Author Topic: Legal issues  (Read 70395 times)


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile
WSJ: Emoluments clause does not apply to elected officials
« Reply #151 on: October 16, 2017, 08:51:24 AM »
The ‘Resistance’ vs. George Washington
If a president can’t take emoluments, the founders were crooks.
Louis XVI in his coronation robes, painted by Antoine Francois Callet (1741-1823).
Louis XVI in his coronation robes, painted by Antoine Francois Callet (1741-1823). Photo: DeAgostini/Getty Images
By Josh Blackman and
Seth Barrett Tillman
Oct. 15, 2017 6:13 p.m. ET
54 COMMENTS

The Trump administration has been under siege from the left’s self-professed “legal resistance.” Perhaps the highest-profile example involves President Trump himself. Several lawsuits allege that his business interests run afoul of the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause.

The Justice Department has done a good job defending the president’s actions on most issues—but not on this one. The department still has refused to make its strongest argument: that the Foreign Emoluments Clause does not apply to the president. The Trump administration needs to throw out a 2009 opinion from the department’s Office of Legal Counsel that concluded, without any analysis, that the Foreign Emoluments Clause “surely” applied to President Obama. Instead the department should defend the president’s unitary role in the separation of powers—a position the Constitution supports.

The Foreign Emoluments Clause says that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States] shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” These lawsuits argue that when foreign dignitaries pay to stay at Trump hotels, they’re putting money in Mr. Trump’s pocket, and such payments constitute an unlawful foreign emolument or a present. But the constitutional clause refers only to persons holding an office under the U.S. The Constitution’s language extends only to appointed positions, not to elected ones.

History backs up this reading. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton set the precedent in 1793: When the Senate requested a financial statement listing the “emoluments” of “every person holding any civil office or employment under the United States,” Hamilton’s comprehensive report excluded all elected offices—the president, vice president and members of Congress—but included appointed positions in all three governmental branches.

George Washington accepted, as a diplomatic gift from France, a framed full-length portrait of King Louis XVI. Thomas Jefferson accepted a bust of Czar Alexander I from Russia. Neither president sought Congress’s consent to keep the gifts.

But for some reason the Trump administration continues to stand by the 2009 opinion, drawn up when Mr. Obama was being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which came with a $1.4 million award. The Office of Legal Counsel concluded Mr. Obama could accept the money, but the opinion simply assumed the Foreign Emoluments Clause applied to the presidency. It was taken as a given with no citations either to judicial rulings or to the practices established by Washington and other founders.

We have submitted friend-of-the-court briefs in New York, the District of Columbia and Maryland explaining this argument. At a minimum, the historical record should give Justice pause. But ideally the department would abandon the 2009 opinion and argue in court that the president is not governed by this clause. Mr. Trump’s adversaries are arguing that Washington and Jefferson were crooks.

Mr. Blackman is a law professor at the South Texas College of Law of Houston. Mr. Tillman is a law lecturer at Maynooth University, Ireland.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile
Gorsuch surprises Libs
« Reply #152 on: October 16, 2017, 01:00:14 PM »
Gorsuch Joins Court’s Liberals Over Protections for Criminal Defendants
Case explores whether defendants give up all rights to appeal after entering a plea bargain
By Jess Bravin
Oct. 4, 2017 6:23 p.m. ET




WASHINGTON—Justice Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump’s appointee to the Supreme Court, joined liberal colleagues Wednesday in sharply questioning government arguments that criminal defendants forfeit all rights to appeal after entering a plea bargain.

Since his April appointment, Justice Gorsuch’s remarks and votes nearly always have placed him on the court’s right. This week’s arguments suggested, however, that like his late predecessor, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Gorsuch’s legal philosophy sometimes may lead him to split with fellow conservatives and back procedural protections for criminal defendants.


Wednesday’s case involved Ronald Class, a High Shoals, N.C., retiree who in May 2013 illegally parked his Jeep Wrangler in a U.S. Capitol lot. Police found the vehicle contained several loaded weapons, including a 9mm Ruger pistol, a .44-caliber Taurus pistol and a .44- caliber Henry rifle. Although he had a North Carolina concealed weapons permit, Mr. Class was arrested under a federal law prohibiting guns on the Capitol grounds.

According to the government’s brief, Mr. Class told Federal Bureau of Investigation agents that “he was a ‘Constitutional Bounty Hunter ’ and a ‘Private Attorney General’ who traveled the nation with guns and other weapons to enforce federal criminal law against judges whom he believed had acted unlawfully.”

Mr. Class later reached a plea bargain with prosecutors and was sentenced to 24 days’ imprisonment and a year of supervised release. Although plea bargains typically restrict appeals from defendants, Mr. Class then sought to have his conviction overturned on several grounds, including that he had a Second Amendment right to take his guns to the Capitol.

A federal appeals court dismissed the appeal in an unsigned order, noting that Mr. Class had told the trial judge he understood the plea bargain required him to forgo all but a few technical forms of appeal. But on Wednesday, an attorney for Mr. Class said that Supreme Court precedents established that defendants retained the right to raise constitutional claims even after pleading guilty.

A Justice Department attorney, Eric Feigin, argued that the government was entitled to assume Mr. Class had waived all appeals. “There’s a serious information imbalance here. Only the defendant knows what kinds of claims he might want to bring after a guilty plea and in what respects he doesn’t intend his guilty plea to be final,” he told the court.


Justice Gorsuch appeared incredulous. “Mr. Feigin, is this information asymmetry problem a suggestion that the government lacks sufficient bargaining power in the plea bargaining process?” he asked.

“No, your honor,” Mr. Feigin said.

Federal and state prosecutors win more than 90% of criminal cases without persuading a jury; defendants nearly always agree to plead guilty under threat of harsher punishment should they be convicted after opting for a trial.

Picking up on a question by Justice Stephen Breyer, Justice Gorsuch suggested that a defendant who pleads guilty admits the factual allegations in an indictment—but not that those actions necessarily are illegal.

“You’re admitting to what’s in the indictment. Isn’t that maybe the most natural and historically consistent understanding of what a guilty plea is?” Justice Gorsuch said.

Justice Gorsuch’s remarks Wednesday followed similar pro-defendant positions he took Monday. That case involved a Filipino with permanent U.S. residency who had been convicted of burglary and who argued that the criteria Congress adopted authorizing deportation of immigrants for committing violent crimes were unconstitutionally vague.

Wednesday’s other case, involving a lawsuit by 16 partygoers alleging they were improperly arrested by Washington, D.C., police, may have been more illuminating about some justices’ personal experiences than their views on constitutional law.

One question involved whether police legitimately could assume from the threadbare décor and detritus on the floor that the partygoers were using a vacant home without permission. Justice Gorsuch, who recently has relocated to the Washington area from Colorado, appeared concerned that could put new tenants in legal jeopardy.





“We all live with folding chairs for a period of time when we move,” he said.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor challenged whether the mess the officers found was legally significant. “What happens during a party? ” she said. “Disarray. So what was different in this disarray from a party? ”

Justice Breyer suggested that the revelers would have no reason to doubt that they lacked the owner’s permission to gather at the house.

“Younger people frequently say, ‘Hey, there’s a party at Joe’s house.’ And before you know it, 50 people go to Joe’s house,” said Justice Breyer, 79 years old. “I would think the people who went over there, whether they knew Joe, heard it secondhand, thirdhand or whatever, are normally, naturally going to think that Joe has a right to the house.”

Justice Kagan questioned whether the alleged presence of marijuana smoke and alcohol indicated criminal activity in the house.

“From the partygoers’ point of view, they just know that Joe is having a big party, and it’s a good time, and—and maybe there will be some liquor and maybe there will be some recreational drugs,” she said.

“There are these parties that once, long ago, I used to be invited to,” she said, to the courtroom’s laughter. “Where you didn’t know the host, but you know Joe is having a party. And can I say that long, long ago, marijuana was maybe present at those parties?” she said.

Decisions in the cases—Class v. U.S., Sessions v. Dimaya and District of Columbia v. Wesby—are expected before July.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile
WSJ: Citizens United-- the disaster that wasn't
« Reply #153 on: October 17, 2017, 11:27:22 AM »
The Citizens United Disaster That Wasn’t
Critics warned that a flood of corporate money would irreparably taint politics. No such thing happened.
Photo: Getty Images
By Floyd Abrams
Oct. 16, 2017 6:56 p.m. ET
101 COMMENTS

When the Supreme Court announced its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the public condemnation from certain quarters was fierce. The notion that a corporation would spend large sums of money to support or denounce a political candidate struck many Americans as deeply troubling. Some saw the court’s 5-4 ruling, which held that corporate political spending is protected by the First Amendment, as constituting a grave threat to the democratic fabric of society.

“Starting today, corporations with large war chests to deploy on electioneering may find democratically elected bodies becoming much more attuned to their interests,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a 90-page dissenting opinion. He retired from the Supreme Court at the end of that term and later suggested a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling.

Many of Citizens United’s harshest critics imagined a nation controlled by multibillion-dollar corporations that would dictate business-friendly legislation to paid-for lawmakers. A New York Times editorial predicted that the ruling would “thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century” by allowing “corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections.” The Washington Post warned that “corporate money, never lacking in the American political process, may now overwhelm both the contributions of individuals and the faith they may harbor in their democracy.” The San Francisco Chronicle warned that “voters should prepare for the worst: cash-drenched elections presided over by free-spending corporations.”

Since those predictions, two presidential and four congressional elections have come and gone. There’s now solid data, filed with the Federal Election Commission, showing how much money corporations have spent in recent elections. It turns out the apocalyptic forecasts were not just inaccurate but utterly insupportable.
WSJ

It is true that in the wake of Citizens United many groups sprang up that are permitted to spend unlimited sums supporting or opposing candidates and issues. These so-called super PACs have proved themselves a political force. But the money they have spent since 2010 has not come primarily—or even mostly—from corporations.

Super PACs across the political spectrum raised $1.8 billion between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2016, according to data analyzed by the Center for Responsive Politics. Of that, $1.04 billion came from individual donors and $242 million from unions, trade associations, politically active nonprofits and other organizations. Only $85 million was contributed by business corporations. The table nearby shows the top 20 donors. Among the Top 40 contributors to super PACs during the 2016 election cycle were eight unions and only one corporation.

These numbers do not include donations to campaigns from corporate political action committees. That money comes not from the corporate treasury but from people employed by the company or otherwise connected to it. In any event, corporate PAC donations are on the small side compared with the numbers above—$1.9 million to presidential candidates in 2008 (before Citizens United), $855,348 in 2012 and $942,116 in 2016.

The data suggest two conclusions. The first was summarized by Brooklyn Law School Professor Joel Gora after the 2012 election: “The predicted wave of corporate financial political intervention never materialized. Of all of the super PAC independent expenditure spending that escalated in the 2012 election, very little of it came from corporate contributions.” That remained true in 2016 and probably will into the foreseeable future.

The second is that corporations remain conservative—with a small “c.” Fear of public disapproval limits their appetite for potential controversy, so they do their best to steer clear of high-profile political entanglements. A comment often attributed to Michael Jordan captures this attitude: “Republicans buy sneakers, too.” The unwillingness of large corporations to offend their actual or desired customers is difficult to overstate.

Despite the bombastic rhetoric and dire predictions, corporations and their vast treasuries have not dominated elections post-Citizens United. In fact, corporations have donated a comparatively small percentage of the money spent in political campaigns since 2010. It would be nice if those who expected a darker world would acknowledge that fact.

Mr. Abrams represented Sen. Mitch McConnell in the Citizens United case and participated in oral argument in the Supreme Court. An extended version of this article will appear as a chapter in “The Free Speech Century,” to be published next year by Oxford University Press.

Appeared in the October 17, 2017, print edition.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Legal issues
« Reply #154 on: October 31, 2017, 08:13:02 AM »
new "crime" of the century :

seeking "dirt" on Clinton.

"opposition research" :

seeking "dirt" on Trump (or any Republican for that matter)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11921
    • View Profile
Re: Legal issues
« Reply #155 on: October 31, 2017, 08:55:39 AM »
new "crime" of the century :
seeking "dirt" on Clinton.
"opposition research" :
seeking "dirt" on Trump (or any Republican for that matter)

And they are so good at blurring issues.  There is nothing wrong with paying for information.  The information economy is the world we live in.

It is another matter to pay people to create and spread false information about someone. Is there a law against that, civil penalties? The Dossier, the golden showers, it was because the Obamas (black people?) slept in that bed was too bizarre to be believed be believed by anyone in the first place.  His failings are much more simple than that, boobs, pussy, money, power, ego, not necessarily in that order.  In a way it kind of vindicates him that the best opposition researchers in the world needed to make stuff up to sell a report.  DID THE PEOPLE PAYING FOR THE DOSSIER KNOW IT WAS FALSE? (Or are they dumber than a box of rocks and want to be hired to analyze intelligence...)  HRC is, still, sadly, the leader of her party and it was the DNC itself caught red-handed.  No political ramifications?  No shame??  Just 'hey, that's what we do'.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile
Re: Legal issues
« Reply #156 on: November 17, 2017, 12:45:32 PM »
The BBC reports that this guy listed investigating paranormal activity on his resume.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/360911-republicans-still-backing-trump-judicial-nominee-with-no-trial-experience

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile
Good for the goose, good for the gander
« Reply #157 on: November 23, 2017, 11:02:50 AM »
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/23/opinion/conservatives-weaponize-federal-courts.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region&region=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region


The Dems have been legislating through the courts for decades.  What she’s upset about isn’t that the courts may be used that way, but that they may be used that way by someone else. 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Hatch Act applies to Kelly Ann Conway?
« Reply #158 on: November 29, 2017, 02:12:13 PM »
She is senior counselor to the President - so she cannot say something good or bad about a candidate running for a Senate seat?  This can't be serious? 

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/362300-us-special-counsel-opening-up-case-file-over-accusation-that-conway-broke-the


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile
WSJ Thomas vs. Sotomayor
« Reply #161 on: February 22, 2018, 05:18:59 AM »

By The Editorial Board
Feb. 21, 2018 7:25 p.m. ET
117 COMMENTS

A unanimous Supreme Court struck a blow for the plain reading of the law on Wednesday, but a pair of dueling concurrences deserve broader attention for what they say about the different methods of legal interpretation on the High Court today.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the full Court in rebuking the Securities and Exchange Commission for reinterpreting the Dodd-Frank Act despite the clear text of the statute (Digital Realty Trust v. Somers ). Paul Somers sued Digital Realty Trust , claiming protection as a whistleblower for filing a complaint about a securities violation. He might have sued under the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law that protects whistleblowers if they file complaints with the Labor Department within 180 days.

But instead he sued in federal court under Dodd-Frank, which lets whistleblowers who are retaliated against sue and receive double back pay. The problem is that Dodd-Frank defines a whistleblower as someone who provides information about a securities violation to the SEC. Mr. Somers didn’t do that, but the SEC claimed that didn’t matter because Congress intended the law to protect people like Mr. Somers no matter the law’s text.

Citing precedent, Justice Ginsburg rightly wrote that “‘When a statute includes an explicit definition, we must follow that definition,’ even if it varies from a term’s ordinary meaning. This principle resolves the question before us.” She then went on an extended and needless tour of congressional intent that may invite legal mischief down the road.

This drew a highly entertaining concurrence from Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, that agreed with the judgment but rapped Justice Ginsburg’s opinion for attempting to find the “purpose” of a statute primarily in a single “Senate Report.”

Justice Thomas pointed out that the Court is “‘governed by what Congress enacted rather than by what it intended.’” And to prove his point he included a footnote with a hilarious colloquy between former Senators Bill Armstrong and Bob Dole about a Finance Committee report. The exchange is a political “Who’s on First?”

Justice Thomas’s concurrence set off Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court’s most left-leaning voice, who wrote her own concurrence defending the Court’s reliance on legislative history, including Senate reports.

It’s a telling exchange. Justice Sotomayor wants the judicial running room of reports and history through which she can drive her political preferences. Justice Thomas wants the Court to follow what the law actually says


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17340
    • View Profile
Re: when police are not allowed to photo a woman's face
« Reply #165 on: March 12, 2018, 01:55:42 PM »
for a mug shot:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/women-forced-hijabs-mugs-settle-city-article-1.3845434



I am so old, I can remember when I was told sharia law would never influence the American legal system.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
should not this be overturned
« Reply #166 on: March 20, 2018, 06:34:23 PM »
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-loses-bid-dismiss-accusers-defamation-lawsuit-181859051.html

A political decision form a political judge .

So now Trump is not above the law in a a civil suit from something alleged to have occurred 9 yrs before he is President now right at an election time!






Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile
Re: Legal issues
« Reply #167 on: March 20, 2018, 09:53:16 PM »
Same standard was applied to President Bill Clinton.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Legal issues
« Reply #168 on: March 21, 2018, 05:12:53 AM »
"Same standard was applied to President Bill Clinton."

I don't remember details.  Paula Jones?

Assuming you are correct I have no leg to stand on then.   :-o

Trump!  (why God? is this your way at humor?   :cry:)

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11921
    • View Profile
Re: Legal issues
« Reply #169 on: March 21, 2018, 08:35:48 AM »
Right, settled law in the Paula Jones case where he dropped trow in a trooper arranged meeting.  His lying under oath led the way to impeachment and disbarment, making him until recently the feminists' favorite leader.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
some candidates on short list
« Reply #171 on: June 27, 2018, 04:13:01 PM »
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/27/anthony-kennedy-replacements-supreme-court-trump-679941

next is RBG to make it 7 to 2. 

Huff Posts "darkest hour"    :-)  : Trump must be something right.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile
Re: Legal issues
« Reply #174 on: July 10, 2018, 09:35:22 PM »
Good to see this very important question getting traction.  No surprise that Justice Thomas speaks up about it!

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile
LaPierre backs Kavanaugh
« Reply #176 on: July 11, 2018, 12:32:23 AM »
Important Message from Wayne LaPierre on Trump's Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court
 
Dear Second Amendment Supporters,

In the 2016 elections, NRA members and Second Amendment supporters across America made clear that the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court was an issue of critical importance. Your work and support for President Trump have resulted in the nomination of a second outstanding justice to the court. On Monday, President Trump once again delivered on his promise of nominating constitutionally sound Supreme Court justices. You should be proud of your successful defense and protection of the future of our Second Amendment freedoms.

During his tenure on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote a strong dissenting opinion in opposition to Washington, D.C.’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and registration requirement by applying a historical test consistent with Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the Heller decision.

The narrow 5-4 majority that recognized a fundamental, individual right to self-defense in the landmark Heller and McDonald decisions will be secured with Kavanaugh's confirmation. The NRA’s six million members and tens of millions of supporters who voted for President Trump have ensured that the framers’ vision of constitutional freedom will have a strong voice on the court for decades to come.

Chris Cox, executive director of NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), along with the entire ILA team stand ready to fight for the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh, but we need your help.

"NRA-ILA will activate the tens of millions of Second Amendment supporters throughout the country in support of Judge Kavanaugh," said Cox. "Securing his confirmation begins with the NRA's six-million members. We need your help in the coming days to ensure your U.S. senators vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh. Freedom depends on you."

This is a great opportunity in American history to protect our constitutional freedoms for generations.

Yours in Freedom,
Wayne LaPierre
NRA Executive Vice President

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile
WSJ: FERC and Emminent Domain
« Reply #177 on: July 22, 2018, 10:27:25 AM »
Washington, June 25. Photo: © Erik Mcgregor/Pacific Press via ZUMA Wire
By Robert McNamara and
David Bookbinder
July 19, 2018 6:28 p.m. ET
41 COMMENTS

Across the country activists are speaking out against the use of eminent domain to construct natural-gas pipelines. Some have climbed trees and refused to come down. The agency in charge of approving these pipelines—the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC—is reconsidering how eminent domain, by which the government legally expropriates private property for public purposes, is used.

While we stand with those who stand for individual rights—and enjoy a good tree-climb—protests like these can only go so far. The U.S. is a country of laws, and if a court rules that eminent domain can be used to construct a pipeline, then Americans must respect that ruling. But judges haven’t actually issued many such rulings. Right now FERC presides over a system that strips property owners of their rights without courts getting involved.

When FERC approves the use of eminent domain to build a pipeline, landowners have the right to appeal to a federal court only after they have asked the agency to reconsider its decision and had their request denied. But FERC has developed the habit of granting these requests so that it can draw out the time it spends “thinking” about them. While FERC dawdles, the pipeline companies use eminent domain to snatch thousands of landowners’ properties free from judicial review.

Furthermore, FERC’s approval comes with eminent domain authority, allowing pipeline companies to seize property before seeking other necessary approvals. In one instance, a company seized part of a Pennsylvania family’s property to build a FERC-authorized pipeline only to have the project fall apart when officials in New York refused to grant a permit to build another part of the pipeline. The taking, which also involved cutting down more than 500 of the family’s trees, was ultimately for nothing.

As rotten as these procedural shenanigans are, FERC is guilty of a more consequential deception. Under current law, the agency can approve a pipeline without telling property owners that decisions will be effectively unreviewable unless they file an immediate appeal. When states have behaved this way, federal courts have deemed it unconstitutional. Yet FERC continues to harm eminent-domain victims by failing to inform them how to protect their rights.

No one’s property should be taken without a real chance at judicial review. Property owners who go to court don’t always win, but some do. Property owners in both Pennsylvania and Texas have persuaded state judges to reject pipeline-related property seizures in recent years. Perhaps property owners who’ve been subject to eminent domain expropriations by FERC-approved pipelines would find similar success. The agency should afford them the chance to find out.

Mr. McNamara is a senior attorney with the Institute for Justice. Mr. Bookbinder is chief counsel for the Niskanen Center



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Thank you Jeff Flake
« Reply #181 on: November 28, 2018, 05:45:12 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
If Dan's analysis is correct
« Reply #182 on: December 19, 2018, 01:21:51 PM »
We will know in a few years as we see crime rates go back up and countless new victims .

And Jared the "genius" will look likeJared the "jerk"

The Dems won't care as long as they increase their voter rolls.

That said I don't know enough to have a definite opinion.  I am not against giving people second chances but wasn't that what "3 strikes and your out" was kind of about?

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/opponents-of-the-cotton-amendment-to-prison-reform-bill-exposed-the-whole-lie/

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 11921
    • View Profile
Re: If Dan's analysis is correct
« Reply #183 on: December 19, 2018, 01:52:36 PM »
We will know in a few years as we see crime rates go back up and countless new victims .

And Jared the "genius" will look likeJared the "jerk"

The Dems won't care as long as they increase their voter rolls.

That said I don't know enough to have a definite opinion.  I am not against giving people second chances but wasn't that what "3 strikes and your out" was kind of about?

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/opponents-of-the-cotton-amendment-to-prison-reform-bill-exposed-the-whole-lie/

Everyone's competing for the prestigious felon vote.
-----------------------

Charles Kushner pleaded guilty to 18 counts of illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. and served time in federal prison.  All his political contributions were to Democrats prior to 2016.
[When he got out of prison] he bought the 666 Fifth Avenue building in Manhattan for US$1.8 billion.

I see the point of freeing up space taken by non-violent offenders but that also means going softer on white collar rich guys.

Maybe they should reform the laws before they reform the penalties.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2018, 02:03:08 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Justice Roberts , again
« Reply #184 on: December 22, 2018, 09:38:15 AM »
Roberts votes with liberals:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/supreme-court-votes-5-4-to-keep-trump-administration-from-enforcing-ban-on-asylum-applications-by-illegal-border-crossers-2018-12-21?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

I admit I do not know the Consititutional issues before the Court on this but it goes without saying that Mark

Levin is correct. We the people have not had any say in immigration policy for a long time.  The politicians always sell us out, it winds up in Courts and then we are sold out again:

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/levin-heres-just-how-little-influence-we-the-people-have-had-on-immigration-policy/

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 10040
    • View Profile
Re: Legal issues
« Reply #188 on: January 17, 2019, 08:06:20 AM »
" Yes.  Wait until you see how they go after RBG's replacement."

I think we are going to have lots of fun driving libs insane when that occurs

Haven't heard anything back from the pathology reports from her surgery .
Should have at least some information .
genetic testing if done might take a while but most of it would certainly be back by now for a national figure.

Results being kept quiet for more than just personal health reasons?


She could live for another while longer but 2 spots in the lung is usually not a good sign.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2019, 08:08:36 AM by ccp »


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 17340
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile
Re: Legal issues
« Reply #191 on: May 12, 2019, 01:25:27 PM »
Apparently Bad Orange Man has other plans  :evil:


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile
AG Barr on nationwide injunctions
« Reply #193 on: September 10, 2019, 11:32:50 AM »



End Nationwide Injunctions
The Dreamers case shows how willful courts can ruin the chance for political compromise.
By William P. Barr
Sept. 5, 2019 6:37 pm ET
Illustration: Chad Crowe

When a federal court issues an order against enforcement of a government policy, the ruling traditionally applies only to the plaintiff in that case. Over the past several decades, however, some lower court federal judges have increasingly resorted to a procedural device—the “nationwide injunction”—to prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone in the country. Shrewd lawyers have learned to “shop” for a sympathetic judge willing to issue such an injunction. These days, virtually every significant congressional or presidential initiative is enjoined—often within hours—threatening our democratic system and undermining the rule of law.

During the eight years of the Obama administration, 20 nationwide injunctions were issued while the Trump administration has already faced nearly 40. Partisans who cheer this trend should realize that someday the shoe will be on the other foot. One can easily imagine the signature policies of a future Democratic administration—say, on climate change, immigration or health care—being stymied by courts for years on end.

The best example of the harm done by these nationwide injunctions is the current litigation over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. In 2012, after Congress repeatedly failed to grant legal status to so-called Dreamers, the Obama administration declined to enforce the immigration laws against them. Five years later, the Trump administration announced it would restore enforcement of federal law, prompting Democrats to negotiate in search of a broad solution. Just as a compromise appeared near, a district court judge in San Francisco entered a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from ending DACA, thus awarding the Democrats by judicial fiat what they had been seeking through a political compromise.

Far from solving the problem, the DACA injunction proved catastrophic. The program’s recipients remain in legal limbo after nearly two years of bitter political division over immigration, including a government shutdown. A humanitarian crisis—including a surge of unaccompanied children—swells at the southern border, while legislative efforts remain frozen pending Supreme Court resolution of the DACA case.

Under Article III of the Constitution, courts are supposed to apply the law to the parties before them—not to thousands or millions of third parties. The Framers rejected the idea that the courts should act as a “council of revision” with sweeping authority to reach beyond concrete controversies and rule on the legality of actions taken by the political branches. Moreover, the power of federal courts to issue injunctions derives from English practice, which allowed courts to restrain a defendant to the extent necessary to protect the rights of the plaintiffs in the case. Nationwide injunctions are a modern invention with no basis in the Constitution or common law.

Nationwide injunctions are also inconsistent with the mechanism the law recognizes to provide relief to nonparties: a class action, in which class members are bound by the result, win or lose, unless they opt out. Nationwide injunctions, by contrast, create an unfair, one-way system in which the democratically accountable government must fend off case after case to put its policy into effect, while those challenging the policy need only find a single sympathetic judge.

Proponents of nationwide injunctions argue that they are necessary to ensure that the law is uniform throughout the country. But the federal judiciary wasn’t made to produce instant legal uniformity. To the contrary, the system—in which local district courts are supervised by regional courts of appeal—was constructed to allow a diversity of initial rulings until a single, national rule could be decided by the Supreme Court.

This system has many virtues. It prevents a solitary, unelected, life-tenured judge from overriding the political branches and imposing on the nation potentially idiosyncratic or mistaken views of the law. A Supreme Court justice must convince at least four colleagues to bind the federal government nationwide, whereas a district court judge issuing a nationwide injunction needn’t convince anyone.

When the system works as it should, it encourages what one leading jurist has called “percolation”—the salutary process by which many lower federal courts offer competing and increasingly refined views on a legal issue before higher courts definitively resolve it. Allowing a single district court judge to issue a nationwide injunction against the government short-circuits this process. The first judge to issue an injunction effectively nullifies the decisions of all other courts that have already been issued—not only other courts’ decisions, but even those of higher appellate courts in other circuits.

For example, even though the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia—often called the second-highest court in the land—vacated an injunction against the Trump administration’s policy on transgender military service, that decision had no practical effect. Two district judges had enjoined the policy nationwide. The Supreme Court’s intervention was necessary to fix this backward state of affairs.

By short-circuiting the process of percolation, nationwide injunctions cause critical policies to be litigated through a truncated, emergency process. When an important statute or policy is enjoined, the Justice Department must seek emergency relief from higher courts. The alternative is for the government to wait years for an appeals court to overturn the injunction before implementing a statute or policy. As a result, nationwide injunctions threaten to turn every case into an emergency for the executive and judicial branches.

Nationwide injunctions “are legally and historically dubious,” noted Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring in Trump v. Hawaii (2018). “If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so.” It is indeed well past time for our judiciary to re-examine a practice that embitters the political life of the nation, flouts constitutional principles, and stultifies sound judicial administration, all at the cost of public confidence in our institutions.

Mr. Barr is U.S. attorney general.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: January 15, 2020, 12:34:05 PM by Crafty_Dog »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49408
    • View Profile
Anti-Trust
« Reply #199 on: January 16, 2020, 10:35:34 AM »
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-targets-drug-pricing-no-poach-deals-for-antitrust-action-in-2020-11579124098?mod=djem10point

U.S. Targets Drug Pricing, No-Poach Deals for Antitrust Action in 2020
Justice Department antitrust chief also promises decision on music licensing, criticizes states’ lawsuit against T-Mobile and Sprint

Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim said the Justice Department expects to bring its first-ever criminal case accusing employers of colluding not to poach each other’s workers. PHOTO: LEXEY SWALL FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
By Brent Kendall
Jan. 15, 2020 4:34 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
9
WASHINGTON—The Justice Department’s antitrust division is preparing to tackle competition issues in several important markets, including alleged price-fixing in the generic-drug industry, rules for music licensing and purported employer collusion that limits options for sought-after workers.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal this week, Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, the Justice Department’s top antitrust official, said the department would act on those issues in the next several months. He said it was too soon to predict the outcome of his division’s highest-profile endeavor: an investigation of whether dominant tech firms are stifling competition.

“We’re well into the fairway of gathering data and evidence” on the tech probe, Mr. Delrahim said.

The department’s investigation of Alphabet Inc.’s Google includes a collaboration with state attorneys general, and the Justice Department is staying in touch with the Federal Trade Commission as both agencies probe Facebook Inc., he said. Separately, the department is considering whether Google should be allowed to acquire Fitbit Inc., the wearable fitness-product company.

Mr. Delrahim also said he was closely tracking how the National Collegiate Athletic Association was handling the issue of payment for college athletes, expressing concerns with the group’s restrictions on benefits and compensation.

As Mr. Delrahim bounced between meetings, a sprawling stack of papers dominated his conference room table, signaling what looks like a busy year of enforcement developments.

T-Mobile and Sprint
Among Mr. Delrahim’s most immediate concerns is the New York trial that will decide whether T-Mobile US Inc. can buy Sprint Corp. Thirteen states are challenging the merger even though the department and the Federal Communications Commission approved it after securing a menu of concessions from the carriers.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
How would you evaluate the Trump administration’s approach to antitrust enforcement? Why? Join the conversation below.

Mr. Delrahim said he worries the merger market could suffer if the states prevail. Expert federal agencies found problems with the merger and fixed them, he said.

“I think if the states win, it creates major uncertainty in M&A,” Mr. Delrahim said, adding that he hopes the companies would appeal if they lose.

The plaintiff states, led by California and New York, fired back at the Justice Department’s arguments last week, saying states are independent enforcers and owe no deference to their federal counterparts.

Closing arguments took place Wednesday. Mr. Delrahim took an unexpected turn in the spotlight when the states introduced evidence showing he had exchanged text messages with Charlie Ergen, chairman of Dish Network Corp., as Mr. Ergen was negotiating a deal in which Dish would acquire assets from the merging companies designed to allow it to become a new wireless competitor. Critics questioned whether Mr. Delrahim was too involved in trying to engineer the agreement.

“I was doing my job to ensure consumers benefit in the end,” Mr. Delrahim said. “I was trying to make sure the divestiture buyer in Dish has the greatest chance of succeeding.”

Travel industry case looming
The Justice Department has a direct stake in a different merger trial set to begin Jan. 27 in Delaware. It sued to prevent Sabre Corp., the lead booking service for travel agents, from buying Farelogix Inc., an upstart that the Justice Department says has newer, better flight-booking technology.

Mr. Delrahim said the litigation could be relevant for tech cases because it raises issues about preserving competition through innovation and limiting dominant firms from buying nascent competitors.

“Every case has its own set of facts, but this could have underlying implications,” he said.

Sabre argues the two companies offer complementary products, and combining them will drive faster innovation that serves airlines and travelers.

Charges in generic-drug industry
Mr. Delrahim said the Justice Department is preparing to file new criminal cases against the generic drug industry for allegedly fixing prices. The department has been investigating possible criminal conduct by generic drug companies for years, but federal cases have been slow to materialize.

Two lower-profile companies and two executives have been charged. The most recent case came in December, when Rising Pharmaceuticals was charged with fixing prices on a hypertension drug. The company reached a deferred prosecution agreement in which it accepted responsibility and agreed to pay restitution as well as civil damages.

State enforcers separately have been pursuing civil cases against the industry.

A harder line on employers’ hiring practices
Mr. Delrahim said the division separately expects to bring its first-ever criminal case accusing employers of colluding not to poach each other’s workers.

The antitrust division has pursued several civil cases in recent years against companies that entered into no-poach agreements, especially in the tech sector. When businesses agree not to recruit or hire each other’s workers, it robs employees of opportunities, information and the ability to use competing offers to negotiate better terms, the Justice Department has argued.

Charging a company or executive with a crime for this practice would mark a major escalation of the government’s approach.

“We’ll see a case in the first half of this year,” Mr. Delrahim said.

Monitoring Live Nation, weighing music licensing rules
The antitrust division made news late last year by requiring Live Nation Entertainment Inc. to extend by five years its compliance with a Justice Department settlement imposing restrictions on the concert-promotion giant when it bought Ticketmaster in 2010. A federal judge still needs to approve the extension.

The department alleged Live Nation violated the settlement by strong-arming venues that didn’t want to use its Ticketmaster subsidiary, which the company denies. Mr. Delrahim said the extended settlement has new provisions that will make it easier to monitor and pursue Live Nation if there are future violations.

More music news is likely on the way: Mr. Delrahim said he expects to announce a decision in the next few months on whether to modify or terminate decades-old antitrust settlements dictating how music is licensed for play on radio, television, streaming services or in venues like restaurants. Changes to the rules could help artists and shake up how businesses, broadcasters and streaming services secure rights from songwriters and publishers.

Write to Brent Kendall at brent.kendall@wsj.com