...judges invent a new legal standard

Judges Decide That Americans Need To Surrender To Islam Federal judges invent a new legal standard where all legal precedent can be discarded to resist President Trump. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals invented a new legal standard granting Muslims unlimited power over national security in their decision to maintain the injunction against President Trump’s travel ban executive order (via Breitbart). The 10 judges in the majority upheld the decision of district courts that the executive order violated the Fourth Amendment on the basis of campaign rhetoric, inventing a new legal standard. The order, called Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry, “speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” ruled the activist judges. The court’s decision relies on a newly created legal standard that has no basis in previous Supreme Court decisions. The new standard allows plaintiffs to block neutral government actions on the basis of the campaign or private statements. “In looking behind the face of the government’s action for facts to show the alleged bad faith… the majority grants itself the power to conduct an extratextual search for evidence suggesting bad faith, which is exactly what three Supreme Court opinions have prohibited,” wrote Judge Niemeyer in the dissent. “The majority, now for the first time, rejects these holdings in favor of its politically desired outcome,” continues Judge Niemeyer, who was joined by just two other judges. However, in a 10-3 ruling the majority have their way, and the decision will surely be brought before the Supreme Court where the matter will be settled once and for all. The court’s decision relies on a newly created legal standard that has no basis in previous Supreme Court decisions. The new standard allows plaintiffs to block neutral government actions on the basis of the campaign or private statements. The activists’ decision is dangerous, not just for establishing a new legal standard that will have a chilling effect on speech, but the ruling will also allow Muslim plaintiffs to petition the courts to block just about any government action that predominantly affects Muslim-majority countries. Further, the court creates a new standard, where the feelings of a plaintiff can grant standing before a court. The Muslim plaintiff attempting to block the executive order was not affected by the travel ban directly, but claims the order increases hostilities towards Muslim-Americans. Essentially, the progressive activist judges are creating a new legal standard where the president can be blocked from acting in the name of national security if a member of a minority group finds the action offensive. If this decision is upheld by the Supreme Court, it will effectively block President Trump from taking any action against Muslim countries due to statements he made during the campaign offering unlimited protection to terrorist countries. If this decision is upheld by the Supreme Court, it will effectively block President Trump from taking any action against Muslim countries due to statements he made during the campaign offering unlimited protection to terrorist countries.

Judge responsible for issuing the FISA Warrant ...

Judge Rudolph Contreras was responsible for issuing the FISA Warrant Contreres was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) by Barack Obama in the midst of the 2016 election. WASHINGTON — Judge Rudolph Contreras was responsible for issuing the FISA Warrant to wiretap former Trump Campaign Foreign Policy Adviser Carter Page, according to two sources familiar with the material that underlies the Memo published by the House Intelligence Committee on Friday. Contreres was appointed to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) by Barack Obama in the midst of the 2016 election, being sworn-in on May 19, 2016. He would go on to issue authorization to spy on Carter Page after receiving an application from the FBI, who purported to believe that Carter Page could be acting as an agent of the Russian Government. The FISA Court has received more than 34,000 applications to spy on Americans since its founding in 1978, turning down only 12 applications in that time, or just .0312%. Looks Like A Duck. Quacks Like a Duck Judge Contreres has a long career with the Department of Justice, taking his first job as an Assistant US Attorney in 1994. His term on the FISA Court expires on May 18, 2023. If Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA)’s memo is to be believed, then it would seem that the FBI submitted a FISA Application to spy on Carter Page with serious material omissions, including the source of funding for the Steele Dossier and that Christopher Steele said that he was “Passionate about Donald Trump not becoming President”. Contreras may have acted perfectly ethically when he approved the FISA Warrant to electronically monitor and record Carter Page. Judge Contreras also oversaw the case in which Michael Flynn pled guilty to lying to the FBI. On December 7th Judge Contreras recused himself from the Michael Fynn Case. A spokeswoman for the the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia Lisa Klem did not say why Contreras was recused, adding that the case was randomly reassigned. On Thursday the Mueller team successfully sought a rescheduling of the Flynn sentencing. “The parties shall file a joint status report by no later than May 1, 2018, stating whether the matter should be scheduled for sentencing or whether a deadline should be set for filing another joint status report,” said a related order signed by the new Judge, Emmet G. Sullivan. Mueller’s Office of the Special Counsel cited the “Status of the investigation” for their request to reschedule General Flynn’s sentencing, but declined to provide further details. Raise your hand if  you're  surprised that Obama would appoint Judges who agreed to do his bidding.   Srsly.

A country that would elect a Maxine Waters would ....

Man who raped 12-year-old  .... awarded joint custody of her child A man who raped a 12-year-old has been awarded joint custody of her child despite being convicted of her rape and another sexual assault on a child. The convicted rapist assaulted the girl nine years ago and she subsequently became pregnant. A judge has given Christopher Mirasolo, 27, parenting time and joint legal custody of the eight-year-old boy after a paternity test found he was the father. Since his conviction for the rape in 2008, Mirasolo, from Brown City, Michigan, has been convicted of another child sex assault, for which he served four years in prison. As reported by The Detroit News, the victim is now 21-years-old and her attorney, Rebecca Kiessling, is seeking protection under the federal Rape Survivor Child Custody Act to halt his access. The custody was granted by Judge Gregory S Ross and Mirasolo was given the victim’s address and his name added to the birth certificate, without the victim’s consent. AHEM

OYEZ OYEZ OYES MOFARKERS

Republicans steamrolling Dems to confirm Trump judicial nominees This may be the least covered major story of the Trump era, so far at least. While the media and Democrats are obsessed with increasingly bizarre Trump-Russia conspiracy theories, and failed attempts to flip Special Election congressional seats, an enormous change to the federal judiciary is well underway. FULL DEAL I was on the Trump bandwagon from day one; for 3 reasons. He wasn't a politician He had the resources to fight what we now call "the Deep State." And, most importantly, he could stop the federal courts from turning us into a unicameral dictatorship. I am well pleased

Impeach Judge Stephen Reinhardt

DHS Officers Humiliate Judges by Enforcing Immigration Laws, Declares Judge BEFORE WE GET STARTED .... The judge, who was appointed — not elected — in 1980 and is married to a former top leader in the ACLU, also lamented the authority of ordinary DHS agents to enforce the law despite protests from well-paid, high-status “civil rights” lawyers: THIS JUDGE NOW, THE ARTICLE Judges are humiliated and dehumanized whenever they must enforce the nation’s immigration laws, according to a senior judge on the far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge’s cry of outrage came when he could not block the orderly repatriation of an illegal immigrant who has two drunk driving convictions, plus a U.S. wife and three children. “We are unable to prevent [Andres] Magana Ortiz’s removal, yet it is contrary to the values of this nation and its legal system,” complained Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who wishes to extend citizens’ rights to illegal foreign migrants. He said: We are compelled to deny Mr. Magana Ortiz’s request for a stay of removal because we do not have the authority to grant it. We are not, however, compelled to find the government’s action in this case fair or just. … The government’s decision to remove Magana Ortiz diminishes not only our country but our courts, which are supposedly dedicated to the pursuit of justice. Magana Ortiz and his family are in truth not the only victims. Among the others are judges who, forced to participate in such inhumane acts, suffer a loss of dignity and humanity as well. I concur as a judge, but as a citizen I do not. The judge, who was appointed — not elected — in 1980 and is married to a former top leader in the ACLU, also lamented the authority of ordinary DHS agents to enforce the law despite protests from well-paid, high-status “civil rights” lawyers: [BLAH LAH BLAH] *spit*

Sunshine on a rainy day

Hillsdale Law Course!

FIGHT BACK SMARTLY!

Learn how the Supreme Court has shaped our politics and our society Understand the history and significance of the highest court in the land in Hillsdale College’s free online course. You’ll also learn how the role of the Supreme Court has moved away from its intended role and how these changes have undermined our Constitution and our freedom. The course is delivered via email, with one lesson per week for 10 weeks. Each lesson features lively teaching and discussion boards, suggested readings, weekly quizzes, and more. Activate your free Supreme Court course now. ASIDE I don't think there is much argument here  about the desperate need to turn progressive judges upside down (ahem).  Here's a way to make sure our arguments are constitutionally rock solid.  I'm thinking maybe we participants can have a weekly jam session here, where we can discuss the hard parts and confidentially gossip about what happened at the weekend keg party.

Heller Gutted

So the Fourth Circuit court just basically gutted Heller It looks like Neil Gorsuch is going to have his plate full when he finally takes his seat on the Supreme Court. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has been busy uprooting the Second Amendment this week, delivering a stunning opinion which essentially overturns the Heller decision without so much as a by your leave to SCOTUS. It involves a case out of Maryland where the state’s Democrats decided to ban “assault rifles” and high-capacity magazines. Apparently the idea of precedent is not something they care to have any truck with, as Charles C.W. Cook explains at National Review. BAD JUDGES Pardon my language, but where the hell did the phrase “most useful in military service” come from? As Charles aptly points out, this is completely new ground which was summoned up out of whole cloth by the majority in this decision. And what does that even mean? Will the Supreme Court actually entertain nonsense like this as some new standard in defiance of all precedent? I can certainly think of four members who might. This is yet another case which demonstrates how important it is to get Neil Gorsuch on the job as quickly and efficiently as possible. This sort of claptrap coming from the lower courts must be kept in check. Article II of the Constitution gives the United States House of Representatives sole power of impeachment, and assigns the power to try impeachments to the United States Senate.[2] The United States Senate has removed judges from office for substantial questionable conduct, even if no crime was committed. For example, Judge Robert Wodrow Archbald was impeached and removed from office for improper business relationships with litigants. One reason for this may be the life tenure bestowed upon federal judges and the Congress' place in upholding the "good behavior" of judges.[4] More .... There are options, but where the hell is Congress? Because a nation without a rule of law, as has been recently, and manifestly demonstrated in Brazil, and other South American countries, leads to "Star Chamber Justice," where even child beggars are executed as nuisances by roving posses.

I see this volcano ...

Obama Nominates  MuslimTo Be A Federal Judge. Another First The punishment for riding on the same bike as a boy

Like FDR appointing a Nisei  to the court in 1943,Wot? Just another stick in our eye.

.. republic be on its last legs?

Could our republic be on its last legs? Irrespective of election results? If the judicial system continues to usurp power it doesn’t rightfully possess, then America’s current system can’t last much longer, according to Conservative Review senior editor Daniel Horowitz. “We will not survive another few years as a republic, irrespective of who wins this election, if the courts are not stripped of their power,” Horowitz declared during a recent appearance on the Mark Levin Show. Indeed, the nation is reaching a “cathartic moment in our history where elections don’t matter,” according to Horowitz. This is because unelected judges are deciding most major social and political questions with finality. Horowitz details the danger posed by the courts in his new book “Stolen Sovereignty: How to Stop Unelected Judges From Transforming America.” Levin praised the book, calling it “a must-read” and “a terrific book” and deeming Horowitz “one of the smartest young men in the conservative movement today.” Horowitz said he was inspired to write the book by two distinct events that happened Sept. 3, 2015. That was the day Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk Kim Davis was thrown in jail for refusing to violate her Christian faith by issuing “marriage” licenses to same-sex couples. This came after the Supreme Court in June created the constitutional “right” to homosexual marriage. [FULL] Right now Liberals have appointed approx.  52% of all federal judges. If Dems win this election that percentage is expected to reach 76%.  I have here quoted Jefferson's admonition (about watering the Tree of Liberty with the blood of rancid government) so often that I fear it's reached proper triteness.  And, after all, who wants to .. you know. The risk our founders took is way under appreciated.

Voter fraud: inalienable right

Voter fraud is now an inalienable right …according to the 5th Circuit “Voter fraud is now an inalienable right. A 9-6 en banc ruling from the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals invalidated a 2011 Texas law (SB 14) requiring that every voter showing up at the polls presents a valid photo ID, the same requirement of someone who purchases a pack of Sudafed. - See more at: [...] The six dissenting justices, led by Judge Edith Jones retorted that there was absolutely no evidence under the sun to suggest this law is discriminatory against minorities or was passed with discriminatory intent.  “By keeping this latter claim alive, the majority fans the flames of perniciously irresponsible racial name-calling,” wrote an exasperated Jones [...] Moreover, as I note in Stolen Sovereignty, there is a widespread problem with non-citizens voting in our country. Texas has about 4.5 million immigrants, including over 1.7 million illegal aliens. According to a 2014 analysis referenced in the Washington Post, more than 14% of all non-citizens in the country are illegally registered to vote.  [FULL] Prognosis: BRAIN CANCER!

Ginny Ginsburg see the light

The Left's Smirking Troll Sees the Light and shudders Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg believes "everything" will be up for grabs if Donald Trump is elected president and has the opportunity to appoint several justices to the high Court. "I don't want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs," Ginsburg said of the presumptive Republican nominee succeeding in his bid for the White House in an interview published Friday by The Associated Press. The 83-year-old justice, who belongs to the court's liberal wing, said it's "likely that the next president, whoever she will be, will have a few appointments to make." Ginsburg is the oldest of the eight justices currently on the bench, while two of her colleagues – Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer – are closing in on 80. [Full] Automaton Justice Ginsburg, the erstwhile ACLU crusader who was appointed by Bill (or maybe Hillary) after her husband made a few million dollar contribution to some Clinton "project."  Replacing dead justices will not be fix enough.  The entire liberal court culture must be righted before that can happen. PS. Trump released a list in May of 11 conservative judges that he would likely nominate to the Supreme Court if elected president. The list was praised by conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation, but drew outrage from Hillary Clinton's campaign.

MEDIA CALLS TRUMP RACIST

Ann Coulter: Never wrong with the facts, and seldom wrong in judgement. ANN"S FB LINK A nice clip:  STUNNING NEW DEVELOPMENT!!! MEDIA CALLS TRUMP RACIST The New York Times alone has published hundreds of articles, editorials, op-eds, movie reviews, sports articles and crossword puzzles darkly invoking "white judges" and "all-white" juries, as if that is ipso facto proof of racist justice. Two weeks ago -- that's not an error; I didn't mean to type "decades" and it came out "weeks" -- the Times published an op-ed by a federal appeals judge stating: "All-white juries risk undermining the perception of justice in minority communities, even if a mixed-race jury would have reached the same verdict or imposed the same sentence." In other words, even when provably not unfair, white jurors create the "perception" of unfairness solely by virtue of the color of their skin. Innocence Project co-founder Barry Scheck's entire career of springing criminals would be gone if it were generally accepted that we can't question judges or juries based on race or ethnicity. Writing about the release of Glenn Ford, a black man convicted of robbing a jewelry store and murdering the owner, Scheck claimed that one of the most important factors in Ford's death sentence was the "all-white jury." On the other hand, the evidence against Ford included: His two black friends telling police he'd shown them jewelry the day of the murder, another Ford acquaintance swearing he'd had a .38 in his waistband -- the murder weapon was a .38 -- and the gunshot residue on Ford's hand. His conviction was overturned many years later, on the theory that his black friends had committed the murder, then framed him. So we know 1) the "real killers" were also black; and 2) any jury would have convicted Ford on that evidence. Here's how the Times described Ford's trial: "A black man convicted of murder by an all-white jury in Louisiana in 1984 and sentenced to die, tapped into an equally old and painful vein of race." I have approximately 1 million more examples of the media going mental about a "white judge" or "all-white jury," and guess what? In none of them were any of the white people involved members of organizations dedicated to promoting white people, called "THE RACE." Say, does anyone remember if it ever came up that the Ferguson police force was all white? Someone check that. I don’t want to upset you New York Times editorial board, but perhaps we should revisit the results of the Nuremberg trials. Those were presided over by – TRIGGER WARNING! – “all white” juries. (How do we really know if Hermann Göring was guilty without hearing women's and Latino voices?) So much for that .

TOXIC CULTURE X 2

#1 - OBAMA STRUGGLES TO REGAIN ISRAEL'S TRUST... Evidently somebody in Obama's camp is telling him that regaining Israel's trust is doable.  See also:   "John Wayne Gacy struggles to regain trust of victim's parents ..." #2 Justice Breyer Sees Value in a Global View of Law... " I'm Okay, You're Okay " "He will discuss it on Monday on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert”

SCOTUS-OGARKY

'GARKYS When five largely unrepresentative and unaccountable people can decide to impose their moral values on a nation of 320 million, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men. When clerks in Washington, D.C. can deny citizens access to guns, despite there being an individual, constitutional right, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men. When Barack Obama can ignore court rulings and bypass Congress on a whim and be cheered for doing so, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men. When mayors and other leaders can be cheered for ignoring the marriage laws of the nation and issue same sex marriage licenses at a time doing so is prohibited by state law, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men. When jurors lie to get on death penalty cases to ensure the death penalty cannot be issues and they are heroes for doing so, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men. So when Kim Davis refuses to issue marriage licenses, she’s just behaving as all the others have done. Only she’s the bad guy because the secular loud voices of the country disagree with her ignoring the law. But again, we are nation of men, not a nation of laws. Anthony Kennedy decided to insert his will and morality into the discussion and shut up everyone else. He thought he could shut down the conversation. He only made it angrier. We are not a democracy, but an oligarchy. And we are not a nation of laws. The republic may continue, but without the moral leadership necessary to bind the leaders and citizens to the same laws. [RED STATE] The Roman Empire lasted  approximately 500 years.  You would think that had Roman citizens had  an internet with 24/7 news about how corrupt the system had become that they'd ... nah.  They'd be just like us; erm, were just like us.

Roberts Deriliction

vichyssoise gummint

I'm avoiding the news for the next few days or weeks. Can't take it anymore. BUT here's an excellent summary that pretty well sums it all up. Mark Miller Since the New Deal, courts have permitted almost any legislative infringement of economic liberty that can be said to have a "rational basis." Applying this extremely permissive test, courts usually approve any purpose that a legislature asserts.   Courts even concoct purposes that legislatures neglect to articulate. This fulfills the Roberts Doctrine that it is a judicial function to construe laws in ways that make them perform better, meaning more efficiently, than they would as written by Congress. Thursday's decision demonstrates how easily, indeed inevitably, judicial deference becomes judicial dereliction, with anti-constitutional consequences. We are, says William R. Maurer of the Institute for Justice, becoming "a country in which all the branches of government work in tandem to achieve policy outcomes, instead of checking one another to protect individual rights. Besides violating the separation of powers, this approach raises serious issues about whether litigants before the courts are receiving the process that is due to them under the Constitution." The Roberts Doctrine facilitates what has been for a century progressivism's central objective, which is the overthrow of the Constitution's architecture. [ObamaCare Ruling Is Judicial Dereliction] *snip* *snip* I began to grow up after being introduced to George Will, lo these many years ago.  But Mr. Will is, alas, too gentlemanly for my taste.  After years of Sunday morning watching, I finally tired of  waiting for him to punch Sam Donaldson in the face and, while still wondering if he was banging Cokie Roberts, I stopped watching Brinkey Sunday and moved on to Ann Coulter. But the man is  smart.  And he has punched Judge Roberts in the puss.