The justices refused to halt Florida’s poll tax on ex-felons—and didn’t bother explaining why.

Never Trumpers substitute innuendo and Mueller fabrication for facts about Roger Stone to the very end.

The innuendo that the Trump opponents have peddled in endless media pieces by blowhard mouthpieces like Jeffrey Toobin is that Roger Stone WAS a conduit for the Trump campaign to Russians wanting to assist Trump to beat Hillary Clinton, and Stone refusing to cooperate with Mueller has kept that information under wraps to the benefit of Trump.

THAT IS ALL A LIE. The Mueller Report sets forth the facts revealing this media narrative to be a lie. Toobin is one of the serial perpetrators of this lie.

The FACTS in the Mueller Report show Stone had NO connections beyond 3-4 Twitter messages in August with “Guccifer 2.0”, which amounted to nothing, one twitter exchange with someone on the Wikileaks Twitter account in October which was acrimonious, and one message from the same Twitter account in November that Stone didn’t respond to.

That’s it – there was nothing more. Stone is not, and never was, a link between the Trump Campaign and any Russian effort to influence the outcome of the election. He is not hiding any information in that regard for the benefit of Pres. Trump, and Jeffrey Toobin telling you that is true reveals either 1) Toobin hasn’t actually read the Mueller Report for himself, or 2) Toobin doesn’t understand the significance of what the Report does say. He’s still living the fantasy of what all those “anonymous” former IC community members whisper in the ears of CNN commentators when the lights go down on the set (apologies to James Gagliano).

I think we found something to agree on:

The Stone commutation represents a culmination (if not, necessarily, the final one) of Trump’s efforts to dismantle the legacy of the Mueller investigation.

I would say that the Mueller investigation was a farce, and it deserves the treatment it is getting from Trump, Barr, and other critics. The two most comprehensive indictments — the GRU Operative case and the Concord Management case, were both written with the full expectation that nothing in those indictments would ever need to be proven in a courtroom. When that turned out to not be the case with respect to Concord Management, the SCO tucked its tail between its legs and dismissed the case — folding up its tent altogether not long after. THAT is an embarrassment likely to never be lived down in the career of Jeannie Rhee, the lead prosecutor and Mueller acolyte on that case.

U.S.
Supremes Signal a Brave New World of Popular Presidential Elections
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
July 11, 2020 10:44 AM
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Flipboard

Email this article

Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Elena Kagan prior to the State of the Union address at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., February 4, 2020 (Leah Millis/Reuters)
The Court’s decision in Chiafalo v. Washington seems sure to intensify the partisan fight over the Electoral College’s future.
Whither the Electoral College?

The Supreme Court had its say on the matter during the always-eventful last week of the term. To repeat a contention often made in these columns, the High Court has evolved into an essentially political institution, robed in the judiciary’s apolitical veneer. Given that we are a deeply divided nation, that the late-term cases are usually the most controversial, and that the four left-leaning justices — those appointed by Democratic presidents Clinton and Obama — tend to vote as a bloc in these cliffhanger rulings, one doesn’t expect many 9–0 decisions when the calendar reaches late June (let alone July).

Yet there it was on Monday: Chiafalo v. Washington. At issue was the question of “faithless electors.” Specifically, may a state enforce the pledge it compels electors to make to vote for the presidential candidate who wins the state’s popular vote? The Court’s holding that states have the power to do so was unanimous. Significantly, though, the Court was not of one mind about why.

The case is worth our attention because of what’s been going on under the radar. //

The Court’s decision in Chiafalo v. Washington seems sure to intensify the partisan fight over the Electoral College’s future.

Whither the Electoral College? //

Among the Left’s many transformative projects is the drive to have presidents elected by a national popular vote. The project, known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, would effectively eliminate the Constitution’s Electoral College system. It would reduce the College to a nullity by requiring a state’s electors to vote for the candidate who wins the national popular vote — regardless of whether that candidate loses the state’s popular vote. As Hillary Clinton and Al Gore could tell you, that would radically change how presidents are elected, and ultimately how we are governed.

Earlier this week, DOJ released a letter sent to Sidney Powell, attorney for General Michael Flynn, which accompanied additional pages of investigative materials related to the investigation of Gen. Flynn. Those materials were initially subject to a Protective Order, in place so they could not be released publicly without permission from the Court. Earlier today, those materials, with some limited redactions, were released.

These materials include handwritten notes of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tashina Gauhar taken during a meeting on January 25, 2017, the day after FBI Agents Peter Strzok and Joe Pientka interviewed Gen. Flynn in his White House Office. In her notes, she described the meeting as a “read out” by the FBI on the interview.

According to statements made by then-Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord, this meeting followed the unilateral decision by FBI Dir. Comey to interview Gen. Flynn over the objections of senior DOJ officials, who were not made aware that the interview was going to happen until after Comey had already dispatched Strzok and Pientka to the White House.

Chief Justice Roberts gave two "stealth" wins to Pres. Trump today in the Supreme Court's decisions on subpoenas for his financial records -- he just doesn't know it yet.

'Stay out of religious schools' seems to mean just that //

This is how he demolishes the claim pushed by the Morrissey-Berru and Biel that they did not serve as ministers of any kind:

They were Catholic elementary school teachers, which meant that they were their students’ primary teachers of religion. The concept of a teacher of religion is loaded with religious significance. The term “rabbi” means teacher, and Jesus was frequently called rabbi.

And finally

…When a school with a religious mission entrusts a teacher with the responsibility of educating and forming students in the faith, judicial intervention into disputes between the school and the teacher threatens the school’s independence in a way that the First Amendment does not allow.

A Texas Supreme Court ruling issued Friday constitutes a victory for parents everywhere, and especially for this father in Texas.

“We are beyond excited!” the father told us in a Facebook message on Monday. “It’s our 2020 bright spot.”

The case is In re C.J.C., Relator, and it’s one in which the Parental Rights Foundation submitted an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief last December. The legal question was whether a judge could substitute his/her own version of what’s in “the best interest of the child” for the parent’s decision if the parent has not first been found unfit.

That sounds like a no-brainer, and to us it was. But the details of the case are the sort that many could find confusing.
The Back Story

Abigail’s mother and father had split up, and had a custom mediated parenting agreement. The result was an agreement where each had custody for about 50 percent of the time. Dad had 1st, 3rd, 5th weekends with a few days during the week and mom had 2nd and 4th weekends with a few days during the week. It was a pretty standard arrangement.

In 2017, mom and daughter moved in with Jason. In the spring of 2018 mom and Jason got engaged. Over the course of roughly 10 or so months, Abigail lived with her mother and Jason approximately half the time. Then, tragically, her mother was killed in a car accident in July of 2018.

So here’s where it got complicated.

Are we living in Venezuela now? //

Saint Louis University Lawyer John Amman succinctly sums up their position. The homeowners’ actions “could possibly be classified as assault by putting protesters in fear of their safety…People have a right to threaten force if they are threatened. However, if a group of protesters is walking by a home and not doing anything to the homeowners specifically, then they don’t have the right to threaten lethal force without an imminent threat.”

Let’s get this straight. Amman is concerned that the St. Louis couple who protected their home after a group of 300 BLM members had just entered their private community illegally, may have put members of the mob in fear for their safety. Is he kidding us? //

cogsys
39 minutes ago
The legal analysis is incorrect.

First, he deliberately confabulates the idea of assault as a tort, the civil action, and assault as a criminal action.

Second, the protesters broke into a Gated Community, therefore, TRESPASS has occurred. The presumption shifts, the protesters are no longer in the 'public square', they are in private space.

Further, while these protesters claim they were peaceful, there is plenty of evidence that suggests it doesn't take much to have these 'protests' convert into 'riots.' The Homeowners are permitted to make the assumption there property was dangerous.

If anybody can claim they suffered assault, it is the homeowners. The protesters had already committed a property crime and the homeowners had a reasonable fear they were in harm's way.

What many commentators have missed is that the Bostock opinion provides the basis for the argument that single-sex bathrooms violate Title VII. //

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the six-justice majority. He established a simple “rule” for when sex discrimination occurs under Title VII: if changing the sex of an employee would change the employer’s decision, then the employer has violated Title VII. //

This opinion has been lauded by the left and some on the right as an important step forward for gay and trans rights. What the Bostock cheerleaders who love the decision for its surface-level results don’t realize is the profound difference between a legislative policy change and a judicial policy change. “Legislation” from the courts carries the baggage of the reasoning used to achieve its result, and the contents inside can be volatile and dangerous when the courts finally get around to unzipping them.

Gorsuch’s rule creates problems because it lacks a limiting principle. What many commentators have missed is that the Bostock opinion already provides the basis for the argument that single-sex bathrooms and locker rooms violate Title VII. Even further, Bostock provides the basis for the argument that it is a violation of Title VII to enforce sexual harassment policies that are mandatory under Title VII. //

Bostock demonstrates the bad consequences of a judge’s unacknowledged assumptions about philosophy, theology, and other big ideas. In Gorsuch’s justification-free assumption that same-sex and opposite-sex attraction are literally the “same thing,” he has provided no guideline for how the actions of men and women can ever be distinguished sufficiently to keep women, like those in the locker room example, safe from a man intruding into places like their showers and exposing himself.

What would the solution be to correct for this? Would it be an arbitrary redefinition of some actions as inherently different when men and women do them, but not others that Gorsuch wants to enforce equality for? Would it be a standard that finds no difference between male and female sexual attraction to men, but does find an inherent difference between a man and a woman seeing women nude? //

Justice Samuel Alito described Gorsuch’s appeal to textualism, and the claim that he was reading Title VII as it was written and nothing more, as akin to a pirate ship flying a false flag to get away with plunder. Such a self-serving use of official power for personal policy goals, as would be demonstrated by the Supreme Court scrambling to find asymmetries between men and women only where it would produce a patchwork of desired results, does sound like something a pirate would do.

And it did not involve anyone connected to Donald Trump, the Trump Campaign, or Russia. //

On April 20, 2020, the Supreme Court — at the request of the United States — vacated cert in a case that had been fully briefed and ready for oral argument before the Court. It vacated the case after the Government notified the Court that it had filed a motion under Rule 48(a) to dismiss the indictment in the matter of United States v. Bronsozian.

The curious fact about the motion for dismissal is that it came long after the defendant was convicted at trial by a jury, his conviction was affirmed on appeal, and his case was pending in the Supreme Court awaiting oral argument. //

the Court vacated the granting of cert., and remanded the matter back to the Ninth Circuit for further proceedings in light of the Government’s motion. In turn, two days ago the Ninth Circuit remanded the matter to the district court. //

Defendant was indicted under a tax statute for failure to register and pay a tax on an automatic machine gun he bought from an undercover agent. The problem with the theory of prosecution is that many years ago Congress passed a law saying people could not longer pay, and the Department of Treasury could no longer collect the tax payments on automatic weapons called for in the tax law.

As a result, it has been DOJ policy to charge a different crime with regard to possession of an unregistered machine gun — not the “tax” based crime. It’s hard to put someone in jail for not paying a tax that the law says you cannot pay.

But someone in Los Angeles didn’t get the memo, and in 2016 a federal prosecutor there charged Bronsozian with a crime because he didn’t pay the tax on the machine gun it was illegal for him to pay. //

after consideration of a lot of potential “collateral impacts” of pushing forward defending a tax that is not being collected (ACA sound familiar to anyone?), the Solicitor General decided that the wiser course of action for policy reasons was to abandon the matter, and seek dismissal of the case back in the trial court where the indictment was brought to avoid having the Supreme Court weight in on the legality of enforcing a tax statute in light of a later act by Congress making it illegal to pay the tax (cough — Obamacare — cough). //

JerryS
6 hours ago
Here's from the CATO Institute blog on this case:
How often does DOJ dismiss an indictment while a cert petition is pending, without a confession of error? The solicitor general offered several examples, the most recent of which occurred in 1980. The SG could not find an example in the last 40 years.

Why did the SG take this strange course? Believe it or not, ongoing Obamacare litigation is the most likely explanation. In Texas v. United States, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear but which now likely won’t be argued till the fall, the federal government argues that the Affordable Care Act, which no longer raises revenue, cannot be construed as imposing a tax.

Well, the National Firearms Act no longer raises revenue, because the government won’t collect the payment. Bronsozian argued that his provision cannot be sustained under NFIB v. Sebelius, the 2012 case that upheld the individual mandate after reconstruing it as a tax. As a result, DOJ would’ve had to argue that the National Firearms Act, which raises no revenue, must be construed as imposing a tax, while arguing that the no‐​longer‐​revenue‐​raising ACA cannot be construed that way.

Perhaps the easier path was to simply dismiss the indictment to sustain the Obamacare case. Our kudos to Mr. Bronsozian, and his counsel John Littrell, for securing an unusual win for constitutional governance by forcing the government into that pretzel. //

Lieutenant General Flynn, former National Security Advisor for President Trump, is a national figure. It took all of his personal resources, going broke and finally, through the good offices of a real attorney to finally come close to putting this three-year nightmare to an end (and it ain’t done yet). What do you think would happen to an old, beat down Infantry Colonel, Mike Ford or an an ancient, gray haired Navy Captain, Stu Cvrk in that position? What would happen to any of us folks in flyover country, without Flynn’s resources and national notoriety?

Some time back I wrote about government’s anti-liberty practice of “buying the pot” when going after someone who they really don’t have a case on. Essentially, the government takes advantage of its lawyers on salary, who can file subpoena after subpoena on a subject of investigation. That subject has to then reply to each of these through his lawyer, who of course charges by the billable hour.

This is exactly what happened in the Flynn case. The DC firm of Covington and Burling essentially billed him into penury, forcing him to sell his house. Once Flynn had no more money to pay them, he had no choice but to “fold.”
Again, what if this was you or me? If politically driven Federal or State prosecutors really wanted any of us, it wouldn’t be all that hard to spend us out of the game and into a coerced confession. That is why I disagree with the estimable General Flynn. His bit of promising news today, after a bitter three-year struggle, merely underscored huge issues in our Justice System.

"As the mob rises, civilization recedes." //

Peaceful protests are guaranteed under the First Amendment. Rioting, looting, vandalism, and destruction of private and/or public property is not a First Amendment-protected “right” in any way, shape, form or fashion. //

As all of this has played out, there have been precious few leaders on either side of the aisle who have been willing to step up and say “enough” and to call for action. Tucker Carlson has talked about this numerous times during his opening monologues since the riots started.

“If you can’t tell the truth when the truth actually matters, then nothing you say matters,” he stated last week about people who were unwilling to stand up to rage mobs out of fear of being canceled. //

FortesFortunaJuvat
2 hours ago
It is not the role of government to protect citizens. The role of government is to protect the rights of citizens, to protect and defend the entirety of the Republic, and to ensure representative government within all of the states. The failure of government - local, state, and federal - to enforce existing law against those who are attempting to destroy the United States leaves it to the citizens to not only defend themselves but to defend their way of life.

Unless or until government acts to enforce the laws against those who seek anarchy and destruction then the people are left to rely on themselves to do so.

Regarding Durham’s probe — he said he was shocked at the silence from media on the collapse of Russiagate after all they did to sensationalize the allegations for years. Not even a “whoops” – just onto the next “false scandal”. No expressions of concern about “civil liberties or integrity of governmental processes” as reflected by that collapse. //

Most bluntly he said “This is the closest we have ever come to an organized effort to push a President out of office.” //

Maybe his strongest comments came at the end in discussing China, the CCP, and espionage aimed at stealing US technology.

He described it as a fundamental challenge to US prosperity, which he said has since the late 19th century come as a result of US leadership in technological development. In the last decade or so China has been explicitly pursuing their goal of supplanting the US in that regard.

Barr said what is at stake is nothing less than the economic opportunity of our children and grandchildren, as China will use any advantage it gains over the US in that regard for leverage.

But most significantly, he said the American business community has been a big part of the problem, and Pres. Trump has confronted this problem in ways that no one else before him has done. He said too many US businesses are willing to trade-off long-term viability of their companies for short-term profits, which then allow them to gain and execute stock options and realize personal wealth at the expense of future growth and opportunity.

Berman was free to refuse to sign a letter he disagreed with. But because that letter reflected a policy priority of DOJ, his refusal should have been accompanied by his letter of resignation.

“Independence” – even in the Sovereign District of New York – only takes you so far.

We’ve been watching for it all along, hoping against hope that the System would prove us wrong and somehow behave itself. But we kept watching, because we know what the System is made of.

Sure enough, it finally happened.

“Today in dependency court madness, LA County Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) recommended that the court remove my client’s child from their physical custody after the parent tested positive for COVID-19. This is a non-offending parent. The judge ruled in favor of DCFS and detained.” (emphasis added)

So says a Los Angeles-area attorney in a post on Facebook last week. (We have not yet been able to confirm the case, but the lawyer’s account remains live on Facebook.)

He continues, “Let that sink in . . . DCFS is asking for children to [be] removed from their parents’ custody due to COVID-19 despite the parent making the appropriate arrangements for their child.” (emphasis added)

To be clear, right now we are talking about one child in one courtroom. The family, who we understand are working on filing a writ of habeas corpus to have their child returned, hasn’t had time yet to finish that writ, let alone file for a full appeal.

However, once there is one rotten ruling, it becomes easier for others to follow. //

To state the matter plainly, the government has no authority to remove a child from their private home simply because the child or a parent has contracted COVID-19. This is especially true if, as indicated by this family’s lawyer, the parents have made appropriate arrangements to see to it the child can be taken care of somewhere away from the infected parent.

In such instances, there is absolutely no need for the court to even be involved.

This is not—this will not be—the new normal. Under no circumstances will we stand by while innocent families suffer the humiliating and life-shattering trauma of unnecessary, unconstitutional, unconscionable separation.

Christopher Arash
June 12 at 12:57 PM ·

Today in dependency court maddness, LA County Dept. of Children and Family Services (DCFS) recommended that the court remove my client's child from their physical custody after the parent tested positive for COVID-19. This is a non-offending parent. The judge ruled in favor of DCFS and detained.

Let that sink in . . . DCFS is asking for children to be removed from their parents custody due to COVID-19 despite the parent making the appropriate arrangements for their child.

Edit: To be clear, as the author of this post, I completely support taking appropriate precautions recommended by the CDC to prevent the spread of COVID-19.

#famliesbelongtogether

The ruling will lead to a tsunami of polarizing court cases and further degradation of Americans' natural rights to free speech and religious exercise. //

This is a salient example of what Christopher Caldwell calls the United States’ second constitution, which is at war with its first: the identity politics laws and regulations passed largely since the 1960s in the name of “antidiscrimination.”

“Just as assuming that two parallel lines can meet overturns the whole of Euclidean geometry, eliminating freedom of association from the U.S. Constitution changed everything,” Caldwell writes in “Age of Entitlement.” At the time, it wasn’t obvious how “extra rights” could destroy natural rights. But it is now. //

Given all that has happened after Obergefell v. Hodges, which we were vociferously told was ridiculous to forecast — transgenderism immediately going mainstream, pushing religion inside the closet LGBT people were vacating, limiting people’s ability to freely express their faith and ideas, forcing education institutions to promote LGBT politics and behavior — it’s naive to think such scenarios will not quickly become reality as a result of this court decision. //This decision also cements public schools’ status as social enforcers and subsidizers of far-left politics, as they can have no potential legal defense against a teacher switching genders in front of students, putting boys in girls’ locker rooms and sports, or teaching preschoolers that Heather can have two or even three mommies. Queer theory is now reigning U.S. employment law. This means it must also dominate all institutions of higher education that are not explicitly religious, both public and private. //

All elected officials and candidates need to start being asked in public, on videos immediately posted to social media, why they aren’t doing anything to keep naked men from getting access to naked girls in showers, bathrooms, and locker rooms. Republicans need to be asked how they can tell us to vote for them “because judges” when their Supreme Court nominees just passed an LGBT version of Roe v. Wade that will lead to teaching preschoolers the confusing, anti-science lie that “boys can have girl brains.”

They need to be asked on camera whether they support the Constitution’s unconditional guarantees of freedom of association, freedom of speech, and the freedom to worship, and if not, how they can take an oath of office swearing fealty to that Constitution. They should be asked how they can justify not voting to eliminate Title VII now that the Supreme Court has made it a Trojan horse for forcing lingerie shops to hire men to fit women’s bras and female beauticians to wax a man’s genitals. They should be asked what effective steps they are taking to ensure that taxpayer dollars do not finance genital mutilation, and that medical and therapeutic professionals lose their licenses if they mutilate the healthy bodies of underage boys and girls. //

Fighting this may not work. That two-thirds of our nation’s highest court clearly despise the Constitution and the way of life it protects, and which it is their sole job to defend, may be yet another indication that the United States we know and love is heading into a dark night of oblivion, like all empires before it. If that is the case, however, I’m going down fighting as hard as I can.

Before examining the “separation of powers” argument, there is one point made in the DOJ Brief that has been made only by DOJ – and can only be made by DOJ, not by Gen. Flynn. This argument is not set forth as an independent basis for the motion to dismiss, but is incorporated into the “separation of powers” analysis. I think the issue is significant enough that it warrants separate treatment.

At the top of p.22, the Brief states:

“The Executive Branch is entitled to determine that, based on the circumstances surrounding the interview, it can no longer make the “policy judgement” that continued prosecution serves a substantial federal interest, referring to U.S. Dept. of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.001. //

A bit further down the page, the Brief returns to this issue:

“Although petitioner previously pleaded guilty, it is Justice Department policy that prosecutions should not be initiated – and thus should not be continued – “unless the attorney for the government believes that the admissible evidence is sufficient to obtain and sustain a guilty verdict by an unbiased trier of fact.” //

§ 9-27.220 states:

The attorney for the government should commence or recommend federal prosecution if he/she believes that the person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense, and that the admissible evidence will probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction,… //

These are all INTERNAL self-enforcement policies that belong solely to DOJ to consider. //

So apart from the issues involving “separation of powers” claims, DOJ’s opposition to what Judge Sullivan proposes to do is based on the principle that DOJ has an obligation unto itself to “keep its own house in order,” and to address matters involving internal policy violations when they become known. The SCO was not “independent.” The SCO was bound by all DOJ policies that apply to all other federal prosecutors.

Whether there exists an internal policy violation that requires a response in the form or a dismissal or something else, are matters beyond a discretionary review by the judicial branch.

Online library asks publishers to “call off their costly assault.”