Posts

Supreme Court To Hear Arguments On Whether Trump Has Immunity From Federal Prosecution

/1 Comment/in , /by

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Thursday about whether former President Donald Trump can invoke presidential immunity to shield himself from federal prosecution.

The court agreed to take the case in February after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel ruled against an immunity claim Trump had asserted to shield himself from special counsel Jack Smith’s 2020 election case. Trump has contended that presidential immunity is necessary to ensure that presidents are able to do their jobs without fear of political retaliation.

“If a President does not have Immunity, the Opposing Party, during his/her term in Office, can extort and blackmail the President by saying that, ‘if you don’t give us everything we want, we will Indict you for things you did while in Office,’ even if everything done was totally Legal and Appropriate. That would be the end of the Presidency, and our Country, as we know it, and is just one of the many Traps there would be for a President without Presidential Immunity,” Trump posted on Truth Social last Friday.

“Obama, Bush, and soon, Crooked Joe Biden, would all be in BIG TROUBLE. If a President doesn’t have IMMUNITY, he/she will be nothing more than a ‘Ceremonial’ President, rarely having the courage to do what has to be done for our Country,” the former president added. “This is not what the Founders had in mind! Protect Presidential Immunity.”

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on “whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” (Read more from “Supreme Court To Hear Arguments On Whether Trump Has Immunity From Federal Prosecution” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

New York Supreme Court Justice Dismisses Trump Juror Amid Concerns Over Public Identity

/0 Comments/in , /by

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan made an unexpected decision on Thursday, dismissing a previously approved juror from Donald Trump’s criminal trial after she expressed worries about her identity being revealed to the public, as court reporters disclosed.

Court reporters had initially published descriptions of the jurors after Judge Merchan seated seven of them following the selection process, during which potential jurors are subjected to 42 questions and scrutiny of their social media accounts. The New York Times reported on the incident, highlighting the challenges in selecting a jury for the trial of the polarizing former president:

The dismissed juror conveyed her concerns about potential public exposure to Judge Merchan, who has maintained the anonymity of prospective jurors but acknowledged that they had divulged information such as their employers during court proceedings.

Following her dismissal, Judge Merchan directed reporters to refrain from divulging the workplaces of prospective jurors, asserting his legal authority to restrict the news media from disclosing such identifying information.

Donald Trump’s unprecedented criminal trial commenced on Monday with the commencement of jury selection, marking the third day of the process on Thursday, with expectations of concluding early next week. The trial necessitates a total of 18 jurors.

Axios provided descriptions of the seven jurors chosen on Tuesday:

1. The foreman, a sales professional residing in Harlem but hailing from Ireland.

2. An oncology nurse and native New Yorker.

3. A corporate lawyer originally from Oregon.

4. A self-employed IT consultant with roots in Puerto Rico, residing on the Lower East Side.

5. A lifelong New Yorker employed as a teacher, who was unaware of Trump’s involvement in three other cases.

6. A software engineer employed by Disney.

7. A lawyer residing on the Upper East Side.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr

U.S. Supreme Court: State Can Enforce Ban on Sex Changes for Children

/2 Comments/in , /by

The United States Supreme Court awarded Idaho emergency relief that will allow the state to enforce its ban on doctors performing sex-change operations on children and providing them with sex-change drugs.

In a 6-3 decision on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower appellate court had gone too far when it blocked Idaho from enforcing the law altogether. The decision, however, does not settle the question of whether the law is constitutional.

The lower court had blocked the state from enforcing any part of the law in response to a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the rules. The lawsuit is still ongoing, but the order had been preventing the law from going into effect while both sides litigated the constitutionality of the law in court.

Per the Supreme Court’s decision, Idaho can broadly enforce the law and is only blocked from enforcing it against the plaintiffs who are named in the lawsuit until the litigation is settled.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador, a Republican, praised the Supreme Court’s decision in a statement Monday. (Read more from “U.S. Supreme Court: State Can Enforce Ban on Sex Changes for Children” HERE)

Photo credit: Flickr

Supreme Court to Review Feds’ Use of Obstruction Charge Against Jan. 6 Defendants, Trump

/1 Comment/in , /by

The fate of hundreds of Jan. 6 defendants lies with the Supreme Court, which will hear a case Tuesday arguing that the obstruction law under which they were charged was never meant to apply to the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

If the justices rule that prosecutors have stretched the law too far, then it could also help former President Donald Trump, who faces conspiracy charges under another section of the same law.

At issue is a law passed in 2002 in the wake of the Enron scandal and aimed at giving the government new tools to go after those who obstruct an official proceeding.

The Biden administration says the Electoral College vote count taking place at the Capitol in 2021 while the mob raged counts as an official proceeding.

Joseph Fischer, one of those convicted under the law, says the statute was intended to snare people who try to destroy evidence of corporate fraud cases, such as document shredding. What went on at the Capitol that day falls far outside that, his lawyers argue. (Read more from “Supreme Court to Review Feds’ Use of Obstruction Charge Against Jan. 6 Defendants, Trump” HERE)

Arizona Upholds 1864 Law Restricting Nearly All Abortions

/0 Comments/in , /by

In a landmark decision, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled to uphold a longstanding law dating back to 1864, which severely limits abortions in the state, permitting them only in cases where the life of the mother is at risk. The ruling came as the culmination of the case Planned Parenthood of Arizona v. Mayes/Hazerigg, following arguments presented before the court in December.

The 1864 law not only prohibits nearly all abortions but also imposes harsh penalties, including prison sentences of two to five years for abortion providers. The court was tasked with determining whether the more recent 15-week abortion limit, enacted in March 2022, supersedes the older statute. While the justices refrained from ruling on the constitutionality of the 1864 law, they delivered a 4-2 decision, with one recusal, affirming its enforceability over the 15-week limit.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice John Lopez, the court clarified that its decision was rooted in statutory interpretation rather than moral or public policy considerations regarding abortion. The ruling emphasized that in the absence of any federal or state law explicitly prohibiting the operation of the 1864 law, it remains enforceable.

However, the court also exercised caution, staying the total enforcement of the law for 14 days to allow parties involved to determine their course of action. Furthermore, the case was remanded to trial court for potential consideration of remaining constitutional challenges.

The ruling comes at a time when pro-abortion activists in Arizona are pushing for a constitutional amendment to establish a right to abortion. The coalition Arizona for Abortion Access recently announced surpassing the required signatures for the proposed amendment to qualify for the November ballot, reflecting ongoing efforts in multiple states to secure abortion rights.

Photo credit: Flickr

Supreme Court To Hear Major Case On The Abortion Pill

/0 Comments/in , /by

The Supreme Court will hear on Tuesday a major challenge to the abortion pill brought by doctors and medical associations.

In FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, one of two cases on abortion the Supreme Court will hear this term since overturning Roe v. Wade in 2022, the justices will consider the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to roll back safety regulations for the chemical abortion drug mifepristone. Doctors who sued the FDA contend that the removal of safety standards once deemed “essential” makes it more likely women will require medical treatment, forcing OB-GYNs and emergency room doctors to address the “serious complications caused by these drugs.”

“My moral and ethical obligation to my patients is to promote human life and health,” Dr. Ingrid Skop, a member of the plaintiff organization American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), wrote in a declaration. “But the FDA’s actions may force me to end the life of a human being in the womb for no medical reason.”

In 2021, the FDA allowed distribution of mifepristone through the mail and removed the requirement for an initial in-person visit. Earlier, in 2016, the agency removed many of the safeguards implemented when the pill was approved in 2000, allowing it to be used through ten weeks of pregnancy, rather than seven. (Read more from “Supreme Court To Hear Major Case On The Abortion Pill” HERE)

Supreme Court Rejects Former New Mexico Official Banned After Jan. 6 Riot

/0 Comments/in , /by

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday tossed an appeal by a former New Mexico state official barred from office after he was involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol Building.

Former Otero County commissioner Couy Griffin, a cowboy pastor whose claim to fame was endorsing former President Donald Trump with several horseback caravans, is a former Otero County commissioner and the only elected official barred from office under the “insurrection” provision of the 14th Amendment, the Associated Press reported.

During a 2022 trial in a state district court, Griffin became the first individual in over a century to be disqualified from office under a provision of the 14th Amendment aimed at preventing former Confederates from holding government positions after the Civil War.

Despite the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that states cannot prevent Trump or other federal office candidates from appearing on the ballot, the justices clarified that distinct rules apply to state and local candidates, the AP report noted.

“We conclude that states may disqualify persons holding or attempting to hold state office,” the justices wrote in an opinion that was not signed. (Read more from “Supreme Court Rejects Former New Mexico Official Banned After Jan. 6 Riot” HERE)

Supreme Court Lifts Stay on Texas Law That Gives Police Powers to Arrest Illegals at Border

/0 Comments/in , /by

A divided Supreme Court has lifted a stay on a Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest [illegal aliens] suspected of crossing the border illegally while a legal battle over immigration authority plays out.

The Biden administration is suing to strike down the measure, arguing it’s a clear violation of federal authority that would hurt international relations and create chaos in administering immigration law. A judge could then order them to leave the U.S.

Texas has argued it has a right to take action over what Gov. Greg Abbott has described as an “invasion” of migrants on the border. (Read more from “Supreme Court Lifts Stay on Texas Law That Gives Police Powers to Arrest Illegals at Border” HERE)

Bar Exam Will No Longer Be Required to Become an Attorney in this State Because it’s Racist

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The bar exam will no longer be required to become a lawyer in Washington, the state Supreme Court ruled in a pair of orders Friday.

The court approved alternative ways to show competency and earn a law license after appointing a task force to examine the issue in 2020.

The Bar Licensure Task Force found that the traditional exam “disproportionally and unnecessarily blocks” marginalized groups from becoming practicing attorneys and is “at best minimally effective” for ensuring competency, according to a news release from the Washington Administrative Office of the Courts.

Washington is the second state to not require the bar exam, following Oregon, which implemented the change at the start of this year. Other states, including Minnesota, Nevada, South Dakota and Utah, are examining alternative pathways to licensure.

“These recommendations come from a diverse body of lawyers in private and public practice, academics, and researchers who contributed immense insight, counterpoints and research to get us where we are today,” Washington Supreme Court Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis, who chaired the task force, said in a statement. “With these alternative pathways, we recognize that there are multiple ways to ensure a competent, licensed body of new attorneys who are so desperately needed around the state.” (Read more from “Bar Exam Will No Longer Be Required to Become an Attorney in this State Because it’s Racist” HERE)

Biden Threatens Supreme Court Over Abortion Ruling (VIDEO)

/3 Comments/in , /by

Following in the footsteps of Sen. Chuck Schumer, who earlier publicly threatened members of the U.S. Supreme Court, and other Democrats, Joe Biden took the same approach during his politicized State of the Union speech.

“With all due respect, justices, women are not without electrical power! Excuse me, electoral or political power. You’re about to realize…”

A report by The Gateway Pundit noted the threat was a Biden ad lib, as it was not in the White House transcript prepared for his speech.

That said, “Many of you in this Chamber and my predecessor are promising to pass a national ban on reproductive freedom. My god, what freedoms will you take away next?”

The Daily Mail reported it was one of many “political barbs” in the partisan speech. (Read more from “Biden Threatens Supreme Court Over Abortion Ruling (VIDEO)” HERE)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr