a new immigration plan to shift the U.S. toward a “merit-based” system that promotes skilled workers over migrants with family living in the nation.
https://thehill.com/latino/444239-appeals-court-rules-trump-end-of-daca-was-unlawful
-
Trumps idea of checks and balances is:
I'll write David Pecker a check and that will cover the balance of what The National Enquirer owes Stormy.
I know you didn't like his politics as President, but c'mon give them man credit for this speech and living a decent , moral life.
He put himself thru some good schools , stayed married, raised his kids and worked his way up in politics.
You can think he's too liberalconservative, but give the man proper credit for how he's lived.
-
Not surprised.
Judge upholds Dem subpoena for Trump financial records
It’s a big win for House Democrats, though the president will surely appeal.
By ANDREW DESIDERIO and KYLE CHENEY 05/20/2019
A federal judge upheld a congressional subpoena seeking President Donald Trump’s financial records from an accounting firm, dealing a blow to the president’s efforts to resist Democratic investigations.
U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta’s ruling means that Mazars USA must comply with the House Oversight and Reform Committee’s subpoena for eight years of Trump’s financial records, though the president is certain to appeal the ruling.
The president filed suit last month to block the subpoena, arguing that it amounted to an abuse of congressional authority.
Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) issued the subpoena to Mazars last month as part of the panel’s investigation into whether Trump committed financial crimes before he became president.
In particular, the committee has sought to corroborate specific claims made by Trump’s former personal attorney and fixer Michael Cohen. Earlier this year, Cohen turned over documents to the panel which purport to show that Trump artificially inflated and deflated the values of his assets to suit his personal financial benefit.
For example, Cohen told lawmakers that Trump submitted false financial statements to Deutsche Bank in 2014 as he was seeking a loan to buy the Buffalo Bills NFL team.
Mehta’s ruling represented the first time the federal judiciary has weighed in on the ongoing oversight battle between Trump and House Democrats. His ruling is likely to provide a blueprint for other judges who are set to make their own rulings on Trump’s vow to defy all congressional subpoenas.
Mehta heard arguments from Trump attorney William Consovoy and House General Counsel Douglas Letter last week, during which he cast serious doubt on Consovoy’s legal arguments.
Consovoy contended that Congress has no legitimate authority to investigate whether the president violated the law, because such probes are handled by “law enforcement” entities and aren’t tied to a specific legislative remedy.
But Mehta pushed back strongly on Consovoy, stating those types of investigations are “strictly” within Congress’ purview. He also said Congress has authority to investigate conflicts of interest — for example, whether a president has a “financial interest in a particular piece of legislation that was being considered.”
In addition to the Mazars suit, Trump has asked a federal court to invalidate the House Intelligence and Financial Services committees’ subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and Capital One. Those subpoenas also seek Trump’s personal and business financial records, as part of a joint investigation centering on whether Trump is compromised, financially or otherwise, by foreign actors.
Trump and his GOP allies have argued that the Democrats’ probes are illegitimate and amount to an abuse of power.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/judge-upholds-dem-subpoena-for-trump-financial-records-1335370
-
Judge says banks can give Trump financial records to House Democrats
BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 05/22/19
A federal judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that Deutsche Bank and Capital One may provide President Trump's financial records to House Democratic lawmakers after the administration attempted to block the move, according to multiple media reports.
This is the second setback for the president this week in his fight to stop lawmakers from gaining access to his financial records as part of their sweeping probes into him, his administration, his private businesses and his family.
Trump, his businesses and family members had argued for the federal court in New York to issue a preliminary injunction to block the subpoenas for documents.
https://thehill.com/regulation/445089-judge-says-banks-can-give-trump-financial-records-to-house-democrats
-
Judge says banks can give Trump financial records to House Democrats
BY JACQUELINE THOMSEN - 05/22/19
A federal judge in New York on Wednesday ruled that Deutsche Bank and Capital One may provide President Trump's financial records to House Democratic lawmakers after the administration attempted to block the move, according to multiple media reports.
This is the second setback for the president this week in his fight to stop lawmakers from gaining access to his financial records as part of their sweeping probes into him, his administration, his private businesses and his family.
Trump, his businesses and family members had argued for the federal court in New York to issue a preliminary injunction to block the subpoenas for documents.
https://thehill.com/regulation/445089-judge-says-banks-can-give-trump-financial-records-to-house-democrats
Before anyone gets too excited about the possibility of this information being made available to the committee, let alone the people, consider this paragraph from the article: Still, Trump's lawyers are likely to appeal the latest ruling as well. And with major political implications at hand, judges are likely to be cautious in issuing their rulings, meaning the legal battle could drag out over the coming weeks and months.
-
Still wondering why the obsession with Trumps taxes? He made his money in the private sector, not as a politician. What exactly are the demoncrats looking for ???
-
Still wondering why the obsession with Trumps taxes? He made his money in the private sector, not as a politician. What exactly are the demoncrats looking for ???
They hope to embarrass Trump if his income is not as great as he claims.
This will only work if anyone cares which nobody who voted for Trump does.
-
Before anyone gets too excited about the possibility of this information being made available to the committee, let alone the people, consider this paragraph from the article: Still, Trump's lawyers are likely to appeal the latest ruling as well. And with major political implications at hand, judges are likely to be cautious in issuing their rulings, meaning the legal battle could drag out over the coming weeks and months.
I'm thinking it ends up in the Supreme Court.
-
Still wondering why the obsession with Trumps taxes? He made his money in the private sector, not as a politician. What exactly are the demoncrats looking for ???
They hope to embarrass Trump if his income is not as great as he claims.
This will only work if anyone cares which nobody who voted for Trump does.
Agree.
-
Agree.
They suspect 1. He cheated on his taxes as he almost admitted. 2. He doesn't make what he says 3. He has ties to Russia and 4. He doesn't give to charity.
Number 2 and 4 doesn't concern me. However, if he cheated on his taxes and has enough ties to Russia to explain his reluctance to call Putin out.. his base won't care and those who didn't like him still wont like him so I don't see the point. Short of him actually killing a white woman with political ties, I don't see anything effecting him.
-
They suspect 1. He cheated on his taxes as he almost admitted. 2. He doesn't make what he says 3. He has ties to Russia and 4. He doesn't give to charity.
Number 2 and 4 doesn't concern me. However, if he cheated on his taxes and has enough ties to Russia to explain his reluctance to call Putin out.. his base won't care and those who didn't like him still wont like him so I don't see the point. Short of him actually killing a white woman with political ties, I don't see anything effecting him.
So they didn't make a big enough fool out of you with that Russia crap? Just cannot let it go. I feel sorry for you and others who cannot bring themselves to accept how ridiculous this entire episode was.
This is nothing more than a political witch hunt. Compounding the biggest governmental political abuse of my lifetime. I hope it gets to the Supreme Court and they put a stop to this.
But you have to be a civil libertarian to be concerned about state and federal governments targeting individuals.
-
They suspect 1. He cheated on his taxes as he almost admitted. 2. He doesn't make what he says 3. He has ties to Russia and 4. He doesn't give to charity.
Number 2 and 4 doesn't concern me. However, if he cheated on his taxes and has enough ties to Russia to explain his reluctance to call Putin out.. his base won't care and those who didn't like him still wont like him so I don't see the point. Short of him actually killing a white woman with political ties, I don't see anything effecting him.
#1….Who DOESN'T cheat on their taxes ::)
#3 Still with Russia? Mueller didn't do a good enough job for you?
-
#1….Who DOESN'T cheat on their taxes ::)
#3 Still with Russia? Mueller didn't do a good enough job for you?
We both know there is a difference between conspiring with Russia over an election and having financial ties with Russia that would push you to kiss Putins ass due to financial concerns. Why you pretend you are naive about it is the question
-
I'm thinking it ends up in the Supreme Court.
I am thinking this too.
-
They suspect 1. He cheated on his taxes as he almost admitted. 2. He doesn't make what he says 3. He has ties to Russia and 4. He doesn't give to charity.
Number 2 and 4 doesn't concern me. However, if he cheated on his taxes and has enough ties to Russia to explain his reluctance to call Putin out.. his base won't care and those who didn't like him still wont like him so I don't see the point. Short of him actually killing a white woman with political ties, I don't see anything effecting him.
2 and 4 are exactly what all of this will show, and the Democrats will make fun and troll him for it because they have nothing else. If that doesn’t concern you that they’re wasting money to be petty and spiteful, I really don’t know what to say.
Obviously if they find 1 or 3, then that’s bad/icing on the cake for dems, but I highly doubt it will happen. I just don’t know why 2 and a half years later they can’t just let it go.
-
We both know there is a difference between conspiring with Russia over an election and having financial ties with Russia that would push you to kiss Putins ass due to financial concerns. Why you pretend you are naive about it is the question
says a former sacked security guard ::) still a village idiot i See..
-
We both know there is a difference between conspiring with Russia over an election and having financial ties with Russia that would push you to kiss Putins ass due to financial concerns. Why you pretend you are naive about it is the question
So we've gone from collusion to "financial ties" with Russia? That's just fucking dumb, everybody already knows he was doing business in Russia right? What exactly are they trying to find?
-
So we've gone from collusion to "financial ties" with Russia? That's just fucking dumb, everybody already knows he was doing business in Russia right? What exactly are they trying to find?
Not saying there's anything to it, but a business person conducting business with a somewhat hostile foreign country, such as Russia, is very different form continuing this arrangement while being a (supposed) leader of the wealthiest country in the world.
-
We both know there is a difference between conspiring with Russia over an election and having financial ties with Russia that would push you to kiss Putins ass due to financial concerns. Why you pretend you are naive about it is the question
^^^ this ^^^
-
We both know there is a difference between conspiring with Russia over an election and having financial ties with Russia that would push you to kiss Putins ass due to financial concerns. Why you pretend you are naive about it is the question
^^^ this ^^^
Either one of you care to explain how the Almighty Trump has kissed Putins ass? Besides personal compliments, has he given Putin money? Lightened up tariffs? Eased any sanctioned without just cause?
-
Judge tosses House Dems' lawsuit over Trump's use of emergency military funds for border wall
By Gregg Re | Fox News
Washington, D.C., district court Judge Trevor McFadden threw out House Democrats' lawsuit seeking an injunction against President Trump's emergency border wall funding reallocation, saying that the matter is fundamentally a political dispute and that the politicians lack standing to make a legal case.
Trump had declared a national emergency this past February over the humanitarian crisis at the southern border, following Congress' failure to fund his border wall legislatively. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and House Democrats then filed suit in April, charging that Trump was "stealing from appropriated funds” by moving $6.7 billion from other projects toward border wall construction.
Democrats argued that the White House had "flouted the fundamental separation-of-powers principles and usurped for itself legislative power specifically vested by the Constitution in Congress."
But, in his ruling, McFadden, a Trump appointee, suggested Democrats were trying to circumvent the political process.
"This case presents a close question about the appropriate role of the Judiciary in resolving disputes between the other two branches of the Federal Government. To be clear, the court does not imply that Congress may never sue the Executive to protect its powers," McFadden wrote in his opinion. "The Court declines to take sides in this fight between the House and the President."
McFadden's ruling contrasted with Barack Obama-appointed U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam’s injunction last week, which blocked the administration from using the reallocated funds for projects in specific areas in Texas and Arizona.
McFadden began by focusing on two guiding Supreme Court cases he called "lodestars"-- the 2015 case Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, and the 1997 case Raines v. Byrd.
Raw video: Over a thousand migrants caught crossing border near El Paso, Texas
Raw video: Over a thousand migrants caught crossing border near El Paso, Texas
Border Patrol has picked up the migrants caught on this tape.
"Read together, Raines and Arizona State Legislature create a spectrum of sorts," McFadden wrote. "On one end, individual legislators lack standing to allege a generalized harm to Congress’s Article I power. On the other end, both chambers of a state legislature do have standing to challenge a nullification of their legislative authority brought about through a referendum."
But McFadden quickly distinguished the Arizona State Legislature case, which found institutional standing for legislators only in a limited instance. The Arizona case, the judge noted, “does not touch or concern the question whether Congress has standing to bring a suit against the President," and the Supreme Court has found there was “no federal analogue to Arizona’s initiative power."
Democrats' dispute was more similar to the one in the Raines case, McFadden wrote. Under the framework and factors considered in Raines -- including how similar matters have been handled historically, and the availability of other remedies besides litigation -- McFadden ruled House Democrats lacked standing.
Concerning past historical practice, the Trump administration argued in its brief that when Congress was concerned about "unauthorized Executive Branch spending in the aftermath of World War I, it responded not by threatening litigation, but by creating the General Accounting Office." The judge cited that argument the judge cited appprovingly in his opinion, calling it "persuasive."
Examples of hotly debated political questions being resolved without involving the courts, McFadden continued, "abound" throughout history.
PRIVATELY FUNDED BORDER WALL CONSTRUCTION BEGINS IN EL PASO
For example, McFadden wrote, in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt "fired an official from his Senate-confirmed position at the Federal Trade Commission. ...The President removed the official without providing a reason. ... The Senate likely had a 'strong[] claim of diminution of' its Advice and Consent power. ... Yet the Senate made no effort to challenge this action in court."
Additionally, McFadden said Democrats retained constitutional legislative options with which to remedy their objections about the president's purported misuse of the Appropriations Clause. Under Supreme Court precedent in the Raines case, McFadden asserted, the existence of those additional options suggested Democrats lacked standing.
McFadden noted in particular that Democrats retained the power to modify or even repeal the appropriations law if they wanted to "exempt future appropriations" from the Trump administration's reach.
This May 29, 2019 photo released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shows some of 1,036 migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas, the largest that the Border Patrol says it has ever encountered. Video shows them going under a chain-link fence to the U.S., where they waited for agents to come. The Border Patrol has encountered 180 groups of more than 100 people since October, compared to 13 during the previous 12-month period and two the year before. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection via AP)
This May 29, 2019 photo released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shows some of 1,036 migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso, Texas, the largest that the Border Patrol says it has ever encountered. Video shows them going under a chain-link fence to the U.S., where they waited for agents to come. The Border Patrol has encountered 180 groups of more than 100 people since October, compared to 13 during the previous 12-month period and two the year before. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection via AP)
Because the White House had not "nullified" that legislative power, McFadden wrote, there was no urgent need for judicial intervention sufficient to override the considerations of the political question doctrine, which holds that courts generally stay out of politically sensitive matters best left to voters.
"Congress has several political arrows in its quiver to counter perceived threats to its sphere of power," McFadden wrote. "These tools show that this lawsuit is not a last resort for the House. And this fact is also exemplified by the many other cases across the country challenging the administration's planned construction of the border wall."
McFadden continued: "The House retains the institutional tools necessary to remedy any harm caused to this power by the Administration’s actions. Its Members can, with a two-thirds majority, override the President’s veto of the resolution voiding the National Emergency Declaration. They did not. It can amend appropriations laws to expressly restrict the transfer or spending of funds for a border wall under Sections 284 and 2808. Indeed, it appears to be doing so."
The judge added that House Democrats had the burden of demonstrating that they had standing -- a difficult hurdle for any plaintiff to clear, which involves showing a particularized injury that the court can address.
To that end, McFadden quoted former Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the seminal 1803 case Marbury v. Madison, in which Marshall wrote, the "province of the [C[ourt is, solely, to decide on the rights of individuals, not to enquire how the executive, or executive officers, perform duties in which they have a discretion."
McFadden also wrote, quoting from another Supreme Court case, "Intervening in a contest between the House and President over the border wall would entangle the Court 'in a power contest nearly at the height of its political tension' and would 'risk damaging the public confidence that is vital to the functioning of the Judicial Branch.'"
Lawmakers expressly approved only $1.375 billion in the weeks after the shutdown, to go toward funding to 55 miles of wall along the southern border. But, Trump said that was inadequate, and he pushed ahead by moving funds from other Homeland Security projects previously approved by legislators. In his budget request earlier this year, Trump formally requested another $8.6 billion from Congress, saying that would be sufficient to build more than 700 miles of wall.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
At a hearing in May, McFadden hinted that courts should stay out of the matter -- and suggested an appeal was imminent regardless.
"I’m not sure how much necessarily our views will carry the day for the courts above us," McFadden said at the hearing.
Disagreement is already brewing in the lower courts, setting the stage for appellate panels to step in. Gillam, the Northern District of California judge who ruled last month that Trump was likely breaking the law by reallocating the wall funds, blocked some projects slated for immediate construction in Yuma and El Paso.
“In short, the position that when Congress declines the Executive’s request to appropriate funds, the Executive nonetheless may simply find a way to spend those funds without Congress does not square with fundamental separation of powers principles dating back to the earliest days of our Republic,” wrote Gilliam.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-house-dems-lawsuit-trump-emergency-military-funds-border-wall
-
Either one of you care to explain how the Almighty Trump has kissed Putins ass? Besides personal compliments, has he given Putin money? Lightened up tariffs? Eased any sanctioned without just cause?
Nobody answered, unsurprisingly.
-
Nobody answered, unsurprisingly.
The reason is obvious... the answer is clear.. but it would again fall on deaf ears. If you haven't seen a clear difference in how Trump treats Putin vs literally anybody else, you haven't been watching or are too far gone for an explanation to meet with anything but some dumb Hannity type response. I think people are just tired of beating the "Tell me one lie Trump has said" people over the head with the information and getting nowhere.
-
The reason is obvious... the answer is clear.. but it would again fall on deaf ears. If you haven't seen a clear difference in how Trump treats Putin vs literally anybody else, you haven't been watching or are too far gone for an explanation to meet with anything but some dumb Hannity type response. I think people are just tired of beating the "Tell me one lie Trump has said" people over the head with the information and getting nowhere.
Typed a whole lot of words without saying anything. What, specifically, has Trump done to kiss Putin's butt?
Also, what has he done to hold Russia accountable for things they have done?
-
Typed a whole lot of words without saying anything. What, specifically, has Trump done to kiss Putin's butt?
Also, what has he done to hold Russia accountable for things they have done?
Sorry, but explaining the obvious to people who still ask for evidence that Trump lies is pointless.
-
Sorry, but explaining the obvious to people who still ask for evidence that Trump lies is pointless.
lol. You are such a poser. lol
-
Hahaa!!! ;D
Hard to have any kind of discussion with someone that just repeats what his TV told him and doesn't actually think for himself.
-
The reason is obvious... the answer is clear.. but it would again fall on deaf ears. If you haven't seen a clear difference in how Trump treats Putin vs literally anybody else, you haven't been watching or are too far gone for an explanation to meet with anything but some dumb Hannity type response. I think people are just tired of beating the "Tell me one lie Trump has said" people over the head with the information and getting nowhere.
Somebody answered, but nothing was said...
-
Somebody answered, but nothing was said...
History on Getbig with a few members has shown that regardless of facts posted, they will find a way to explain it away. After awhile, people stop trying because they have learned facts don't matter.
-
After awhile, people stop trying because they have learned facts don't matter.
We haven't given up on you yet, you'll come around to the right side!! I believe in you!!
-
Another huge win for the Trumpster!
Supreme Court: Trump can use Pentagon funds for border wall
https://www.apnews.com/5d893d388c254c7fa83a1570112ae90e
-
Supreme Court allows broad enforcement of Trump asylum rule
By MARK SHERMAN
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is allowing nationwide enforcement of a new Trump administration rule that prevents most Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the United States.
The justices’ order late Wednesday temporarily undoes a lower court ruling that had blocked the new asylum policy in some states along the southern border. The policy is meant to deny asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. without seeking protection there.
Most people crossing the southern border are Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty. They are largely ineligible under the new rule, as are asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and South America who arrive regularly at the southern border.
The shift reverses decades of U.S. policy. The administration has said that it wants to close the gap between an initial asylum screening that most people pass and a final decision on asylum that most people do not win.
“BIG United States Supreme Court WIN for the Border on Asylum!” President Donald Trump tweeted.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the high-court’s order.
“Once again, the Executive Branch has issued a rule that seeks to upend longstanding practices regarding refugees who seek shelter from persecution,” Sotomayor wrote.
The legal challenge to the new policy has a brief but somewhat convoluted history. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco blocked the new policy from taking effect in late July. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Tigar’s order so that it applied only in Arizona and California, states that are within the 9th Circuit.
That left the administration free to enforce the policy on asylum seekers arriving in New Mexico and Texas. Tigar issued a new order on Monday that reimposed a nationwide hold on asylum policy. The 9th Circuit again narrowed his order on Tuesday.
The high court action allows the Republican administration to impose the new policy everywhere while the court case against it continues.
It’s unclear how quickly the policy will be rolled out and how exactly it fits in with the other efforts by the administration to restrict border crossings and tighten asylum rules.
For example, thousands of people are waiting on lists at border crossings in Mexico to claim asylum in the U.S. And acting U.S. Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan said Thursday that 45,000 people have been turned back to Mexico to wait out their asylum claims.
Asylum seekers must pass an initial screening called a “credible fear” interview, a hurdle that a vast majority clear. Under the new policy, they would fail the test unless they sought asylum in at least one country they traveled through and were denied. They would be placed in fast-track deportation proceedings and flown to their home countries at U.S. expense.
The American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing immigrant advocacy groups in the case, Lee Gelernt, said: “This is just a temporary step, and we’re hopeful we’ll prevail at the end of the day. The lives of thousands of families are at stake.”
Morgan said Trump and his administration are “doing everything that they can” to address what he described as the crisis on the U.S. border with Mexico.
Migrants with valid claims “should be seeking help and asylum from the first country they come in contact with,” Morgan said Thursday on Fox News Channel’s “Fox and Friends.” ″They shouldn’t be paying the cartels thousands of dollars and risking their lives to take a 1,000-mile journey across several countries to get help. We want them to get help and seek asylum in the first country they get to.”
Justice Department spokesperson Alexei Woltornist said the agency was “pleased that the Supreme Court intervened in this case,” adding, “This action will assist the Administration in its objectives to bring order to the crisis at the southern border, close loopholes in our immigration system, and discourage frivolous claims.”
___
Associated Press writer Colleen Long contributed to this report.
https://apnews.com/a817cf3affb04f3d8ad3c4940366a5fe
-
Brett Kavanaugh Casts Deciding Vote, Ends 9th Circuit Court Reign of Terror On Key Issue
President Trump just got some great news as the Supreme Court, with Brett Kavanaugh casting the deciding vote, just ended the liberal 9th circuit court’s reign of terror.
Trump has complained about the runaway court as it has bloked many of Trump’s actions in the executive branch.
The court went along partisan lines and came back with a 5-4 decision and a big victory for Trump.
The 5-4 decision reversed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals earlier ruling. Thankfully, Trump’s historic win and realignment of the courts is restoring sanity to America.
The Court sided with Trump and ruled that the U.S. government can detain immigrants with past criminal records without bond (for as long as needed) as they await deportation.
The four judges who opposed the ruling did so vehemently which goes to show what was at stake in America with the 2016 election. It is common sense to hold a criminal who is not a citizen, especially one who was violent, in custody before we deport them. Thankfully, America made a wise choice in Trump.
From CNN: The Supreme Court held on Tuesday that the government can detain — without a bond hearing — immigrants with past criminal records, even if years have passed since they were released from criminal custody.
The case centered on whether detention without a bond hearing must occur promptly upon an immigrant’s release from criminal custody or whether it can happen months or even years later when the individual has resettled into society. The statute says simply that the detention can occur “when the alien is released” from custody.
The court voted 5-4 in favor of the government.
In his opinion for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said that the immigrants in the case had argued they were “owed bond hearings” in order to argue for their release. Alito said that the law did not support their argument.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately to say that the ruling was based entirely on the language of the statute at hand. He said it would be “odd” to interpret the statute as mandating the detention of certain “non citizens” who posed a serious risk of danger of flight, but “nonetheless” allow them to remain free during their removal proceedings if the executive branch failed “to immediately detain them upon their release from criminal custody.”
“The court correctly holds that the Executive Branch’s detention of the particular non citizens here remained mandatory even though the Executive Branch did not immediately detain them.”
From Reuters:
The court ruled 5-4, with its conservative justices in the majority and its liberal justices dissenting, that federal authorities could pick up such immigrants and place them into indefinite detention anytime, not just immediately after they finish their prison sentences.
The ruling, authored by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, left open the possibility of individual immigrants challenging the 1996 federal law involved in the case, called the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, on constitutional grounds – their right to due process – if they are detained long after they have completed their sentences.
The law at issue states that the government can detain convicted immigrants “when the alien is released” from criminal detention. Civil rights lawyers for two groups of plaintiffs argued that the language of the law shows that it applies only immediately after immigrants are released. The Trump administration said the government should have the power to detain such immigrants anytime.
It is not the court’s job, Alito wrote, to impose a time limit for when immigrants can be detained after serving a prison sentence. Alito noted that the court repeatedly has said in the past that “an official’s crucial duties are better carried out late than never.”
Alito said the challengers’ assertion that immigrants had to be detained within 24 hours of ending a prison sentence is “especially hard to swallow.”
In dissent, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer questioned whether the U.S. Congress when it wrote the law “meant to allow the government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing.”
https://www.chicagodaily.pro/brett-kavanaugh-casts-deciding-vote-ends-9th-circuit-court-reign-of-terror-on-key-issue/?fbclid=IwAR16OepAc4mcgdJD39tbtL68sFxSY9TowEuycMZNTkp9ycVGkoOVpBzz9CQ
-
Uh oh. Maybe this time they will really get him. The key to the Trump-Russian Conspiracy must be in those grand jury transcripts.
Federal judge rules congressional Democrats can have access to Mueller grand jury material
Alex PappasBy Alex Pappas | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-rules-congressional-democrats-can-have-access-to-mueller-grand-jury-material
-
I respect you Dos, but like coach, this forum isn't about debating.
Regardless of what me , Ag, Straw, Prime , etc post, it won't change your views.
You know how I feel and vice versa.
Why bother "pretending" to debate.
Most of the Trumpers on here want to personally attack and insult anyone who dares disagree with King Donny.
Wwwaahhhhhh
-
I respect you Dos, but like coach, this forum isn't about debating.
Regardless of what me , Ag, Straw, Prime , etc post, it won't change your views.
You know how I feel and vice versa.
Why bother "pretending" to debate.
Most of the Trumpers on here want to personally attack and insult anyone who dares disagree with King Donny.
True
-
Wwwaahhhhhh
Perfect example. Sometimes I wonder if there needs to be an ID check for 18 and over on this board with responses like this...
-
I respect you Dos, but like coach, this forum isn't about debating.
Regardless of what me , Ag, Straw, Prime , etc post, it won't change your views.
You know how I feel and vice versa.
Why bother "pretending" to debate.
Most of the Trumpers on here want to personally attack and insult anyone who dares disagree with King Donny.
After ten years of you making stupid fart joke posts, now you’re worried about the maturity of the discourse on this board?
Jesus Christ you’re a simpleton.
-
I respect you Dos, but like coach, this forum isn't about debating.
Regardless of what me , Ag, Straw, Prime , etc post, it won't change your views.
You know how I feel and vice versa.
Why bother "pretending" to debate.
Most of the Trumpers on here want to personally attack and insult anyone who dares disagree with King Donny.
Whatever. You don't debate. You just keep posting the same liberal talking points. Over and over again. And you repeatedly get your facts wrong.
-
After ten years of you making stupid fart joke posts, now you’re worried about the maturity of the discourse on this board?
Jesus Christ you’re a simpleton.
Right?
-
Trump will ask Supreme Court to take New York tax returns case after losing appeal
Dan Mangan
@_DANMANGAN
Kevin Breuninger
@KEVINWILLIAMB
A federal appeals court ruled Monday that President Donald Trump’s tax returns must be turned over to a state grand jury.
In a unanimous ruling, the three-judge appeals panel in New York rejected Trump’s argument that he is immune as president from criminal investigation while in the White House.
Trump’s lawyer, Jay Sekulow, said that the president would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
“The decision of the Second Circuit will be taken to the Supreme Court. The issue raised in this case goes to the heart of our Republic. The constitutional issues are significant,” Sekulow said in a statement.
The saga of Trump’s taxes
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. is seeking eight years’ worth of Trump’s corporate and personal tax returns from his accounting firm Mazars as part of a criminal investigation.
Trump sued to block the subpoena that Vance’s office sent to Mazars in September. The president’s legal bid was dismissed in mid-October by a U.S. District Court judge, who balked at the “extraordinary claim” of immunity being argued.
Trump’s lawyers had argued to the appeals panel that the president has absolute immunity during his time in office, not only from prosecution but even from a criminal investigation into his conduct before he was elected.
One of the president’s attorneys, William Consovoy, had argued before the judges that Trump could shoot another person on Fifth Avenue in New York City and not be subject to arrest and prosecution until after he left office.
The appeals panel ruled that presidential immunity should be interpreted more narrowly.
“Any presidential immunity from state criminal process does not extend to investigative steps like the grand jury subpoena at issue here,” the panel wrote.
Vance is investigating, at the very least, how the Trump Organization accounted for hush money payments made to two women who claimed to have had affairs with Trump years ago. Trump has denied the affairs.
One of those women, porn star Stormy Daniels, was paid $130,000 by Trump’s then-personal lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen, who later was reimbursed by Trump.
The other woman, Playboy model Karen McDougal, was paid $150,000 by the Trump-friendly publisher of The National Enquirer supermarket tabloid. Both payments were made shortly before the 2016 presidential election.
Cohen pleaded guilty last year to several crimes, including campaign finance violations in connection with facilitating the payments to Daniels and McDougals.
Cohen, who is currently serving a three-year federal criminal sentence, is cooperating with Vance’s investigation.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/04/trump-loses-appeal-of-new-york-tax-returns-case.html
-
If Trump ever has to turn over his taxes, what do folks expect to find out...that he cheats on his taxes?
-
If Trump ever has to turn over his taxes, what do folks expect to find out...that he cheats on his taxes?
Do you tell your CPA to pay more than legally allowable ?
-
If Trump ever has to turn over his taxes, what do folks expect to find out...that he cheats on his taxes?
They don't know. It's a fishing expedition. Anyone who actually cares about civil liberties should be very concerned about what they are doing to this man.
-
They don't know. It's a fishing expedition. Anyone who actually cares about civil liberties should be very concerned about what they are doing to this man.
for fucks sake go cry me a river
nothing is "happening" to this man other than what is mandated by the Constitution
no one is "fishing"
There is a long list of witnesses detailing this traitors actions
By "fishing" maybe you're thinking about how Trump spent six years claiming that Obama was not born in the US and how his investigators were uncovering things that were unbelievable
Then of course after that no longer served any purpose he claimed that Obama was really born in the US
We never heard from or even know who is so called investigator were or what "unbelievable" things they found
-
Former White House counsel Don McGahn must obey subpoena to testify before Congress, judge rules
The same question about White House immunity — this one related to the impeachment inquiry — is pending before another judge in Washington.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/former-white-house-counsel-don-mcgahn-must-obey-subpoena-testify-n1090566
-
Trump loses appeal to block Deutsche Bank, Capital One from handing over his financial records to Congress
Trump sued the banks to stop them from complying with subpoenas seeking the information.
Dec. 3, 2019
By Allan Smith
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-loses-appeal-block-banks-handing-over-his-financial-records-n1094831?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR2WRTUpZZVLLmrN5KhPEsEC78nvCOt51TUCW4REz5EtJ6lUwoKqoiP7ctM
-
Judge halts $3.6 billion diverted from military construction projects for border wall
By: The Associated Press
EL PASO, Texas — A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from spending some Defense Department money to build a border wall with Mexico, the latest twist in a long-running legal battle over one of the president’s signature domestic issues and campaign priorities.
The ruling by District Judge David Briones in El Paso, Texas, prevents the government from spending $3.6 billion that was diverted in September from 127 military construction projects to pay for 175 miles (280 kilometers) of border wall.
His decision doesn’t apply to another pot of Pentagon money, $2.5 billion that was initially meant for counter-drug operations and was redirected to wall spending. In July, the Supreme Court granted an emergency order allowing that money to be spent during a legal challenge.
The Justice Department said it would appeal Tuesday’s ruling.
Spending that was halted — at least for now — is intended for 11 projects in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The longest and most expensive by far would blanket 52 miles (83.2 kilometers) in Laredo, Texas, at an estimated cost of $1.27 billion.
The Pentagon freed $6.1 billion after Trump declared a national emergency on the Mexican border to end a government shutdown in February. Congress gave $1.4 billion for wall construction, far less than what Trump wanted.
On a dirt road past rows of date trees, just feet from a dry section of Colorado River, a small construction crew is putting up a towering border wall that the government hopes will reduce — for good — the flow of immigrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.
Briones, ruling in a case filed by El Paso County and the Border Network for Human Rights, said he didn’t want to minimize the importance of border security but “that concern cannot override the public’s interest in the Executive Branch complying with the law.”
“That is especially so when Congress — the People’s representatives — determined that securing the border required only $1.375 billion, not $6.1 billion, to be spent on a wall,” he wrote.
Briones, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, stopped short of extending his ruling to the $2.5 billion pot of Pentagon money because, he wrote, it would effectively override the Supreme Court.
The president’s critics cheered the decision.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said it “confirms the president’s national emergency declaration to steal funds from military families to build a wall he promised Mexico would pay for was, and is, an outrageous power grab by a president who refuses to respect the constitutional separation of powers.”
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/12/11/judge-halts-36-billion-diverted-from-military-construction-projects-for-border-wall/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=Socialflow+ARM&fbclid=IwAR2dbAOiMII7G9jfly184UBh_On5CCAFMD1lzUvQZPWrVAwiDPGllWzqSGI
-
The big picture idea is that Trump will go down in history as the 3rd US President to be impeached.
The previous 2 ( Johnson , Clinton) survived the senate trial, Johnson by a single senator.
It will be interesting to see how this goes.
And you will still be fat and broke despite the economy being at record levels. Do you ever sit back, ever, and ask yourself - gee why am I losing all the time? Maybe its your liberal failed ideas and thought structures and patterns?
Its pathetic for a person like yourself and strawQUEEN and Prime to be miserable in this economy and country now. Sad and pathetic. Losers.
-
You got me there. Obviously , my lifestyle isn't up to your lofty standard.
I'm piss broke, living alone with feral cats in a beater trailer, by the Bumfuk County, Ga toxic waste dump . ;D
Maybe, regardless of $$ , some of us think Trump is a total buffoon and find him to be a national disgrace.
Sad
-
Judge halts $3.6 billion diverted from military construction projects for border wall
By: The Associated Press
EL PASO, Texas — A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the Trump administration from spending some Defense Department money to build a border wall with Mexico, the latest twist in a long-running legal battle over one of the president’s signature domestic issues and campaign priorities.
The ruling by District Judge David Briones in El Paso, Texas, prevents the government from spending $3.6 billion that was diverted in September from 127 military construction projects to pay for 175 miles (280 kilometers) of border wall.
His decision doesn’t apply to another pot of Pentagon money, $2.5 billion that was initially meant for counter-drug operations and was redirected to wall spending. In July, the Supreme Court granted an emergency order allowing that money to be spent during a legal challenge.
The Justice Department said it would appeal Tuesday’s ruling.
Spending that was halted — at least for now — is intended for 11 projects in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. The longest and most expensive by far would blanket 52 miles (83.2 kilometers) in Laredo, Texas, at an estimated cost of $1.27 billion.
The Pentagon freed $6.1 billion after Trump declared a national emergency on the Mexican border to end a government shutdown in February. Congress gave $1.4 billion for wall construction, far less than what Trump wanted.
On a dirt road past rows of date trees, just feet from a dry section of Colorado River, a small construction crew is putting up a towering border wall that the government hopes will reduce — for good — the flow of immigrants who cross the U.S.-Mexico border illegally.
Briones, ruling in a case filed by El Paso County and the Border Network for Human Rights, said he didn’t want to minimize the importance of border security but “that concern cannot override the public’s interest in the Executive Branch complying with the law.”
“That is especially so when Congress — the People’s representatives — determined that securing the border required only $1.375 billion, not $6.1 billion, to be spent on a wall,” he wrote.
Briones, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, stopped short of extending his ruling to the $2.5 billion pot of Pentagon money because, he wrote, it would effectively override the Supreme Court.
The president’s critics cheered the decision.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said it “confirms the president’s national emergency declaration to steal funds from military families to build a wall he promised Mexico would pay for was, and is, an outrageous power grab by a president who refuses to respect the constitutional separation of powers.”
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/12/11/judge-halts-36-billion-diverted-from-military-construction-projects-for-border-wall/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=Socialflow+ARM&fbclid=IwAR2dbAOiMII7G9jfly184UBh_On5CCAFMD1lzUvQZPWrVAwiDPGllWzqSGI
Interesting that there's no mention of the difficulty the government has run into in appropriating private land on which to build the wall. It's a hot issue all along the Texas - Mexico border.
-
Supreme Court to rule on release of Trump tax records
By granting review of these cases now, the justices made it possible for them to be heard during the current court term.
Supreme Court agrees to hear fight over Trump finances
Dec. 13, 2019
By Pete Williams
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/supreme-court-agrees-hear-trump-appeals-subpoena-fights-over-financial-n1101901?cid=sm_npd_ms_fb_ma&fbclid=IwAR34bG0euX0cKAa9Z_Nkuh9hlfr-mNZsZrXIfrkgrSSwkcVQ5muYzhbSJDY
-
The big picture idea is that Trump will go down in history as the 3rd US President to be impeached.
The previous 2 ( Johnson , Clinton) survived the senate trial, Johnson by a single senator.
It will be interesting to see how this goes.
It's as interesting as watching a rerun of a football game you've seen. The house will impeach, the Senate will acquit. That's it. There is zero chance of anything else happening
-
It's as interesting as watching a rerun of a football game you've seen. The house will impeach, the Senate will acquit. That's it. There is zero chance of anything else happening
And the democrats knew this when they made up the reasons for this "investigation", why do you think they wanted to waste taxpayers money like this?
-
And the democrats knew this when they made up the reasons for this "investigation", why do you think they wanted to waste taxpayers money like this?
This is one of the main points that exposes them.
-
It's as interesting as watching a rerun of a football game you've seen. The house will impeach, the Senate will acquit. That's it. There is zero chance of anything else happening
You may be right, but one can always hope.
-
And the democrats knew this when they made up the reasons for this "investigation", why do you think they wanted to waste taxpayers money like this?
It is better to have tried and failed, then to have never tried at all.
-
In another Trump win, court tosses Democrats' suit over his businesses
By Jan Wolfe
Reuters•February 8, 2020
https://www.yahoo.com/news/appeals-court-throws-democrats-emoluments-152636069.html
-
Court hands Trump win in sanctuary city fight, says administration can deny grant money
By Adam Shaw, Bill Mears | Fox News
100 elite Border Patrol agents will be deployed to 10 major cities including New York and Los Angeles; reaction and analysis on 'Outnumbered.'
A federal appeals court on Wednesday handed a major win to the Trump administration in its fight against “sanctuary” jurisdictions, ruling that it can deny grant money to states that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York overturned a lower court ruling that stopped the administration’s 2017 move to withhold grant money from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which dispenses over $250 million a year to state and local criminal justice efforts.
“Today’s decision rightfully recognizes the lawful authority of the Attorney General to ensure that Department of Justice grant recipients are not at the same time thwarting federal law enforcement priorities,” a DOJ spokesman said in a statement. “The grant conditions here require states and cities that receive DOJ grants to share information about criminals in custody. The federal government uses this information to enforce national immigration laws--policies supported by successive Democrat and Republican administrations.”
“All Americans will benefit from increased public safety as this Administration is able to implement its lawful immigration and public safety policies,” the statement said.
The latest decision conflicts with rulings from other appeals courts across the country concerning sanctuary policies, indicating a Supreme Court review is ultimately likely.
New York City and liberal states including New York, Washington, Massachusetts and Connecticut sued the government, and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York backed them — ordering the money be released and stopping the government from putting immigration-related conditions on grants.
But the appeals court ruled that it “cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue.”
“These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations,” the court ruled. “But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.”
It also disagreed with the district court’s claim that the conditions intrude on powers reserved only to states, noting that in immigration policy the Supreme Court has found that the federal government maintains “broad” and “preeminent” power.
The ruling marks a key win for the administration in its efforts to crack down on the continued use of “sanctuary” policies that limit local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities in order to shield illegal immigrants from deportation.
Such policies generally forbid local law enforcement from honoring detainers -- requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) that they be alerted to of an illegal immigrant’s release from custody so they can be be picked up by ICE and put through deportation proceedings.
Proponents of the policies claim it makes cities safer because it encourages illegal immigrants to cooperate with police without fear of deportation. But the Trump administration has been relentlessly pushing back by highlighting cases in which criminals are released onto the streets only to re-offend.
It has also deployed a series of measures to combat the practice, including deploying elite Border Patrol agents to sanctuary cities to help ICE track down and detain illegal immigrants.
The Justice Department recently announced a slew of measures, and President Trump has called on Congress to pass legislation that would allow victims of crimes committed by illegal immigrants to sue sanctuary cities and states.
“Not one more American life should be stolen by sanctuary cities; they’re all over the place and a lot of people don’t want them,” Trump said at the State of the Union address this month.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/court-hands-trump-win-in-sanctuary-city-grant
-
Supreme Court gives Trump win by allowing 'remain in Mexico' policy to continue
By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-gives-trump-temporary-win-on-remain-in-mexico-policy
-
Supreme Court gives Trump win by allowing 'remain in Mexico' policy to continue
By Ronn Blitzer | Fox News
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-gives-trump-temporary-win-on-remain-in-mexico-policy
Good ruling.
-
President Biden's extension of the eviction moratorium is unconstitutional and he knows it
Biden was elected to restore norms to Washington, D.C., but his eviction decision is one of the most egregious acts of executive overreach in decades.
Charles Cooke, Opinion Contributor
Published Aug. 5, 2021
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/08/05/eviction-moratorium-delta-variant-brett-kavanaugh-unconstitutional/5498649001/
-
And the democrats knew this when they made up the reasons for this "investigation", why do you think they wanted to waste taxpayers money like this?
because it was the right thing to do. That the Republicans sold their souls wasn't the democrats problem.
-
And you will still be fat and broke despite the economy being at record levels. Do you ever sit back, ever, and ask yourself - gee why am I losing all the time? Maybe its your liberal failed ideas and thought structures and patterns?
Its pathetic for a person like yourself and strawQUEEN and Prime to be miserable in this economy and country now. Sad and pathetic. Losers.
Then I think , my life could be worse...I could be Soul Crusher ;D
-
Then I think , my life could be worse...I could be Soul Crusher ;D
I trained for 2 hours already today. You?
-
President Biden's extension of the eviction moratorium is unconstitutional and he knows it
Biden was elected to restore norms to Washington, D.C., but his eviction decision is one of the most egregious acts of executive overreach in decades.
Charles Cooke, Opinion Contributor
Published Aug. 5, 2021
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/08/05/eviction-moratorium-delta-variant-brett-kavanaugh-unconstitutional/5498649001/
Calculated move to buy time.
-
I trained for 2 hours already today. You?
;D
-
Calculated move to buy time.
And forget about the whole Constitution, rule of law, etc. They would have already passed articles of impeachment had Trump done this. Bunch of intellectually dishonest marxist hacks.
-
:-\
Biden ‘checking’ if he can overrule states and order universal masks in schools
By Samuel Chamberlain and David Marcus
August 10, 2021
https://nypost.com/2021/08/10/biden-looking-at-ordering-universal-masking-for-school-kids/
-
Supreme Court orders ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy reinstated
The Associated Press
Posted: AUG 24, 2021
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to block a court ruling ordering the Biden administration to reinstate a Trump-era policy that forces people to wait in Mexico while seeking asylum in the U.S.
With the three liberal justices in dissent, the court said the administration likely violated federal law in its efforts to rescind the program informally known as Remain in Mexico.
House passes $3.5 trillion budget plan, advances infrastructure bill
A federal judge in Texas had previously ordered that the program be reinstated last week. Both he and the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused the administration’s request to put the ruling on hold.
Justice Samuel Alito ordered a brief delay to allow the full court time to consider the administration’s appeal.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/supreme-court-orders-remain-in-mexico-policy-reinstated/
-
Supreme Court strikes down eviction moratorium during pandemic; evictions can resume
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's conservative majority is allowing evictions to resume across the United States, blocking the Biden administration from enforcing a temporary ban that was put in place because of the coronavirus pandemic.
The court's action late Thursday ends protections for roughly 3.5 million people in the United States who said they faced eviction in the next two months, according to Census Bureau data from early August.
The court said in an unsigned opinion that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reimposed the moratorium Aug. 3, lacked the authority to do so under federal law without explicit congressional authorization. The justices rejected the administration's arguments in support of the CDC's authority.
"If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it," the court wrote.
The three liberal justices dissented. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the three, pointed to the increase in COVID-19 caused by the delta variant as one of the reasons the court should have left the moratorium in place. "The public interest strongly favors respecting the CDC's judgment at this moment, when over 90% of counties are experiencing high transmission rates," Breyer wrote.
https://abc7chicago.com/supreme-court-eviction-moratorium-decisions-today-biden-covid/10978839/
-
Supreme Court strikes down eviction moratorium during pandemic; evictions can resume
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's conservative majority is allowing evictions to resume across the United States, blocking the Biden administration from enforcing a temporary ban that was put in place because of the coronavirus pandemic.
The court's action late Thursday ends protections for roughly 3.5 million people in the United States who said they faced eviction in the next two months, according to Census Bureau data from early August.
The court said in an unsigned opinion that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which reimposed the moratorium Aug. 3, lacked the authority to do so under federal law without explicit congressional authorization. The justices rejected the administration's arguments in support of the CDC's authority.
"If a federally imposed eviction moratorium is to continue, Congress must specifically authorize it," the court wrote.
The three liberal justices dissented. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the three, pointed to the increase in COVID-19 caused by the delta variant as one of the reasons the court should have left the moratorium in place. "The public interest strongly favors respecting the CDC's judgment at this moment, when over 90% of counties are experiencing high transmission rates," Breyer wrote.
https://abc7chicago.com/supreme-court-eviction-moratorium-decisions-today-biden-covid/10978839/
Beat me to it. :)
-
The Biden regime gets 2 slaps from the Supreme Court this week. Mayor de Communist melts down:
(https://i.postimg.cc/kMTgR1ck/dicommunist.jpg)
-
Definitely headed to the Supreme Court.
US mandates vaccines or tests for big companies by Jan. 4
By DAVID KOENIG
https://apnews.com/article/covid-employer-mandates-us-29c2262c336bcfc38da2d14b251daf51
-
Definitely headed to the Supreme Court.
US mandates vaccines or tests for big companies by Jan. 4
By DAVID KOENIG
https://apnews.com/article/covid-employer-mandates-us-29c2262c336bcfc38da2d14b251daf51
This has been kicking around since September. You can thank OSHA.
-
This has been kicking around since September. You can thank OSHA.
I thank President Biden, who likely pumped the breaks on this to see how many companies would issue mandates before the rule was imposed. Had the net effect of avoiding legal challenges. Until today. One of many.
The Daily Wire Challenges Biden Administration Vaccine Mandate
By Tim Pearce
Nov 4, 2021 DailyWire.com
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-the-daily-wire-challenges-biden-administration-vaccine-mandate
-
White House tells businesses to proceed with vaccine mandate despite court-ordered pause
PUBLISHED MON, NOV 8 2021
Spencer Kimball
@SPENCEKIMBALL
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/08/biden-vaccine-mandate-white-house-tells-business-to-go-ahead-despite-court-pause.html
-
White House tells businesses to proceed with vaccine mandate despite court-ordered pause
PUBLISHED MON, NOV 8 2021
Spencer Kimball
@SPENCEKIMBALL
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/08/biden-vaccine-mandate-white-house-tells-business-to-go-ahead-despite-court-pause.html
The law don't apply to them.
-
Federal Appeals Court Blocks Biden’s ‘Staggeringly Overbroad’ Vaccine Mandate
By Ryan Saavedra
Nov 12, 2021 DailyWire.com
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-federal-appeals-court-blocks-bidens-staggeringly-overboard-vaccine-mandate
-
Federal Appeals Court Blocks Biden’s ‘Staggeringly Overbroad’ Vaccine Mandate
By Ryan Saavedra
Nov 12, 2021 DailyWire.com
https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-federal-appeals-court-blocks-bidens-staggeringly-overboard-vaccine-mandate
Something good coming out of New Orleans, besides food.
-
Something good coming out of New Orleans, besides food.
;D
-
BREAKING: District Judge HALTS ‘Centers For Medicare And Medicaid Services’ Vaccine Mandate
by CD Media Staff
November 29, 2021
https://creativedestructionmedia.com/news/2021/11/29/breaking-district-judge-halts-centers-for-medicare-and-medicaid-services-vaccine-mandate/
-
I hope the other states step up soon. They are riding me hard to take the Vax, even tho I have high antibodies and it is against my personal beliefs.
-
I hope the other states step up soon. They are riding me hard to take the Vax, even tho I have high antibodies and it is against my personal beliefs.
Become a Christian Scientist. And start praying on a regular basis that you won't contract COVID.
Church of Christ, Scientist, teaches that prayer will alleviate and prevent disease, so members may request vaccine exemptions, the Vanderbilt research shows.
-
I hope the other states step up soon. They are riding me hard to take the Vax, even tho I have high antibodies and it is against my personal beliefs.
I think the Supreme Court will ultimately put a stop to this. Hang in there.
-
BREAKING: Biden's vaccine mandate for contractors BLOCKED by federal court
The Biden administration's vaccine mandate for federal contractors has been blocked by a federal judge.
Libby Emmons
Brooklyn, NY
December 7, 2021
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-bidens-vaccine-mandate-for-contractors-blocked-by-federal-court?utm_campaign=64487
-
It's Official: Every Single One of Biden's COVID Vaccine Mandates Have Been Blocked Nationwide
By Abby Liebing
December 7, 2021
https://www.westernjournal.com/official-every-single-one-bidens-covid-vaccine-mandates-blocked-nationwide/
-
One of Trump's biggest accomplishments was getting Judges seated. He knew that was a way to keep things in check.
-
Supreme Court to hold special session on vaccine requirements
The high court announced late Wednesday that it would hear arguments in the cases on Jan. 7.
The U.S. Supreme Court building is seen in Washington, D.C. | Michael A. McCoy/Getty Images
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
12/22/2021
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/22/supreme-court-special-session-vaccine-requirements-526030
-
U.S. Supreme Court blocks Biden vaccine-or-test policy for large businesses
By Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-blocks-biden-vaccine-or-test-policy-large-businesses-2022-01-13/
-
Judge Blocks Biden’s Federal Worker Vaccine Mandate, Blasts: ‘The President’s Authority is NOT That Broad’.
Somehow, the week ends worse than it began for the Biden regime.
by Natalie Winters
January 21, 2022
https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/01/21/judge-blocks-bidens-federal-worker-vaccine-mandate-blasts-the-presidents-authority-is-not-that-broad/
-
New York judge strikes down state mask mandate
By Daniel Trotta and Brad Brooks
January 24, 2022
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/new-york-state-mask-mandate-struck-down-by-judge-congressman-2022-01-25/
-
A rare occasion where the Biden Administration gets it right. :o
Biden Administration Waves Off Calls To Ignore Abortion Pill Ruling
A Health and Human Services official said it would "set a dangerous precedent for the Administration to disregard a binding decision."
By Kevin Robillard
Apr 10, 2023
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/biden-administration-ignore-abortion-pill-ruling_n_64341b64e4b05cef00ca2d5a
-
Federal judge blocks Biden administration officials from communicating with social media companies
By Devan Cole and Vanessa Yurkevich, CNN
Wed July 5, 2023
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/04/tech/biden-administration-social-media-companies-communication-covid-censorship/index.html#:~:text=A%20federal%20judge%20on%20Tuesday,to%20combat%20Covid%2D19%20disinformation.