Tag Archives: courts

Backwards

Posted on by
Reply

The headline and lede demonstrate the utter misunderstanding (to the point of cynically offered distortion?) of the press in the ongoing fight between the Left and the Trump administration’s efforts to streamline our bloated Federal government, bring its spending into line with necessarily lowered income tax rates, and revamp our failed immigration behaviors.

Trump Floods Supreme Court With Appeals to Push Through Agenda
A cascade of Trump administration cases is flooding the Supreme Court, putting the justices on the spot over the administration’s aggressive moves to eliminate federal programs, abolish independent agencies, and recast immigration law without congressional approval.

No. Without the Left weaponizing all of our courts with their lawsuits over every step the Trump administration takes, there would be nothing to appeal to the Supreme Court, emergency or otherwise. This Leftist obstructionism is borne solely of their disdain for, if not hatred of, all things Trump, Republican, or Conservative.

Nor is President Donald Trump (R) seeking to bypass Congress with any of his moves. He and his Cabinet Secretaries understand full well that his moves alone cannot be expected to last past the next election of a Progressive-Democrat President. He and his know full well that Congress needs to statutorily codify his moves in order for them to have any durability.

Trump also knows full well that continuing to wait through Congress’ stately political pace will mean nothing continues to get done in any of those milieus and that waiting through the court system’s drawn out judicial deliberation, suit, countersuit ad nauseum will mean not very much will get done.

The businessman simply is moving at the pace of business rather than at the dither pace of politics and judges. That’s to the good of our nation, no matter the gnashing of the Left and its Progressive-Democratic Party obstructors.

We Want our Maypo®

Posted on by
Reply

HHS has terminated or canceled, as the case may be, some $12 billion in grants to the States for health-related programs, and a number of State Attorneys General, led by Arizona’s Kris Mayes (D) are suing to keep the dollars flowing.

Never mind that the grants were Wuhan Virus Situation-related, and that that pandemic is long since ended. HHS made that clear in the cancelation notice:

[T]he grants and cooperative agreements were issued for a limited purpose: to ameliorate the effects of the pandemic. Now that the pandemic is over, the grants and cooperative agreements are no longer necessary as their limited purpose has run out.

This is clear enough. Yet, the AGs perform their artificial hysteria. Here’s Mayes in particular:

By slashing these grants, the Trump administration has launched an all-out attack on Arizona’s public health system—harming the entire state, but hitting rural communities the hardest. These cuts target the very places that rely most on this critical funding

This is risible on its face. There is no attack, all-out or limited, on Arizona. The State’s governing personnel know full well that the pandemic has been expired for some years, and from that, they knew just as well that the Federal funding for that purpose would come to an end. Arizona, et al., have had plenty of time to (re)allocate State funds to those ends, to the extent each State thought those ends still necessary.

The States chose otherwise, and now they’re demanding their never-ending stream of Federal dollars to continue.

We want our Maypo®, indeed.

Federal and State Funding for Abortion

Posted on by
Reply

There is a move afoot in Congress to remove from Medicare reimbursements for abortion, and there is a case before the Supreme Court that will impact States’ ability to remove funding for abortion from Medicaid reimbursements. The removal from Medicare, should it come to fruition, would be entirely consistent with the Court’s Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, which rescinded Roe v Wade and put the abortion question entirely in the States’ hands. Now many States are attempting to act on their newly restored authority—hence the case before the Supreme Court.

It’s true enough that it’s a fraught decision for the mother to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term, but my concern here is for the life of the baby. From this, I see two boundary cases that are especially difficult.

One is where the health of the mother is at risk if the pregnancy continues. In this case, the mother’s health must be weighed extremely carefully against the life of the baby. This weighing may need to occur—must occur?—in open court, with competent, well-trained lawyers speaking for the baby.

The other is a mother’s pregnancy as a result of incest or rape. Carrying the baby to term here is an especially terrible choice for the mother—the pregnant child incest or rape victim may be too physically young to carry her baby to term, in which case, see above. Even where the victim mother can safely do so, it remains an especially terrible choice to carry inside her body a constant reminder of the monster who did this to her. Carrying the baby to term isn’t a matter of the mother’s inconvenience for nine months as some extremists on the right claim—the emotional damage to the mother from that is real, extreme, and often irrepairable.

Conventional wisdom is to permit abortion in the these narrowly defined, and not so often occurring compared to “ordinary” unwanted pregnancies, cases of incest or rape. Conventional wisdom here is not a completely bad bit of wisdom, but I remain concerned: why should the baby have to pay with its life for the crime of another? The baby needs competent, well-trained lawyers speaking for him or her in these cases, also.

It’s also true enough that, while Republicans are attempting to do more to provide fiscal support for those mothers during their pregnancies, in the period surrounding birth, and in the early years after birth (here including adoption options), they need to do better at specifically identifying those needs and then providing for them—and to do so publicly. That shortfall, though, shouldn’t be allowed to impact whether the baby is allowed to live at all.

An Activist Judge’s Pseudo-Concurrence

Posted on by
Reply

The 4th Circuit overruled a District Court judge’s injunction barring the Trump administration from shutting down USAID and allowed the closure to go forward (and the SecState Marco Rubio promptly announced the closure and elimination of USAID effective 1 July).

What interests me, though, is what Circuit Judge Roger Gregory wrote in his “concurrence.” He opened insisting that President Donald Trump (R) had

We may never know how many lives will be lost or cut short by the Defendants’ decision to abruptly cancel billions of dollars in congressionally appropriated foreign aid. We may never know the lasting effect of Defendants’ actions on our national aspirations and goals.
But those are not the questions before the Court today. The question before us is whether Defendants have satisfied their burden for a stay of the district courts injunction pending their appeal to this Court[.]
…
I do, therefore, think that the Executive branch has unconstitutionally invaded the role of the Legislature, upsetting the separation of powers.

Those aren’t the questions before this court, so we have no business addressing them here. But I’m gonna go ahead and do that, anyway, because I gotta have my hype and manufactured hysteria on the record.

Then he closed with this, to give effect to his hype [citations omitted]:

…the Executive has taken many likely unconstitutional actions that, collectively, dismantled an agency, rather than just a single action, does not mean the court cannot render those actions invalid. The sheer number of illegal actions taken necessitates relief that consists of “vast and detailed actions,” to adequately redress the harms caused by the illegal shutdown of a government agency. Rather than “micromanag[ing]” the Executive, the [District] Court was simply attempting to remedy each of the likely illegal actions.
The judiciary is limited to the cases and controversies before it. These Plaintiffs, suing these Defendants, cannot obtain the relief that they seek.

This is the activist judge instructing the plaintiffs in the course of action through which to pursue their own obstruction. This is an activist judge prejudging a future case, and thereby violating his oath of office. This is a judge who insults our judicial system by his presence in it.

The 4th Circuit’s ruling can be read here.

An Irrelevancy

Posted on by
Reply

Greenpeace USA has lost the suit brought against it by Energy Transfer over Greenpeace USA’s role in blocking Energy Transfer’s Dakota Pipeline; the court ruled that Greenpeace USA’s actions in its role were illegal destructions, not free speech. Greenpeace USA then has been ordered to pay $660 million in realized and punitive damages to Energy Transfer.

Greenpeace USA argued throughout the damages assessment process and subsequently that

such a ruling could “shut down Greenpeace USA.”

That argument is indicative of Greenpeace’s cynicism and dishonesty. Whether or not any ruling would bankrupt Greenpeace USA is wholly irrelevant. What is relevant, the only things that are relevant, are these: did Greenpeace USA do the deed(s) alleged? If it did, what is the appropriate award that would make Greenpeace USA’s victim whole, and what constitutes a suitable level of punitive damage? In the latter case, was the damage Greenpeace USA inflicted enough to warrant its bankruptcy?

Notice that the latter criterion is not at all a death penalty. Bankruptcy is a means of reorganizing an entity and its debts (not their cancelation) that allows the entity to recover and prosper. So it is with Greenpeace USA. Which that entity knows full well.