Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Law’

Viral Photo of Caged Children Actually from Obama Era, Nothing To Do with Trump



disclaimerReported By Jack Davis | May 28, 2018 at 7:05am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/viral-photo-of-caged-children-actually-from-obama-era-nothing-to-do-with-trump/

Activists attacked the Trump administration Sunday for its treatment of children who were detained at the border, based upon a picture that showed children sleeping in a cage. There was only one flaw in the tweets that called the treatment “inhumane” and laid it at the door of President Donald Trump.

The image was from an Arizona newspaper report from 2014, during the second term of former President Barack Obama, The Daily Caller reported.

Former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau began the avalanche of tweets with a since-deleted comment.

“This is happening right now, and the only debate that matters is how we force our government to get these kids back to their families as fast as humanly possible,” Favreau wrote. He added a link to the image, which was part of an Arizona Republic photo gallery from 2014.

A series of tweets followed as many used the outdated image and applied it as though it was current.

“Children of immigrants are being held in cages, like dogs, at ICE detention centers, sleeping on the floor. It’s an abomination,” Shaun King tweeted.

Others followed.

tweet02atweet02b

Context for the picture was provided by Fox News, which noted that the picture was taken at a time when immigration officials had detained more than 1,000 children who illegally crossed America’s Southern Border. Controversy over the image reflects the debate over immigration policy that separates children from their parents.

Trump has called for changing that policy as part of broad-based immigration policy reform.

trumptweet

Even after the true origin of the picture was revealed, few of those who tweeted it clarified that the picture was from Obama’s days in the White House.

One who did was Jake Silverstein, editor in chief of the New York Times Magazine.

tweet04

“Correction: this link, which was going around this morning, is from 2014. Still disturbing, of course, but only indirectly related to current situation. My bad (and a good reminder not to RT things while distracted w family on the weekend),” he tweeted.

please likeand share and leave a comment

Mueller’s Boundaries


Drawn and Posted by Chip Bok | May 9, 2018   

Federal Judge T.S. Ellis said on Friday that Robert Mueller has exceeded his boundaries. He also gave the Justice Department two weeks to come up with an unredacted copy of Deputy AG Rosenstein’s memos authorizing the special counsel. So far the Justice Department has kept most of the memo explaining the boundaries of Mueller’s investigation under<!– AddThis Advanced Settings above via filter on wp_trim_excerpt –><!– AddThis Advanced Settings below via filter on wp_trim_excerpt –><!– AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on wp_trim_excerpt –><!– AddThis Share Buttons above via filter on wp_trim_excerpt –><!– AddThis Share Buttons below via filter on wp_trim_excerpt –>

<!– AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on wp_trim_excerpt –>” data-title=”Mueller’s Boundaries”>

URL of the original posting site: http://bokbluster.com/2018/05/09/boundaries/

http://bokbluster.com/2018/05/09/boundaries/

Federal Judge T.S. Ellis said on Friday that Robert Mueller has exceeded his boundaries.

He also gave the Justice Department two weeks to come up with an unredacted copy of Deputy AG Rosenstein’s memos authorizing the special counsel. So far the Justice Department has kept most of the memo explaining the boundaries of Mueller’s investigation under wraps.

Boundaries

The Daily Caller thinks this could be a nightmare for Mueller.

Or not so much says Judge Napolitano.

Fed-Up AZ Supreme Court Hits Dreamers with Costly Bad News in Blowout Ruling


Reported By Ben Marquis | April 10, 2018 at 12:39pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/az-supreme-court-hits-dreamers/

Former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program created something of a legal limbo for a select class of illegal immigrants, shielding them from deportation without granting them legal status. Now, some of the program’s enrollees could quite literally be paying for that uncertainty.

According to The Washington Times, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that DACA recipients, also known as “dreamers,” are not eligible for the in-state tuition rates that some state colleges and universities were offering them, and instead will have to pay out-of-state rates.

That 7-0 decision upheld an earlier 3-0 state court of appeals ruling against the Maricopa Community Colleges, who had decided on their own volition to extend in-state tuition rates to DACA recipients. The ruling applies to all state colleges and public universities in Arizona.

The appeals court had ruled that both federal and state law granted that sort of decision-making power to the state’s political branches, and not the colleges or universities. At the heart of the decision was a 2006 law passed by voters known as Proposition 300, which declared that illegal immigrants were not eligible to receive state benefits, including in-state tuition rates.

“While people can disagree what the law should be, I hope we all can agree that the attorney general must enforce the law as it is, not as we want it to be,” stated Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich. 

The Arizona Republic reported that an estimated 2,000 DACA recipients are currently enrolled in community colleges or state universities at in-state tuition rates, and could now find themselves being compelled to pay nearly three times as much for out-of-state rates if they wish to remain in school.

As might be expected, advocates for DACA recipients are incensed by the court’s ruling. They have claimed the decision essentially blocks access to education for dreamers by making it “impossible” for them to afford, especially when considering these particular illegal immigrants aren’t eligible for any sort of state or federal financial assistance because of their lack of legal status.

But based on a clear reading of the 2006 law, those dreamers should never have received the lower in-state tuition rates from colleges in the first place.

As Brnovich stated, “It’s about time someone held (the colleges) accountable, and that’s my job. My role as AG is to make sure you’re following the law.”

Though Brnovich did express some sympathy for the plight of the dreamers, he nevertheless pointed out that the law is the law. “What makes this country unique and great … is because the rule of law means something,” the attorney general said.

However, the Arizona Daily Sun reported that some college-aged dreamers may not ultimately find themselves having to pay the substantially higher out-of-state tuition rates thanks to something of a middle-ground solution worked out by the state university system’s Board of Regents.

That policy, put in place years ago by Regent Jay Heiler, “sets charges at 150 percent of the in-state rate for any student who graduated from an Arizona high school after attending school” in the state for at least three years, the Sun reported.

While that policy could very well be challenged through litigation, Heiler and others believe it will survive because the special rate would actually cover the costs of tuition, meaning state taxpayers would not be subsidizing or offering a “benefit” to illegal immigrants.

The Republic noted that the Arizona supreme court has only released a three-page order at this point, and won’t make the full opinion explaining the ruling public until May 14.

Whatever one may think about the state law or this court ruling, one thing that’s patently obvious is that the hap-hazard manner by which Obama devised and implemented the DACA program has once again hurt those individuals it purported to help by leaving them in a legal limbo.

The only way to truly solve the problems created by DACA is for Congress to finally agree on a permanent solution to the legal status question for DACA recipients, as President Donald Trump has repeatedly called on legislators to do.

WH Considers Using Obscure Law To Gut Omnibus Bill, Democrats Helpless To Stop


Reported By Scott Kelnhofer | April 4, 2018 at 9:29am

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/wh-considers-using-obscure-law-to-gut-omnibus-bill-democrats-helpless-to-stop/

Conservatives who were angry with President Donald Trump and Republicans with some of the expenditures approved as part of the recently signed omnibus spending bill may soon be in a slightly better mood.

Joseph Lawler of the Washington Examiner reports congressional conservatives want Trump to use the 1974 Impoundment Act to rescind some spending authorized by the $1.3 trillion government appropriations bill, and White House officials are reportedly considering doing so.

The measure referred to by the Examiner is officially known as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. For the most part, the act established the Congressional Budget Office and gave Congress more control over the budget process.

The Impoundment Control Act allows the president to ask Congress to rescind funds that have been allocated in the budget. Congress is not required to vote on the request, but if they do agree to vote, a simple majority in both chambers is all that is needed to approve cuts the president requests.

Congress has 45 days to approve any or all rescission requests from the president.

A congressional Republican aide told the Examiner that conservatives have been lobbying for Trump to use the Impoundment Act.

“It’s a good opportunity to take advantage of a law passed decades ago and that hasn’t been used recently,” the aide said.

A spokesman for House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., confirmed to The Washington Post that McCarthy’s office is working with the Trump administration on the idea. White House legislative director Marc Short also confirmed the president is looking into requesting cuts to the budget.

“The administration is certainly looking at a rescission package, and the president takes seriously his promise to be fiscally responsible.”

The Impoundment Control Act was put in place in 1974 in response to President Richard Nixon’s practice of withholding funds for programs he opposed. Instead, the act requires any requests to withhold funding to go through Congress.

The Impoundment Control Act is considered obscure because it hasn’t been used often in recent years. The Examiner report says it was never used by Presidents Barack Obama or George W. Bush, but was used frequently during the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

After signing the omnibus spending bill that he originally threatened to veto, Trump called on Congress to give him line-item veto authority on spending bills. However, the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that such authority was unconstitutional.

These measures could pass with just a majority vote, meaning Democrats could do nothing to stop them — unless, of course, they can convince enough Republicans not to support the president’s wishes. Considering the slim 51-to-49 majority Republicans hold in the Senate, it wouldn’t take many left-leaning Republicans to foil the president’s plans.But a chance to rescind some of the budget programs gives conservatives reason for hope — and if Republicans throw away that chance, it will make conservatives angry all over again.

Democratic Rep Details Her Gun Confiscation Law


Reported by |

Rep Debbie Dingell, the wife of former Rep John Dingell, has announced that she is busy writing a gun confiscation bill. She claims that the bill would include due process, but that’s impossible.

The only way you satisfy both would be to have a court appearance before the guns are confiscated. That’s not what this bill does. This bill confiscates the guns first. Since she says she’s modeling it after the Indiana law, that means you have fourteen days to go to court and show that there was a reason to confiscate the guns in the first place. 

I could be wrong but get the wrong cop or judge and you can lose a constitutional right.

Also, in my humble opinion, you would be reversing due process. If they took you to court first, then the burden of proof is on them but if you have to go to court to get your guns back, the burden of proof then shifts to you. It also makes you vulnerable to vengeful relatives and neighbors. Your brother or your sister could call the police and falsely claim you threatened them with your gun. How could you possibly prove you didn’t. It’s their word against yours and you have the burden of proof.

From Breitbart

The Salt Lake Tribune summed up the Indiana law, “In Indiana, law enforcement can confiscate weapons without a judge’s order. The gun owner must ask the court to get the weapons returned.”

Extreme Risk Protection Orders have proved a popular gun control response to the February 14 Parkland school shooting. However, it is difficult to believe such orders would have prevented that attack.

On February 23, 2018, Breitbart News reported, “The family with which [Cruz] was staying repeatedly called the police on him in November 2017 but refused to file charges when sheriff’s deputies arrived.

member of the family with which Cruz was staying explained away Cruz’s erratic behavior by saying he ‘had been suffering significantly from the loss of his mother’ earlier in the month.” 

I think we can all agree that crazy and extremely violent people do not need to have guns, but on the other hand, I don’t want someone innocent to have to face accusations that he or she can’t win. Maybe they could amend the bill to mete out mandatory jail sentences for making a knowingly false claim?

Huck’s Response to Emotional Anti-Gun Marchers Is Best We’ve Heard So Far


Reported By Benjamin Arie | March 25, 2018 at 2:56pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/watch-hucks-response-emotional/

Mike Huckabee is well known for his calm, warm approach to politics and life — and the former pastor and Arkansas governor just became the voice of reason during the “March For Our Lives” protests.

While appearing on “Fox and Friends,” the politician-turned-commentator addressed the recent demonstrations that are supposedly about stopping violence, but have become essentially anti-Second Amendment rallies where law-abiding gun owners are vilified for the actions of one criminal.

“I salute these students for their passion and their energy, and for their interest in helping to shape public policy,” Huckabee began, extending an olive branch to the young people protesting. “But I would say this to them: Emotion is a terrible substitute for truth.“  March 25, 2018

“It is a terrible substitute for facts,” Huck continued. “And they’ve been used, by believing that if they just ban a certain type of firearm, that things are going to be better.”

That wasn’t just the former governor’s opinion. A vast amount of evidence backs up the view that the left’s “solutions” — many of which have already been tried — would do nothing to actually stop criminals.

“Here’s the facts: Five times more people are killed in America by knives… than they are by rifles,” Huckabee explained.

The most recent FBI data shows that in 2016, there were 374 murders committed using rifles in the entire United States. That includes so-called “assault rifles.” However, a stunning 1,604 murders were committed using “knives or cutting weapons.”

Even hands, fists, and feet were used to kill more often than rifles: Criminals committed 656 murders using just their body.

“It’s also true that over 86 percent of the 20,000 police chiefs and sheriffs in America do not support repealing concealed carry, but rather rather support (gun ownership),” Mike Huckabee went on. “And they don’t support more gun control methods.” 

There’s a good reason for that: As concealed carry has become more common in America, the country has become more safe.

As we’ve previously reported, there was an amazing 215 percent increase in concealed carry permits between 2007 and 2015. During the same time period, there was a 14 percent decrease in the murder rate. In fact, violent crime has been cut in half since about 1990, yet the media constantly acts as if violence is spiraling out of control.

Mike Huckabee’s primary point is so good, it must be repeated: “Emotion is a terrible substitute for truth.” 

The left and the mainstream media seem to be purposely burying facts or even outright lying about statistics in order to promote an agenda.

American schools are actually some of the safest places in the country. Contrary to the narrative, mass shootings in schools have not be dramatically increasing in recent years. Students have a higher probability of being killed riding their bikes or walking to school than by a school shooter.

Huck’s line about emotion over truth is an apt summary of not only the current push against lawful gun ownership, but also almost all of liberalism. One of the hallmarks of being responsible adults is using logic and critical thinking over fear-based reaction and hysteria.

The next time you see a news headline or hear a statement from a protester, ask yourself: “Is this based on reasoned logic and truth, or all emotion?”  That’s an incredibly useful tool to decide which side of an issue to stand on… and in today’s world, detecting the truth is more important than ever.

Law Prof. Booted after Praising ‘Work Ethic, Respect for Authority, and Sexual Temperance’


Reported By Randy DeSoto | March 22, 2018 at 5:24pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/law-prof-booted-after-praising-work-ethic-respect-for-authority-and-sexual-temperance/

A professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School has been removed from her primary teaching duties after making observations about the academic disparity black and white students on campus.

The controversy for Prof. Amy Wax began last August when she co-wrote an op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer titled, “Paying the price for the breakdown in the country’s bourgeois culture.”

“That culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness,” she wrote. 

Wax continued, “Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.”

The professor contended these values reigned supreme among people from different backgrounds and abilities in America until the mid-1960s. Wax conceded that the country of course was not perfect, but there was a nod to these values being good among the vast majority. However, by the late 1960s, this culture began to wane with the growth of the welfare state and the breakdown of the pro-marriage norm. The pathologies of poverty, crime, and addiction followed as more and more grew up in broken homes.

“All cultures are not equal,” Wax wrote. “Or at least they are not equal in preparing people to be productive in an advanced economy.” 

She concluded arguing for a return to bourgeois norms, which still exist in segments of society. To achieve this end, Wax wrote that will require the arbiters of culture in academia, the media and Hollywood “to relinquish multicultural grievance polemics and the preening pretense of defending the downtrodden” and re-embrace what was good in the American ethic.

A group of 54 Penn students and alumni responded to her piece with a column in the school’s newspaper — The Daily Pennsylvanian — describing her arguments as “steeped in anti-blackness” and called for school administrators to investigate Wax’s advocacy of “white supremacy.”

Weeks later, in Sept. 2017, Wax participated in a podcast with Brown University professor Glenn Loury titled, “The Downside of Social Uplift.” Among the topics they discussed was the “mismatch hypothesis” of affirmative action in relation to law schools, which is based on data published in a 2005 Stanford Law Review article. The hypothesis holds that affirmative action does more harm than good, by admitting students in schools for which they are not prepared.

During her interview, Wax said her own experience as a professor of first year civil procedure students at Ivy League Penn bore out the findings of the study.

“Here’s a very inconvenient fact, Glenn: I don’t think I’ve ever seen a black student graduate in the top quarter of the class, and rarely, rarely, in the top half,” Wax stated. “I can think of one or two students who scored in the top half of my required first-year course.”

“When Wax’s video surfaced earlier this month, it sparked outrage among student groups and faculty members, many of whom called her statements racist,” The Washington Post reported. A petition was circulated calling on law school Dean Ted Ruger to discipline her.

Amy Wax insinuated demonstrably false and deeply offensive claims about black law students and alumni,” Nick Hall, a third-year law student and president of the school’s Black Law Students Association, told Philadelphia Magazine.

Ruger acquiesced to those demanding discipline of the tenured faculty member announcing Wax had been removed from teaching the mandatory civil procedure course, but would still teach electives.

The dean stated Wax spoke “disparagingly and inaccurately” about the performance of black students.

“Black students have graduated in the top of the class at Penn Law,” Ruger told the Daily Pennsylvanian. “And contrary to any suggestion otherwise, black students at Penn Law are extremely successful, both inside and outside the classroom, in the job market, and in their careers.”

Wax stood her ground amid the controversy commenting to the paper in an email, “I would emphasize that student performance is a matter of fact, not opinion. It is what it is.”

Loury came to Wax’s defense in a lengthy Facebook post, noting that no data from Penn contradicting his colleague’s claim has been forthcoming.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: