Biden’s unconstitutional eviction moratorium

Here comes the dictatorship. When the president openly ignores the rulings of the highest court in the land then he no longer cares about our laws.

Tucker: It’s hard to overstate what a momentous change this is.

Speechless. The CDC no less gives us the final blow.

 

It doesn’t get any worse in the swamp than this.

Thanks Whatfinger News for the link.. for all the news push the button.


Supreme Court Rejects Kansas Effort to Revive Voter Registration Law

 

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected an appeal from Kansas that sought to revive a law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.

There were no dissents. There were no comments.

This won’t effect just Kansas. Pennsylvania requires a birth certificate when one applies for Driver’s license and at the same time one has the option to register to vote. Bet that is the next to go.

If we had high hopes on the Trump Supremes leading us out of the wilderness, think again:

 

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a request to salvage a Kansas law that required residents to provide proof of citizenship when registering to vote, despite pleas from Kansas lawyers and almost 20 red states.

Kansas’s red-state allies used the case to mount a broader attack on a legal test that in their view gives judges too much power in election-security disputes. Former Kansas secretary of state Kris Kobach (R.) championed the law and personally defended it in court against an ACLU lawsuit.

The Secure and Fair Elections (SAFE) Act required Kansans to produce documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote. U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson struck the SAFE Act down in 2018. Robinson said it conflicted with a federal law that requires state officials to use “the minimum amount of information necessary” to determine voter eligibility. She also found the SAFE Act unconstitutional, saying the burden it placed on voters outweighed the state’s interest in protecting elections.

A coalition of 18 red states seized on Robinson’s second finding to push for a bigger change in election law. Relying on two Supreme Court cases from the 1980s and 1990s, federal courts usually compare benefits against burdens when reviewing voting rules. In a legal brief to the justices, the red states argued that approach isn’t objective and leads to inconsistent results. They urged the Court to hear the Kansas case and use it to jettison the balancing test for election laws.

More at  Free Beacon

 

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

House Democrats tell Supremes they are preparing for a new impeachment

 

A small matter apparently that the Dems plan new articles of impeachment. I didn’t see that on breaking news. Ho hum I guess. If I were to connect a dot or two I might say that perhaps Judge Sullivan who is presiding over the Flynn matter may have had a heads up on this one. As stated in the brief to the Supremes:

the possible exercise of improper political influence over recent decisions made in the Roger Stone and Michael Flynn prosecutions, both of which were initiated by the special counsel.

No one much apparently thinks that Sullivan will get anywhere with his acceptance of Amicus briefs due in July, but we have been fooled before haven’t we. Nancy Pelosi was so anxious to get the last impeachment off the ground let’s see how this one goes. At least Nadler is at the helm with this one. I am not sure I could stand to see much more of Bug Eye.

This from Jonathan Turley:

Jerry Nadler

On Monday, the House Democrats filed a brief that with the Supreme Court that the House was actively pursuing new articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump including “the possible exercise of improper political influence over recent decisions made in the Roger Stone and Michael Flynn prosecutions, both of which were initiated by the special counsel.

The argument is meant to justify the continued demand for redacted grand-jury material from the now closed Special Counsel investigation into the Russian collusion investigation.

Thus, the House is arguing that

“The [House Judiciary] Committee’s investigation did not cease with the conclusion of the impeachment trial. … The withheld material remains central to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the President’s conduct. If this material reveals new evidence supporting the conclusion that President Trump committed impeachable offenses that are not covered by the articles adopted by the House, the committee will proceed accordingly — including, if necessary, by considering whether to recommend new articles of impeachment.”

The House specified its continuing impeachment inquiry:

“The Committee’s investigation continues today and has further developed in light of recent events. For example, the Committee is investigating the possible exercise of improper political influence over recent decisions made in the RogerStone and Michael Flynn prosecutions, both of which were initiated by the SpecialCounsel.

See Letter from Jerrold Nadler, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary, et al. to Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector General, U.S. Dep’t of Justice (May 8, 2020),https://perma.cc/799D-2PNY. The Committee has announced its intention to hold a hearing with the Attorney General—who has failed to appear before the Committee at any point on any topic during his tenure—on these issues as soon as possible.”

Here is the House filing to the Supreme Court…

 

More at  Zero Hedge

All is going exceptionally well in the swamp today.

Supreme court rules Baltimore climate change lawsuit against energy companies can proceed

 

The Robert’s Supreme court deals another blow. This time to the energy industry. The Supremes will allow a State court to proceed with an energy law suit at the same time the case resides in the fourth circuit federal appeals court for a ruling on jurisdiction.  The court did not disclose a vote count or reasons for rejecting the request for a stay. Just to show how bizarre this is:

Former Mayor Catherine Pugh decided to move ahead with the case, (2018) despite decisions against similar lawsuits in California and New York only days before Baltimore’s filing. In California, District Judge William Alsup determined in May 2018 that cases brought by the cities of San Francisco and Oakland against energy companies belonged in the federal judiciary, and strongly questioned key parts of the case, including the allegation that energy companies had created a “public nuisance” against an entire community. Rebuking the plaintiffs, he stated, “If we didn’t have fossil fuels, would have lost [World War II] and every other war. Planes wouldn’t fly. Trains wouldn’t run. And we’d be back in the Stone Age.”

Read more

But not the first of this:

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Virginia law that bans mining at the nation’s largest known uranium deposit.

Bloomberg

Sure, why not stop our Uranium production after Hillary was kind enough to give 20 percent of our deposits to the Russians.

The Supreme Court allowed the city of Baltimore to proceed with its climate change lawsuit against two dozen fossil fuel companies Tuesday, after the corporate defendants asked the justices to put the dispute on hold.

The oil and natural gas companies — among them BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell — are fighting to move Baltimore’s lawsuit out of a Maryland state court into a federal court. They wanted the justices to stop state court proceedings while they fight to remove the dispute to a federal forum.

The lawsuit alleges that the fossil fuel companies have engaged in a “coordinated, multi-front effort” to conceal the harm of greenhouse gas emissions that attend the use of their products. The plaintiffs claim the energy industry has been investigating atmospheric carbon accumulation since at least 1958, and has long been aware of its environmental consequences.

After Baltimore lawyers filed their complaint in state court, the corporate defendants tried to move the case to federal court. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander rejected that request. The companies are now fighting that decision in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has yet to produce a decision.

The defendants went to the Supreme Court because state proceedings are slated to continue while the 4th Circuit considers their bid to move the dispute into the federal system.

Read more

A portion of an earlier B-ville post:

Baltimore suit of 26 energy companies for injuries sustained in climate change, heatwaves, continues

In the process, of course, we do untold damage to important industries that we need or want for our country’s wheels to go round. In this case in Baltimore against energy companies.

Another example of this type of action is suing various drug manufacturers for billions of dollars regarding Opioids.  Continuing this course will either bankrupt the companies, or damage them to the extent of limiting the research funds available for new discoveries.

The opioid manufacturers included in the lawsuit are Purdue Pharma, Cephalon, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, while the opioid distributors are McKesson Corp., Cardinal Health, Inc. and AmerisourceBergen Drug Corp. More than 1,800 lawsuits have been filed against opioid manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies.

Read more

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

For the best in conservative news push the button. So much better than Drudge.

 

Chief Justice Roberts will allow Ginsburg to decide cases as long as she has breath

 

Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts is giving Ginsburg a pass unimaginable. The most important court in the land will find its oldest member, who cannot even remain awake at the State of the Union addresses, will be allowed to decide cases from home. Unable to participate in the questioning of those that appear before it, she will simply read transcripts. No doubt her student interns will be filling in for her, prepping her in retaining her radical agenda. In other words, as long as she has breath she will remain on the Court. It was reported that she cast the last vote while under heavy sedation from her hospital bed. Where is the reporting on this?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was on Monday missing supreme court arguments for the first time in more than 25 years, as she recuperates from cancer surgery last month, the court said.

Ginsburg was not on the bench as the court met to hear arguments. It was not clear when she would return to the court, which will hear more cases on Tuesday and Wednesday and again next week.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts said in the courtroom that Ginsburg would participate in deciding the argued cases “on the basis of the briefs and transcripts of oral arguments”.

More at the Guardian

Despite that participation, Ginsburg was not expected to be able to ask questions Monday. That is significant, since Ginsburg is one of the court’s most consistent questioners. Last term, Ginsburg spoke at least once during every oral argument, according to an analysis by Empirical SCOTUS, one of only three justices to do so.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reportedly voted against President Donald Trump’s proposed asylum restrictions from her hospital bed, where she was recovering from lung surgery.

NBC News and NPR reported that Ginsburg cast the vote during her stay at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, where she is recovering after two nodules were removed from her lungs.

“Unfortunately, lung cancer is usually caught in an advanced stage after it shows symptoms, after it has already spread to the lymph nodes and elsewhere, and by then it’s only curable in a small minority of cases,” Dr. John Heymach, chairman of thoracic, head and neck Medical Oncology at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, told NBC News on Friday.

“It’s possible, without knowing the specifics of her case, that early detection because of those broken ribs saved her life,” said Heymach.

She has slept through many of the State of the Union speeches. from some years ago. Here is one of her excuses. Too much wine. Cute.
At a panel discussion on Thursday, Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about nodding off during the State of the Union speech
.
Then we have this special moment.

As Pope Francis rose to address the assembled members of Congress and the justices of the Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s head dropped and her eyelids closed in a repeat performance of January’s State of the Union address.

And just like the time before, it didn’t go unnoticed and people took to social media with their observations, including one that summed it up pretty well: “What an embarrassment.”

Read more

Rosenstein to unleash 300 Federal Prosecutors to vett Kavanaugh

 

Let me give this story a post one last time. Rosenstein says he needs these prosecutors to “review” the documents of Kavanaugh. Why is Rosenstein taking this over? Kavanaugh was vetted when he took his seat on the D.C.court. For the last two years we kept hearing how this fellow had been looked over by the attorneys and everyone else of consequence.

Ah, but here is the story. Kavanaugh has a long rich history with years of documents to pour through and surely a little pay dirt can be found. Does anyone think this will get done in time for the fall election?

First, he was involved in the Bush Florida debacle of vote counting that went to the Supremes. Great. All those documents will be reviewed. Then we have all the years of the Starr investigation.

Lets do Whitewater one more time. Then all those opinions during the Bush years.

Now that will be rich going down that memory lane looking for Kavanuagh misdeeds. After all, that’s what prosecutors do. Hmm I wonder if the prosecutors will look into his handling of Vince Foster death?

We have years with the Bush and his position. All these documents!

A protégé of Kenneth Starr, Kavanaugh played a lead role in drafting the Starr report, which urged the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.[1] Kavanaugh also led the investigation into the suicide of Clinton aide Vincent Foster. (Yes, he was young but was willing to play the game, forget the morality of it and take the hit for the swamp.)

After the 2000 U.S. Presidential election, in which Kavanaugh worked for the George W. Bush campaign in the Florida recount,

Kavanaugh joined Bush’s staff.Prior to his Supreme Court clerkship, Kavanaugh earned a one-year fellowship in the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States, Kenneth Starr, during which he worked on the Whitewater investigation.

After George W. Bush became president in 2001, Kavanaugh served for two years as Senior Associate Counsel and Associate Counsel to the President. In that capacity, he worked on the numerous constitutional, legal, and ethical issues handled by that office. Starting in 2003, he served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. In that capacity, he was responsible for coordinating all documents to and from the president.

Plus there are issues with the 9th circuit where he clerked for a judge that was forced to a speedy resignation. It will be claimed that Kavanaugh knew what was going on.

Few appreciates what this means.  This will turn the election into a total nightmare and kattie bar the door.

They will make sure there is dirt..

I am totally done…..where the heck is Sessions and why did he turn this over to Rosenstein?

The New York Times reported:

 Rod J. Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, has asked federal prosecutors to help review the government documents of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times on Wednesday.

Mr. Rosenstein’s request was an unusual insertion of politics into federal law enforcement. While the Justice Department has helped work on previous Supreme Court nominations, department lawyers in Washington typically carry out that task, not prosecutors who pursue criminal investigations nationwide.

But in an email sent this week to the nation’s 93 United States attorneys, Mr. Rosenstein asked each office to provide up to three federal prosecutors “who can make this important project a priority for the next several weeks.” Names were to be submitted to Mr. Rosenstein’s office by the end of Wednesday.

For more see earlier post:

AG Rosenstein asks Federal Prosecutors to ‘help’ with Kavanaugh paperwork!! WTH!

Flashback: Pelosi claims Supremes did ‘violence to our democracy’

 

Shall we do a Flashback and whatever happened to thug AFL-CIO Richard Trumka? He appears along side Pelosi as she now claims the Supremes are a “violent” sort of thing. So first let’s watch Nancy gin up the crowd and now we know what is ahead of us for one long hot summer. Trumka back in action.

 

Thursday at a press conference, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the Supreme Court’s decision on Janus v. AFSCME, which struck down laws requiring government workers to pay union fees, was “violence to our democracy.”

Pelosi said, “Now, yesterday, they did violence to our democracy by trying to diminish the voices of working people.”

She continued, “That’s not the American way. Their decision does violence to the First Amendment.”

The “Tell” is that she is appearing with AFL-CIO Richard Trumka – let’s do a flashback then.

 

 

AFL-CIO Richard Trumka and the Murder of Eddie York

 

…snip

Take the murder of Eddie York, a nonunion contractor, who was shot in the back of the head and killed while leaving a worksite in 1993. Trumka and other UMW officials were charged in a $27 million wrongful death suit by Eddie York’s widow. After fighting the suit intensely for four years, UMW lawyers settled suddenly in 1997 — just two days after the judge in the case ruled evidence in the criminal trial would be admitted.

Later, as Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO, Trumka pleaded the Fifth Amendment before Congress and a court-appointed election monitor over his role in an illegal fundraising scheme to benefit the Teamsters president Ron Carey’s re-election. Trumka has remained in his position ever since despite an AFL-CIO rule (adopted in 1957) which held that union officials who plead the Fifth have “no right to continue to hold office” in the union umbrella organization.

Read more about Trumka’s history of condoning union violence and corruption in the Foundation’s eye-opening Fact Sheet (PDF).

 

Flashback to 2009. Nancy had a different view regarding rhetoric didn’t she, as we sucked it up with Obama and his policies.

 

 

A comment made on the clip:

Published on Sep 18, 2009
“The Speaker is now likening genuine opposition to assassination. Such insulting rhetoric not only undermines the credibility of her office, but it underscores the desperate attempt by her party to divert attention away from a failing agenda. During one of the most important policy debates of our time, the American people have been completely abandoned by those elected representatives under her control. Voters are justifiably frustrated with Washington, and the Speaker’s verbal assault on voters accomplishes nothing other than furthering her reputation for being wildly out of touch with the American people.” I saw this and had to post it..Where were all her concerns when Bush was in office?..Movies were made about his death. He was called a liar, Hitler, a murderer, dumb, war monger, ect. I guess when it comes to liberals like this moron, dissent against big government is “Racist and un-American”..but its ok when the left does it. When ever the left had there war protests, at least 100-200 people were arrested because of violent actions on their part. At the “Tea Parties” do you know how many arrests were made?….Zero. Nancy, do us all a favor and shut yer pie-hole…

UK: Irish Pastor Faces Prison for “Grossly Offending” Islam

No, this isn’t Pakistan, or some other Muslim country. It is Northern Ireland. Think this can’t happen here? Last week’s Supreme Court ruling sets the table. Keep your eye on this one. Here we go:

An evangelical Christian pastor in Northern Ireland is being prosecuted for making “grossly offensive” remarks about Islam.

Pastor James McConnell of Belfast: “I have no regrets about what I said. I do not hate Muslims, but I denounce Islam as a doctrine and I make no apologies for that. I will be pleading ‘not guilty’ when I stand in the dock in August.”

James McConnell, 78, is facing up to six months in prison for delivering a sermon in which he described Islam as “heathen” and “satanic.” The message was streamed live on the Internet, and a Muslim group called the police to complain.

According to Northern Ireland’s Public Prosecution Service (PPS), McConnell violated the 2003 Communications Act by “sending, or causing to be sent, by means of a public electronic communications network, a message or other matter that was grossly offensive.”

Observers say that McConnell’s prosecution is one of a growing number of examples in which British authorities — who routinely ignore incendiary speech by Muslim extremists — are using hate speech laws to silence Christians.

McConnell, who turned down an offer to avoid a trial, says the issue of Christians being singled out for persecution in Britain must be confronted, and that he intends to turn his case into a milestone trial “in defense of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.”

McConnell’s comments about Islam comprised less than ten minutes of a 35-minute sermon that focused on Christian theology.

The blowback was as swift as it was predictable. The Belfast Islamic Center, which claims to represent all of the 4,000 Muslims thought to be living in Northern Ireland, complained to police, who dutifully launched an investigation into whether there was a “hate crime motive” behind McConnell’s remarks.

McConnell later issued a public apology, but he refused to recant. He also rejected a so-called informed warning. Such warnings are not convictions, but they are recorded on a person’s criminal record for 12 months. Anyone who refuses to accept the warning can be prosecuted, and McConnell now faces six months in prison. The first hearing of his case is set for August 6.

More over at Gatestone Institute with the Pastor’s remarks.

Supreme Court slaps Obama down unanimously once again

Once again the entire Supreme Court knocks down the Obama administration. Funny, this didn’t seem to make the news. This adds up to over 20 unanimous decisions that went against him. His two Supreme picks apparently are not so ready to move to a totalitarian government. Sweet. Here we go:

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must make “good faith” efforts to seek reconciliation before it sues a business for discrimination, under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act. The decision was a strong rebuke to the commission, which had previously asserted that the courts had no jurisdiction over its reconciliation process.

The Chamber of Commerce highlighted the case in a lengthy study published last year that argued the commission under Obama was pursuing a “scorched earth” litigation strategy against employers.The opinion was authored by Justice Elena Kagan, an appointee of President Obama.

The justices struck that ruling down, saying the plain language of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes clear that Congress did intend for the courts to have oversight. “Congress rarely intends to prevent courts from enforcing its directives to federal agencies,” Kagan’s opinion stated.”

Congress imposed a mandatory duty on the EEOC to attempt conciliation and made that duty a precondition to filing a lawsuit. Such compulsory prerequisites are routinely enforced by courts in Title VII litigation. And though Congress gave the EEOC wide latitude to choose which ‘informal methods’ to use, it did not deprive courts of judicially manageable criteria by which to review the conciliation process,” the court ruled in the case EEOC v. Mach Mining.

Read more at the The Washington Examiner

Appeals court unfriendly to Obama’s illegal immigration move

Wins are few and far between these days. But this one would stall Obama and his latest round of illegals’ reward for stopping by. Looks like the Appeals court wasn’t so friendly. Probably going to the Supremes.

Politico reports:

A federal appeals court signaled Friday that it is unlikely to allow President Barack Obama’s request to go ahead with a new round of relief for illegal immigrants, making it likely that the White House will have to take its legal case to the Supreme Court within days.

The oral arguments before the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans were being closely watched by both sides in the heated immigration debate as a sign of whether the administration will be able to move forward with its plan to grant quasi-legal status and work permits to about 4 million illegal immigrants. Notably, one Republican-appointed judge used the president’s own comments to put the Justice Department on the defensive.

There’s more:

Judge Jennifer Elrod. a Republican appointee, suggested that Obama’s own statements about the program undermined the federal government’s claims that immigration officials retain case-by-case discretion. She referenced a televised town hall meeting in Miami in February when Obama said that there would be consequences for government employees who ignored his directives to grant deferred action to those who are eligible.

%d bloggers like this: