Apparently stall tactics are all the rage amid a political judiciary that is collapsing from a quickly metastasizing cancer inside the third branch of government.

Today the Supreme court blocked in part, and punted in part, on three cases related to the resistance effort to gain the private financial records of President Trump.  The bottom line is that none of the decisions today will likely be resolved before the November election.

♦ In the Trump -v- Vance case, a subpoena by a Manhattan district attorney, the justices (by a vote of 7-2) rejected the president’s claim that he is immune from state grand jury proceedings while he is in office. However, the decision in that case does not mean  financial records the grand jury seeks will be turned over.  As Amy Howe notes: “the court sent the case back to the trial court and agreed that the president could still argue that complying with this subpoena would interfere with his ability to do his job.”

This was the case outcome that likely frustrated President Trump the most because it forces him to continue fighting, and spending, against Lawfare resistance activists in state courts as accusations are brought by politically motivated state prosecutors.

♦ In the Trump -v- Mazars case, which is a combination of two rolled-up cases combining different legislative efforts (congressional subpoenas) to gain Trump’s financial records, the justices (again 7-2) sent the combined cases back to lower courts after highlighting that legislative subpoenas must be made for a “valid legislative purpose” not for law enforcement.  This aspect is based on the clear separation of powers in the constitution.

(more…)

The Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 (pdf here) that asylum seekers have no right to a hearing when their claim is denied; and their deportation is in accordance with the law.  This is a major win for the Department of Homeland Security, immigration and border controls.

TRIBUNE – The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that asylum seekers who are turned down by immigration officials do not have a right to make their case to a judge, a win for the Trump administration and its desire to quickly deport people who enter the United States illegally.

The ruling was 7 to 2, although the usual undercurrents of an ideological divide on the court were present. Two of the court’s liberals dissented, and the other two agreed only with the outcome in the specific case.

(more…)

The Big Con.

What Senator Josh Hawley called the fraud of “the conservative bargain” is taking on an entirely new light thanks to the work of The National Pulse in what should be a game-changing expose’ on just who is funding, or should we say ‘controlling’, key aspects of expressed U.S. conservatism.

President Trump, in a tenuous alignment with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has previously said the list of judicial nominees presented, considered, nominated and confirmed, were assembled and vetted by two specific groups: The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation; both of whom claim to hold conservative outlooks.

As a result, it’s a little more than concerning to discover that both organizations are being funded by the ultra-left wing Google ideology.   Yes, the same Big Tech outlet currently working on an advanced directive to block, control, censor and eliminate conservative speech on-line, is financing the organizations who claim to support conservative speech.

That revelation should get some attention…. but it won’t… because the same conservative pundits who are in place to get the attention of conservative Americans, and ultimately control what outrages should garner the attention of conservative thinkers, are financial benefactors of the same organizations under the control of their left-wing financing.

Think about that carefully.

Let that sink in.

Things starting to make sense now?

(more…)

A supreme court ruling today has blocked the termination of a court-admitted unconstitutional executive action known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  The background of the DACA controversy, and the prior position of the court on the sister program DAPA, makes this ruling the most political ruling yet by Chief Justice John Roberts.  [pdf link to ruling here]

The court decision was a 5-4 ruling.  Justice Roberts sided with the four liberal justices in blocking the termination of the executive program.  What makes this ruling outrageous is within the majority opinion of the court they recognize the Trump administration has the legal and constitutional authority to terminate the program; but the court, specifically John Roberts, doesn’t like the way in which the administration might do it.

The crux of Justice Roberts’ opinion is openly political.  The majority admit there is no constitutional protection for DACA recipients, and the Trump administration has the authority to dissolve and reverse the protections under the previous executive action; however, Roberts specifically cites his concern with deportation.

(more…)

There is considerable conversation, on all sides of the issue, surrounding a 6-3 supreme court decision today recognizing “gay” and/or “transgender” persons as being protected by the 1964 civil rights act under the definition of “sex”.  Factually, the decision authored by Judge Gorsuch writes those terms into the legislative definition; that’s a problem.

However, that said, for all practical purposes and intents, sexual orientation has been a protected employment category -as viewed by the Dept. of Labor and EEOC- since the mid-90’s. So some of the over-the-top exclamations, in both directions, are moot amid the world of practical application.

As to the issue of SCOTUS usurping the legislative responsibility for the practical wording of law, yes, this ruling is an issue, and Judge Alito is absolutely correct in all corners of his dissent.  Justice Gorsuch has opened a can of worms for downstream consequences unrelated to employment eligibility; and a myriad of potential future cases based on gender orientation are likely to flow to the court; so the big picture is problematic.

All arguments surrounding the issue of SCOTUS writing legislation through the delivery of opinion are merited and worthy.  However, on the specific application of ‘gender’ to employment eligibility, today’s ruling was already in place.  Amy Howe has a good encapsulation at SCOTUS Blog:

“Today the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, ruled that even if Congress may not have had discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status in mind when it enacted the landmark law over a half century ago, Title VII’s ban on discrimination protects gay, lesbian and transgender employees. Because fewer than half of the 50 states currently ban employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation, today’s decision is a major victory for LGBT employees.”

(more…)

For more than a year the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) led by Chairman Jerry Nadler has been seeking: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and  (3) Trump financial/tax records.  Each of these issues have slowly worked their way to the Supreme Court.

Today, in the first step to take up the grand jury issue, the Supreme Court has placed a stay on a divided lower court ruling to grant the HJC access to Mueller’s grand jury material:

While the stay is only temporary, pending the DOJ requesting a writ of certiorari for the Supreme Court to take up the 6(e) grand jury issue, it is very likely the DOJ will make the request; and also likely the Supreme Court will take up the case.

(more…)

Supreme Court – “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent non-surgical treatment for acute cholecystitis, a benign gallbladder condition, this afternoon at The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. Following oral arguments on Monday, the Justice underwent outpatient tests at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C., that confirmed she was suffering from a gallstone that had migrated to her cystic duct, blocking it and causing an infection.”

“The Justice is resting comfortably and plans to participate in the oral argument teleconference tomorrow morning remotely from the hospital. She expects to stay in the hospital for a day or two. Updates will be provided as they become available.” (link)

The resistance appears to be coming together.  In a stunning and historic change of protocol the United States Supreme Court will hold teleconference hearings and will actually live-stream broadcast the oral arguments and questions. Two elements are remarkable.

First, that the Supreme Court would permit a livestream broadcast of any hearing is historic. The purposeful controls of the Court, never allowing video, cameras or live audio broadcasting for their hearings, was always justified around the court never wanting to allow politics and media to shape the serious legal issues being debated.

Secondly, and perhaps not coincidentally, during this live-stream session, the Supreme Court is going to be hearing legal arguments after they consolidated a series of cases targeting the financial and business records of President Donald Trump.  The various lawsuits against President Trump are not only going to be heard, they are going to be broadcast.   It doesn’t get much more political than that.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it will hold arguments by teleconference in May in key cases, including President Donald Trump’s bid to shield his tax and other financial records.

The court will make live audio of the arguments available for the first time. It had previously postponed courtroom arguments for March and April because of the coronavirus.

(more…)

New York Mayor Bill deBlasio is officially attempting to establish himself as the United States first totalitarian dictator by announcing a revocation of all New York City citizen rights under the first amendment.   A stunning move.

“[Government] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In a stunning announcement Mayor deBlasio threatens that all religious services will be forcibly closed by city authorities “permanently” if they do not comply with the established dictates of city government. WATCH:

.

Let us be clear, the government can request, suggest and recommend that faith-based assemblies suspend their services; and in many cases those churches and religious groups may indeed choose to suspend their services. However, under no circumstance, including: war, famine or virus pandemics that could leave only a hand-full of people alive, can the government force the suspension; or punish those who refuse to comply.

Religious worship, including the assembly therein, is enshrined within the first amendment as it carries the first and ultimate essential service. There is absolutely no situation where that right can be removed.

(more…)

Earlier today Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened supreme court justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch today during a rally in support of abortion.

“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.” “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

The leading democrat Senator Schumer accused the supreme court justices of taking away peoples’ “fundamental rights” to kill babies, as the Supreme Court is currently hearing a case about a Louisiana law that regulates abortion providers.
Alarmed by the radical threats against the court, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts released the following statement:
(more…)