A California Federal court ruled that the US Government could not require asylum seekers to remain in Mexico while their claims were considered. But the 9th Circuit court of appeals has just stepped in and given the Trump administration a partial victory.
Articles tagged as
Court
NH’s DCYF actually DID do this to me: Lawyers Say They Would Report Clients For Legally Owned Gun
The actual title is “Ethics or Bigotry? Lawyers Say They Would Report Clients For Legally Owned Gun”. And yes, I got reported. From the post (reformatted, emphasis mine): Imagine losing your gun rights because your attorney violated attorney-client privilege to report you to police because he/she believes that your carry license makes you “dangerous.” How would … Read more
Florida Court Invokes Separation of Powers in Refusal To Play ‘Adequacy’ Game in Public Education
New Hampshire’s Claremont decision turned on the question of adequacy in education. Property-poor “districts” would never have as much money as property-rich towns. Ignoring the fact that money does not equal adequacy in education New Hampshire has been wrestling with this question for decades. But when you are talking about schools, and education, unions, and adequacy,and … Read more
UN Court says Treaty Makes US Sanctions Illegal – Trump Admin. Dumps Treaty
The big news that doesn’t have the words Kavanaugh or Ford in it, is a declaration by the United Nations International Court of Justice. It claims that planned U.S. Sanctions on the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism are illegal and that they must ease them. Why? A 1955 Treaty with Iran.
The Trump administration’s response. We’re terminating the treaty.
Presumption of Guilt – Another Reason to Oppose The Left
Differing on matters of policy is one thing but the New Left’s presumption of guilt, at least as it applies to presumed political opponents, is despotic. It must be opposed as should be any member of the Democrat Party who condones it.
From the Wall Street Journal c/o Instapundit.
As Ms. Hill and Sen. Hirono aver, the Democratic standard for sexual-assault allegations is that they should be accepted as true merely for having been made. The accuser is assumed to be telling the truth because the accuser is a woman. The burden is on Mr. Kavanaugh to prove his innocence. If he cannot do so, then he is unfit to serve on the Court.
Republicans must not cower in the face of Democratic treachery
From the very beginning, Democratic lawmakers made it clear they intended to oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Deeply enmeshed in the resistance movement and anti-Trump hysteria, the rationale for their opposition is clear. Kavanaugh is a conservative judge, nominated by a president they revile. Their desperation to derail his nomination was made apparent during the recent chaotic confirmation hearings.
Nothing was disclosed during those hearings that disqualified Judge Kavanaugh, and to the contrary, objective viewers perceived him as an eminently qualified nominee, of the highest moral character.
Searching for Justice Frodo
It never ceases to amaze me how many people find it reasonable to think that we need to go to court to get an answer to a question like: Can a state enact a law banning the ownership of semi-automatic rifles?
Textualism says that when applying a statute or constitutional provision, we should look only at the text — the words that it contains — setting aside considerations about tradition, history, legislative intent, and a lot of other things that we can’t really describe with accuracy or certainty or consensus.
To Where Does NH’s Policy Of Accepting Voter Fraud Lead?
New Hampshire’s policy of violating the State Constitution by letting non-residents vote here has just expanded to – non-citizens can sit as jurors in Federal cases. This is just what Judge Barbadaro concluded in this recent case, The United States of America v. Alfredo Gonzalez – Case No. 16-cr-162-12-PB Opinion No. 2018 DNH 086
Iowa Supreme Court Rules Civil Forfeiture Laws Violate Fifth Amendment
From Forbes.com care of Kevin Bloom, the Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s Civil Asset Forfeiture laws violate the Fifth Amendment to the constitution.
Under state law, property owners who want to reclaim their seized property must fully disclose “the nature and extent” of their interest in the property, as well as “the date, the identity of the transferor, the circumstances of the claimant’s acquisition.” Refusing to comply can result in the property forfeited to the state. Yet those forced disclosures may reveal information that could incriminate the owner or trigger a perjury trap, which would violate the Fifth Amendment.
30 Second Ad – Joanne Kloppenburg (Wisconsin)
Something From Wisconsin to start your morning…