FILE PHOTO: A view of the Houston freeways at I-45 North, with downtown Houston visible in the background September 23, 2005. REUTERS/Tim Johnson/File Photo
One more win. Judge Strikes Down Biden Highway Climate Rule for States. These folks just don’t give up. They continue to throw mud against the wall hoping something sticks.
Last Friday America First Legal (AFL) announced a vital win in the fight for the Constitution and the rule of law when Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel and Judge Staci M. Yandle rescinded their standing orders favoring minority and female attorneys solely based on their race and sex, and apologized, following AFL’s judicial conduct complaint.
AFL’s complaint, dated January 25, 2024, alleged that three judges in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois had issued standing orders mandating preferential treatment for the female and minority attorneys arguing before them, in violation of the Rule for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings 4(a), Judicial Code of Conduct Canon 2(A), and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Whenever we see Affirmative Action, we must fight this evil injustice. It still to this day is a quota tool for Unions who bring in the bottom of the barrel just to say they don’t discriminate.
If not for the Progressive Democrats during the Jim Crow era, we never would have had AA as a poor excuse to correct the racist progressive Democrat policies.
There’s a sad excuse for a person who supports the Arabs and their military wing Hamas. And yes those folks live in Gaza and the West Bank. Well a supporter of theirs is up for a judicial position.
Several Democrats (Mastro and Manchin) will not support the nomination since no Republicans will support this person. This person sat on the board of an organization (Center for Security, Race, and Rights at Rutgers) that “produced several extremist programs, featured speakers with ties to known terrorist organizations, and sponsored lectures brazenly touting antisemitic themes,” National Review said.
Ginsburg delivered the high court’s opinion in Timbs v. Indiana on Feb. 20, 2019, in which she laid out how the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines applies to the states as well as the federal government.
In that case, Indiana police had seized Tyson Timbs’ Land Rover SUV, which he had purchased for $42,000 with money he received from a life insurance policy when his father died. After Timbs pleaded guilty to drug dealing and conspiracy to commit theft, he was fined $10,000 and the state sought civil forfeiture of the vehicle. The judge ruled that taking the vehicle was an excessive fine because it was worth four times the penalty and excessive fines are prohibited by the Constitution’s Eighth Amendment.
The ruling was upheld by the Court of Appeals, but the Indiana Supreme Court overturned it on the grounds that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines only applies to the federal government and not to the states.
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court said that it does, in fact, bind the states as well.
Texas arresting the illegal Democrat voters. Breitbart Texas and U.S. Border Patrol
Supreme Court for now tells Texas to do the job the feds refuse to do. Arrest the undocumented. Looks as if the Democrats will have to figure out another way to get the undocumented to vote.
Supreme Court lifts stay on Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants at border. A 6-3 Supreme Court decision on Tuesday lifted a stay on a Texas law that gives police broad powers to arrest migrants suspected of crossing the border illegally while a legal battle over immigration authority plays out.
Georgia Judge Dismisses Some Charges Against Trump, Beginning of the end? Could this be the start of the cases against Trump are starting to fall apart?
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee wrote in an order that six of the counts in the indictment must be quashed, including three against Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday handed a sweeping win to former President Donald Trump by ruling that states cannot kick him off the ballot over his actions leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — bringing a swift end to a case with huge implications for the 2024 election.
In an unsigned ruling with no dissents, the court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court, which determined that Trump could not serve again as president under Section 3 of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.
The provision prohibits those who previously held government positions but later “engaged in insurrection” from running for various offices.
The court said the Colorado Supreme Court had wrongly assumed that states can determine whether a presidential candidate or other candidate for federal office is ineligible.
The ruling makes it clear that Congress, not states, has to set rules on how the 14th Amendment provision can be enforced against federal office-seekers. As such, the decision applies to all states, not just Colorado. States retain the power to bar people running for state office from appearing on the ballot under Section 3.
By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided any analysis or determination of whether Trump’s actions constituted an insurrection.
The decision comes just a day before the Colorado primary.
Minutes after the ruling, Trump hailed the decision in an all-capital-letters post on his social media site, writing, “Big win for America!!!”
Justice Glenn Martin found the Queensland Police Commissioner Katarina Carroll’s direction for mandatory Covid vaccination, issued in December 2021, to be unlawful under the Human Rights Act.
A similar Covid vaccination order issued by the Director-General of Queensland Health at the time, John Wakefield, was determined to be “of no effect,” with enforcement of both mandates and any related disciplinary actions to be banned.
In his decision handed down on Tuesday 27 February, Justice Martin held that the Police Commissioner “did not consider the human rights ramifications” before issuing the Covid workplace vaccination directive within the Queensland Police Service (QPS).
Temecula Valley High School students walk out of class Friday, Jan. 13, 2023, to protest a resolution that bans the teaching of critical race theory in the Temecula Valley Unified School District. (File photo by Anjali Sharif-Paul, The Sun/SCNG)
Winning for now. California school district’s critical race theory ban, transgender notification policy stand for now, judge rules. In the last election three new board members joined the Temecula school board.
Board members Joseph Komrosky, Danny Gonzalez and Jen Wiersma, elected in 2022 as what was then a Christian conservative majority on the five-member board, voted in for the ban. Board members Allison Barclay and Steven Schwartz, who have often opposed initiatives of the board majority, voted no.
Here’s what I find interesting, and we will see if this will stand. California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued Chino Valley, and a judge last September granted Bonta’s request for a temporary restraining order to block that district from enforcing its policy. In the Temecula case, in which the district’s policy is based on Chino Valley’s, Keen made the opposite ruling.
Yesterday a request to rehear en banc a September 2023 three-judge panel ruling that found California’s ban on gun advertisements in junior sports magazines “likely unconstitutional.”
Second Amendment Foundation executive director Alan Gottlieb commented on the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to rehear the case en banc, saying, “It seems like it has been forever since the 9th Circuit has refused to hear a gun case en banc. Hopefully this is a new trend.”
