413 private links
What happened to the 1995 ruling my client won in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña? //
A new president in 2025 must end DEI and all race-based hiring and decision-making by federal departments and agencies. Meanwhile, Congress must codify the Supreme Court’s ruling in Adarand and compel the federal government to comply with the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee. To paraphrase Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it is the only way to pay the “promissory note” set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
John Kennedy @SenJohnKennedy
·
Pres. Biden sent us a nominee who didn’t know the basics of the U.S. Constitution.
Judge Bjelkengren is right to bow out, but Pres. Biden just keeps trying to put unqualified people on the bench—for life.
People who don't know the law have no business running our courtrooms.
3:23 PM · Jan 10, 2024
He had asked her basic questions about what Article 5 and Article 2 of the Constitution are, and she had no idea, saying they weren't "coming to mind." She couldn't even hazard a guess. How, as a federal judge, going before the Senate and Kennedy, do you not know the answer to that one?
SquidbillyCPO
16 hours ago
First of all that BS about the Supreme Court is just that BS and it would be unconstitutional to boot. Congress has zero constitutional authority to regulate the coequal judicial branch and the constitution is very clear Supreme Court justices have lifetime appointments the only power they have is impeachment. Like gun control these tyrants in waiting just can’t seem to bring themselves to submit a constitutional amendment which is the right way to do it. And the same with legislative term limits, they are unconstitutional the Supreme Court ruled on that decades ago. //
etba_ss
19 hours ago
If you don't include Congressional staffers in term limits, stock trades and lobbying bans, you will make the problem worse, not better. Instead of having career Congressman and Senators, we will have career staffers who will have all the power and corruption of Congress now, only without the accountability of facing the voters and answering for their votes. //
anon-d4h1
20 hours ago
There's a huge trap here that I have never seen anybody mention in regards to term limits: staff.
Both committee staff and personal staff members.
I used to work on the Hill, and the power senior staff wields can be almost limitless.
They're in place before most members are elected, and they'll be there after those members are gone. Their expertise is almost always deferred to by the members. And as a result appropriations bills, procurement priorities, authorization language already reflect staff priorities and biases more than anything.
Imagine what the impact would be of reducing the time in office of elected members? The power of unelected staff members will grow even stronger.
Any move for term limits (which may in itself be a laudable goal), must include airtight limitations on staff tenure. //
Chris Paige
11 hours ago
None of these reforms will work. Term limits will become term minimums (as no decent candidate will challenge somebody who is leaving soon anyway & no one will fund such candidates as it's not worth it). Besides, it's done nothing in NYC (as you just get a rotating crew of losers).
The key is we need to make Congressional elections more competitive.
First, we need to abolish campaign donation limits. If someone's willing to give you $1MM to run for Congress, then God bless.
Second, we need to limit donations to NATURAL persons who are eligible to vote for the candidate at issue. This would increase intra-party disputes as. national donors couldn't enforce uniformity.
Third, we need to outlaw donations by government workers, government contractors, and employees of highly-regulated firms (ie. if you're company is FDIC insured or part of the Fed, you can't donate.).
Fourth, we need to redraw Congressional map lines to MAXIMIZE inter-party competition.
Fifth, we need to strip the media/social media of their outsized role - neither should be allowed to censor anything that isn't actually illegal.
Sixth, we need to limit secrecy - everything should become public after 20 years w/ exceedingly few exceptions.
Committee on House Administration Access to USCP Video From January 6, 2021
We're learning some significant facts about the new Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson (R-LA), and here is perhaps the most shocking piece of information uncovered to date:
He isn't rich.
Over the course of seven years, Johnson has never reported a checking or savings account in his name, nor in the name of his wife or any of his children, disclosures show. In fact, he doesn’t appear to have money stashed in any investments, with his latest filing—covering 2022—showing no assets whatsoever.
Of course, it’s unlikely Johnson doesn’t actually have a bank account. What’s more likely is Johnson lives paycheck to paycheck—so much so that he doesn’t have enough money in his bank account to trigger the checking account disclosure rules for members of Congress. //
Jordan Libowitz, communications director for watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, offered a more blunt assessment, saying that if Johnson truly doesn’t have any assets, it “raises questions about his personal financial wellbeing.”
FortCourage
2 hours ago edited
Speaker Johnson is doing exactly what he said he was going to do. One bill, one spending item. And he’s making sure we don’t increase deficit spending by doing it. That’s good, responsible conservative leadership. The D’s helped make this happen by joining Matt Gaetz in ousting Speaker McCarthy. They have no one to blame but themselves for getting Speaker Johnson. I’m loving every last minute of this.
BTW, McConnell’s opposition to this shows that he’s done as leader. He needs to go already. //
Prester John
3 hours ago edited
Voting on individual issues based on their merits rather than globbing everything together in quadrillion bazillion dollar bills would set a really dangerous precedent, wouldn't it?
We can't have that.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC
·
Now more than ever, we must emphasize the importance of separating people from governments.
Antisemitism is disgusting and unacceptable. We have a responsibility to defend our Jewish brothers, sisters, and siblings from hatred. No movement of integrity should tolerate it. Ever.
1:30 PM · Oct 30, 2023 //
Jewish New York politico Dov Hikind, an ex-Democrat Assemblyman who has been a frequent critic of AOC since the start of her time in Congress, was not buying it. At all:
You think this will give you cover for when historians write about the insane period when certain members of Congress spewed the talking points of Hamas?
You don’t get to foment Jew hatred 364 days of the year and condemn it once and then receive absolution for fueling violent antisemitism!
There was also this reminder about how AOC could have voted to help Israeli civilians during another time when it mattered - but didn't:
Joe Concha @JoeConchaTV
·
In a related story, AOC was against U.S. funding for the Iron Dome, which has saved countless Israeli lives.
So, regardless of what either side claims in their pleadings, the question of immunity of a former President from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office is novel and presents an “issue of first impression” for the Courts to resolve. Any claim to the contrary is legally ignorant or expresses a bias as to what the outcome should be. The question has never been answered, because it has never before been an issue that needed an answer. //
Smith has said that “no man is above the law” – and that’s just about it. That might seem a bit flip on my part, but in an Opposition that has 42 pages of “argument,” I count that phrase being used six times in the first nine pages alone.
What the former President has is the case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a Supreme Court çase decided in 1982. //
the Supreme Court took the matter up prior to trial and overruled both lower courts, finding that a President does enjoy absolute immunity from civil damage lawsuits for acts taken while in office pursuant to his authority as President. The boundary for conduct falling within that absolute immunity was acts within the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibility. Former President Trump contends that all the operative facts relied upon by Smith in the indictment fall within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibility while in office. //
What the Supreme Court did not say in Fitzgerald was that the immunity recognized therein would extend to immunity from criminal prosecution for acts “within the outer perimeter” of Trump’s official responsibility. Smith’s response to Fitzgerald relies primarily on that point. But the Court did not say that such immunity would not apply either – that question was not before the Court. //
The Court did say that the public has a greater interest in criminal prosecutions than in civil damages lawsuits, and that fact played a role in not allowing Fitzgerald to pursue his case against Nixon personally. But the same interests in granting immunity – laid out in the text above – applies in both situations, and the Supreme Court did not suggest that the case for immunity would be less compelling if the issue before it involved a criminal prosecution. //
Yes, it would create a substantial barrier to even the justified pursuit of a criminal prosecution of any future President for alleged criminal behavior while in office. But it would not be an insurmountable barrier. The “Impeachment” process in the Constitution includes what is referred to as the “Judgment” clause – Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:
“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, and Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
The House of Representatives impeached former President Trump for actions relating to the 2020 election, but he was not convicted by the Senate. His motion argues that criminal prosecution is allowed for conduct in office following an impeachment, conviction, and removal from office as stated in the “Judgment Clause.”
There is a logic and purpose for finding such a prerequisite. Impeachment and conviction, by the House and Senate respectively, provide the imprimatur of legitimacy from a co-equal branch of government closest to the people. It would provide independent justification for a subsequent elected Executive to prosecute the individual who was the prior elected Executive. Had the Senate convicted President Trump, that would have been a bipartisan “Judgment” that he had, in fact, committed “high crimes and misdemeanors” requiring his removal and disqualification from holding any office in the future. Such a finding would insulate a later criminal prosecution from claims of being politically motivated.
In a very real way, what partisan prosecutors are doing validates the exact point Trump is making as it confirms the risk identified by the Court in Fitzgerald.