Posts

Religious Freedom Loss: Supreme Court Rules Against Florist Who Refused Same-Sex Wedding

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a hotly anticipated decision, the Washington Supreme Court ruled against a florist who was fined for not providing services for a gay couple’s wedding.

The court had previously heard the case, State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, ruling that Barronelle Stutzman and her store, Arlene’s Flowers, violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) for refusing to make floral arrangements for a gay couple in 2013. Stutzman claimed that she was only acting in accordance with her religious beliefs. The U.S. Supreme Court asked the state high court to take another look at whether it violated her religious rights by not being neutral to her religion when making its decision. . .

“We now hold that the answer to the Supreme Court’s question is no; the adjudicatory bodies that considered this case did not act with religious animus when they ruled that the florist and her corporation violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination … by declining to sell wedding flowers to a gay couple,” the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling said, “and they did not act with religious animus when they ruled that such discrimination is not privileged or excused by the United States Constitution or the Washington Constitution.”

The U.S. Supreme Court held off on reviewing the case so that the state court could take another look in light of the 2018 SCOTUS decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. That case drew national attention, as it pitted the First Amendment against LGBT rights.

The high court declined to get involved in that battle, however, ruling in favor of the baker by stating that the Colorado commission was improperly hostile to his religious beliefs when they found him in violation of a state law. The U.S. Supreme Court asked the Washington Supreme Court to make sure they did not make the same mistake. (Read more from “Religious Freedom Loss: Supreme Court Rules Against Florist Who Refused Same-Sex Wedding” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Bader Ginsburg Just Sided with Conservative Justices

/0 Comments/in , /by

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the four liberal justices on the Supreme Court, sided with her conservative colleagues on Monday over a prisoner’s supervisory release. She joined Justices Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh in the majority, deciding that a criminal defendant, in this case Jason Mont, can be sentenced for violating his supervised release, even if the release expires while he is incarcerated ahead of facing new charges. Her vote was swapped with conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, who joined liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan in their dissent.

Mont had been indicted by a grand jury for multiple drug and firearm offenses. He was released from federal prison on March 6, 2012, but broke the law again on supervised release, found guilty of two counts of cocaine trafficking. He then tested positive on several drug tests. His supervised release date was set for June 28, 2017.

The District Court issued a warrant on March 30, 2017, and ultimately set a supervised-release hearing for June 28, 2017. Two days before that hearing, Mont challenged the jurisdiction of the District Court based on the fact that his supervised release had initially been set to expire on March 6, 2017. The court concluded that it had authority to supervise Mont, revoked his supervised release, and ordered him to serve an additional 42 months’ imprisonment to run consecutive to his state sentence.

(Read more from “Bader Ginsburg Just Sided with Conservative Justices” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Justice Thomas Explains the Horrible Historic Connection Between Abortion and Eugenics

/0 Comments/in , /by

Tuesday morning, the Supreme court issued two orders on pro-life laws in Indiana.

First, the court upheld a Hoosier State requirement that the remains of aborted children be buried or cremated with dignity — rather than disposed of alongside hazardous medical waste.

But on the question of whether or not states can outlaw the practice of aborting children based on sex, race, or disability, the court decided to wait.

“Our opinion likewise expresses no view on the merits of the second question presented, i.e., whether Indiana may prohibit the knowing provision of sex-, race-, and disability selective abortions by abortion providers,” the court’s opinion reads. “We follow our ordinary practice of denying petitions insofar as they raise legal issues that have not been considered by additional Courts of Appeals.”

One of the factors determining whether or not the Supreme Court will take up a case is “ripeness,” or whether or not the legal questions of a case have fully developed into a controversy needing resolution by the court.

Indiana’s legal code makes it illegal for a person to perform an abortion “if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because of the race, color, national origin, or ancestry of the fetus.” State law also prevents abortions motivated by selecting the baby’s sex, a Down syndrome diagnosis, or a diagnosis of “any other disability.” Currently, the statute has only been ruled on by one federal appeals court.

But while he agreed with his colleagues’ decision to not hear the case for the time being, Justice Clarence Thomas did not mince words in his description of what will be at stake when the court eventually does.

“The Court’s decision to allow further percolation should not be interpreted as agreement with the decisions below,” Thomas explains at the beginning of his concurrence. “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.”

Thomas gave the horrible history of the relationship between abortion and eugenics during the early 20th century.

“The use of abortion to achieve eugenic goals is not merely hypothetical,” the concurrence says. “The foundations for legalizing abortion in America were laid during the early 20th-century birth-control movement. That movement developed alongside the American eugenics movement.”

Thomas then mentioned party to the case Planned Parenthood and its founder — Margaret Sanger — by name.

“And significantly, Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger recognized the eugenic potential of her cause. She emphasized and embraced the notion that birth control ‘opens the way to the eugenist.’”

He explained that her ideas laid the intellectual foundation for other eugenic-minded abortion supporters.

“Whereas Sanger believed that birth control could prevent ‘unfit’ people from reproducing, abortion can prevent them from being born in the first place,” Thomas explained. “Many eugenicists therefore supported legalizing abortion, and abortion advocates — including future Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher — endorsed the use of abortion for eugenic reasons.”

Thomas’ sources are listed in the footnotes of the opinion.

“Given the potential for abortion to become a tool of eugenic manipulation, the Court will soon need to confront the constitutionality of laws like Indiana’s,” Thomas concluded. “But because further percolation may assist our review of this issue of first impression, I join the Court in declining to take up the issue now.” (For more from the author of “Justice Thomas Explains the Horrible Historic Connection Between Abortion and Eugenics” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Gorsuch Sides with Liberal Justices in Hunting Case

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By Townhall. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch broke with conservatives and sided with the liberal wing of the Court on Monday.

The case, Herrera v. Wyoming, called into question a federal treaty from 1868 that allowed members of the Crow Tribe of Indians to hunt on “unoccupied lands of the United States” when Wyoming was admitted to the Union. Clayvin Herrera is a tribal member who hunted in the Bighorn National Forest and was charged for hunting during the off season. The Supreme Court had to decide if the treaty was still in effect or were nullified when Wyoming became a state in 1890. (Read more from “Gorsuch Sides with Liberal Justices in Hunting Case” HERE)

________________________________________________

Gorsuch Breaks with Conservative Justices, Delivering Win to Native American Hunter

By Fox News. One of President Trump’s nominees sided Monday with the liberal wing of the Supreme Court for the second time in two weeks, as Justice Neil Gorsuch joined a narrow majority in support of a Native American man convicted for hunting in a national forest. . .

The opinion by Justice Sonia Sotomayor – and joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Gorsuch – ruled that the treaty indeed still applies, and that Crow member Clayvin Herrera was improperly convicted of off-season hunting in Bighorn National Forest in 2014.

The court’s 5-4 ruling, which vacated the decision from the state appellate court, is based on the 1999 decision in Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians. In that case, the Supreme Court said that a territory gaining statehood is not enough “to extinguish Indian treaty rights to hunt, fish, and gather on land within state boundaries.” The court went further in that case, stating that Congress “must clearly express” an intention to end a treaty with a Native American tribe in order for the treaty’s rights to expire.

By siding with the traditionally liberal justices, Gorsuch gave them a 5-4 majority in the case.

The opinion came exactly one week after Trump’s other nominee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, sided with liberals in a 5-4 decision that he wrote, ruling that Apple could be sued by iPhone owners over high prices in their App Store. (Read more from “Gorsuch Breaks with Conservative Justices, Delivering Win to Native American Hunter” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Remember the ‘Travel Ban’? Lower Courts Seeking to ‘Overturn’ That Supreme Court Decision

/0 Comments/in , /by

For several generations, we have been told by the political elites that the Supreme Court stands above the other two branches of government, even when the high court violates the Constitution or claims to decide a broad public policy question squarely within the purview or powers of the other branches. Now, it appears that any lower court can simply issue a ruling more progressive than what the Supreme Court just said, and the other branches feel compelled to abide by that ruling!

Remember when a slew of lower courts created a right to immigrate for the first time and issued unprecedented injunctions demanding that Trump surrender to the courts his control over the right of entry into the United States? Well, we all thought that insanity was put to rest when the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Hawaii that the president has unquestionable authority to shut off any or all forms of immigration when he believes it’s detrimental to American interests, as it plainly says in 8 U.S.C. §1182.

Evidently, some of the lower court judges who were overturned by the Supreme Court on this issue are now granting standing to some of the same groups to sue again! U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang of Maryland ruled last Thursday that a lawsuit can proceed against the travel ban from five countries.

A group of refugee resettlement contractors and other immigration groups are suing because they don’t like the process the administration has set up to allow waivers of the ban. The problem is that the Supreme Court said quite clearly that the president can disallow migration without offering any waivers whatsoever. Chief Justice Roberts could not have been any clearer:

“By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause,” wrote Roberts in the majority opinion in Trump v. Hawaii. “It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions. It thus vests the President with ‘ample power’ to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA.” (Emphasis added.)

Yet there is no stigma in the legal profession against lower court judges attempting to obstruct and twist Supreme Court rulings they disagree with. Judge Chuang, without ever mentioning the fact that he himself was overturned on this very issue, brazenly declared that Trump v. Hawaii was only “representing a snapshot in time and does not necessarily preclude a different determination at a later stage of the case on a more fulsome record.” From reading most of his opinion, you’d have thought it was the Trump administration that lost in the Supreme Court.

Taking that position to its logical conclusion, a lower court can always find ways that the same question presented in a slightly different case is not governed by the obvious controlling Supreme Court precedent because that SCOTUS case was only “a snapshot in time.”

Liberals are seeking similar lawsuits against the travel ban in their favorite California courts as well. In February, Judge James Donato allowed a similar lawsuit to proceed in the Northern District of California.

Clarence Thomas has warned about the need to end this practice of lower court universal injunctions, which not only violate the separation of powers between the courts and the other branches, but also essentially strip the Supreme Court of its legitimate supremacy over the judicial branch itself. In June 2017, Thomas warned, after the Supreme Court initially removed only part of the lower court injunction against the travel ban, that the forum shoppers would continue to go back to the same repudiated lower courts. “Litigation of the factual and legal issues that are likely to arise will presumably be directed to the two District Courts whose initial orders in these cases this Court has now— unanimously—found sufficiently questionable to be stayed as to the vast majority of the people potentially affected,” warned an irate Thomas during the preliminary stages of the lawsuit.

If these same district judges place another injunction on Trump’s partial immigration moratorium, will he suddenly begin issuing visas to these people unless the Supreme Court steps in yet again? How can the Supreme Court both (wrongly) be regarded as supreme over the other branches but not supreme over its own inferior courts? According forum-shopped judges, they have the power to continuously alter public policy for years until the case reaches the Supreme Court, not only when we know they will be reversed but when they have already been reversed. This is a recipe for a banana republic.

This is part of a broader trend of lower courts “repealing” Supreme Court opinions they don’t like. In one of the most egregious rulings of all time, a California judge said that Trump must continue the discretionary and temporary program of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) because Trump, in the estimation of Judge Edward Chen, has “animus against non-white, non-European immigrants.” SCOTUS already said in Trump v. Hawaii that such considerations cannot be used to block the president’s lawful authority, but the Trump administration refused to delegitimize this ruling.

More recently, two federal judges, one in Oregon and one in Washington, issued injunctions against Trump’s gag rule prohibiting Title X recipients from referring women for abortions. The Supreme Court upheld this exact regulation under Reagan in Rust v. Sullivan (1991), but Judges Michael McShane and Stanley Bastian ignored it.

Lower courts have similarly gutted the Heller decision over the past decade, often citing Justice Breyer’s dissent. Recently, a federal judge in Oregon essentially overturned the landmark Janus decision last year banning forced union dues. Thus, while conservatives have lost marriage, life, and so many cultural issues to the Supreme Court and have unquestioningly accepted those rulings as gospel, liberals respond to the few losses at the high court with, “Hold my beer and let me show you the power of a district judge.”

It’s important to note that the lower courts already won in the travel ban case by successfully forcing Trump to water down his original order twice. The original order prioritized persecuted Christians in the Middle East for refugee resettlement and placed caps on refugees. It was actually upheld by one Massachusetts judge, but the administration wrongly agreed to the notion that another single district judge can shut it down. Even though the Supreme Court’s ruling would easily have covered the original order, were Trump to ever strengthen it, the courts would begin the process again.

Allowing this cancer of lower court supremacy to continue brings irrevocable harm to our country. A liberal legal writer for Slate observed approvingly this week how the “lower courts are lobbying SCOTUS to rein in partisan gerrymandering” and that “while SCOTUS dillydallies, the lower courts are taking action, aggressively overturning gerrymanders across the country.”

The term “lobbying” is quite peculiar to describe a court, but Slate is not wrong in its observation of how lower courts are pushing the Supreme Court rather than being pulled by it. Despite the fact that the Supreme Court has already signaled in a Wisconsin case that the courts shouldn’t get involved in most political gerrymandering decisions and is deciding the ultimate case on the issue within weeks, two federal judges in Michigan and Ohio brazenly declared the GOP maps in both states unconstitutional after the states had been electing congressmen for a decade based on those lines.

Let’s face it: conservatives have done a poor job educating people on the role of the judiciary over the past few generations. They have agreed to the notion that the Supreme Court rules on political issues absolutely. But now, the trend of progressive lower court supremacism has not only contradicted our constitutional system of checks and balances, but has butted heads with Supreme Court supremacism itself. The real truth is that this has never been about a principled belief in judicial supremacism, but rather a pragmatic stratagem of “heads we win, tails you lose” on the part of the Left. If the Trump administration continues to legitimize these decisions, it has nobody else to blame. (For more from the author of “Remember the ‘Travel Ban’? Lower Courts Seeking to ‘Overturn’ That Supreme Court Decision” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Citizenship Census Question Case, Looks Likely to Rule for Trump Admin

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday as it tries to decide whether the Trump administration has the authority to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. Based on the questions posed by the justices during these arguments, the court seems likely to rule in favor of the administration.

The total number of Americans counted by the census is used to determine how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives, as well as how many electoral votes it gets during the presidential election. The census is taken once every ten years. This particular question has been on the census before but was removed in 1960.

When he ruled in January to block the addition of this question, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman said that adding the question would result in “hundreds of thousands — of millions — people” going uncounted. He also said that “for decades thereafter the official position of the Census Bureau was that reintroducing such a question was inadvisable because it would depress the count for already ‘hard-to-count’ groups — particularly noncitizens and Hispanics — whose members would be less likely to participate in the census for fear that the data could be used against them or their loved ones.”

But the Trump administration has argued that the citizenship question is needed to properly enforce the Voting Rights Act. Presenting the administration’s case before the court on Tuesday, Solicitor General Noel Francisco said that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross “understood there was a downside” to adding the question, but had “concluded that the benefits outweighed the costs.”

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to prevent the suppression of minority votes.

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor grilled Francisco about the addition of the question, as expected. Chief Justice John Roberts, however, now largely considered to be the swing vote since the retirement of former Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, asked the New York Solicitor General Barbara Underwood, who was arguing against adding the question, if the administration could be right that the question would help enforcement of the Voting Rights Act:

Do you think it wouldn’t help voting rights enforcement? The CVAP, Citizen Voting Age Population, is the critical element in voting rights enforcement, and this is getting citizen information.

The other conservative justices also seemed to lean in favor of the administration. Newly minted Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who succeeded the more liberal Kennedy, noted that many other countries include such a question. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito both questioned whether adding the question would actually depress the number of responses, since obstacles like a language barrier or socioeconomic differences might keep non-citizens from filling out their census forms. Both Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are Trump appointees.

The court is expected to issue a ruling on the case in June. (For more from the author of “Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Citizenship Census Question Case, Looks Likely to Rule for Trump Admin” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Major Upset: Conservative Supreme Court Candidate Shocks Liberals With Surprise Victory

/0 Comments/in , , /by

It was a statewide race that only the nerdiest of political nerds were following at the national level, but suffice it to say that we’d be hearing a lot about it if the expected outcome had come to pass. By way of background, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court has been decidedly conservative for years, but when a liberal justice won a resounding 12-point victory last fall (Badger State voters choose Supreme Court members in nominally “non-partisan” elections), the Left immediately set it sights on the 2019 contest. If a left-leaning candidate had defeated another right-leaning jurist — as was widely anticipated by political experts — liberals believed they’d have a very real shot at wresting ideological control of the state’s high court in 2020. But a funny thing happened on the way to that liberal judicial renaissance. Voters intervened:

Appeals Judge Brian Hagedorn held a narrow lead early Wednesday in the race for Wisconsin Supreme Court, according to unofficial tallies that were so close both sides were bracing for a recount. In an early morning tweet and statement to supporters, Hagedorn claimed victory. “The people of Wisconsin have spoken and our margin of victory is insurmountable,” the statement read…Hagedorn led fellow Appeals Judge Lisa Neubauer 50.2% to 49.8% with nearly all of Tuesday’s votes unofficially counted — at a margin that allows a recount. A win by Hagedorn would defy the predictions of prominent groups that typically back conservative judicial candidates but counted him out and wouldn’t spend on his behalf during the race.

Hagedorn, the conservative, was seen as such a long-shot underdog that some deep-pocketed conservative groups decided not to spend money in the race, resulting in a large disparity that favored the left-wing message machine. But a concerted push by grassroots activists, and an eleventh-hour blitz by former Governor Scott Walker, helped secure what appears to be a major upset. Conservative groups closed the race with an ad reminding voters of the Kavanaugh fight, while liberal organizations (like Eric Holder’s) tried to tie their opponent to President Trump. Also, you night think that Hillary Clinton’s 2016 loss would’ve helped Democrats internalize the lesson that, contra their own talking points and hilarious posturing, money does not necessarily “buy” elections. This outcome should reinforce that reality:

(Read more from “Major Upset: Conservative Supreme Court Candidate Shocks Liberals With Surprise Victory” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Planned Parenthood Just Had a Disappointing Supreme Court Win

/0 Comments/in , /by

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to issue a writ of certiorari to hear an appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to dismiss a key abortion-related case. The writ to dismiss the underlying lawsuit was sought by David Daleiden’s group, the Center for Medical Progress.

The Hill reports:

The Center for Medical Progress had requested the Supreme Court toss out Planned Parenthood’s claims that they committed federal conspiracy and wiretapping violations. Planned Parenthood also claims that the Center for Medical Progress violated California law by fraudulently gaining access to its facilities. …

The Center for Medical Progress, led by activist David Daleiden, had argued it was exercising its First Amendment rights in making the videos. The group also claimed that the Planned Parenthood lawsuit was in violation of California “anti-SLAPP” laws, which prevent strategic legal action aimed at silencing individuals or groups.

The denial of a writ of certiorari confirms that Planned Parenthood’s suit against the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) in the Ninth Circuit will proceed in full. As CBS News states, “Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit alleges that CMP engaged in wire and mail fraud, committed illegal secret recording and trespassing. The pro-abortion rights group is accusing CMP of lying to the IRS and the state of California in order to illegally get tax-exempt status. It also says that CMP set up a fake health care firm and used fake IDs to register at a private medical conferences on reproductive health.” (Read more from “Planned Parenthood Just Had a Disappointing Supreme Court Win” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

House Conservative Counters Dem Court-Packing Schemes With Constitutional Amendment

/0 Comments/in , /by

A conservative House Republican has proposed an amendment to the Constitution that would permanently fix the number of Supreme Court justices at nine.

The proposal from House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Mark Green, R-Tenn., comes in response to recent talk from Democratic presidential candidates about packing the Supreme Court with extra judges if they gain control of the Oval Office in 2020.

“Schemes to ‘court pack’ thwart the Founders’ intent to create an independent and impartial judiciary that serves as a check on both the Executive and Legislative branches of government,” reads a press release from Green, who also explained that Democrats would pack the court with “liberal, activist justices who will pass rulings that conform to their dystopian, socialist agenda.”

Democrats, however, have portrayed the idea of court-packing as a response to GOP actions, particularly the move to block Merrick Garland from a vote during Obama’s last year in office.

“It’s not just about expansion, it’s about depoliticizing the Supreme Court,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said in a recent Politico story. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., told the outlet, “We are on the verge of a crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court” and “everything is on the table” to meet that supposed challenge.

“Limiting the number of seats to the nine we have currently,” Green contends, “would help ensure the U.S. Supreme Court remain an impartial branch beholden to the Constitution and no political party.”

The proposed amendment would have three sections, according to Green’s office:

Section 1:

The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of nine justices, though one or more of these nine offices may be vacant until filled.

Section 2:

If the size of the Supreme Court has been increased to more than nine justices before this amendment is ratified, upon this amendment’s ratification, those additional offices are void.

Section 3:

The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

In order to be ratified, a constitutional amendment proposed in Congress requires the votes of two-thirds of the members of both houses of Congress and must be approved by three-fourths of state legislatures. Amendments may also be proposed at a convention called for by at least two-thirds of state legislatures, per Article V of the Constitution. (For more from the author of “House Conservative Counters Dem Court-Packing Schemes With Constitutional Amendment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

White House Preparing ‘Gingerly’ to Replace Ginsburg

/0 Comments/in , /by

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had never missed oral arguments during her tenure on the high court until Monday as the court’s eldest judge continued to recover from surgery to remove cancerous cells from her left lung.

Now, a new report suggests that the White House is quietly preparing for another Supreme Court appointment given the possibility that the 85-year-old Ginsburg’s health could force her to retire. . .

According to the Daily Caller, “gingerly preparations” are underway in the White House counsel’s office in the event that Ginsburg’s Supreme Court departure comes sooner than expected.

“Gingerly preparations are underway, not just for Ginsburg but for any SCOTUS retirement,” a source “directly involved” in the process told the Daily Caller.

Indeed, another source told the outlet that President Donald Trump’s White House and White House counsel Pat Cipollone, remain well-prepared to handle another Supreme Court appointment, given the existing infrastructure inside the West Wing from Trump’s first two high court appointments. (Read more from “White House Preparing ‘Gingerly’ to Replace Ginsburg” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE