Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Supreme Court’

Breaking: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Trump on Illegal Immigrant Detention


Reported By Randy DeSoto | Published March 19, 2019 at 10:47am | Modified March 19, 2019 at 10:52am

The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, ruling that immigrants with criminal records can be detained and held indefinitely while they await deportation proceedings.

In the 5-4 decision, the high court overruled the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided in 2016 that immigrants with criminal records can only be detained by federal authorities if the detention occurs soon after he or she is released from jail, The Hill reported.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in the ruling.

“In these cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that this mandatory-detention requirement applies only if a covered alien is arrested by immigration officials as soon as he is released from jail,” Alito wrote.

“If the alien evades arrest for some short period of time — according to respondents, even 24 hours is too long — the mandatory-detention requirement is inapplicable, and the alien must have an opportunity to apply for release on bond or parole,”  he continued.  “Four other circuits have rejected this interpretation of the statute, and we agree that the 9th Circuit’s interpretation is wrong.”

The case centers around the interpretation of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

“The law states the government can detain convicted immigrants ‘when the alien is released’ from criminal detention,” according to Reuters.

“Civil rights lawyers 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,” the news outlet added.

Mony Preap, one of the lead plaintiffs in the class action suit against the government, is a lawful permanent resident who had two drug convictions, which were deportable offenses. He completed his jail time for these crimes in 2006 but was detained by federal authorities in 2013 after being released from jail for non-deportable offenses.

Justice Stephen Breyer said in the dissent — in which he was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — that the Constitution did not intend for people who have already served their sentence for crimes committed to be deprived of their liberty indefinitely.

“I would have thought that Congress meant to adhere to these values and did not intend to allow the Government to apprehend persons years after their release from prison and hold them indefinitely without a bail hearing,” he said reading his dissent from the bench, the Washington Examiner reported.

Breyer warned the “greater importance in the case lies in the power that the majority’s interpretation grants to the government.”

“It is a power to detain persons who committed a minor crime many years before. And it is a power to hold those persons, perhaps for many months, without any opportunity to obtain bail,” he said.

Cecilia Wang, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, who argued the case for the immigrants, said, “the Supreme Court has endorsed the most extreme interpretation of immigration detention statutes, allowing mass incarceration of people without any hearing, simply because they are defending themselves against a deportation charge.”

Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton applauded the decision, saying the Supreme Court upheld the rule of law.

He tweeted, “U.S. Supreme Court gives @RealDonaldTrump victory on immigration detention. Actually, court upholds rule of law on immigration in case dating back to Obama administration.”

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Randy DeSoto is a graduate of West Point and Regent University School of Law. He is the author of the book “We Hold These Truths” and screenwriter of the political documentary “I Want Your Money.”

Mike Huckabee: SCOTUS Just Made Landmark Ruling That Reins in the Power of Government


Authored By Mike Huckabee | Published February 22, 2019 at 3:16pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/mike-huckabee-scotus-made-landmark-ruling-reins-power-government/

Supreme Court justices

Supreme Court justices (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

The particular case involved someone who was convicted for dealing drugs. Indiana authorities seized and auctioned off his Land Rover, even though it was not purchased with drug money, on grounds that he used it to commit crimes by driving it while dealing drugs (with that kind of tenuous connection, they could have seized his sneakers, too.)

He challenged the seizure, but the state Supreme Court ruled against him on grounds that the U.S. Supreme Court never explicitly said that the Eighth Amendment applies to states, too. Well, now they have. Talk about things that should have gone without saying!

Asset forfeiture laws were originally well-intentioned and meant to ensure that criminals didn’t profit from their crimes. But over the years, some places started abusing them as a method of raising revenue by seizing and auctioning private property that had little or no connection with criminal behavior, leaving citizens with scant recourse or financial resources to fight it.

As this story notes, the lack of Eighth Amendment protections on the state level also led to abuses such as heavy fines for tiny infractions, such as using the wrong house paint colors or Halloween decorations.

During oral arguments of the case, Justice Breyer got Indiana’s solicitor general to admit that the state could conceivably seize someone’s car for driving five miles over the speed limit, which sparked laughter in the court.

This is a welcome and long overdue ruling. Too many young people (some of them recently elected to Congress) have no concept of the foundational importance of property rights. They seem fine with the idea of government being able to take as much of the fruits of other people’s labors as it wants, as long as it promises to “redistribute” other people’s money in the form of free stuff.


They need to learn the wise old saying that a government that’s big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Summary

Recent Posts Contact

Mike Huckabee is the host of “Huckabee” on TBN Sat/Sun 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, a Fox News contributor, author, former Arkansas governor, bass guitarist and grandfather to six of the cutest kids in world! He’s also a special contributor for The Western Journal.

Blasey Ford Caves: Legal Team Shuts Down Further Investigation into Kavanaugh



Reported By Bryan Chai | October 7, 2018 at 9:58am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/blasey-ford-caves-legal-team-shuts-investigation-kavanaugh/

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Christine Ford testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee. (ABC News screen shot)

And so the Brett Kavanaugh scandal has ended — not with a bang, but a whimper. That could change, of course, if Democrats continue their crusade to remove the judge should they take the Senate after midterms. But as far as the original accuser goes? Christine Blasey Ford is throwing in the towel.

Ford’s lawyers have told CNN that their client “absolutely does not want him (Kavanaugh) impeached if Democrats take control of Congress.”

Debra Katz, one of Ford’s attorneys, told CNN that Ford has done everything she originally sought to do.

“Professor Ford has not asked for (Democrats to continue investigating Kavanaugh.) What she did was to come forward and testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee and agree to cooperate with any investigation by the FBI and that’s what she sought to do here,” Katz said.

Ford was thrust into the national spotlight after she accused then-Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh of sexual assault at a party while the two were in high school. Countless accusations and investigations ultimately yielded nothing, and Kavanaugh was sworn in as the 114th Supreme Court justice on Saturday after a 50-48 Senate vote.

Some prominent Democrats, such as House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler, have made no secret of Democrats’ desires to further investigate Kavanaugh should Democrats have a successful midterm.

“If he is on the Supreme Court, and the Senate hasn’t investigated, then the House will have to,” Nadler told ABC News George Stephanopoulos. “We would have to investigate any credible allegations of perjury and other things that haven’t been properly looked into before.”

Nadler’s statements fly directly in the face of Ford’s desires. Considering the accusations that Democrats willfully ignored Ford’s request for anonymity, it’s not exactly surprising that Democrats might ignore her requests again.

“She does not want (Kavanaugh) to be impeached?” CNN’s Dana Bash asked Ford’s lawyers.

“No,” Katz bluntly responded.

It’s totally understandable that Ford wants this ordeal finished and tucked away. Another Ford lawyer, Lisa Banks, stressed that Ford wanted closure but had no regrets.

“I don’t think she has any regrets. I think she feels like she did the right thing,” Banks said.

“And this was what she wanted to do, which was provide this information to the committee so they could make the best decision possible. And I think she still feels that was the right thing to do, so I don’t think she has any regrets.”

Katz hinted that she wasn’t thrilled with how everything played out, but still supported Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s handling of the accusations.

“What I can speak to is when victims of sexual assault and violence go to their Congress people — when they go to their senators and they ask for their information to be confidential, I think that that’s a request that needs to be respected,” Katz said.

“Victims get to control when and how and where their allegations get made public,” she added. “Now, if we want to look at all the things that went wrong in this process, there are many. There are many issues that need to be addressed. But I think Sen. Feinstein respected the process of her constituents, and I think that was the right thing to do.”

It’s certainly up for debate whether or not Feinstein actually “respected the process of her constituents.”

But if Democrats continue the assault on Kavanaugh, they most certainly will not be respecting Ford’s request for this to end.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

If I could have two television shows and two movies on a desert island, they’d be “The Office,” (the American version) “Breaking Bad,” “The Dark Knight,” and “Die Hard.” I love sports, video games, comics, movies and television. And I guess my job, too.

Opinion: Scenes from the Kavanaugh Clash — And What the Media Badly Missed


Commentary By Amy Swearer | October 7, 2018 at 3:56pm

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/opinion-scenes-kavanaugh-clash-media-badly-missed/

Friday morning, as the Senate prepared to vote to advance Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, I took a field trip with some of our interns. It wasn’t anything intensive — just a lap around the Capitol to observe the anti-Kavanaugh protests.

One of our female interns carried a sign. It was a simple sign with four words: “I stand with Brett.”

I somewhat expected those words to attract attention — they are, after all, words so contrary to the sentiments expressed by the majority of individuals who held signs around the Capitol this week.

What I did not expect was the type of attention it would draw and from what type of people.

You see, we were mostly ignored by the large groups of screaming, borderline-hysterical, anti-Kavanaugh protesters. Occasionally, a lone individual would heap some abuse our way, often in the form of telling us we ought to be ashamed of ourselves. But overall, it appeared they had bigger fights to pick than with four fairly innocuous young adults who kept a respectful distance.

No, the attention we attracted was from people largely overlooked amid the shouting. And they were almost unanimously supportive.

Normal, everyday people — tourists from all areas of the country, couples pushing strollers, families with teenage daughters, middle-aged friends, elderly women out for a walk — all quietly, calmly approaching us for a word of thanks.

We could not go 50 yards without being stopped by someone expressing their gratitude or asking if we had any extra signs. I can’t tell you how many wanted to take pictures with the sign. I gave up counting the thumbs ups and smiles. I can’t tell you the number of ways we were thanked by different individuals.

What I do know is that the amount of encouragement received by people who would otherwise have stayed silent in the shadow of the larger anti-Kavanaugh mobs gave me hope.

More than anything, I was heartened by the women. For too many women, “I stand with Brett” is a phrase we’ve been told we mustn’t utter in public. It’s a conclusion we’ve been told we mustn’t reach. A rationale we’ve been told we mustn’t embrace.

And so many women have stayed silent. We’ve quietly absorbed the abuse aimed at us. Without retort, we have stood by and refrained from engaging in a prolonged ideological battle we fear we’ll fight alone.

But inside, we know. We know that there is not and has never been a shred of corroboration for the claims of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh. We know that “Believe all women” is an irrational and untenable ideology that undermines every argument that we should be treated equally to men. We know that a good man has been forced to go to war for his honor and his family because he is being slandered on the altar of social justice run amok.

For dozens of women today, these four words printed on poster board were their voice, and they let us know it.

Reason and truth do not always belong to the loudest in the room. Sometimes, they belong to the whisperers the world barely acknowledges, and castigates when it does.

So let me unequivocally state today what so many of us have long known, but have too often refused to say publicly: Women, it’s OK.

It’s OK to not believe other women when the evidence is contrary to their claims.

It’s OK to adhere to basic concepts of rationality and fairness when making a judgment about a man accused of sexual misconduct.

It’s OK to stand with Kavanaugh if your reason so implores you.

These are things we need not only whisper in private. We can say them out loud, and boldly. Behind our whispers is a mighty roar to let others know they are not alone in thinking for themselves.

Amy Swearer is a legal policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

A version of this Op-Ed appeared Friday on The Daily Signal website under the headline “The Power of ‘I Stand With Brett.’”

Teacher Learns Harsh Lesson After Calling for Kavanaugh Assassination


Reported By Cillian Zeal | October 9, 2018 at 6:58am

A Minnesota teacher who called for the death of Brett Kavanaugh on Twitter has been suspended with pay after the threat was reported to the FBI, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reported. The unnamed teacher, who goes by the Twitter handle @lookitsSammm, got her fifteen minutes of viral infamy after the minatory tweet on Saturday, according to the Star Tribune.

“So whose (sic) going to take one for the team and kill Kavanaugh?” @lookitsSammm wrote.

As expressing political rage goes, this wasn’t a particularly great idea, particularly when it happened just hours after Kavanaugh was confirmed by the Senate:

The not-good-idea-iness factor of this whole thing was significantly heightened by the fact that the tweeter was a Rosemount, Minnesota, educator — and there are bigger issues with that than the fact a teacher doesn’t know the difference between “whose” and “who’s.”

“The teacher, listed as an instructor at the Intermediate School District 917’s Alliance Education Center, has since deleted her Twitter account but her tweet was captured and shared by scores of users who said they reported it to the FBI and U.S. Secret Service,” the Star Tribune reported.

As an aside here, I can understand deleting a tweet after it becomes clear you’ve said something cretinous (or possibly illegal). No, it’s not going to stop the whirlwind of problems you’ve invited upon yourself, but I suppose it at least shows some good sense. Deleting your account, however, just makes you look very guilty. For every soi-disant Twitter politics expert who could see themselves typing out something this addle-pated in the future, please keep this in mind when you eventually decide to say something profoundly asinine and/or felonious.

So, back to @lookitsSammm. Mark Zuzek, the superintendent of Intermediate School District 917, acknowledged they’d received a complaint regarding her social media musings and that she was “on paid leave pending the outcome of the investigation,” according to a statement on the center’s website.

“Pursuant with the data practices act, we are limited to providing additional information regarding this matter,” Zuzek added in the statement.

In an ideal universe, that “investigation” would consist of this:

Superintendent Zuzek: So, uh, did you tweet this garbage?

@lookitsSammm: That depends on what the definition of “tweet” is.

Superintendent Zuzek: Is there any possible way I can verbalize an ellipsis? No?

@lookitsSammm: [heavy sigh] I have my First Amendment rights, Superintendent Zuzek. I, for one, believe all survivors, and you should, too. I was merely–

Superintendent Zuzek: Good luck with your next job.

My ideal world, alas, is one where teachers unions aren’t 100 percent insane and that clearly isn’t going to exist anytime soon. That being said, one can likely guess that once the wearisome process concludes, it’ll probably conclude with @lookitsSammm @lookingforanewjob.

Of course, our unidentified educator has a bit more to worry about than her employment status. There’s also a law enforcement investigation to consider.

“It is unclear whether the teacher will be charged with a crime or what law enforcement agency is responsible for investigating the tweet,” the Star Tribune noted.

“While Twitter users wrote that they reported the tweet to the FBI and Secret Service, the U.S. Marshals Service is responsible for protecting the federal judiciary. The U.S. Supreme Court also has a small federal police force in Washington, D.C.”

An FBI spokesman for the Minneapolis office said that the bureau was aware of the remarks, the Star Tribune reported. While this could end up resulting in absolutely nothing, I’ve found it’s generally not good to have federal authorities aware of anything you happen to be doing, particularly if it involves encouraging assassination.

Regardless, the federal attention is going to make a harsh lesson in itself. Combined with complications at work, it all just might be enough to teach this teacher something to remember.

Yes, I get that this was supposed to be a joke and that nobody is likely to be goaded into taking a shot at a Supreme Court justice in 280 characters or less, especially from a random Minnesota teacher.

With that in mind, nobody finds jokes about murdering people particularly funny. Much more importantly for @lookitsSammm, that includes both her employer and law enforcement.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Writing under a pseudonym, Cillian Zeal is a conservative writer who is currently living abroad in a country that doesn’t value free speech and exercising it would put him in danger.

Parents Deploy Their Own Brand of Justice After ‘Mean Girls’ Falsely Accuse Their Son of Sexual Assault


Reported By Lisa Payne-Naeger | October 7, 2018 at

11:29am

There is a reason so many American families supported Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, despite the left’s best attempts to derail it. Liberals didn’t take into account two things when they orchestrated a campaign to falsely accuse the judicial nominee of sexual assault.

The first is that there would be a majority of Americans across the country who care deeply about the justice of presumed innocence over presumed guilt; the other is that not all women who make accusations of sexual assault are telling the truth.

For those of us who are parents of daughters, our concerns are for their safety and protection, of course.

For those of us who are parents of sons, our concerns are for their safety and protection, of course.

The latter is the focus of another drama that is playing out in Zelienople, Pennsylvania, about 40 miles north of Pittsburgh. And it might also be the outcome all parents of sons feared would escalate if Democrats succeeded in undoing the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh.

According to WPXI News in Pittsburgh, Michael J. and Alecia Flood, the parents of a high school-aged boy identified only as T.F., filed a civil lawsuit on Monday in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh against the Seneca Valley School District in Butler County, District Attorney Richard Goldinger, and the parents of five teenage “mean girls” who falsely accused the boy of sexual assault.

The suit alleges “that school officials and Goldinger’s office didn’t take any action against the girls even after learning their accusations were false,” according to WPXI.

https://w3.cdn.anvato.net/player/prod/v3/anvload.html?key=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%3D

The parents who filed the suit say the “mean girls” conspired to falsely accuse their son of sexual assault, which resulted in several unfair consequences.

The girls “conspired in person and via electronic communication devices to falsely accuse T.F. of sexual assault on two occasions,” WXPI reported.

T.F. was reportedly fired from his job at the Zelienople Community Pool where he was employed at the time of the allegations and “forced to endure multiple court appearances, detention in a juvenile facility, detention at home, loss of his liberty, and other damages until several of the girls reluctantly admitted that their accusations were false.”

“The suit also alleges that the boy was subjected to months of bullying from other kids at school,” according to Breitbart.

The Harrisburg Patriot-News reported one example of bullying listed in the suit the boy suffered: “The lawsuit said students last year placed masking tape with the word ‘PREDATOR’ written on it on his back without his knowledge during choir practice.”

In the original 27-page complaint filed against T.F., the teen girls accused him of two different instances of sexual assault — one at the Zelienople Community Pool and another at a private home.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette quoted the Floods’ attorney Craig Fishman on Thursday as saying, “The system right now is biased against men.”

As a father of two adult daughters, according to the newspaper, Fishman said he supported the advancement of the #MeToo movement, but said in this case, things had gone too far.

“They discriminated against the boy based solely on his gender,” Fishman told the Post-Gazette.

And isn’t that what is going through the minds of many parents of boys?

If they could take down a highly qualified Supreme Court nominee with mere accusations that had no basis in physical evidence or fact, it would certainly be a cake walk to ruin lives with false accusations against boys, men across the country. What a frightening possibility.

The left went too far in believing it could rally in the court of public opinion the advancement of an agenda that collapses the constitutional principles and the presumption of innocence.

Let’s hope justice prevails in Pennsylvania.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

An enthusiastic grassroots Tea Party activist, Lisa Payne-Naeger has spent the better part of the last decade lobbying for educational and family issues in her state legislature, and as a keyboard warrior hoping to help along the revolution that empowers the people to retake control of their, out-of-control, government.

Lindsey Graham Pulls Out Piece of Paper, Issues Incredible Challenge to Chuck Schumer


Reported By Benjamin Arie | October 7, 2018 at

7:19pm

Lindsey Graham is on a roll. For years, he was seen by many Republicans as sort of “conservative lite,” a fairly moderate politician who wasn’t particularly passionate or exciting. All that seems to have changed with the Brett Kavanaugh kerfuffle. The South Carolina senator appears to have taken a few classes in cool, and his heartfelt defense of the embattled Supreme Court nominee caught the attention of conservatives everywhere.

On Sunday, Graham kept that energy going. During an appearance on Chris Wallace’s much-watched program, the senator issued a direct challenge to his Democrat counterpart in the Senate.

As the cameras rolled, Graham held up a piece of paper that listed all of the names on President Trump’s shortlist for the Supreme Court.

“There are twenty-something people on this list,” the Republican challenged Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. “Name five, name three, name one that would be okay with you.”

His point was clear: The last-minute attempt to block and smear Kavanaugh had nothing to do with that nominee specifically. Instead, Democrats are intent on obstructing any of Trump’s potential nominees, all of whom are well-respected names. Kavanaugh just happened to have drawn the short straw.

The senator pushed back against liberals who are pretending that the newest Supreme Court member is some sort of far-right radical.

“Brett Kavanaugh was a mainstream judge,” Graham explained, according to The Daily Caller.

“I would’ve chosen him if I had been president, Bush supported him, everybody running for president on our side believe that Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch were outstanding conservative jurists,” the senator continued.

Graham was just getting warmed up. He pointed out that when Democrats held the White House, Republicans didn’t try to derail all of their Supreme Court picks … yet that is exactly what the left is doing now at every opportunity.

“So, Chuck, if you want someone new? Look at this list and see anybody you agree to, but what you want to do, Senator Schumer, is to overturn the election,” the Republican challenged.

“If you want to pick judges, then you need to win the White House. When Obama won, I voted for two judges that he picked,” Graham continued.

Those two judges, of course, were Kagan and Sotomayor, both women. A number of Republicans, including Graham, voted for them.

“So Chuck Schumer, name one person on this list you think is acceptable,” Graham challenged.

The South Carolina senator is right: Liberals want to have it both ways. They whine about civility and bipartisanship, but then act shockingly uncivil and refuse to extend olive branches at every turn.

Dragging a family man and widely-respected judge through the mud for political reasons may be a new low point in American politics. The American people are paying close attention … and like Senator Graham, they’re quickly losing patience for these antics.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Benjamin Arie has been a political junkie since the hotly contested 2000 election. Ben settled on journalism after realizing he could get paid to rant. He cut his teeth on car accidents and house fires as a small-town reporter in Michigan before becoming a full-time political writer.

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: