Democrats want to prevent Republicans from ‘engaging in any activities related to recounts, certifications, or similar post-election activities,’ and they’re counting on a judicial branch ally to make it happen. //

The case threatens to effectively put back in place restrictions that hindered the RNC for nearly four decades. A judge appointed by President Jimmy Carter instated the restrictions when he settled a case between the RNC and the Democrats with a consent decree that limited Republicans’ abilities to partake in regular election practices like poll watching.

From 1981 to 2018, the judge, who only served for 15 years but took senior status for 21, continued to renew the consent decree, and modify it in favor of Democrats, as The Federalist Editor-in-Chief Mollie Hemingway pointed out in her book Rigged:

For decades, the Democratic Party built up expansive coordination efforts that the Republicans were prohibited from developing. Republican candidates and state parties could do things on their own, but not with help from the national party. …

The consent decree also meant the RNC was kept out of almost any litigation related to Election Day. In fact, a main part of the RNC’s legal efforts came to be training RNC staff to stay away from Election Day operations on Election Day, including recounts, and fending off litigation that arose from the consent decree. It utterly paralyzed the political operation of the RNC, as the slightest misstep would result in getting sued by Democrats. //

With the election coming up, the case has recently seen movement after being “randomly reassigned” to Chutkan in 2023. According to court documents, the case had two different judges before landing before Chutkan.

Although no major decisions have been made on the case yet, at a November hearing, Chutkan highlighted how important it was to keep the case moving in time for the 2024 election. //

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would restrict the Republican Party from being involved in elections more than the 1981 consent decree because the new lawsuit, in addition to asking that poll watcher restrictions be reinstated, seeks to limit GOP interactions with election officials.

Speaking with CNN, Rajiv Parikh, a Democrat attorney involved in keeping the 1981 consent decree alive, said Democrats believe a court intervention here will be particularly helpful for them in swing states like Georgia and Pennsylvania, where lawsuits and challenges are almost certain to arise.

Retired Professor
10 hours ago
Fascinating. Defamation was one of the subjects I used to teach in Law School, and as you know, the general rule is that attorneys have immunity for extra-judicial remarks made in connection with cases they are involved in, but this can be overcome by a showing of malice (in the technical Defamation sense of "reckless disregard"). But, win or lose, it is fun to see the liberals get a taste of the "lawfare" that they so love to use themselves.

metalheaddoc Retired Professor
10 hours ago
Can you explain why attorneys have immunity for extra-judicial remarks? and immunity from what specifically?

Retired Professor metalheaddoc
9 hours ago
Very good question. The immunity is from civil liability for money damages for such things as defamation of character, invasion of privacy, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. (I can assure you, if you've ever been cross-examined by a good lawyer, that'll be some of the worst "emotional distress" you'll ever suffer). What are the policy justifications for this?

First, it arises out of the free speech we all enjoy.

Second, out of the right to counsel, which of course is a Constitutional right in criminal cases, and in most states is part of your constitutional "right of access to the courts," even in civil cases (although of course the state doesn't pay for it).

Third, society has an interest in attorneys being able to zealously represent their clients, and not have attorneys being dragged into court personally because of their advocacy, which obviously would be a tactic open to a lot of abuse, as well as inviting invasion of the attorney-client privilege.

Fourth, attorneys are subject to professional discipline for false or misleading statements, so the system polices itself in that respect.

Fifth, an attorney who makes a statement that he/she knows to be false or is made with reckless disregard for truth or falsity IS subject to liability, just like any public figure would be, so it is by no means an absolute immunity.

There are other considerations, as well, but those are the most common.

Please remember that 98% of the attorneys give the other 2% of us a bad name....

stickdude90 Retired Professor
9 hours ago
Sixth, attorneys wrote the rules.

Retired Professor anon-ho3e
10 hours ago
Kinda interesting having sympathy for an IRS agent, isn't it?

The Citizen Outreach Foundation is questioning a memo from Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar telling local officials to reject certain voter roll challenges.

Greg Price @greg_price11
·
This is a MASSIVE win that will have major implications in the most important swing state in 2024.

The PA Supreme Court has a 5-2 liberal majority.

Yet they just ruled 4-3 that it's illegal to count misdated mail in ballots, overturning decisions made by liberal lower courts.

James Blair @JamesBlairUSA
🚨BREAKING: Pennsylvania Supreme Court just overturned a lower court and ruled that counting undated mail ballots is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Huge Election Integrity Win!
5:07 PM · Sep 13, 2024

Florida has long been the most prominent battleground in the ongoing struggle between the rights of parents and the elitists who wish to violate them.

The latest skirmish in this war centers on HB 1069 which, among other things, gives parents and taxpayers more of a say in which books and materials are made available in public school libraries. //

The law empowers parents to raise objections to certain types of material. These objections would be taken into account by the district, which will work with the community to decide whether the content will be removed, restricted, or allowed.

This has nothing to do with censorship, as folks on the left contend. It has everything to do with parents being able to decide what their children are learning in the schools they fund through taxes. It is a process through which local communities have a stronger voice in what their children are seeing and consuming in the state’s educational institutions.

For most people, this concept is a no-brainer. Parents are the ones responsible for raising their children. Moreover, schools are funded using money taken from parents in the form of taxes. Why shouldn’t they have more of a say in what schools are teaching their children? //

The suit complains that Florida’s law requires books to be removed without consulting “trained professionals, such as teachers or media specialists.”

The notion that only governmental and corporate “experts” should decide what books are appropriate for school libraries smacks of elitism. This perspective implies that only our betters are equipped to know what our children should and should not be learning in class. //

The plaintiffs cannot win this lawsuit. It is not just about books. It is about parental rights. Corporate and governmental interests should not supersede the rights of parents to determine how their children are raised and educated just because there are some folks who want small children to view sexually explicit content.

If appealed, I think it is likely that the SCOTUS will deny certiorari. California and Hawaii will continue to restrict citizens from carrying in public and it seems likely that state legislatures, hostile to the 2nd Amendment will deem more areas “sensitive” making concealed carry permits almost useless in some states.

What has been constantly and conveniently ignored by state legislators and courts in California and Hawaii is that citizens who take the time and effort to get a concealed carry permit aren’t abusing it – or shooting people in public without good cause.

And criminals don’t apply for concealed carry permits because - they are criminals. //

Black Magic
an hour ago
Thank God I live in PA which has extremely good concealed carry regulations, though I still question why the other Constitutional Rights are not so encumbered, i.e., I don't think there should be such encumbrances on our Constitutional Rights.

Having said that, I am still anticipating when it is finally adjudicated and approved by the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to halt my concealed carry rights at the state line and I am still wondering why it is that, I believe it is the 14 Amendment (which ensures equal protection), insures interstate cooperation in licensing driving for instance, but stops my ability to defend myself when I leave my state.

Trump has previously said he felt this should be addressed and corrected and I look forward to that.

The framers knew full well that many rights would face perpetual jeopardy, and by enshrining them in the Constitution and creating a system that divided power both between branches and between state and federal governments, they had crafted the surest check possible against future infringement.

While the separation of powers in the national government is often touted in civics and by politicians of all stripes, the federal system, with its two sovereigns — federal and state — is increasingly ignored or forgotten. States absolutely have the power to protect the people if the federal government is violating their rights. This is precisely what Missouri did in enacting SAPA.

Missouri’s law was a clear shot across the bow in the brewing debate over gun control at the federal level and how states could respond. These lawmakers, and leaders such as former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and current Attorney General Andrew Bailey, foresaw the danger of a Harris presidency before it was even conceived.

These leaders made clear to current and would-be federal tyrants that Missouri would protect the “promise of liberty” and fight to preserve the critical “tension between federal and state power.” It is a much-needed check against tyranny and abuse, as the U.S. Supreme Court has previously affirmed. Groups such as Gun Owners of America have aggressively supported SAPA and encourage Missouri to stick to their guns by seeking full review of this terrible decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This statement caught many by surprise because of the commonly held belief that a guilty plea forecloses any appeal. But, while a plea forecloses most issues that might be raised on appeal, it does not foreclose all of them. Lowell, an experienced and able lawyer, understands this and clearly plans to pursue an appeal to overturn Biden’s tax convictions.

In federal court, the vast majority of guilty pleas are entered pursuant to plea agreements between the government and the defendant, in which the government makes certain concessions such as dropping some charges or agreeing to limits on the sentence. In return, the government usually demands that the defendant waive the right to all appeals, and to habeas corpus filings post-conviction. //

Thus, in most cases, a guilty plea in federal court does mean that there will be no appeal.

Further, because a waiver of appeal rights is standard in most plea agreements, the federal rule of criminal procedure governing pleas requires the court to address this issue and ensure that the defendant understands that he or she is waiving the right to appeal – but only if there is a plea agreement that addresses waiving appellate rights. //

The law provides that unqualified guilty pleas do constitute a waiver of the right to appeal the vast majority of claims that there were defects or errors in the case prior to the plea. Thus, defendants cannot appeal on any ground that challenges factual guilt, evidentiary errors, procedural errors, and even most constitutional errors.

Defendants can still appeal certain kinds of claims even with a guilty plea, however. These exceptions to the usual rule that the plea waives the right to appeal basically fall into three categories.

First, a defendant can almost always appeal on the grounds that the court itself lacked jurisdiction over the case. //

Secondly, the defendant can appeal based on claims that the government lacked the power to prosecute the person in the first place. These are usually constitutional claims, such as immunity, double jeopardy, selective prosecution, or an argument that the charged statute is unconstitutional in some way. These appeals are permitted because they question the legality of the prosecution itself, not whether the person engaged in the charged conduct.

Thirdly, the law provides that the right to appeal certain defects in a criminal case simply cannot be waived by a defendant, whether there is a plea agreement or not. These issues lie at the heart of the functioning of the criminal justice system. So, for example, a defendant cannot waive the right to appeal an illegal sentence (such as one that exceeds the statutory maximum), or the ineffective assistance of the defense lawyer, or misconduct by the prosecutor in the case or the plea bargaining process.

Chutkan made clear that the case would not be tried prior to Election Day in November. //

From a practical standpoint, this schedule should not affect Trump's campaigning ahead of the election. What it will do, however, is inject into the the media coverage all manner of negative assertions (and innuendos) regarding Trump, the 2020 election, and January 6 — which, for the Dems, is likely the next best thing to actually having the trial take place ahead of the election. Buckle up.

A Pennsylvania court Friday sided with left-wing special interests, blocking the state from enforcing part of a law that required mail ballots to be properly dated in order to be counted. //

The majority opinion, however, while citing “prior litigation,” stated that “the date on the outer mail-in ballot envelopes is not used to determine the timeliness of a ballot, a voter’s qualifications/eligibility to vote, or fraud. Therefore, the dating provisions serve no compelling government interest.” //

The RNC plans to appeal the decision, according to a statement from Election Integrity Communications Director Claire Zunk reportedly obtained by Votebeat Pennsylvania reporter Carter Walker, which notes how both “[t]he Pennsylvania Supreme Court and US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit have both upheld Pennsulvania’s dated ballot requirement.”

The judge who oversaw Trump's initial attempt to remove the case to the Southern District of New York in 2023, Senior Judge Alvin Kenneth Hellerstein, issued a four-page order denying Trump's latest request. In the order, which may be viewed in its entirety below, Hellerstein states that he has no jurisdiction to determine the propriety of the Manhattan trial — that determination is for the New York appellate courts to make. //

My holding followed an evidentiary hearing where The People showed conclusively that Mr. Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen for advancing the hush money payments, including two checks signed in the White House by Mr. Trump. I held that Mr. Trump had not satisfied the burden of proof required to show the basis of removal. My holding of a hush money reimbursement remains true regardless of who has the burden, whether The People or Mr. Trump. Nothing in the Supreme Court‘s opinion affects my previous conclusion that the hush money payments were private, unofficial acts, outside the bounds of executive authority. //

anon-zxna Billy Wallace
11 minutes ago
All of this completely ignores the fact that "hush money paid to an adult film star" is not in any way a crime.....

Professor Jacobson, in our previous post, analyzed the case thusly:

One important part of the complaint is that it puts in issue Media Matters’ longstanding tactic and business model of targeting advertisers…

This could give X discovery not just of what Media Matters did here, but its other efforts to attack advertisers at other platforms because Media Matters disagreed with their politics.

Keep in mind this case is in Texas. Think about how a Texas jury will feel if X is able to prove its allegations.

Did Media Matters engage in this subterfuge and fraud? Obviously that verdict will work itself out in court, but it would not surprise me in the least, having covered Media Matters for over a decade. Founded originally by the toxic David Brock, with an infusion of cash from George Soros, Media Matters has poisoned our politics as much as anyone else. They are bullies who found a weak spot in the conservative media armor, that advertisers were afraid of controversy, so all Media Matters needed to do is put advertisers in the hot seat and they would flee. //

O’Connor rejected Media Matter’s arguments for dismissal, including that it can’t be liable for business disparagement by reporting truthful statements. O’Connor said X had sufficiently alleged that Media Matters had acted with “actual malice” based on statements criticizing the platform…

The Media Matters report at the center of X’s lawsuit was published online in November. The organization said it found advertisements by IBM, Apple, Oracle and Comcast’s Xfinity placed alongside posts touting Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party.

X sued Media Matters in November in federal court in Fort Worth…The lawsuit alleged the Media Matters report was published “with the intention of harming X and its business.”

Shiva Ayyadurai is fighting to get on ballots, but the naturalized U.S. citizen from India fails to meet a key constitutional requirement. //

In the complaint, Ayyadurai argued that the First Amendment guarantees his right to run for president regardless of the Constitution’s pesky qualifications. And he asserted that such a qualification has been “abrogated and implicitly repealed” by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. //

allowing a foreign-born, naturalized citizen access to the presidential ballot changes the Constitution without the benefit of amendment.

Attorney General Merrick Garland boasted on Friday how his office has prosecuted nearly 1,500 Americans for protesting the 2020 election, warning others they may face similar lawfare should they raise any concerns about the administration of the upcoming November election.

Speaking at a press briefing, Garland essentially said the Jan. 6 prosecutions should serve to remind Americans what happens if they raise questions about an election.

“I think our prosecutions have made clear what we think about people who try to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, which is [an] essential and fundamental element of our democracy. //

The Washington, D.C. bar recommended that Trump-era DOJ official Jeffrey Clark be suspended for at least two years because he drafted a letter to Georgia officials in which he said the DOJ “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the [2020] election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.”

Notably, the 2020 election in Georgia was certified, though the State Election Board passed a motion this past May finding Fulton County double-scanned 3,075 ballots. The board did not issue a rule on the 17,852 votes that were, according to a complaint filed by Kevin Moncla and Joseph Rossi, allegedly missing ballot images in the county.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Terry Doughty, who previously penned a Fourth of July masterpiece of a decision in the Murthy v. Missouri (f/k/a Missouri v. Biden) First Amendment case, issued a ruling declaring that Kennedy and his charity had standing to pursue a claim against the government for violating their First Amendment rights.

U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes in Wichita dismissed two machine gun charges against Tamori Morgan, who was indicted in 2023 for possessing a model AM-15 .300 caliber machine gun and a conversion device known as a “Glock switch” that can make a semi-automatic weapon fire at a similar rate to machine guns.

During trial, Morgan’s lawyers argued that these firearms are protected under the Second Amendment, a claim that Broomes upheld. He ruled that machine guns qualify as “bearable arms” under the Second Amendment and that the state failed to demonstrate a historical precedent that justifies the regulation of these weapons.

There is currently a debate over the efficacy and safety of using progesterone to reverse the effects of Mifepristone, a drug used to induce abortions. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists referred to the procedure as “unproven and unethical.” //

On the other side of the debate, the Charlotte Lozier Institute discussed other studies showing that the treatment is safe and effective. //

DaveM
5 hours ago
I find it interesting that abortifacient agents intended to kill babies in the womb are considered "safe" but medications intended to stop the abortifacients from killing babies are considered "unsafe"

OK, that's a lot of text, but the writers raise an interesting point. If they are correct in how this is done, there's potential here that billions - billions of dollars may have been funneled to Democrat candidates, supporters, and donors. And here's the catch; that 1977 change in the law means it may actually be legal.

With liberals, it often seems that it's opposite day. When they say they want to prevent the spread of misinformation, what they really mean is they want to spread propaganda and suppress truth. When they say they simply want people to be tolerant of other cultures and beliefs, they work to implement the most intolerant institutions imaginable. When they say they want to fortify an election, it means they want to ensure a pre-determined outcome.

Since January 6 they've been shouting that they need to protect democracy and taking action on multiple fronts to do the opposite, as Tucker Carlson and Victor Davis Hansen expertly outline in the newest episode of Tucker on X. In his monologue, Tucker said:

Liberals are now telling us they plan to protect American democracy, and that's the clearest possible sign that they intend to end it. //

This is not a legal proceeding. This is a grotesque parody of the system our forefathers created, the fairest in the world, that in the years since has been seized by power worshippers like Arthur Engoron. This is a dangerous moment. Without a legitimate legal system, people no longer follow the law, and the country will collapse.

This is not about Trump. This is about preserving the United States of America. But Trump is at the center of the story.

The group that submitted the petitions Friday did not submit an affidavit identifying paid canvassers by name, as required by state law, Thurston wrote in a Wednesday letter to Lauren Cowles, executive director of Arkansans for Limited Government, the ballot question committee supporting the proposed constitutional amendment.

State law also requires ballot question committees to provide “a copy of the most recent edition of the Secretary of State’s initiatives and referenda handbook to each paid canvasser” and to explain to canvassers the legal requirements for soliciting signatures before canvassing begins.

AFLG did not fulfill these requirements while the sponsors of other proposed ballot measures did, Thurston wrote. //

The AFLG appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which ordered a recount of the signatures. That recount certified 87.675 signatures as legitimate and Thurston's decision was upheld. //

Today's ruling seems to have put the issue to rest for this election cycle.

“We find that the secretary correctly refused to count the signatures collected by paid canvassers because the sponsor failed to file the paid canvasser training certification,” the majority wrote. //

Having lost the fight to create a US Constitutional right out of whole cloth, they are now working to enshrine the right to infanticide in state constitutions. There are nine other states with pro-abort constitutional amendments on the ballot in November: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, New York, Nevada, and South Dakota. A pro-abort amendment was added to the Ohio constitution in 2023. //

C. S. P. Schofield
42 minutes ago
While I believe that abortion should be legal, under clear restrictions, I fully expect to see it widely banned before I die, simply because the Abortion Establishment is arrogant. They had decades to persuade the public and instead condescended and relied on a SCOTUS ruling that any amateur student of Law could have told them was built on thin air.

Even since Roe was overturned, they have not realized that they must play by the rules. They preach to the choir and indulge in peruse fantasies like THE HANDMAID’S TALE, an unoriginal piece of thinly disguised Dom/Sub pornography that stole its central repressive theocracy from Heinlein’s future history.

If the Pro-Life forces can refrain from mirroring the arrogance of the Abortion Establishment, they will continue to win most of their goals, until legal abortion is available only in a few Deep Blue strongholds.

And, as the Kermit Gosnell scandal proved, there isn’t necessarily any great difference between a legal abortion clinic and the ‘back alley abortionist’ of legend.