This is the correct ruling and shows how narrowly the Supreme Court ruled giving presidents immunity for official acts.
The New York judge in President-elect Donald Trump’s criminal hush money case ruled Monday that the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision does not apply to that case.
Trump had sought to dismiss his criminal indictment and vacate the jury verdict on the grounds that prosecutors, during the trial last May, introduced evidence relating to Trump’s official acts as president, after the Supreme Court later ruled in July that Trump is entitled to presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken while in office.
However, Judge Juan Merchan said on Monday that the evidence in Trump’s hush money case related “entirely to unofficial conduct” and “poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch.”
MADISON, Wis. – A Dane County judge struck down on Monday, Dec. 2 parts of Act 10, a Wisconsin law that placed limits on government workers’ unions.
The judge already ruled in July that the law broke the Wisconsin Constitution. Now on Dec. 2, 2024, Judge Jacob Frost released his decision laying out what parts of Act 10 should be struck as unconstitutional.
“This gets to the heart of the Court’s July Decision –the unconstitutional creation of the “public safety employee” group and differential treatment of it without a rational basis – so I strike these sections,” Frost wrote in the new decision.
I can’t tell you how exhausting I find the prospect of litigating Act 10 again. We did this ten years ago. The law is clearly, unequivocally, irrevocably constitutional and the policy has had a tremendously positive impact on the state.
But none of that matters. The Leftist judges in Madison – especially the ones on the Supreme Court – are going to gut it anyway for brazen political purposes. It is the absolute worst manifestation of a corrupted judicial system that rules to ideological outcomes instead of allegiance to the rule of law.
There are new challenges to Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers’ 400-year school funding increase.
Both the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty and the Institute for Reforming Government recently filed amicus briefs with the Wisconsin Supreme Court, challenging the governor’s veto power.
“The partial veto power is a tool in the governor’s toolbelt, but it has a specific purpose. When it comes to fiscal policy, the partial veto power is a one-way rachet. It empowers the governor to tighten public spending and taxation by eliminating or reducing budgetary items, but it does not permit the reverse. The governor cannot use the partial veto power to increase either appropriations or revenue. That function requires a different tool – legislative power – which is not in the governor’s toolbelt,” IRGs brief states.
Evers changed a line in the current state budget to change a two-year school funding increase into a 400-year increase.
Recognize that if/when the Republicans are able to reverse this some time in the future, the liberals will accuse Republicans of cutting school funding.
Chief Justice John Roberts strong-armed his fellow Supreme Court judges into allowing him the key role in cases involving Donald Trump, leaked memos reveal.
The leftist judges on the Wisconsin Supreme Court are actually doing the work of the DNC to keep the Green Party off the ballot. Where are the Greens?
(The Center Square) – Following the Wisconsin Election Commission’s dismissal of a complaint from a Democratic National Committee staffer, who seeks to remove Green Party candidate Jill Stein from the ballot, the plaintiff has doubled down and filed an expedited appeal with the state’s Supreme Court.
Court documents reveal it accepted the case Thursday and is requesting that the plaintiff provide additional information, actions that have caused two Supreme Court justices to dissent.
“The majority issues an unprecedented order directing the petitioner – within two hours – to give the court contact information for the respondents, which is currently absent from the record because no one has entered an appearance on behalf of any of those parties. How is the petitioner – an employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) – supposed to know the name or physical address of an ‘attorney or other representative of each respondent who is authorized to accept service of orders issued by this court’?” Justice Rebecca Grassl Bradley wrote in dissent of the Supreme Court’s majority ruling. “To my knowledge, at no time in history has the court issued orders before parties had made their appearances. Petitioner filed this original action on Monday, served the Wisconsin Elections Commission on Tuesday, and served the Wisconsin Green Party just yesterday. The majority steps beyond its neutral role to lawyer the case on behalf of the DNC, seemingly facilitating an expedited review of this original action. Other parties presenting original action petitions have not received such preferential treatment by this court.”
A Massachusetts Salon owner feels ‘violated’ after the United States Secret Service broke into her business during a nearby fundraiser for Vice President Kamala Harris.
Footage from a Ring security camera shows an agent approaching the front door of the business in Berkshire, Massachusetts last week before coming back to tape over the video camera.
Alicia Powers, the salon owner, said after the camera was covered, agents broke into the building by picking the lock and then allowing multiple people to use the bathroom inside over a two-hour period.
We have a right to our private property and that right is strongly protected in several places in the U.S. Constitution. Without a warrant or probable cause, these agents broke into a private business to use for their own purposes. The purpose is immaterial. The Secret Service had no more right to enter that building without permission than any thug on the street. If a rando had broken in, they would be prosecuted and put in jail. The same thing should happen to the agents. They don’t get to say, “ope, our bad” and move on. I wouldn’t be able to do that. They should be held to the same or higher standard.
The whole thing speaks to a culture at the Secret Service that disregards the rights of citizens and does not hold itself accountable. It speaks to a culture of an agency that considers itself above the law. They are behaving as a modern Praetorian Guard instead of as a law enforcement and protection agency in a Constitutional Republic.
It seems that all of our federal agencies have become rotten to the core.
WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden called for major changes to the Supreme Court on Monday, including a constitutional amendment that would limit immunity for presidents, impose term limits for justices and stipulate an enforceable code of ethics.
Remember that Biden would not be proposing any of these things if the court were reliably issuing ruling that the liberals want. For 50 years, the court leaned Left and nobody proposed these kinds of things. Now that the court has tilted slightly right for less than a decade, liberals have decided that the court needs to be blown up.
Thankfully, none of this stands a chance of passing with a divided Congress and a lame duck President. It is curious that he would push it at all. Harris is the Leftist standard-bearer now. By tipping their hand that the Leftists want to radically usurp the power of the Supreme Court, does this help Harris? She will have to now offer her position on his reforms, right? Or is this a setup where Harris will come out against these “reforms” to make her look more moderate? Or is Biden just a bitter old man who wants to demonstrate that he still matters?
Good for them. We win back this country at the local level with work like this.
HARTFORD — The Hartford Union High School (HUHS) Board voted not to accept a revised definition of the term “sex” under Title IX on Monday night.
[…]
The current HUHS process regarding students wanting to use different pronouns or a different name would not change. The school would still contact the parents and set up a meeting or have conversations with the parents, and only the parents’ written permission would allow HUHS to address the student by that name or pronouns.
School Board President Tracy Hennes, also a Moms for Liberty member said the Title IX document itself is very long and complex and it feels like the Department of Education is trying to force districts to accept it in an election year, as well as that there are required trainings for staff that would have to be implemented before the school year.
[…]
HUHS Board member Nolan Jackett said he was hesitant to accept the revised policy, due to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises V. Raimondo, which struck down Chevron Deference (an administrative law principle that compelled federal courts to defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute).
“The Department of Education, without congressional authority, they shouldn’t be going and making drastic changes like this,” said Jackett.
[…]
According to HUHS Board member Heather Barrie, based on paraphrasing what both Hennes and Lacy said, if this is not a reasonable way for the government to act, the district shouldn’t go along with it and they should wait for the current challenges to the policy to go through the court system (which could take “years and years and years,” according to Lacy).
HUHS Board member Craig Westfall motioned to approve the revised policy, but no other members, which included Hennes, Jackett and Barrie, seconded the motion, thus it failed and the current policy will stay on the books. HUHS Board member Don Pridemore did not attend the meeting.
[…]
Lacy said it is likely that HUHS will be hit with an audit from the U.S. Department of Education, through the Wisconsin Department of Instruction, for not approving the revised Title IX policy.
That last sentence is why we need to get rid of the Department of Education. Not only has it failed to improve educational outcomes despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars, but it is also how they federal government bullies local communities into adopting their ideology.
Attorneys for President Joe Biden‘s son Hunter Biden, citing the recent decision by a federal judge in Florida to dismiss the classified documents case against Donald Trump, filed a pair of motions in California and Delaware Thursday seeking to dismiss both federal criminal cases against him.
“The Attorney General relied upon the exact same authority to appoint the Special Counsel in both the Trump and Biden matters, and both appointments are invalid for the same reason,” attorneys for Biden argued in the filings.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon ruled this week that special counsel Jack Smith‘s appointment in Trump’s classified documents case was unconstitutional, prompting several legal observers to argue that the same logic should apply to Hunter Biden.
Cannon’s order, however, draws a distinction between Smith and other special counsels.
Attorney General Merrick Garland pulled Smith from The Hague, where he was prosecuting war criminals — not the Justice Department. By contrast, the special counsel in Hunter Biden’s cases, David Weiss, previously served as U.S. Attorney in Delaware, where he had been appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
Cannon characterized Smith as a “private citizen exercising the full power of a United States Attorney,” saying that his appointment was unconstitutional because it “effectively usurps” the authority of Congress.
Who is a threat to the Republic? It’s quite rich that Biden – a man who has been in government so long that he is going senile in office – would propose term limits.
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Joe Biden is seriously considering proposals to establish term limits for U.S. Supreme Court justices, and an ethics code that would be enforceable under law amid growing concerns that the justices are not held accountable, according to three people briefed on the plans.
It would mark a major shift for Biden, the former head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who has long resisted calls to reform the high court, though since taking office he has been increasingly vocal about his belief that the court is abandoning mainstream constitutional interpretation. The details were first reported by The Washington Post.
Any changes would require congressional approval, which would be unlikely in a divided Congress. But with Republican nominee Donald Trump bragging about putting the three justices on the high court who are now part of the conservative majority, Biden’s call for major changes could help animate his voters.
The Supreme Court leaned to the Left for my entire life until it swung to the Right under Trump. Republicans worked the entire time to win elections and try to make good selections (only about 50/50 successful) to change the philosophical makeup of the court. The Democrats just can’t stand it and don’t want to put in the work to swing it back. Instead, they just want to change the rules to make it easier for them.
This will never make it into law. If it did, this court would likely strike it down anyway. But the fact that Biden is willing to go there to appease his rabid Marxist base speaks to how much our Republic is on the knife’s edge.
Madison, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Tuesday to consider two challenges to a 175-year-old law that conservatives maintain bans abortion without letting the cases wind through lower courts.
Abortion advocates stand an excellent chance of prevailing in both cases given the high court’s liberal tilt and remarks a liberal justice made on the campaign trail about how she supports abortion rights.
[…]
Persuading the court’s liberal majority to uphold the statutes looks next to impossible. Liberal Justice Janet Protasiewicz even went so far as stating openly during her campaign that she supports abortion rights, a major departure for a judicial candidate. Typically such candidates refrain from speaking about their personal views out of concerns they could appear biased on the bench.
While this case is about abortion, it really isn’t about abortion. Even though the law banning abortion was written in 1849, it is quite clear that it bans abortion. People in 1849 were not Neanderthal rubes who did not know how a baby was made. They knew what they were doing.
Here in 2024, the Democrats want Wisconsinites to be able to abort babies up until birth (and some even after that). The problem is that Republicans control the legislature and Republicans want to regulate abortions. The Republicans have repeatedly offered compromises to the Democrats to regulate abortions more along the lines of Roe or even just ban late-term abortions, but the Democrats have rejected all compromises. Democrats do not want any restrictions whatsoever for abortions.
To get their way, the Democrats and their Leftist base elected radical pro-abortion justices to the Supreme Court with the express mission of usurping the power of the legislature on this issue to impose their will on abortion. Click the link and read the whole story above. Even the AP isn’t pretending that the Leftists on the court are anything other than activists who have publicly, vocally, and repeatedly said that they will use the power of the court to impose their favored policy on abortion.
Again, this case is not really about abortion. It is about the Leftists on the Wisconsin Supreme Court tearing down our tri-branch form of government by using the High Court to impose policy against the express will of the Legislative Branch – with the collusion of the Executive Branch.
The timing is telling. The Leftists took over the court a year ago. The abortion issue was their #1 agenda item as they took power. Why has it taken this long? The lawsuits were filed almost immediately. Why did the Leftist majority wait this long to take it up?
Once again, it’s not about the law. It’s about politics. The Leftists want to keep their pro-abortion base angry and activated for the election in November. They need those angry pro-abortion mobs to swarm into the polls and elect Democrats. They need voters who don’t pay attention to think that Republicans are keeping them from aborting babies when it is the Democrats who have refused to compromise.
The court took up the case now because it is five months from the election. Holding the hearings and filing the briefs will help fills some news cycles about this issue leading up until the election. It will keep it top of mind and keep people from thinking about inflation, illegal immigration, high taxes, corruption, and all of the other issues that more directly impact their everyday lives.
Then, probably shortly after the election irrespective of the outcome, the Wisconsin Supreme Court will unconstitutionally invalidate a perfectly legal statute and allow unfettered abortions throughout the state. The result is inevitable, but the activist Leftist on the Supreme Court are going to milk the issue for every vote they can this year.
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — A 19-year-old and the club where she worked as a stripper have sued Florida’s attorney general and two local prosecutors to stop enforcement of a new state law prohibiting adult entertainment businesses from employing people who are under 21, claiming it violates their constitutional rights.
Serenity Michelle Bushey claims in the lawsuit that she lost her job at Cafe Risque in the Gainesville area after the law took effect on Monday since she is younger than 21. The purpose of the law was to deter human trafficking, according to Florida lawmakers.
I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see how the SCOTUS ruling would impact a state case about something that candidate Trump allegedly did. Even if one accepts the facts of the case, it would not be an official act of a president.
A New York judge has delayed Donald Trump’s sentencing until September as his lawyers seek to challenge his conviction after a Supreme Court ruling.
Trump was initially scheduled to be sentenced on 11 July.
His legal team asked for his conviction in a hush-money case to be overturned after the nation’s highest court ruled Monday that former presidents had partial immunity for “official” acts during their presidency.
Justice Juan Merchan said on Tuesday that he would issue a decision on the motions by 6 September.
If sentencing is necessary, the judge wrote, it will take place on 18 September.
Call me cynical, but I believe that the sentence will be in direct correlation to Trump’s position in the polls at that time.
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
Affirming that any person in our United States has “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution” is a very, very serious thing. In this case, however, I think the court got it right.
Go read the whole opinion and the dissents. It’s an informative read and fairly easy to follow.
Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754. Pp. 12–15.
(3) As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity.
In any system of government, the Executive is granted immense power and authority precisely to do things that regular citizens can’t do. We give the Executive the power to wage war, use violent power to strip people of their rights, enforce the collection of taxes, and so much more. Any of these powers, if exercised by an ordinary citizen, would be a crime. An ordinary citizen is not permitted by law to kill someone except in self defense. An ordinary citizen may not lock up their neighbor in prison. An ordinary citizen may not legally take their neighbor’s money to spend on other people.
Since the Executive is empowered and charged by the People to exercise these extraordinary powers on the People’s behalf, the Executive must be free of the threat of criminal prosecution for executing their charge within their official capacity. The People have ceded their right to exercise violent authority on their fellow citizens in exchange for an orderly society enforced by the government to which they ceded their power. It’s a trade.
In our system of government, the proper remedy for correcting an Executive who is using their extraordinary power inappropriately is found at the ballot box. In exceptional cases, an Executive can be removed from office via the Constitutional impeachment and removal process. Our Founders thought this out.
No, it’s not perfect, but no representative government is. It is merely the least objectional form of government necessitated by the pervasive evil imbued in our fallen race.
Once again, this court got it right. It is worth noting that no previous court has ever had to consider and opine on this issue because no previous DOJ had ever sought to prosecute a former president for acts done in office. But here we are…
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld ordinances in a southwest Oregon city that prohibit people who are homeless from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection from the elements while sleeping within the city limits. By a vote of 6-3, the justices agreed with the city, Grants Pass, that the ordinances simply bar camping on public property by everyone and do not violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch contended that the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment, “serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges” to “dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.” Instead, he suggested, such a task should fall to the American people.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued that the majority’s ruling “focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local government and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”
If the activists were successful in using the 8th Amendment to negate simple loitering ordinances, then the reach of the 8th would have been almost limitless. It is good to see this court affirm the appropriate role of the court and have a strong deference to leaving public policy in the hands of elected officials – as it should be.
by Owen | 0626, 1 Jul 24 | Crime, Law | 0 Comments
And another excellent ruling. The DOJ stretched the meaning and intent of this statute in an act of political retribution. This is not as much about Jan 6 as it is about a rogue law enforcement agency that is targeting political opponents wherever it can. I hope that every person prosecuted by the DOJ under this law sues and gets relief.
The Supreme Court on Friday threw out the charges against a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the law that Joseph Fischer was charged with violating, which bars obstruction of an official proceeding, applies only to evidence tampering, such as destruction of records or documents, in official proceedings.
Friday’s ruling could affect charges against more than 300 other Jan. 6 defendants. The same law is also at the center of two of the four charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C.
[…]
The law at the center of Fischer’s case is 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), which makes it a crime to “otherwise obstruct[], influence[], or impede[] any official proceeding.” U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols concluded that because the previous subsection, Section 1512(c)(1), bars tampering with evidence “with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding,” Section 1512(c)(2) only applies to cases involving evidence tampering that obstructs an official proceeding, and he dismissed the obstruction charge against Fischer.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed Nichols’ ruling, concluding that the “meaning of the statute is unambiguous,” so that it “applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, other than the conduct that is already covered by” the prior subsection.
On Friday, the Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit’s decision, interpreting the law more narrowly to apply only to evidence tampering.
Perhaps the most stunning about this ruling was the breakdown of the Justices. Barrett sided with the leftists and Jackson sided with the conservatives. Jackson even said in her concurring opinion:
Jackson suggested that it “beggars belief that Congress would have inserted a breathtakingly broad, first-of-its kind criminal obstruction statute (accompanied by a substantial 20-year maximum penalty) in the midst of a significantly more granular series of obstruction prohibitions without clarifying its intent to do so.”
And, frankly, Barrett’s opinion is downright scary:
Although “events like January 6th” may not have been the target of subsection (c)(2), she acknowledged (noting in a parenthetical, “Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?”)… For Barrett, the text of subsection (c)(2) clearly supports the government’s broader interpretation. Subsection (c)(2), she asserted, “covers all sorts of actions that affect or interfere with official proceedings,” and the word “otherwise” does not limit its scope.
For Barrett, the DOJ should stretch statutes well beyond their intent or writing if something happens that Congress could not have anticipated. She is supporting a government in which the Executive Branch should act in response to events how they see fit even when they do not have Congressional authority to do so.
In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-reaching effects across the country, from environmental regulation to healthcare costs.
By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled their landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave rise to the doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. But in a 35-page ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices rejected that doctrine, calling it “fundamentally misguided.”
Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan predicted that Friday’s ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”
When the Supreme Court first issued its decision in the Chevron case more than 40 years ago, the decision was not necessarily regarded as a particularly consequential one. But in the years since then, it became one of the most important rulings on federal administrative law, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times.
Yes, ELECTED officials should be debating and making decisions about our live. Unelected bureaucrats should never have been given this power. Does this mean that elected officials will have to work harder and write more detailed legislation without hiding their intent behind the bureaucracy? You bet. That’s good.
Now the hard work begins. Every regulation that is unauthorized by legislation must be challenged in court and thrown out. This will take years, but it must be done. In every case, the question must not be whether or not the regulation is good or not. The question must be whether or not the regulation was passed by our elected officials in Congress.
WASHINGTON — In a scathing dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned Thursday that the Supreme Court’s Idaho abortion decision is “not a victory for pregnant patients,” even though it allows emergency abortions for now.
“It is delay,” she wrote in her dissent, which she read from the bench. “While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.”
Of immediate significance, the decision means that the Department of Homeland Security may continue to flag posts to social media companies such as Facebook and X that it believes may be the work of foreign agents seeking to disrupt this year’s presidential race.
Rather than delving into the weighty First Amendment questions raised by the case, the court ruled that the state and social media users who challenged the Biden administration did not have standing to sue.
“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”
It’s not much, but it’s something. The playbook that Biden learned from Democrats is to just do what you want a dozen different ways and let the chips fall. Sure, a court or two may push back on a couple of ways, but that will be years down the road. And the other 10 things you tried went through. We are living under a lawless regime.
TOPEKA, Kan. — Federal judges in Kansas and Missouri on Monday together blocked much of a Biden administration student loan repayment plan that provides a faster path to cancellation and lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers.
The judges’ rulings prevent the U.S. Department of Education from helping many of the intended borrowers ease their loan repayment burdens going forward under a rule set to go into effect July 1. The decisions do not cancel assistance already provided to borrowers.
In Kansas, U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree ruled in a lawsuit filed by the state’s attorney general, Kris Kobach, on behalf of his state and 10 others. In his ruling, Crabtree allowed parts of the program that allow students who borrowed $12,000 or less to have the rest of their loans forgiven if they make 10 years’ worth of payments, instead of the standard 25.
But Crabtree said that the Department of Education won’t be allowed to implement parts of the program meant to help students who had larger loans and could have their monthly payments lowered and their required payment period reduced from 25 years to 20 years.
In Missouri, U.S. District Judge John Ross’ order applies to different parts of the program than Crabtree’s. His order says that the U.S. Department of Education cannot forgive loan balances going forward. He said the department still could lower monthly payments.
