Category Archives: Courts

Tension?

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has taken up the question of whether Louisiana’s redistricting effort for its Federal Congressional representation is legitimate, or not. The Just the News‘ news writer, the unusually (for JtN) anonymous “Just the News Contributor,” posed the central question before the Supreme Court:

In Louisiana v Callais, the Supreme Court is confronted with a direct tension between two legal commands: the VRA’s mandate to protect minority voting rights and the Constitution’s limits on race-based decision-making by the state.

There is—or should be—no tension here. Our Constitution says this in Art VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land….

In Marbury v Madison, the Supreme Court made clear that conflicts between statute and Constitution must be resolved strictly and solely in favor of what our Constitution says, and every Supreme Court decision since has hewed to the ultimate supremacy of our Constitution. Any tension can exist only in the minds of activists and activist judges and Justices.

Nor can there be any half-measure wherein some level of race-based discrimination is OK. Any race-based discrimination or “preference” in political gerrymandering is too much and a violation of our Constitution. Here’s the 14th Amendment on the matter:

No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The clause does not say No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, except when it’s convenient to do otherwise.

Full stop.

The Judge Erred Badly

Posted on by
Reply

A Minnesota jury convicted a man and his wife of stealing $7.2 million from the state’s Medicaid program. After the jury rendered its verdict, Minnesota State District Judge (4th District) Sarah West overturned it in its entirety.

In her decision, West wrote that prosecutors “relied heavily on circumstantial evidence,” adding that the state didn’t rule out other potential “reasonable inferences.”

If West really thought that, why did she let the case go to the jury and then let the jury reach its verdict and then read out that verdict?

If West really thought that, why didn’t she, when both sides had rested their cases—or even just when the prosecutor had rested—simply issue a directed verdict of not guilty instead of wasting so much time? Those jurors were private citizens with day jobs, after all. Her claim of other “reasonable inferences” that could have been drawn seem to me would approach reasonable doubt.

Sarah West seems to be a State district judge who does not understand her role as judge or her oath of office.

Arrogance of a Progressive-Democratic Party Politician

Posted on by
Reply

Congressman Adam Smith (D, WA) is the only Party politician, so far, to claim to know of and to identify illegal orders issued by President Donald Trump (R).

Yeah, I think the order to blow up those boats in the Caribbean without any, you know, actual probable cause, national security justification, or any declaration of war or armed conflict by the US Congress, I think it is illegal. That’s a legitimate opinion to hold, and it’s a legitimate opinion to express.

With that, he gives the game away.

It is a legitimate opinion to hold, and it is an opinion legitimately expressed by most American citizens. Military members must get over a much higher bar in order to express their opinions of an order’s legality with a view to disobeying it or encouraging their fellows to disobey it.

The order must be adjudicated illegal, and the military member must be prepared to suffer the consequences of disobedience or of fomenting disobedience should a court determine the order legal. On the other hand, all of us citizens, all of our politicians, can yap away at will without consequence.

Smith’s opinion that an order is illegal does not make it so. That he does not recognize that in the context of the Six’ video those politicians are potentially seeking to foment disorder explicitly in the military ranks—which would be seditious—not in the political ranks, is demonstrative of Smith’s self-important arrogance.

Regarding Illegal Aliens Applying for Asylum

Posted on by
Reply

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case involving the Trump administration’s limitation on illegal aliens’ ability to apply for asylum. The case, Noem v Al Otro Lado, centers on the meaning of “arrival in the United States” within the meaning of federal immigration law: does an alien “arrive” on meeting with immigration officers when the meeting occurs on the Mexican side with no actual entry into the US.

This should be an open-and-shut case. Here’s what 8 US Code § 1158 – Asylum, paragraph (a)(1) says on the matter:

Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

That’s clear. Present in the United States and brought to the United States means inside—being within the borders of—the United States. Nothing more, nothing less. In particular, this statute makes clear that “on the Mexican side” plainly is not inside the United States (to say nothing of the affront to Mexican sovereignty if “on the Mexican side” were taken to mean inside the US.

Section 1225(b) only specifies the process for granting or denying asylum, but this is what its paragraph (a)(1) says that’s relevant to Otro Lado:

An alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.

This is, in its essence, a repeat of the Asylum paragraph above. In the United States explicitly excludes being still on the Mexican side of the border. An alien, illegal or otherwise, must be on the US side of the border—within the US—before he can apply for asylum

Full stop.

The obvious alternative, though, should the Court rule wrongly on this, is to withdraw all US immigration officers from the Mexican side of the border.

Maybe Take the Hint

Posted on by
Reply

Regarding the Georgia case against President Donald Trump (R) from when he’d lost his reelection campaign in 2020 and a slate of alternate Electors was created and offered to the US Senate: Fani Willis brought a criminal case against Trump and others over that alternate slate, never minding that doing so is entirely illegal, if only rarely done. As a result of Willis’ own nefarious behaviors, she was thrown off the case by Georgia courts. Now we have the State’s Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council (the body charged with finding a successor to Willis) Executive Director Peter Skandalakis assigning himself to the case.

His selfie appointment is because of ACE’s

The filing of this appointment reflects my inability to secure another conflict prosecutor to assume responsibility for this case. Several prosecutors were contacted and, while all were respectful and professional, each declined the appointment[.].

Maybe Skandalakis should take the hint. It’s a bogus beef, and he would do well to drop it with prejudice.