Another rogue judge ruling, not on the law, not on the constitution, but on his (and Obama’s) personal feelings and agenda.
A few days before the travel ban v2.0, President Obama met with the judge, a former Harvard Law School classmate, while vacationing in Hawaii. Then miraculously, 2 hours after the temporary travel ban was issued, this judge comes up with a 34 page law-less opinion issuing a stay.
Echoes of the politicized DOJ are clear in the court system too. Time to get the impeachment train running. When we lose the rule of law, we lose the country.
President Trump, not one to accept insubordination by someone refusing to do their job for obvious political reasons, fired Sally Q. Yates, the acting Attorney General appointed by President Obama.
Dana J. Boente, who was appointed by President Trump this evening to serve as acting Attorney General, tonight issued the following guidance to the men and women of the department:
On January 30, 2017, Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates issued a memorandum barring Department of Justice Attorney’s from presenting arguments in defense of the President’s January 27, 2017, Executive Order entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States.” At approximately 9:00 p.m., I was asked by the President to serve in the capacity of Acting Attorney General. After having dedicated the last thirty-three years of my life to this Department, I am humbled and incredibly honored to serve as Acting Attorney General. Based upon the Office of Legal Counsel’s analysis, which found the Executive Order both lawful on its face and properly drafted, I hereby rescind former Acting Attorney General Sally Q. Yates January 30, 2017, guidance and direct the men and women of the Department of Justice to do our sworn duty and to defend the lawful orders of our President.
No. It’s not over for Hillary and her email handling. And that’s a good thing.
In a new legal development on the controversy over former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails, an appeals court on Tuesday reversed a lower court ruling and said two U.S. government agencies should have done more to recover the emails.
Sooner or later, she needs to put her hand on the bible and speak under oath. The same as would happen for anyone else who mishandled national security details.
Equal justice under the law is what this country is all about. Letting one go while prosecuting others? “That’s not who we are.” Right Hillary?
Illegal immigration and the burden it has on Americans has come to the fore again because of Pres-elect Donald Trump’s promise to end Sanctuary Cities.
Trump has said he will withhold Federal funding to cities that harbor illegal aliens and refuse to enforce current immigration laws. It is hoped that the threat of doing without would, ostensibly, be enough to convince those city governments to comply with federal immigration laws.
There are two other options available that have not been discussed yet. And one of which has already been done by the Obama administration and upheld by the Supreme Court.
The second option is to do to the Mayors and their Chiefs of Police what the Obama Justice Department did to Arizona. You go into Federal Court and get a Federal Judge to issue a Court Order. You force them to comply with Federal law. Virtually every federal judge will rule, based on the Supreme Court’s own precedent, and President Obama in particular, that it has plenary power in this regard, and that states and cities don’t have authority to nullify federal statutes. Then if a Mayor defies a federal court order, the Mayor will be held in contempt of court and go to jail. That’s the legal strategy that could be put into place, in one city after another. You specifically punish these mayors, you specifically punish these police chiefs and city council members if necessary. Get them held in contempt of court, criminal contempt, until federal immigration laws are enforced.
The third option. Sanctuary City Officials should be considered Seditious. Any elected or appointed official refusing to comply with federal law based solely upon their own ideological opinion, or encouraging the same of others, should be considered for arrest and indictment for sedition. It is one thing for state and local authorities to announce that there is insufficient resources to fully comply with the law of the land. But to declare for reasons exclusive to one’s own ideological opinion that they will not comply is indicative of an “insurrection against established order” and “incitement of discontent to lawful authority.”
The existence of Sanctuary Cities is one of the ‘welcome mats‘ to be pulled, if we are to ever get control of immigration. Equal justice under the law is not an option. Neither Hillary Clinton, nor city officials should be exempt.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a bid by North Carolina to reinstate for November’s elections several voting restrictions, including a requirement that people show identification at the polls. So, by virtue of a 4-4 tie in the Supreme Court, the lower court ruling stands.
South Carolina started 4 years ago to require a photo ID to vote, to ensure the integrity of one person, one vote. A right already extended to voters in Florida and 29 other states.
According to the NYT, opponents of the South Carolina election law (all Democrats) their reason to oppose it is . . .
its provisions deliberately “target African-Americans with almost surgical precision” in an effort to depress black turnout at the polls.
The “restrictions” the Democrats contend “target” Blacks are . . .
voters must present photo identification at the polls, even though there is an affidavit alternative for voters without a photo ID.
no same-day registration, registering to vote on Election Day, and
no registering to vote before being old enough (18) to vote
early voting via absentee ballots
The way the Democrats use the justice system to suit their political agenda (as opposed to the Constitution) is obvious. It also shines the light on the fact that they only care for Blacks when it comes to their vote. Something you’ve heard from republicans, including Donald Trump.
Looking behind their whole premise, is that Blacks are incapable of following voting rules. As an American, that bigotry offends me. They also contradict themselves. If 364 days before an election isn’t enough time to register, and early voting via an absentee ballot is not enough time to vote, then how is it that “same day” registration is even an issue?
Bottom line here, what Democrats fear most is a fair voting process that insures the integrity of one person, one vote. And, they’re using Blacks as their vehicle to get them there.
The Supreme Court today handed President Obama a defeat in his executive amnesty (DAPA & DACA) order. Because the court was tied 4-4, the decision of the lower court stands.
It was a victory. But it wasn’t good. What’s not good about it is that it wasn’t an 8-0 decision. This wasn’t an immigration issue. This was a separation of powers issue. And that there were 4 Justices who thought it was OK for the Executive Branch to make law is disastrous.
Article 1 of the Constitution establishes the Legislative Branch. That’s where laws are made. Article 2 of the Constitution establishes the Executive Branch. That’s where laws are enforced. Article 3 of the Constitution establishes the Judicial Branch. That’s where laws are interpreted when the need arises. That’s the way it’s supposed to work.
Imagine what would happen to the country if Obama could pick just one more Justice? It’s over. There is no “sick and tired” clause in the Constitution like Obama seems to think. If he can’t get Congress to pass laws that he likes, that does not give him the power to abuse his power to write a law he wants.
The Founding Fathers were careful to set up these three, separate but equal branches of government. They lived what a tyrannical government was like in the Crown. They also knew that if any two, or all three, branches of government ceased to be separate, where one branch assumed the role of another, that would be the definition of tyranny.
This where we are today. And that’s why the Founding Fathers provided for the Article V Convention of States. That is the safety valve to put the States, the people, back in power when the government turns tyrannical.
Fascinating to watch just what a cover-up looks like. Cover-up combined with a major case of CYA. How’s that go again? If you have nothing to hide, just answer the questions. All of them. This video is a re-enactment of the deposition of Cheryl Mills, who was the a lawyer for both the Clinton’s. Representing Bill Clinton during the impeachment chapter of his presidency, and, was Hillary’s Chief of Staff while she was Sec. of State.
The reason that this is a re-enactment, instead of the real audio/video recording is because the judge, U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, has sealed them from the public until such time as he may change his mind. What? Ostensibly it seems, not until after the November election. Here is his order on release of the audio/video public record.
Notice how this judge is obviously making political, not legal, judgements in his decision. And where is the cacophony of media analysis and calls for this judge’s impeachment like we are hearing about the judge who gave a rapist a 6 mo. jail term? Like the judge hearing the Trump U. case is politically tied to his party, his LaRaza affiliated lawyer club, and the La Raza agenda. Something, to be honest, he should recuse himself from that case for. Not because it has anything to do with Trump University, but because he is an advocate for everything that Trump as president wants to stop, where illegal immigration is concerned.
Judge Sullivan is inserting his political beliefs into his legal obligation as a judge. That’s why it is our/your obligation to spread the word about not only Judge Sullivan enabling, but the extent Hillary Clinton’s staffers go to shield her and cover their own butts. When the mainstream media won’t, the alternative media must.
No ‘blind justice’ from this Justice Department. If AG Loretta Lynch’s criteria were income-based, she at least could make a case for leniency. But, typical of this administration, it is race-based.
And, if you disagree with a racial preference application of the law, then you must be a racist. See? So how’s that ‘post-racial’ administration working out?
There is empirical evidence that the ‘reform’ of the type Lynch wants will only exacerbate the crime problem. Typical of liberals like her, they never look at the consequences of their policies beyond their intentions. Also typical is that the “fix” makes matters worse. Worse for the people she portends to help.
This new court “reform” will only exacerbate the crime problem. Studies show ignoring low-level crimes like warrant violations only leads to bigger crimes.
That there is improvement to be made in the criminal justice system is obvious. For example, it makes no sense to levy a fine while at the same time suspending a driver’s license for an offense that had nothing to do with driving. And without transportation, you lose your job, making paying the fine impossible. Creating unemployment, poverty, and government dependence. Is that what we want of our justice system?
Many of the cities with the highest fines, such as Philadelphia, are run by Democrats; and the Justice Department is no piker when it comes to levying fines.
“US attorneys always want fines and restitution amounts in the millions from people who have little chance of ever paying it back,” the department official said.
Liberals are actually to blame for the trend they’re trying to reform. Court fines and fees help pay for all the new costs liberals have added to the system, such as drug counseling and home electronic monitoring. They’ve also pushed judges to assess more fines in lieu of incarceration, especially for drug offenders.
Yet now they claim the whole court fine and bail system is racist.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld a May injunction by a Texas court, dealing a blow to Obama’s plan to circumvent Congress, the only body that can make or change immigration laws.
At the same time, the court affirmed what President Obama said, no less than 22 times. He has no authority to take unilateral action on Immigration.
March 31, 2008: “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to … not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President…”
May 19, 2008: “I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.”
May 5, 2010: “Anybody who tells you … that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn’t been paying attention to how this town works.”
July 1, 2010: “[T]here are those … who have argued passionately that we should … at least ignore the laws on the books… I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.”
October 14, 2010: “I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there.”
October 25, 2010: “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. … I can’t just make the laws up by myself.”
March 28, 2011: “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law.”
April 20, 2011: “I can’t solve this problem by myself. … I can’t do it by myself.”
April 29, 2011: “Some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works”
May 10, 2011: “They wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works.”
July 25, 2011: “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. … But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”
September 28, 2011: “We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”
September 20, 2012: “What I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do.”
October 16, 2012: “We’re … a nation of laws. … And I’ve done everything that I can on my own.”
January 30, 2013: “I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law.”
January 30, 2013: “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.”
February 14, 2013: “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States.”
July 16, 2013: “I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative.”
September 17, 2013: “My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law…”
November 25, 2013: “The easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. … That’s not our tradition.”
March 6, 2014: “And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore … any of the other laws that are on the books.”
August 6, 2014: “I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers.”