Recent Supreme Court Ruling Says Part Of Pence’s 2016 Indiana Abortion Law Is Bogus

When the United States’ current Vice President was the Governor of Indiana, he signed a law into action that made it illegal for pregnant women to seek out abortions if their physicians anticipate their in-progress children will be birthed with one or more disabilities. At the time, the Indiana law signed by Mike Pence was one of the most restrictive in the United States. The bill also stated that Indiana would not allow abortions sought out because of sex, nation of origin, race, skin color, or heritage.

The bill was called House Enrolled Act 1337, or HEA 1337.

Earlier today, on Tuesday, May 28, 2019, the United States Supreme Court handed down a ruling that part of the aforementioned law could not be legally enforced from now on.

However, fetuses that have already been aborted and who are awaiting cremation must, in fact, be buried as planned.

Although now-former Indiana Governor Pence was all for the bill being enacted, the 7th United States Circuit Court of Appeals blocked it from actually being written into law books. The Circuit Court’s judge who ruled on the case, Judge William Bauer, stated in a written ruing that Indiana’s pending law was unconstitutional.

Earlier today, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas decided not to limit the scope in which pregnant women could pursue abortions today, though Thomas did state that the Supreme Court “soon [needs] to confront” the hot-button abortion issue. It’s not immediately clear when the Supreme Court will tackle this issue. Some experts believe that the ruling won’t happen at any time throughout the next few months, if not year or two – or three.

Others believe that, because the other four right-leaning Supreme Court justices did not agree with Justice Thomas on addressing the issue in the future at the federal level – Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito, John Roberts, and Neil Gorsuch – meaning that Clarence Thomas’ opinion could be exactly that: nothing more than an opinion.

Abortions were first made legal in the United States as the result of the Supreme Court’s ruling on the 1973 case Roe v. Wade, when the highest court of law in the country voted in favor of giving women the right to privacy, effectively allowing pregnant women themselves to decide if they should get abortions, by a margin of 7–2.

This precedent is likely to strike down Alabama’s recent abortion bill, as well as the one Georgia passed.

Republicans Will Have To Pick The Rule Of Law Or The Rule Of Trump According To Hillary Clinton

Donald Trump Jr., the braggadocios son of President Trump has some explaining to do when he sits down in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee. According to Michael Cohen, Don Jr. knew about the Trump Tower Moscow project. Cohen consulted with Don Jr. more than ten times when he tried to make a deal with the Russians to build the largest building in Europe in Moscow.

Don Jr. told the Senate Intelligence Committee he didn’t really know about the project. He said there were no plans and no developer for the project. But Cohen’s testimony disputes Trump’s claims. If Trump lied to Congress in 2017, he could face the same fate as Michael Cohen. Cohen now wears an orange jumpsuit in a prison in upstate New York.

Trump Sr. turn the investment world on its head when he threatened to add more tariffs to the existing tariffs on China products. The Chinese won’t let Trump control the technology sector of their economy by putting restrictions on Chinese companies like Huawei. Mr. Trump wants to win the race for 5G dominance, and China is ahead in that race at the moment. Chinese negotiators are back in Washington, but they want a new agreement. They sent the current 150-page agreement back to U.S. chief negotiator Bob Lighthizer with changes, and that sent Trump into a Twitter rage.

Mr. Trump is not the only person on the warpath in Washington. Congressman Jerry Nadler claims the country is in a constitutional crisis now that Trump shut down access to the Mueller report. Trump wants to stop former White House attorney Don McGahn from testifying. And he wants to stop Deutsche Bank from releasing his financial information to Congress. Trump claims the Democrats want his personal information for political reasons.

The president also claims the New York Times did a number on him when they found his old 1040 tax return transcripts from 1985 through 1994. Mr. Trump’s reported more than $1.17 billion in deductions during that 10-year period. Mr. Trump told the press real estate developers in New York like to claim losses on their tax returns. It’s a sport in the real estate business. But he also said the Times article is inaccurate.

Hillary Clinton gave a speech at Dartmouth College. She didn’t hold back when she told the audience Republicans will have to choose the rule of law or the rule of Trump now that Trump acts more like a dictator than a president.

Read More: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-republicans

 

Judges Rule Against Gerrymandering

A panel of three judges from the United States District Court in Cincinnati, OH ruled this past week that the state of Ohio will have to redraw its congressional district’s map because too much partisanship went into drawing the borders of the districts. Gerrymandering is the process by which the state legislature manipulates the borders of congressional districts in order to make the district a more favorable place for a particular party to win an election.

Ohio has a state government that has been dominated by the Republican Party for a number of years. When the districts had to be redrawn as must be done after every census, the legislature drew the districts so that Republicans could win the most districts by far. This process angered the Democrats in the state as well as other voting rights groups. In order to challenge the new districts, the League of Women Voters and the American Civil Liberties Union brought suit against the state of Ohio.

This week, the judges stated in their opinion that Ohio must redraw the congressional districts before the 2020 Presidential elections. The judges gave the state until June 14 of this year to develop a plan to correct the situation. The state of Ohio was informed that if it could not come up with an equitable plan, the court would be forced to redraw the district maps.

There was a similar ruling about gerrymandered districts in the state of Michigan earlier this year. Also the United States Supreme Court is considering a case regarding the federal courts ability to rule on gerrymandering.

Many legal observers believe that the Supreme Court with its 5-4 conservative tilt will rule that federal courts cannot rule on gerrymandering cases. If this happens, all cases will have to be reheard in state courts, and solutions would have to be worked out on a state by state basis.

Stokeling vs. United States

Introduction – Stokeling vs. United States
The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case that set the threshold lower for sentencing repeat offenders to stiffer prison terms.

The basic question posed in this case was whether stiffer prison sentences should be levied for repeat offenders like Denard Stokeling, defendant in Stokeling vs. the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Basics of the Stokeling Case
Denard Stokeling, arrested in 2014 in Miami Beach, Florida, for robbery of a restaurant. At the time of his arrest, he was asked if he had any firearms or ammunition in the backpack he was carrying.

Stokeling was previously convicted of kidnapping, robbery and home invasion. However, Stokeling’s lawyer claimed the conviction for robbery should not be considered in this case since Florida law does not require sufficient force of victims to constitute a “violent felony.”

Ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-sets-low-threshold-for-sentencing-repeat-violent-offenders-to-stiff-prison-terms/2019/01/15/fde7f3ea-18f1-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?utm_term=.d5bf765fee21

The ACCA (Armed Career Criminal Act) 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1), 1984
The crux of this case included the court discussion on applicability of the ACCA law passed in 1984. As originally passed, the statutes of this law as written are:

“A convicted felon who possesses, receives, or transports a firearm in interstate commerce may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to two years, fined up to $10,000, or both.”

“The second sentence of the statute, the Armed Career Criminal Act of 19843 (“ACCA”), requires that a convicted felon who possesses, receives, or transports a firearm in commerce and who has three prior convictions for robbery, burglary, or both, must receive a sentence of at least fifteen years imprisonment and be fined up to $25,000.”
Ref:https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2793&context=flr

As written in repeal of parts of the ACCA in 2018, the law imposed no maximum term of imprisonment. Upon proof of a defendant’s prior convictions, sentencing of a career criminal should be discussed further.

Supreme Court Ruling
The Stokeling case showed a remarkable division among Supreme Court justices on the basic issue of se

Introduction – Stokeling vs. United States
The U.S. Supreme Court heard a case that set the threshold lower for sentencing repeat offenders to stiffer prison terms.

The basic question posed in this case was whether stiffer prison sentences should be levied for repeat offenders like Denard Stokeling, defendant in Stokeling vs. the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Basics of the Stokeling Case
Denard Stokeling, arrested in 2014 in Miami Beach, Florida, for robbery of a restaurant. At the time of his arrest, he was asked if he had any firearms or ammunition in the backpack he was carrying.

Stokeling was previously convicted of kidnapping, robbery and home invasion. However, Stokeling’s lawyer claimed the conviction for robbery should not be considered in this case since Florida law does not require sufficient force of victims to constitute a “violent felony.”

Ref: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-sets-low-threshold-for-sentencing-repeat-violent-offenders-to-stiff-prison-terms/2019/01/15/fde7f3ea-18f1-11e9-88fe-f9f77a3bcb6c_story.html?utm_term=.d5bf765fee21

The ACCA (Armed Career Criminal Act) 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1), 1984
The crux of this case included the court discussion on applicability of the ACCA law passed in 1984. As originally passed, the statutes of this law as written are:

“A convicted felon who possesses, receives, or transports a firearm in interstate commerce may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to two years, fined up to $10,000, or both.”

“The second sentence of the statute, the Armed Career Criminal Act of 19843 (“ACCA”), requires that a convicted felon who possesses, receives, or transports a firearm in commerce and who has three prior convictions for robbery, burglary, or both, must receive a sentence of at least fifteen years imprisonment and be fined up to $25,000.”
Ref:https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2793&context=flr

As written in repeal of parts of the ACCA in 2018, the law imposed no maximum term of imprisonment. Upon proof of a defendant’s prior convictions, sentencing of a career criminal should be discussed further.

Supreme Court Ruling
The Stokeling case showed a remarkable division among Supreme Court justices on the basic issue of sentencing of career criminals.

In this 5 to 4 ruling, Justice Breyer, a liberal, agreed with four conservatives on the court, while Chief Justice Roberts, a conservative agreed with the three liberals of the court.

Conclusion – The Impact of the Stokeling Case on Similar Future Cases
With the bar set lower for prison sentencing of career criminals, it appears career criminals may face more serious implications for robbery as a “violent offense” as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

ntencing of career criminals.

In this 5 to 4 ruling, Justice Breyer, a liberal, agreed with four conservatives on the court, while Chief Justice Roberts, a conservative agreed with the three liberals of the court.

Conclusion – The Impact of the Stokeling Case on Similar Future Cases
With the bar set lower for prison sentencing of career criminals, it appears career criminals may face more serious implications for robbery as a “violent offense” as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/brett-kavanaugh-rush-to-judgment-on-newest-scotus-judge/

 

Chalking Tires: An Unconstitutional Practice for Parking Enforcement Officers

Is it possible that parking enforcement officers have violated the constitutional rights of Americans? Yes, according to the judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The three judges on the panel recently agreed unanimously that the method is a form of trespass that violates Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

Michigan resident Alison Taylor brought the case due to her frustration about the number of parking tickets written against her. The complainant specifically targeted the city of Saginaw and the officer that had written each of the 15 tickets Taylor received. Taylor’s lawyer, Philip Ellison said that the chalk marks on the tires were a form of trespassing.

Parking enforcement officers chalk tires to determine if the vehicle was moved during their rounds. Taylor and her lawyer believed the marks on vehicles allow the officers to gather information from private property without a warrant. The court said that the chalking does qualify as an unreasonable search because the contact with the vehicle to mark the tire is a form of trespassing without cause.

Alison Taylor was pleased with the result and even happier to think that her actions helped to change a law. The lawyer for the Michigan woman pointed out that free parking is not a constitutional right, but that the Saginaw parking enforcement agency chose a method that violated the rights of citizens. Ellison, however, has filed a class action lawsuit against the city to refund excessive parking fines and fees for the previous three to six years, based on what a judge declares allowable.

Alternatives for how to constitutionally check vehicle parking times have already been thought out by legal experts. Orin Kerr, a law professor, said a straightforward way to avoid any constitutional problems would be with photographs. The method allows offices to mark the exact position of a vehicle without any physical contact. The City of Saginaw already adapted their own process and now mark the pavement beside the tire rather than the tire itself.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/23/716248823/court-says-using-chalk-on-tires-for-parking-enforcement-violates-constitution
https://www.abc12.com/content/news/Class-action-lawsuit-targets-Bay-City-Saginaw-for-chalking-tires-to-issue-parking-tickets-509132891.html

The President Wants To Stop McGahn And White House Aides From Spilling The Obstruction Beans On Congress

Jared Kushner, the president’s special advisor and peacemaker extraordinaire, got a chance to show the world why his security clearance came from Trump, not from security officials. At the Time 100 Summit, Kushner did an interview, and it contained vintage Trump damage control.

Trump overrode security officials so Jared could hold press conferences that defy common sense. Mr. Kushner told the Time interviewer the Russians only ran a couple of Facebook ads during the 2016 campaign, and the ads didn’t interfere with the election. According to Kushner, the Mueller investigation did more damage to America’s democracy than Facebook ads. Jared said the Russian Facebook ads were bad, but Mueller’s two-year investigation did more harm to democracy.

Kushner wants to stay in the public eye while Prime Minister Netanyahu plans to annex the Golan Heights. The Prime Minister plans to name a town after Mr. Trump. Plus, Netanyahu loves Kushner Middle East plan, and so does his father-in-law. Kushner hasn’t talked to the Palestinians about his plan, according to the New York Times. But he does have backing from the Saudi Prince. Kushner and the Saudi prince are big buds.

According to Vox.com, the Mueller report claims Sarah Sanders lies when she holds press briefings. Sanders told Mueller she has occasional slip-of-the-tongue moments when reporters ask her pertinent questions. She lied about James Comey after Trump fired him. But she stood behind her lies about Comey when George Stephanopoulos interviewed her on his Sunday talk show. Sanders is proud of her vocal part in the Trump con job, according to the Washington Post.

The Trump con job didn’t last long on White House lawyer Don McGahn. McGahn spent more than 30 hours with Mueller’s investigators, and he let them know Trump wanted Mueller to go. The president asked McGahn to fire Mueller. But McGahn stopped Trump from obstructing justice when he refused to follow his orders.

Mr. Trump claims all his aides follow his orders. But Mueller was able to find several aides who don’t. And their testimony has Trump nervous. Trump claims he’ll pull rank with executive privilege in order to stop aides and McGahn from sitting in front of Congress.

Mr. Trump knows if they tell Congress about the White House chaos and the Trump lies his autocracy might be in jeopardy. But Congressman Jerry Nadler the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee told the press it’s too late for Trump to pull the executive privilege card to stop McGahn from testifying.

Federal Judge Rules Against Trump Abortion Rule

A federal judge in Oregon decided to block a decision by the Trump administration to withhold funding from clinics that perform abortions. The administration also wants to deny government funding to clinics that provide referrals to abortion providers as well as abortion counseling.

The new Title X rule from the Trump administration is scheduled to become effective in May. The law would stop all government funds that go to Planned Parenthood and clinics where abortions are performed. Planned Parenthood is a major target for the Trump administration due to the subsidies it provides for women who cannot afford abortions on their own. Planned Parenthood clinics offer other healthcare to women as well.

Critics of Title X say the law is simply an attempt by the president to pander to his base ahead of next year’s election. President Trump promised to defund Planned Parenthood while campaigning for office in 2016.

The lawsuit filed against Title X in Oregon named the plaintiffs as the American Medical Association and the Planned Parenthood Federation.

Michael McShane, United States District Judge, announced Tuesday he is issuing a temporary injunction against the restrictions the Trump Administration seeks to impose on Planned Parenthood and other clinics offering abortion services.

It is not clear when the ruling from McShane will be formalized or how much reach the ruling will possess.

The Justice Department stands in opposition to the injunction and made the request that the injunction only becomes applicable to case plaintiffs.

Congress approved $286 million in funding for Planned Parenthood and abortion clinics through Title X grants in 2017. The money approved by Congress is not to be used for abortions. However, critics say the money has provided subsidies for clinics like Planned Parenthood that perform the abortions.

Barbara McAneny, President of the American Medical Association, applauded Judge McShane for the stance he has taken. She says it is obvious the judge understands the issues and ‘got it right.’

Planned Parenthood Federation President, Leana Wen, praised the decision of McShane as a victory for both doctors and patients. Wen also reminded supporters that more work is ahead of them. She explains the current victory is temporary and the fight must continue.

Legal battles over the issue are looming in other states as well. Media reports state a Title X case pending in California is expected to garner national attention soon.

Read More: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/u-s-judge-washington-state-blocks-new-trump-abortion-rule-n998706

Supreme Court Decides To Rule On LGBTQ Workplace Discrimination Cases

On April 22, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear three cases involving workplace discrimination against those in the LGBTQ community. At issue in these cases is whether or not laws that ban discrimination against a person’s sex also apply to those who are gay or transgender.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees due to a number of factors. These include a persons sex, race, religion or national origin.

According to the interpretation of the law by the Obama Administration, Title VII’s protection of workers against discrimination based on sex also including barring discrimination against someone based on that person’s sexual orientation. Since the Trump Administration has come to power, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is interpreting Title VII to only apply to a person’s sex and not a person’s sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court will hear three cases concerning workplace discrimination of LGBTQ workers. The first case involves an instructor in New York who was fired. The second case involves the firing of a child welfare worker from the state of Georgia. The third case is somewhat different. The third case involves an employee who states that she was fired when she revealed to her employer that she was in the process of transitioning from a male to a female.

These cases will be watched closely by legal experts. Former Justice Anthony Kennedy was considered a more moderate voice on the Supreme Court on the issue of LGBTQ rights. His was the deciding vote which allowed gay marriage to become legal throughout the United States.

Now, Brett Kavanaugh is serving in Anthony Kennedy’s place. Mr. Kavanaugh is considered to be much more conservative than Mr. Kennedy. Legal observers believe that Justice Kavanaugh may join with the other four conservative members of the Supreme Court and rule that Title VII does not apply to those in the LGBTQ community.

Read More: http://time.com/5575299/supreme-court-lgbt-gay-job-discrimination/

New York’s Mandatory Vaccination Order Upheld

The United States is currently experiencing one of the worst outbreaks of measles cases in several years. Currently, there are 21 states with confirmed measles cases. There are 555 cases spread through 20 of the states. However, the state of New York has seen the most number of measles cases by far. 329 cases of measles have been confirmed in Brooklyn, and over 220 cases are confirmed in the rest of the state of New York.

CNBC reports due to the high number of measles cases, the city of New York mandated that all children would be required to have a measles vaccination unless a child was proven to have a legitimate medical reason to be exempt from vaccination. Those who failed to have a child vaccinated would face fines from the city.

Parents who did not want to have their children vaccinated filed suit claiming that the city was overreaching its authority. Those protesting against mandatory vaccination stated that they believed that quarantining affected individuals would do just as much good as mandatory vaccination. Health officials countered by stating that the measles virus is transmissible before a person shows any sign of having the infection.

This week Judge Lawrence Knipel ruled that New York did have the right to order mandatory vaccination. The judge ruled that the situation was a health emergency that the city had the right to act upon.

Almost every case of measles that has occurred in New York has been in non-vaccinated individuals. Most cases have occurred in Orthodox Jewish areas where vaccination rates are low.

In other areas of the country, cases are also occurring almost entirely in non-vaccinated people. Many parents are not giving the vaccine to their children due to the unscientific belief that vaccines are the cause of autism in children.

In order for a person to be protected from measles, two doses of the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine must be given. If a person contracts measles, there can be serious health effects even if the person survives the initial infection.

Border Crisis Gets Militant

As recently reported by CNN, the immigration situation at the southern border has the potential to turn violent quickly. Attorney General Hector Balderas issued a written statement that a fairly organized militia group has detained more than 100 immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border. The militia group refers to itself as the United Constitutional Patriots and vows to fight against the entry of undocumented immigrants into the U.S. The group is not affiliated with any state, local or federal law enforcement organization and appears to be operating under the umbrella of vigilante justice.

An observer took a video of the recent incident in which the militia group members attempted to prevent immigrants seeking asylum in crossing the border. What is unusual about this incident is that it was actually caught on camera because these types of anti-immigrant militia groups usually operate under the radar. The members dress in military gear and often obstruct their face while carrying weapons. The video shows men ordering the immigrants to stop and sit down while they contact actual Border Control to come arrest the immigrants. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol has issued an official statement that they do not coordinate in any official capacity with the militant group, although members of the group do frequently contact Border Patrol to respond to situations involving detained immigrants.

The American Civil Liberties Union has spoken out against the United Constitutional Patriots and has argued that this group violates the constitutional rights of immigrants seeking asylum in the U.S. They also contend that it is actually a crime for members of the United Constitutional Patriots to pose as Border Patrol agents and detain any immigrants without proper authority from federal law enforcement agencies. In addition, they have condemned U.S. Customs and Border Patrol for not taking a stronger stance against groups like the United Constitutional Patriots in preventing them from posing as law enforcement officials or obstructing access across the border for immigrants seeking asylum.

While no one appears to be hurt in the video posted online of the most recent incident involving members of the United Constitutional Patriots, civil rights activists are concerned that these types of situations have the potential to turn violent quickly. Even though the immigrants may not be armed, the members of the United Constitutional Patriots and other groups like them do not necessarily have the training or wherewithal to remain calm in tense situations.

Trump Wants The Courts To Kill Obamacare

President Trump is on one of his fabulist adventures. Bill Barr’s Mueller summary gave Trump the ammunition he needed to stick it to the Democrats. The Trumpster is on top of the world now that he believes the Mueller investigation can’t hurt him. He knows his loyal Trumpians think he won another battle in the Washington swamp. His supporters claim he won’t stop giving them more of that Trump political magic.

Most Americans want to see the full Mueller report. But Attorney general Bill Barr won’t release the report without redacting some of the juicy parts in the report. Those parts claim Trump and his campaign did collude with Russians in 2016. Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the chair of the Congressional Oversight Committee wants to force Barr to release the Mueller report without all those black marker lines. But Barr won’t do that, according to sources inside the Department of Justice. Mr. Barr said he would send the redacted report to Congress in mid-April.

The Republicans thought the Barr summary would be enough to keep Trump focused. Senators Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell thought Trump would keep his exoneration in front of the public as long as he could. But in true Trump fashion, he changed his campaign game plan. Trump wants to officially burn Obamacare to the ground. And that news sent McConnell and Graham into re-election panic mode.

According to a Republican Texas judge, Obamacare is unconstitutional. When the Republicans changed Obamacare in 2018, the change made the nine-year-old Affordable Healthcare Act unconstitutional. That ruling is in the hands of an appellate court right now. Trump’s lawyers asked the court to send Obamacare to the healthcare graveyard. If that happens, millions of Americans will lose their health insurance.

But as Politico.com explains, if Trump wins the appeal, the case will go to the Supreme Court and legal experts think Trump will lose that battle. Trump told his voter base his healthcare plan would be better, cheaper, and cover pre-existing conditions even though Trump doesn’t have a formal healthcare plan.

Trump asked former HCA CEO Rick Scott to develop a new plan. Scott, the new Senator from Florida, left the healthcare industry to enter politics because his credibility in the healthcare industry was under attack. But in Trump’s world, Scott is the best healthcare professional on the planet.

Mitch McConnell won’t touch the healthcare issue this time around. McConnell knows the Democrats won that battle during the mid-term elections. He wants Trump to go it alone in this political battle. And most Republicans think McConnell is right.

 

About Nestle Water

At the core of its DNA, Nestle Water believes that water brings life. Water has a positive impact on the community and the planet. The company is the water affiliate of the Nestle Group. Established in 1992, the company is a recognized bottled water manufacturer. It posts positive organic growth while reducing energy consumption. Nestle Water enhances community relations programs across its sites. Such initiatives raise awareness regarding local water use.

Supreme Court Strengthens Government’s Ability to Detain Legal Immigrants

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision this past Tuesday that the U.S. government can detain legal immigrants without the need of a hearing. This can even happen months after they have served their prison sentence.
This was a 5-4 decision that reversed an earlier ruling. This is viewed as a significant victory for the current administration. The prior ruling was released by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
Similar to the Obama administration, the Trump administration believes that the government should have the authority to detain immigrants for deportation whenever they want. The prior requirement of detaining immigrants only immediately after a jail sentence is no longer applicable.
Justice Samuel Alito was outspoken in his support of the measure. He stated that immigration law can be used to detain immigrant’s years after they’ve served their sentence.
On the other hand, Justice Stephen Breyer felt that this ruling gave the central government too much authority. He stated that the current law was sufficient, which declares that the government cannot detain a legal immigrant absent of a legal hearing unless that person was detained after being released from custody relating to a criminal conviction.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling came as a response to two different class-action cases.
Mony Preap, a legal permanent resident of Cambodian descent, was convicted on the charge of marijuana possession in 2006. Federal authorities failed to detain him until 2013. This happened after he received a second sentence for battery, which is considered a non-deportable offense.
Another similar case occurred when Bassam Yusuf Khoury was detained two years after serving a 30-day sentence for a drug charge in 2011. Khoury was kept in custody for six months after finally winning out his case. Khoury still remains in the United States to this day.
In both of these cases, the American Civil Liberties Union defended each plaintiff.
To read more about this, check out the original at NPR.

Trump Issues First Ever Veto

President Trump recently issued his first-ever veto as president of the United States. Donald Trump vetoed a measure pushed forth by Republicans and Democrats that would end his declaration for a border wall along the American-Mexican border.
The veto was in response to Trump’s own Republican party, which made efforts to stymie the wall’s construction. The border wall was a promise made during his initial campaign to become president and is sure to become a focal point of the upcoming 2020 presidential elections.
Congress will most likely not be able to override the veto decision. The bipartisan decision was done to combat the process to use money allocated for other programs to fund the border wall’s construction.
Twelve Republicans in the Senate felt that Trump had abused his authority as president.
Trump has doubled down on the need for a border barrier. He’s cited the immigration crisis as cause for the wall’s importance and was openly supportive of his veto decision.
The White House had made efforts to lobby the border wall’s necessity to Republicans in the Senate to help bolster support. Trump did not acknowledge the White House’s efforts at lobbying support but noted that he had sympathy for the opposition’s attempt at hindering the barrier’s creation.
The Attorney General stated that Trump’s emergency declaration was completely legal.
As a response to the veto, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives said that her chamber would attempt to override the veto during a vote held on March 26.
However, since the Senate would also have to override the veto, the possibility of it happening is rather slim. It is unlikely that more Republicans will display bipartisanship towards this issue.
Although Trump has often pointed out a linkage between illegal immigration and crime, researchers have noted that immigrants are not as likely to engage in criminal activities.
Ultimately, the President hopes to erect the wall to fulfill his 2016 campaign promise. To read more about this issue, check out the original here.

Some Trumpians Abandon The Trumpsters Sinking Political Ship

President Trump may be on the verge of a political meltdown. There are some Republican senators in Washington who still think the constitution is worth fighting for. The Republicans who backed Pelosi and company’s quest to stop Trump’s fascination with building a useless wall for an incredible amount of money know it is not only a stupid it is also unconstitutional.

That means the other Republican senators who didn’t vote with Pelosi think being a Trumpian is more important than upholding the constitution they swore to protect. That should scare a lot of Americans, according to the New York Times. If senators put other egocentric and political issues before the constitution American democracy is in serious trouble, according to political science experts.

Smart guys like Steve Bannon, Roger Stone, and Paul Manafort believe Trump did the right thing by circumventing Congress to build his wall. They say that’s part of the swamp draining process. Maybe that’s what Trump had in mind when he came up with that slogan. He’s draining the constitution by making senators and congressman believe his gangster constitution is the way to go.

And here’s the dangerous part of senators ignoring the people’s wishes. Democracy becomes an oligarchy. That means a small group of people control the country. And that’s Trump’s plan, according to the Washington Post.

Republican senators led by Kentucky Senator Mitt McConnell control the country. Even the Democrats can’t stop these constitution bandits. from being unconstitutional lawmakers. These unconstitutional senators pledge their allegiance to the Trumpster, and democracy is in cardiac arrest.

But there are signs a few Republicans see the cracks in Trumptopia. They know new investigations in New York could reveal some ugly things about the Trumpster. His kids have ugly things hanging their gold-plated closets too.

The senators who believe Cohen know they have to abandon ship in order to political and ethically survive this infestation of Trumpism.

Mr. Trump will continue to claim his innocence. He’ll continue to cry and lie in order to build his wall. But the lawmakers who still believe in the constitution will stop his con game when there’s too much evidence not to stop it. When that happens, the Republicans who sided with Trump should think about another line of work, according to some Democrats.

The 2020 election will tell what kind of government America really has. If Trump gets reelected, the answer will be obvious. The world will send condolences for the loss Americans suffer from their Trumpian ignorance.

Read More: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/03/trump-threatens-violence-if-democrats-dont-support-him.html

British Lawmakers Are Ready To Throw Theresa May’s Brexit Deal In The Trash Again

Prime Minister Theresa May is in serious trouble. She wants a Brexit deal with the EU as much as Trump wants an $8.6 billion border wall. According to the New York Post, May’s attempt to leave the EU and keep the border open between the ever-feuding Irish seems to be dead in the water. The EU claims it will keep the border open, but there are conditions the U.K. has to accept to keep it open. And Parliament doesn’t like the conditions.

May is between an EU rock and a Parliamentary hard place. Her February EU deal went nowhere the last time parliament voted and according to several British lawmakers, her new deal will go down in British smoke too. March 29, 2019, is the deadline for Britain to accept the current EU deal. If Parliament rejects it, the U.K. could leave the EU without a deal. A no-deal Brexit would be an economic and financial disaster for the U.K., so the word is parliament will vote to stop a No-Brexit deal.

Parliament will then vote to extend the March 29th deadline. That will vote will give May a chance to ask the EU for a delay. Once the EU agrees to extend the exit date, Parliament will vote again for another public vote on Brexit. Some British lawmakers think a new vote will show most Brits want to stay in the EU. According to several British news reports, staying in the EU makes more sense than leaving. If May’s Brexit deal is out, and the EU agrees to an extension, a new Brexit referendum will follow, according to Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt.

Whatever happens in Parliament with the Brexit issue, May’s future is in jeopardy, according to a CNN report. Even members of her Conservative Party think May has to go if there’s no Brexit deal. But May will give it another go in Brussels before she calls it quits. She knows her political future depends on her convincing EU leaders to take her new deal. But according to recent news reports the EU is sick of May and the Brexit situation.

May’s fight with Parliament mirrors Trump’s fight with Congress in a strange way. Trump’s new budget will include another $8.6 billion to build his border wall. And the Democrats will reject that budget, according to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Speaker Chuck Schumer.

That rejection could trigger another government shutdown. And that’s one difference between the U.S. and the U.K.’s legal debacles. May won’t shut the government down because lawmakers don’t agree with her. But Trump seems to like his ability to make lives of American’s miserable until he gets what he wants.