It is illegal to induce an alien to enter or remain in the United States illegally. It has been so for many years under Title 8 United States Code Section 1324, Bringing In or Harboring Certain Aliens. However, a group of Kritarchs have decided to overturn years of precedent and legal usage to declare that the First Amendment protects alien smugglers, corrupt politicians, and those with a personal relationship with an illegal alien to induce and encourage illegal activity.
This is not about a debate concerning whether this prohibition should be in Federal law, but a claim that aiding and abetting a crime is not a crime. Note that the analogy of this crime is also contained in Title 18 USC Section 2 Principals and 18 USC Section 3, Accessory After The Fact. Both are long standing statutes that criminalize not speech, but speech involving itself in a criminal offense. (As when an armed robber says “Hands up”, or a blackmailer says “Pay up!” )
The Supreme Court will decide whether a federal law that makes it a crime to “encourage or induce” someone to enter the country illegally violates the First Amendment.
The 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of AppealsCircus said the law is unconstitutional in December 2018. The justices added the case to the docket for their forthcoming term Friday.
“The provisions here are primarily directed at conduct, not speech,” the government’s petition to the high court reads. “To the extent they even reach speech, they do so only incidentally by prohibiting communications that foster unlawful activity by particular individuals, which have long been understood to be outside the scope of the First Amendment.”
The dispute involves an immigration consultant called Evelyn Sineneng-Smith. Federal prosecutors allege that she offered to enroll illegal aliens in a Department of Labor certification program for nearly $6,000. She allegedly did so knowing that her clients were not qualified, and were therefore guaranteed rejection.
[The Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Encouraging Illegal Immigration Is Protected Speech, by Kevin Daley, The Daily Caller, October 4, 2019]
The three judge panel on the 9th Circuit who made this ruling are Democrat judges. The law doesn’t seem to be part of their legal reasoning, only imposing their will on the nation, a dictatorship of judges, a kritarchy.
The Green New Deal, and similar environmental initiatives, have little to do with the environment and much to do with the Left’s desire to control every aspect of our lives. Because everything we do, beginning with breathing, involves emission of carbon dioxide or other “greenhouse gases.” AOC’s Green New Deal specifically proposed, among other things, that all air travel be banned and that all cows be done away with because they produce methane.
People who don’t follow current events closely may think that we who sound an alarm over the dictatorial potential inherent in today’s environmental activism exaggerate the problem. No one, some would assume, could possibly take the Green New Deal’s war on cows seriously.
In fact, it is deadly serious. Today the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an opinion in In the Matter of the Decision on the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Daley Farms of Lewiston, LLP – 2018 Dairy Expansion Utica Township. Daley Farms wants to expand its dairy operation, which naturally entails having more cows. Daley Farms dutifully went through the permitting process with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the MPCA granted the necessary permits. That wasn’t good enough for far-left organizations like the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, which appealed the MPCA’s grant of permits to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. MCEA argued, among other things, that the agency hadn’t taken into account the methane emissions that more cows would generate.
Shockingly, the Minnesota Court of Appeals found this objection persuasive. It reversed the MPCA’s permit issuance and sent the matter back to the agency for further proceedings. This is what the court said about the gases emitted by cows and global warming:
The MPCA’s response to the MCEA’s comment suggests that it did not consider greenhouse-gas emissions before it denied an [Environmental Impact Statement]. Not only are greenhouse-gas emissions absent from the animal-feedlot [Environmental Assessment Worksheet] form, but they are also missing from the EIS order issued by the MPCA after the public-comment period. The MPCA does not dispute that large dairy-farm operations like Daley Farms emit methane, a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change, and that greenhouse-gas emissions could have the potential for significant environmental effects.8 The MPCA’s reliance on the absence of greenhouse-gas emissions on the animal-feedlot EAW form shows that the MPCA failed to take a “hard look” because it “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.” See CARD, 713 N.W.2d at 832.
We acknowledge Daley Farms’ assertion that there is no easy measure for determining the environmental impact from a feedlot permit because of the substantial difficulty and uncertainty in estimating emissions from animal feedlots. See Lightfoot, supra, at 1094 (pointing out that our decision in Holsten “recognizes that certain analyses relevant to climate change, such as determining the impacts of a project’s discrete greenhouse gas emissions or how changes in the climate may affect models used to forecast a project’s environmental effects, are beyond the state of the art”). But although it may be difficult to measure the impact of greenhouse-gas emissions, the MPCA did not offer this as an explanation when it denied the EIS for Daley Farms’ project because it did not consider the issue.
We conclude that the MPCA failed to take a “hard look” at potentially significant environmental effects and its decision lacks “articulated standards and reflective findings.”
If this decision stands, every farmer in Minnesota who wants to add more cows (or other animals, presumably) to his farm will have to pay lawyers to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement that calculates the effect of the additional farm animals on the Earth’s average temperature. I can save them some money: the impact is zero, to however many decimal points you want to work it out to.
Is this a big deal? It certainly is. Daley Farms has been trying since July 2017 to expand its operation. God only knows how much money it has spent already. With the Court’s decision today, Daley Farms will either go several more years, and spend much more money, or else give up on expanding its dairy farm.
The need for endless environmental assessments and filings, and the invitation to lavishly-funded left-wing groups to challenge permits issued by state and federal agencies, explain why we can no longer do anything. We can’t build a dam, we can’t replace a pipeline, we can’t build a power plant (especially a nuclear one). With this decision, we can’t even expand a dairy farm.
Today’s decision from the Minnesota Court of Appeals (which may have been justified by a completely different issue that the Court addressed) should be a wake-up call to all Americans that liberals aren’t kidding when they say they want to prevent us from eating meat, or drinking milk or consuming other dairy products, in the name of “climate change.” The battle has been joined, and if normal Americans don’t get engaged, the Left will win. As they did today.
Again; I’m not anti-Cop. I’m anti stupid Cop. And this one qualifies.
A former Fort Worth officer has been arrested and charged with murder in the shooting death of Atatiana Jefferson, according to jail and court records.
Aaron York Dean, 34, resigned from Fort Worth Police Department on Monday morning. Early Saturday morning, he shot and killed Jefferson, 28, inside her home on Allen Avenue while responding to a call from a neighbor about the front door being open, police said.
Dean was listed as an inmate in the Tarrant County Jail as of 6:50 p.m. Monday night, according to records.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The National Shooting Sports Foundation® (NSSF®) welcomes the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division’s dismissal with prejudice of the Primus Group v. Smith & Wesson, et. al. case. The decision was delivered Oct. 9, brushing aside the frivolous claims against several AR-15 firearms manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, Remington Arms Company, Sig Sauer, Sturm, Ruger & Company, Colt’s Manufacturing and Armalite.
“This decision by the federal judge to dismiss with prejudice this frivolous case is pleasing, if not unexpected,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Public Affairs and General Counsel. “These are lawful and federally-regulated AR-15 modern sporting rifle manufacturers that make semiautomatic rifles for lawful purposes. The judge was absolutely correct to assert that the proper venue to establish public firearms policy is through the legislature and not the courts.”
Primus Group, LLC, is an entertainment venue in Columbus, Ohio. The limited liability company filed suit after the tragic murders in El Paso and Dayton, Ohio. They claimed racketeering, intentional misrepresentation claims and “a clear and present danger” of all American lives due to “assault weapons.” The modern sporting rifles manufactured and sold by the companies named as defendants are semiautomatic rifles, meaning one round is fired for each trigger pull.
The court found the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case against the defendants. This decision rightfully asserts that those who purposefully and criminally misuse firearms are the ones who are responsible for those crimes. It further affirms that activist lawsuits to prompt judicial action are not the proper avenue to establish policy.
They couldn’t find enough support for their initiative petition, so now they try lawfare. There is a solution for this kind of crap, but we’re not at the point where it’s palatable…..yet.
OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A Democratic state representative from Oklahoma City and other advocates for more restrictive gun laws filed a lawsuit Monday challenging a new Oklahoma law that will allow people to carry firearms without a background check or training.
State Rep. Jason Lowe sued in Oklahoma County, arguing that the law violates a state constitutional requirement that bills deal with only one subject matter.
“This fight is far from over,” Lowe said at a news conference. “We believe this law is dangerous.”
Dubbed “constitutional carry” by its supporters, the bill signed by Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt would allow most adults to carry firearms, concealed or openly, without the currently required background check or training. Exceptions would include anyone in the country illegally or those convicted of certain crimes. Firearms would still be prohibited in certain locations, including public buildings, schools, professional sporting events, casinos and bars. The bill, which was the first Stitt signed into law, is scheduled to take effect Nov. 1.
Lowe and other advocates for tighter gun laws already fell short of gathering enough signatures to send the issue to a vote of the people.
In the lawsuit, attorneys for Lowe and the other plaintiffs argue that the bill deals not just with carrying firearms, but also with self-defense, a campus weapons ban, the transportation of firearms, preemption and other subjects.
“In short, like the numerous acts of the Legislature that have previously been struck down for violating the single-subject rule, HB 2597 addresses ’multiple subjects that are not germane, relative and cognate to a common theme and purpose,” the lawsuit states.
Stitt’s office declined to comment while the lawsuit is pending.
One of the law’s biggest proponents, Don Spencer, executive director of the Oklahoma Second Amendment Association, said he believes Lowe’s attempt is a last-ditch effort to derail the law and that it will ultimately fail.
“We’re considering it kind of a Hail Mary attempt, and we’re confident the attorney general’s office will deal with it appropriately, and constitutional carry will go into effect on Nov. 1, as scheduled,” Spencer said.
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today cheered the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to move forward with a case that challenges a New York City gun law that was so restrictive the city amended it, and then tried to get the high court to dismiss the case.
“We’re delighted that the Supreme Court will move this important case forward,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief in support of overturning this egregious attempt to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. We are confident that the high court will ultimately rule in favor of Second Amendment rights.”
The city scrambled to change the law once the court decided to accept the case for review earlier this year. The challenge is brought by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association.
“It’s outrageous that the city has furiously tried to derail this case by changing the law,” Gottlieb stated. “That says volumes not only about the city’s fear of having to defend their restrictive gun control law before the court, but it also suggests to us that the city knew all along their law would not pass the constitutional smell test under any level of scrutiny, and they panicked.
“New York, and other state and local governments, have been getting away with adopting ridiculously oppressive gun regulations because lower courts have thumbed their noses at previous Supreme Court rulings in favor of the Second Amendment,” he added.
“Equally outrageous, if not moreso,” Gottlieb observed, “was the attempt by Capitol Hill Democrats led by Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse to bully the high court by filing a brief to dismiss the case or face the possibility that Democrats would pack the court. How dare Whitehouse and his associates attempt such coercion. We’re proud of the Supreme Court justices for ignoring this threat to their independence as a separate branch of government.
“The Democrats’ political demagoguery obviously backfired, and rightly so,” he said. “It just might cost them in November 2020.”
NYSRPA v. NYC: Mootness Denied It’s going to trial.
18-280 NY STATE RIFLE & PISTOL, ET AL. V. NEW YORK, NY, ET AL. 10
The Respondents’ Suggestion of Mootness is denied. The question of mootness will be subject to further consideration at oral argument, and the parties should be prepared to discuss it.
In a much-needed victory for election integrity a judge has upheld Iowa’s voter identification law, rejecting claims by a leftist open borders group that the measure is unconstitutional because it makes it harder for minorities to cast ballots. When the group, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), filed the lawsuit, the head of its Iowa chapter referred to the state’s voter ID law as “an attack on the Latino community” that places many restrictions on the right to vote. He also said the measure, passed in 2017, is a form of “voter suppression.”
Under the law Iowans must present a valid form of identification before voting in elections. Acceptable IDs include a driver’s license, non-operator’s license, passport, military ID, veteran’s ID or state-issued voter card. Voter ID laws are created to prevent election fraud and 35 states have enacted them, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled on the issue. In 2008 the high court upheld Indiana’s Voter ID law, ruling that the state’s interest in protecting the integrity of the voting process outweighed the insufficiently proven burdens the law may impose on voters. “There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” the nation’s highest court wrote in its decision. Even the famously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of voter ID laws. In a decision involving Arizona’s measure, the federal appellate court found that the “photo identification requirement is not an invidious restriction” and does not violate the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause.
Yet states continue to spend a fortune defending their voter ID measures in court, mostly against leftwing groups that assert they discriminate against minorities and the poor. LULAC filed its Iowa lawsuit in 2018 and the case went to trial this year, around the end of June. The Latino civil rights group claimed the law makes it harder for certain citizens—especially minorities—in Iowa to vote and that it violates sections of the state Constitution that guarantee the right to vote, due process, equal treatment under the law and freedom of speech. The defendant is Iowa’s Secretary of State, Paul Pate. The Polk County District Judge, Joseph Seidlin, who presided over the case wrote in his decision that “for the vast majority of eligible voters in Iowa, the voter identification requirement poses no real burden. They either present a driver’s license or nonoperator’s identification card which they already have, or a voter ID card which they either have or can easily obtain for free.” Seidlin also found that the evidence presented in his courtroom failed to demonstrate what LULAC alleged; that the burden on young, old, female, minority and poor voters to show an approved form of identification at the polls is greater than the rest of the population.
Pate, Iowa’s Secretary of State, applauded the court for upholding the principles of Voter ID and election integrity. “My goal has always been to make it easy to vote, but hard to cheat,” Pate said in a statement following the ruling. “Iowans have overwhelmingly voiced their support for Voter ID and this law ensures voters will be asked to provide identification before casting their ballot.”
Remember last month when San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed a resolution declaring the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization and ordered city employees to “take every reasonable step to limit” business interactions with the NRA and its supporters? The one that our David French labeled “a retaliatory public attack on constitutionally protected speech”?
In a formal memo to city officials, San Francisco mayor London Breed declared that “no [municipal] department will take steps to restrict any contractor from doing business with the NRA or to restrict City contracting opportunities for any business that has any relationship with the NRA.”
The memo declares, “resolutions making policy statements do not impose duties on City departments, change any of the City’s existing laws or policies, or control City departments’ exercise of discretion.”
“Through these actions and our public advocacy, we hope the message is now clear,” NRA CEO and executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said in a released statement. “The NRA will always fight to protect our members and the constitutional freedoms in which they believe.”
“The memo serves as a clear concession and a well-deserved win for the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution,” says William A. Brewer III, partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselors and counsel for the NRA. “It is unfortunate that in today’s polarized times, some elected officials would rather silence opposing arguments than engage in good-faith debate. The NRA – America’s oldest civil rights organization – won’t stand for that.”
The NRA is challenging a similar law passed by the Los Angeles city council that requiring city contractors to disclose any ties they have to the gun-rights group. Back in August, a federal judge denied a request by the city to dismiss the suit.
Well, that’s going to cut into their vacation plans.
A federal court ruled University of Iowa officials must pay out of their own pockets for discriminating against a prominent Christian student group, calling the university’s conduct “ludicrous” and “incredibly baffling” during a hearing last week.
Judge Stephanie M. Rose of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa ruled Friday that the University of Iowa and its officers violated constitutional law when they kicked InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, and other religious groups, off the campus in June 2018 for requiring leaders to uphold Christian beliefs — but giving a pass to secular student groups that also have leadership requirements.
In “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh,” Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly report that Leland Keyser —who was unable to corroborate high-school friend Christine Blasey Ford’s allegation of youthful sexual misconduct—says she felt pressured by a group of common acquaintances to vouch for it anyway. The book quotes an unnamed male member of the group suggesting in a text message: “Perhaps it makes sense to let everyone in the public know what her condition is”—a remark the reporters describe as reading “like a veiled reference” to Ms. Keyser’s “addictive tendencies.” (The authors quote her as saying she told investigators “my whole history of using.”)
A concerted effort to mislead the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Senate, especially if it involved threats to potential witnesses, could violate several federal criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. 1001 (lying to federal officials), 18 U.S.C. 1505 (obstruction of official proceedings) and 18 U.S.C. 1622 (subornation of perjury). Investigating and, if the evidence is sufficient, prosecuting such offenses would deter similar misconduct in the future.
The biggest Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court in nearly a decade, explained
Gun control supporters are desperate — and have already taken drastic steps — to get the Supreme Court to dismiss this case.
Last January, the Supreme Court announced that it would hear New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, the first major Second Amendment case to be heard by the Supreme Court in nearly a decade — and also the first since Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement shifted the Court dramatically to the right.
The case centers on an unusual — and recently changed — New York City rule that limited where gun owners with a certain kind of permit were allowed to bring their guns.
Gun control advocates, including policymakers in both New York City and the New York state legislature, fear a big loss in the Supreme Court and are desperate to make the case go away. Indeed, New York City changed their gun rules after the Supreme Court announced it would hear the case, and state legislators enacted a new law forbidding the city from bringing back the old rules — all in the hopes of obviating the need for the Court to weigh in. Because the legal controversy between the city and the plaintiffs is now over, the city asked the Court to dismiss this case as moot.
The justices are scheduled to discuss whether to dismiss the case at their October 1 conference……………..
Why gun rights advocates have so much to gain
A few months before his death this summer, retired Justice John Paul Stevens offered a surprisingly candid window into the Court’s internal deliberations.
In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. The Court split along familiar ideological lines, with Kennedy joining his fellow conservatives in the 5-4 majority.
Heller, however, was hardly a total victory for advocates of gun rights. Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion is riddled with caveats. Heller suggests that “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” all remain valid, as are bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
In a November interview with the New York Times’ Adam Liptak, Stevens revealed that Kennedy asked for “some important changes” to Scalia’s original draft of the Heller opinion. At Stevens’s urging, Kennedy requested language stating that Heller “should not be taken to cast doubt” on many existing gun laws. Without Kennedy’s intervention, in other words, Heller may not have included the important language limiting the scope of the Second Amendment.
But Kennedy is gone. And his replacement, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appears very eager to expand gun rights.
Shorter after Heller was decided, the District of Columbia’s government passed legislation banning semi-automatic “assault weapons” and requiring gun owners to register their firearms. Dick Heller, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s Heller decision, also led the challenge to this new gun law, and the case — Heller v. District of Columbia — was eventually heard by a panel of three Republican-appointed judges.
Two of those judges largely upheld the law in 2011 (although they called for further proceedings on the registration requirement). The third judge was Brett Kavanaugh, who claimed that “both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional under Heller.” (This second iteration of the Heller litigation was never heard by the Supreme Court.)
And Kavanaugh’s dissent also went even further than that. The future justice did not simply argue that this specific DC law should be struck down. He also suggested that nearly a decade of Second Amendment jurisprudence should be tossed out.
Now you can see why the demoncraps decided that Kavanaugh’s nomination was a hill to die on.
And now you can see why they’re going crazy ape bonkers about impeaching Trump.
Pelosi and the rest of them know too well that they’re not going to get Trump ejected from office. What they hope to do is make the nomination for whoever is going to replace Ginsburg think twice about wanting to go through the same crap and/or also give them some sort of political cover “He’s tainted by being impeached!” if it happens before the 2020 election.
Well, if it’s good for one denomination’s agency, it’s good for the rest.
In a victory for religious freedom, a federal judge in Michigan ruled a Catholic adoption agency that contracts with the state will be allowed to refuse to handle adoption requests that would place children with LGBTQ couples.
The judge pointedly noted that in opposing the agency, the state’s attorney general engaged in a “targeted attack” on the agency’s “sincerely held religious belief.”
The ruling came Sept. 26 in a case cited as Buck v. Gordon, which involved Lansing-based St. Vincent Catholic Charities, along with Chad and Melissa Buck, parents of five children with special needs, and Shamber Flore, a former foster child.
St. Vincent has stated that “as a Catholic organization, [it] cannot provide a written recommendation to the State evaluating and endorsing a family situation that would conflict with [its] religious beliefs.” This means it can’t endorse adoption for “unmarried or LGBTQ couples consistent with its Catholic mission.”
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel was elected Nov. 6, 2018, becoming the first openly gay person to win statewide office in the Mitten State, as well as the first Democrat to hold the post of attorney general in two decades.
Nessel refused to defend a 2015 state law protecting the agency’s religious freedoms because, in her own words, she “could not justify using the state’s money” to defend “a law whose only purpose is discriminatory animus,” Judge Robert J. Jonker of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan wrote in his ruling.
Earlier this month, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled a person charged with misdemeanor domestic battery is entitled to a trial by jury, because the state Legislature in 2017 enacted a law saying someone convicted of such a crime could have their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms denied.
In keeping with a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision, our state’s high court had previously held that only those persons charged with a “serious” crime are entitled to a jury trial, which was defined as a crime carrying a sentence of greater than six months.
The unanimous opinion written by Justice Lidia Stiglich stated the change in state law to prohibit firearms possession by someone convicted of domestic violence effectively increases the “penalty” and makes the crime “serious” rather than “petty.”
“In our opinion, this new penalty — a prohibition on the right to bear arms as guaranteed by both the United States and Nevada Constitutions — ‘clearly reflect[s] a legislative determination that the offense [of misdemeanor domestic battery] is a serious one,’” Stiglich writes in a case out of Las Vegas.
The ruling concludes, “Given that the Legislature has indicated that the offense of misdemeanor domestic battery is serious, it follows that one facing the charge is entitled to the right to a jury trial.”
Attorney Michael Pariente, who represented appellate Christopher Anderson, told the Las Vegas newspaper, “I applaud the Nevada Supreme Court for unanimously doing the right thing. I think it’s a huge decision. They spoke with one voice, and it’s a good day for people who are charged with misdemeanor domestic violence. It forces the prosecutor to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt to a 12-person jury instead of one single, sitting judge.”
But Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford, whose office argued against allowing a jury trial in such cases, put out a statement saying, “The devastating consequences of this decision cannot be overstated. Misdemeanor courts across this state are not equipped for jury trials, and this decision could have a widespread chilling effect on domestic violence victims coming forward. My office is working hand-in-hand with city, county, and federal officials to formulate a response and prevent the domestic violence epidemic in this state from further devastating our communities. The most immediate priority for my office is doing whatever it takes to ensure more people are not killed by their abusers as a result of this decision.”
Frankly, we have to ask: Why did it ever come to this?
The Webster’s definition of “all” is: “the whole amount, quantity, or extent of; every member or individual component of; the whole number or sum of; every.”
You see, Article 3, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution states: “The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury …”
The Sixth Amendment reads: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury …”
The Nevada Constitution says: “The right of trial by Jury shall be secured to all and remain inviolate forever …”
How the U.S. Supreme Court decided “petty” crimes do not warrant a trial by jury is beyond our feeble minds, but in any case the Nevada high court is to be applauded for deciding that the denial of the fundamental right to bear arms constitutes a serious matter and deserves a trial by a jury of one’s peers. — TM
SAN FRANCISCO, CA (September 24, 2019) — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important legal brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the State of California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. The brief is available online at FPCLegal.org………
The brief argues that so-called “large-capacity” magazines are inherent components of functional firearms; that they are constitutionally protected because they are “in common use” for lawful purposes; and that because they are constitutionally protected, they cannot be banned.
“This case presents the type of Second Amendment challenge the Supreme Court has ruled on more than any other: a challenge to a prohibition on particular arms. And the Court’s precedent is clear: if the arms are commonly owned by law-abiding citizens, they cannot be prohibited,” said FPC Director of Research and brief lead author, Joseph Greenlee. “Evidence presented in this case shows that over 100 million magazines of the type that the State of California bans are owned in America. It is therefore indisputable that the magazines are common, and as such, their prohibition violates the Second Amendment.”
From a 9th Circuit dissent by Judge Alex Kozinski:
Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted……… When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases —or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text………But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.
A certain man was quoted about the lawyers of the time that would “strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.” if either would advance their agenda.
It was not seen as being to their credit.
Even today, we are still afflicted with such hypocritical jurisprudence.
In a talk at Brigham Young University, Justice Neil Gorsuch denied that the Supreme Court is split along partisan lines. Chief Justice Roberts has made a similar denial. He disputes the idea that there are Obama judges and Trump judges.
Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative jurist who would like to join Gorsuch on Roberts on the Supreme Court, has echoed the Chief Justice’s view. At a conference at the College of William & Mary, she said: “The chief justice, I think, articulated what members of the judiciary feel.”
Gorsuch, Roberts, and Barrett are all presenting a myth. The Supreme Court is sharply divided along partisan lines. It’s true that some of the Republican appointees can be quirky in their votes at times. However, the four Democratic appointees vote as a block in the vast majority of controversial cases. And in these cases, at least four of the five Republican appointees typically line up on the other side.
The same pattern applies at lower levels of the federal judiciary. Do Gorusch, Roberts, and Comey think it’s a coincidence that leftist lawyers invariably want to bring their cases before Democratic appointees on the West Coast?
When I practiced law, I could almost always accurately predict how the tough the sledding would be in a non-frivolous civil rights case, for example, the minute I ascertained whether the district court judge had been appointed by a Republican or a Democrat. And this was in a less partisan environment than the one that exists today.
Why, then, do brilliant judges like the three mentioned above insist on the fiction of non-partisanship? One reason is that judges, and Justices in particular, want to believe they and their institution are special. Naturally, they chafe at the notion that they are just politicians in robes. There’s nothing special about that status.
Judges and Justices also want their decisions to be respected. If they are little more than politicians, there’s no reason to respect what they say.
A judge has dismissed more of the bogus charges against Sandra Merritt, who helped expose Planned Parenthood’s sales of aborted baby parts along with David Daleiden.
Judge Christopher Hite of the San Francisco Superior Court has already dismissed one and a half of the 15 felony criminal charges brought against Sandra Merritt by California Attorney General Xavier Becerra for her undercover journalism work which exposed Planned Parenthood’s trade in baby body parts. The statute of limitations has run out on these dismissed charges so they cannot be brought again.
The undercover videos, most of which were recorded at the National Abortion Federation’s (NAF) 2014 and 2015 abortion convention and trade shows, exposed Planned Parenthood’s illegal involvement in harvesting and selling aborted baby body parts to companies such as StemExpress. The recordings capture Planned Parenthood executives haggling over the prices of baby body parts, picking through bloodied arms and legs of aborted babies in a pie tray, and discussing how to alter abortion methods to obtain better body parts for sale.
Merritt and Merritt’s co-defendant, David Daleiden, the founder of the Center for Medical Progress, are the first undercover journalists to be criminally prosecuted in the history of the state. As Liberty Counsel defends Merritt, no other citizen journalist or journalism organization has ever been charged with a crime for undercover recordings made in the public interest.
During the two-week preliminary criminal hearing, Judge Hite dismissed the charge regarding “Doe 8,” an abortion professor at a taxpayer-funded, public university, who never showed up to testify last week.
The other charge concerned two alleged events with “Doe 9,” a Planned Parenthood doctor. However, half of that charge was dismissed since the attorney general’s office never played the video in court of the alleged incident on April 8, 2014.
Free speech and religious liberty are on a winning streak. Last month the Eighth Circuit Court of appeals ruled that Christian wedding photographers could not be compelled to use their artistic talents to help celebrate same-sex weddings.
Today, the Arizona Supreme Court reached a similar holding, this time on behalf of Christian calligraphers and painters Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski. The case, brought by my friends and former colleagues at the Alliance Defending Freedom, is similar to multiple other wedding vendor cases.
The plaintiffs do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (they happily serve gay customers). They merely refuse to produce art that advances ideas they find objectionable.