MERRICK GARLAND: HE'S NO JUSTICE SCALIA, OBAMA'S 3RD TERM

MERRICK GARLAND: HE'S NO JUSTICE SCALIA, OBAMA'S 3RD TERM

GARLAND WAS APPOINTED AS AN APPELLATE JUDGE IN 1997 BY BILL CLINTON.

Sources: CNN, Washington Times, Youtube

February 12, 2016 Conservative SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia was Murdered.

Wednesday, March 16, 2016 Pres Obama nominated  Scalia's replacement, Appellate Court Judge Merrick Brian Garland, a LIBERAL appointed by former president BILL CLINTON in 1997.

Due to this being a presidential election year, the GOP-controlled Senate has already refused to confirm Garland.

Scalia's open seat places the 2016 presidential election in a dangerous predicament.

If Garland is not confirmed, in the event of a Bush v Gore-style election battle the SCOTUS will remain deadlocked.

A deadlocked SCOTUS court in an election results battle presents two possible scenarios:

1).  A long drawn out, expensive litigation until a decision is made.

2) Obama is legally allowed to remain President until a decision is made.

Thus Obama may get the 3rd term he has been hoping for.

***** Jeffrey Toobin: Sure, Merrick Garland is qualified, but this is politics

Story highlights

• Jeffrey Toobin: Supreme Court nominee is unlikely to survive political maelstrom 
• Toobin says Republicans will likely not bend and allow hearing or vote on Merrick Garland 
• Cost of allowing Obama pick who could tip court is too great for GOP, he says.
• Should Merrick Garland's friends be offering him congratulations -- or condolences? After a distinguished career in public service, Garland has been tapped for the legal profession's highest honor -- to be a Supreme Court justice. But President Barack Obama's nomination thrusts Garland into a political maelstrom he is unlikely to survive -- at least as a judge on the nation's highest court.

Garland, who is 63, has had a storybook career. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School (like the justice he would be replacing, Antonin Scalia), was clerk for a pair of legendary judges (Henry Friendly and William Brennan), and a partner at a prominent law firm -- which he gave up to work as a line prosecutor in the District of Columbia.

He was a Justice Department official and then judge for the last 18 years on the second most important court in the nation. 

The issue of Garland's qualifications to be on the Supreme Court is beyond question.

But Republicans have said that because Obama is in the last year of his term, the seat on the court should be determined by the voters -- who will be choosing the next president. They have vowed, in very explicit terms, to refuse to give Garland a hearing or a vote. 

Most Republican senators will refuse even to meet with him. And while Republican senators have so far avoided attacking Garland's qualifications, conservative interest groups are already pledging to run television advertisements portraying the judge as a mindless liberal and Obama stooge.

It's all very ... political. But the Supreme Court has always been as much a political body as a legal one. Supporters of the President, and of Garland, are seeking to impose the maximum amount of political pain on their opponents in the Senate.

Democrats have already started calling out their Republican counterparts as do-nothing obstructionists. This is how the process will play out, and the outcome will depend on the politics. Do Republicans stick with their base and refuse a vote? Or do they cave under criticism and allow Garland to proceed through the process?

The odds strongly favor continuing Republican solidarity. The seat is the tipping point to a Democratic majority on the court, and the GOP will put up with a lot of heat to prevent the loss of the court for a generation. 

True, a President Hillary Clinton might pick someone even more liberal, but better to risk a fight later than lose one now. When it comes to the Supreme Court, political calculation is nothing new. There were no good old days.

Obamacare Scores 4th Federal Court Win! Declared Constitutional!

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Obama Health Care Law

President Obama's controversial health care law got a major boost Wednesday when the first ruling by a federal appeals court affirmed that Congress can require Americans to have minimum insurance coverage.

A conservative law center had challenged the measure, arguing on behalf of plaintiffs who said potentially being required to buy insurance or face penalties was subjecting them to financial hardship. They warned that the law was too broad and could lead to more federal mandates.

The Thomas More Law Center, based in Ann Arbor, Mich., argued before the panel that the law was unconstitutional and that Congress overstepped its powers.

The government countered that the measure was needed for the overall goal of reducing health care costs and reforms such as protecting people with pre-existing conditions. It said the coverage mandate will help keep the costs of changes from being shifted to households and providers.

The three-judge 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel delivered a long opinion with disagreement on some issues.

"Congress had a rational basis for concluding that the minimum coverage provision is essential to the Affordable Care Act's larger reforms to the national markets in health care delivery and health insurance," Judge Boyce F. Martin, appointed by former President Jimmy Carter, wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling.

A George W. Bush appointee concurred; a Ronald Reagan appointee who is a U.S. district judge in Columbus sitting on the panel disagreed. Judges are selected for panels through random draw.

An attorney for Thomas More said the center expects to appeal. It could ask for the full circuit court to review the case or go on to the U.S. Supreme Court.

More than 30 legal challenges have been filed over the health care overhaul, some focusing on different issues.

The White House celebrated the ruling on its blog.

"Today the Affordable Care Act, and the millions of Americans and small businesses benefitting from it scored another victory when the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the law is constitutional," wrote Stephanie Cutter, an assistant to the president and deputy senior advisor.

"We're gratified by today's ruling, which came from judges appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents who agreed that the law's individual responsibility provision (sometimes called the minimum coverage provision) is constitutional," she wrote.

Supporters of the law also took a victory lap.

"Today's decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's expansion of health coverage to tens of millions of people is a victory of common sense," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA.

"Every step of the way the health care debate has been polluted by partisan politics," said Ethan Rome, executive director of Health Care for America Now (HCAN). "Today's decision, made by judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, is immune to that criticism. The court ruled on the merits, and it's as simple as that."

The Justice Department also cheered the ruling, saying it will continue to "vigorously defend the health care reform statue in any litigation challenging it."

"Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed," Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in a statement. "We believe these challenges to health reform will also fail."


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News, White House, Youtube, Google Maps

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Upheld By Appellate Court: 9th Circuit

Appellate Panel Says "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Should Stay During Appeal


A Federal Appeals Court sided with the U.S. Government Monday, allowing the U.S. Military to maintain its "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy during an appeal of a lower court ruling that the law barring openly Gay and Lesbian Soldiers is Unconstitutional.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals means that the policy remains in place while the government appeals a federal judge's ruling against it. One of the three judges on the panel dissented against parts of Monday's decision.

In response to the panel's ruling, the Log Cabin Republicans, a GOP gay rights group that filed the lawsuit against the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, can now appeal it to the full 9th Circuit appellate court and or make an emergency application directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dan Woods, an attorney with White & Case who represents the Log Cabin Republicans, said the appeal would continue and he raised the possibility of seeking emergency relief from the nation's highest court.

"We will continue to fight on for the constitutional rights of these Americans and look forward to a favorable decision on the merits of the appeal," Woods said in a statement. "Meanwhile, we will discuss the court's order with our client to determine whether we will ask for a review of the order by the U.S. Supreme Court."

In Monday's ruling, the judges said they had to weigh the harm of continuing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy against the potential harm in forcing the military to drop the policy before it is ready.

"We conclude that the government's colorable allegations that the lack of an orderly transition in policy will produce immediate harm and precipitous injury are convincing," the ruling said. "Colorable" means the court believes the allegations have a reasonable chance of being found valid.

"We also conclude that the public interest in ensuring orderly change of this magnitude in the military -- if that is what is to happen -- strongly militates in favor of a stay," the ruling said.

Pentagon spokesman Col. Dave Lapan told CNN in an e-mail message that the appellate panel's decision was "appropriate."

In their ruling, the judges also noted that legislation pending before Congress to repeal the policy would render the case before them moot.

The House has passed a repeal provision, and the Senate is expected to consider it as part of a broader defense authorization bill when it returns for a lame-duck session in mid-November.

President Barack Obama wants to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and reached an agreement with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen,the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on a process that includes a military review of how to make a successful transition to openly gay and lesbian soldiers serving alongside straight colleagues. Obama, Gates and Mullen would then have to certify the repeal.

The case puts Obama's administration in an unusual position of supporting a repeal but filing court motions to prevent it from happening faster than planned. The legislation before Congress includes the process for repeal agreed to with Gates and Mullen.

In response to the court case, Gates recently raised the level at which gay and lesbian troops can be discharged under "don't ask, don't tell" by ordering that it only be done by the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

In a memo written to the heads of all the military services, Gates said his action was taken in direct response to the legal uncertainty surrounding "don't ask, don't tell" law and policy.

"Effective immediately and until further notice, no military member shall be separated ... without the personal approval of the secretary of the military department concerned, in coordination with the under secretary of Defense for personnel and readiness and the general counsel of the Defense Department. These functions may not be delegated," Gates wrote.


Sources: CNN, ForaTV, PBS News, Youtube

Felony Inmates Allowed To Vote Per Federal Judges' Decision; Racial Justice

Federal Judges: Washington Felony Inmates Should Get Vote


In a decision that could give momentum to other efforts to expand voting to inmates, a Federal Appeals Court ruled that incarcerated Felons should be allowed to vote in Washington state.

There's a patchwork of laws across the nation concerning restoration of felons' voting rights, but only Maine and Vermont allow those behind bars to cast ballots.

The 2-1 ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday overturned the 2000 ruling of a district judge in Spokane. That judge had ruled that Washington state's felon disenfranchisement law did not violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former prison inmate from Bellevue.

The two appellate judges ruled that disparities in the state's justice system "cannot be explained in race-neutral ways."

A spokeswoman said state Attorney General Rob McKenna is weighing the state's next step. Spokeswoman Janelle Guthrie said that they could either ask a larger group of judges from the 9th Circuit to reconsider the ruling or go straight to the U.S. Supreme Court. If appealed, it's likely that the state would seek a stay on inmate's ability to vote until the case is resolved.

While the ruling only currently covers Washington state, if it stands, Guthrie said it could be the basis for litigation in any area covered by the 9th Circuit — Oregon, Idaho, Montana, California, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marianas.

Of the more than 18,000 felons currently in state custody who could get their right to vote back under this ruling, 37.1 percent are minorities. Of that group, blacks make up the largest percentage, at 19.2 percent.

The issues the ruling raises about racial bias in the justice system are not unique to Washington state, said Marc Mauer, executive director of The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C., group promoting sentencing reform.

"They are issues that permeate the justice system and are relevant in every state," he said.

Mauer said that an estimated 5.3 million people nationwide are ineligible to vote because of a felony conviction.

Tuesday's court's ruling is "an embarrassment," said Trent England, a policy director at Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a conservative think tank in Washington state.

"It flies in the face of precedent," he said. "Not only is felon disenfranchisement constitutional but it's good policy. People who commit the most heinous crimes should be deprived of their voice in our system of government at least for a time."

The lawsuit was filed by Muhammad Shabazz Farrakhan, formerly of Bellevue. He was serving a three-year sentence at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla for a series of felony-theft convictions when he sued the state in 1996.

Ultimately, five other inmates, all members of racial minority groups, joined as plaintiffs.

The lawsuit contended that because nonwhites make up a large percentage of the prison population, a state law prohibiting inmates and parolees from voting is illegal because it dilutes the electoral clout of minorities. That was a violation of the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 1965, the lawsuit said.

An attorney for Farrakhan equated disenfranchisement laws to poll taxes and literacy tests of the past.

"In this case, we have proved that the criminal justice system in this state is biased against African-Americans, and the impact has been a violation of their voting rights," said Larry Weiser, a law professor at Gonzaga University School of Law who is the lead attorney in the lawsuit.

The state contended that the lawsuit should be dismissed because the law was not intended to discriminate against minorities.

David Ammons, a spokesman for the state's head elections official, said that Secretary of State Sam Reed "supports minority rights, but believes it is a rational and reasonable sanction for society to demand that felons lose their voting rights while in prison or under community supervision."

Last year, lawmakers passed a law that allows convicted felons to reregister to vote once they're no longer on parole or probation. Previously, felons who were no longer in Washington state custody but owed court-ordered fines and restitution were not allowed to vote. Under the new law that took effect last July, voting rights could be revoked if a felon willingly fails to make regular payments on those financial obligations.

In her dissent, 9th Circuit Judge Margaret McKeown wrote that the majority "has charted territory that none of our sister circuits has dared to explore," and notes that three other appellate courts — the 1st Circuit in a Massachusetts case, the 2nd Circuit in a New York case, and the 11th Circuit in a Florida case — "have all determined that vote denial challenges to felon disenfranchisement laws are not cognizable under the Voting Rights Act."

She wrote that since Washington state passed a law changing voting rights just last year, and after the 9th Circuit heard the Farrakhan case, the case should go back to district court.

"It is not our job to consider, in the first instance, the effect this new law has on plaintiffs' case and whether the totality of the circumstances analysis under ... the Voting Rights Act should be different now that plaintiffs' case remains viable only as to currently incarcerated felons," she wrote.

NOTE: The case is Farrakhan v. Gregoire.

The Sentencing Project: http://www.sentencingproject.org

Attorney General Rob McKenna: http://www.atg.wa.gov



View Larger Map

Sources: AP, Yahoo News, Northwest Cable, Google Maps

Federal Court Limits Taser Use...Stopping Police Brutality

Federal Appeals Court Sets Limits On Police Use Of Tasers


A Federal Appeals Court on Monday issued one of the most comprehensive rulings yet limiting police use of Tasers against low-level offenders who seem to pose little threat and may be mentally ill.

In a case out of San Diego County, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals criticized an officer who, without warning, shot an emotionally troubled man with a Taser when he was unarmed, yards away, and neither fleeing nor advancing on the officer.

Sold as a nonlethal alternative to guns, Tasers deliver an electrical jolt meant to subdue a subject. The stun guns have become a common and increasingly controversial tool used by law enforcement.

There have been at least nine Taser-related fatalities in the Sacramento region, including the death earlier this month of Paul Martinez Jr., an inmate shot with a stun gun while allegedly resisting officers at the Roseville jail.

As lawsuits have proliferated against police and Taser International, which manufactures the weaons, the nation's appellate courts have been trying to define what constitutes appropriate Taser use.

The San Diego County case is the latest ruling to address the issue.

The court recounted the facts of the case:

In the summer of 2005, Carl Bryan, 21, was pulled over for a seat-belt violation and did not follow an officer's order to stay in the car.

Earlier, he had received a speeding ticket and had taken off his T-shirt to wipe away tears. He was wearing only the underwear he'd slept in because a woman had taken his keys, the court said without further explanation.

During his second traffic stop in Coronado, he got out of the car. He was "agitated … yelling gibberish and hitting his thighs, clad only in his boxer shorts and tennis shoes" but did not threaten the officer verbally or physically, the judges wrote.

That's when Coronado Police Officer Brian McPherson, who was standing about 20 feet away watching Bryan's "bizarre tantrum," fired his Taser, the court said.

Without a word of warning, he hit Bryan in the arm with two metal darts, delivering a 1,200-volt jolt.

Temporarily paralyzed and in intense pain, Bryan fell face-first on the pavement. The fall shattered four of his front teeth and left him with facial abrasions and swelling. Later, a doctor had to use a scalpel to remove one of the darts.

Bryan sued McPherson, the Coronado Police Department and the city of Coronado, alleging excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

The officer moved to have the claim dismissed, but a federal trial judge ruled in Bryan's favor.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed the trial judge's ruling on Monday, concluding that the level of force used by the officer was excessive.

McPherson could have waited for backup or tried to talk the man down, the judges said. If Bryan was mentally ill, as the officer contended, then there was even more reason to use "less intrusive means," the judges said.

"Officer McPherson's desire to quickly and decisively end an unusual and tense situation is understandable," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for the court. "His chosen method for doing so violated Bryan's constitutional right to be free from excessive force."

Some lawyers called it a landmark decision.

Eugene Iredale, a San Diego lawyer who argued the case, said it was one of the clearest and most complete statements yet from an appellate court about the limits of Taser use.

He said after Monday's decision that courts will consider all circumstances, including whether someone poses a threat, has committed a serious crime or is mentally troubled.

"In an era where everybody understands 'don't tase me, bro,' courts are going to look more closely at the use of Tasers, and they're going to try to deter the promiscuous oversue of that tool," he said.

That's especially true in the context of those who appear to be emotionally disturbed or mentally ill, said Johnny Griffin III, a Sacramento plaintiffs lawyer.

Griffin represented the family of a troubled Woodland man who died under police restraint after being struck multiple times with Tasers.

In May 2008, Ricardo Abrahams walked away from a voluntary care facility and disobeyed the orders of officers called to check on his well-being. They shot him repeatedly with stun guns.

The case against the city of Woodland and its officers was settled in June for $300,000.

"I think it confirms what I and other lawyers in this area have been saying: You can't treat a person with mental illness the same as someone without mental illness," Griffin said.

Law enforcement authorities in Sacramento said they don't expect Monday's ruling to prompt much change.

Sacramento Police Department and Sacramento County Sheriff's Department policies permit the use of force to gain control of a suspect or prevent harm to others.

"Certainly the officer should be able to articulate the reason the force (was used), and a mere resistance to comply may not be enough," said Sheriff John McGinness.

Sgt. Norm Leong, spokesman for the Police Department, said his agency's policy on the use of stun guns mainly covers safety considerations. It doesn't list behaviors or situations that warrant using the devices, he said.

"Ideally, in every circumstance, we try to gain compliance verbally, and force is the last option we ever want to use," he said.



View Larger Map


Sources: AP, McClatchy Newspapers, Huffington Post, Cops Out Of Control, Widgetbox, Youtube, Google Maps

Justice Dept. Appeals ACORN Funding Restoration Ruling

DOJ appeals ruling lifting ACORN Funding ban


The Justice Department is asking a Federal court in New York to reconsider a decision that lifted a Federal funding ban on ACORN.

In a nine-page document filed Thursday, the government argued that a report commissioned by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now that detailed the group’s management failings proves that Congressional action taken to stop funding it is not punitive, and thus not an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

“ACORN’s uncontroverted longstanding management problems, set forth in detail in the Report, fully support Congress’s non-punitive concern with ACORN’s misuse of federal dollars,” the appeal reads.

Republicans, who have generally led the charge to discredit ACORN and have accused the Obama administration of being cozy with the community group, are singing the president's praises over the appeal. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) hailed the decision as a “bi-partisan recognition” that ACORN is not fit to receive federal funds.

The appeal is the latest twist in a lengthy saga involving ACORN’s alleged misdeeds. After a spate of voter fraud accusations last year, and videos surfacing this year that appear to show its employees advising two undercover filmmakers on how to break the law, Congress voted – and the president signed – a measure which stopped all federal funding of the group.

The Justice Department, which typically defends laws signed by the president, is arguing that Congress has the power to watch over its appropriated funds, and that there is “nothing improper” about trying to limit misdirected expenditures.

The report about ACORN, paid for by the group, generally absolved it of any illegality, but said the group’s leaders “failed to commit the group to the basic, appropriate standards of governance and accountability” – the very language the Justice Department is now using to try to restore a funding ban.

ACORN brought a suit in November, asking the court to rule that the ban – which was passed as part of the legislative branch appropriations – was unfairly punitive toward their particular group, making it unconstitutional.

The court last week backed the group, saying that the law was punitive.

"ACORN members are moving forward with our community organizing work," said spokesperson Kevin Whelan, "confident that the constitutional protections the court described so clearly last week still apply."



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, US Dept Of Justice, ACORN, Google Maps

Brazilian Court Orders Abducted Boy Returned To US

An appeals court in Brazil on Wednesday ordered the return of a 9-year-old New Jersey boy to his father after a five-year custody battle between the boy's American father and Brazilian mother. NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dad calls it Abduction. David Goldman talks with TODAY’s Meredith Vieira about testifying before Congress about what he considers a case of international child abduction.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Brazil Court rules for U.S. dad seeking custody


A Federal Appeals Court ruled Wednesday that a 9-year-old boy living in Brazil should be returned to his American father, but the case will likely be appealed again, officials said.

A panel of three Brazilian judges ruled the boy must be handed over to his father, David Goldman, at the U.S. Consulate in Rio de Janeiro within 48 hours, said Ricardo Zamariola, Goldman's attorney.

"He's really happy but he is worried about any eventual future decision that could block the boy being handed over to him," said Zamariola, who added that he didn't expect a final resolution until at least the first half of next year.

Goldman's lengthy court battle to get custody of his son, Sean, has gained international attention as President Barack Obama, the U.S. Congress and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have all weighed in, seeking the child's return.

Clinton said she was pleased to hear the latest court decision. "It is my hope that this long legal process is now complete and that the Goldman family will be reunited quickly. They will be in my thoughts and prayers today and throughout this holiday season," she said in a statement.

The decision by the Federal Appeals Court in Rio de Janeiro upheld a Brazilian federal judge's earlier ruling.

Stepfather likely to Appeal

But Zamariola said he was certain lawyers for Joao Paulo Lins e Silva, the Brazilian stepfather with whom Sean is living, would appeal, perhaps to the Supreme Court.

Lins e Silva's attorney, Sergio Tostes, declined to comment.

Goldman was not present for the ruling Wednesday and didn't return a request for comment made to his U.S.-based attorney, Patricia Apy. Zamariola said he spoke with Goldman and that he was expected to arrive in Rio de Janeiro on Thursday morning.

The case began in 2004, when Goldman's wife, Bruna Bianchi, took then-4-year-old Sean to her native Brazil. Goldman says it was to be a two-week vacation.

But she stayed and so did the boy. She eventually was divorced there and remarried. Last year, she died giving birth to a daughter.

Goldman, who lives in Tinton Falls, N.J., had already been seeking his son's return under an international treaty that covers cross-border child abductions.

Bianchi's death generated more interest in the case, which has been discussed this year by top-level diplomats in Washington and the Brazilian capital, Brasilia. It also has been the subject of congressional hearings in the U.S. and has prompted protests in both countries.

Previous rulings favorable to Goldman have been scuttled by other Brazilian courts.

It's outstanding news

But U.S. Rep. Chris Smith, who has traveled to Brazil with Goldman and held congressional hearings on the issue, said he was optimistic Sean would soon be in the U.S.

"It's outstanding news," the New Jersey congressman said of Wednesday's ruling. "Even if there is an appeal, the order is to deliver Sean to the Embassy Friday."

Meanwhile, Sean's Brazilian maternal grandmother has said that Sean wants to stay in Rio. She has filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking that the boy's statements be taken into consideration. A similar request from the Brazilian family was denied earlier this year. The child, who has dual citizenship, has been shielded from speaking directly to the news media.

Both Goldman, a former model who now has a fishing charter business, and members of Bianchi's family, including her second husband, have appeared on television talk shows to make their case.

Goldman and his son reunited in February for the first time since the child was taken to Brazil. They have not seen each other since June.



View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Google Maps