CHRISTINE FORD vs KAVANAUGH - 36 YRS AGO WHO REMEMBERS ALL DETAILS ACCURATELY?

CHRISTINE FORD vs BRETT KAVANAUGH - 36 YRS AGO WHO REMEMBERS ALL DETAILS ACCURATELY?

DIDN’T THIS INCIDENT OCCURR IN HIGH SCHOOL?

I’M NOT MOCKING CHRISTINE FORD NOR AM I TRYING TO SOUND HYPOCRITICAL BUT WHY IS IT ALWAYS LIKE THIS FOR GOP SCOTUS COURT NOMINEES? WHY??

I WAS TRYING TO REMAIN SILENT BUT I HAD TO SPEAK UP.

THIS DRAMA IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING WOMEN, IT’S STRAIGHT POLITICAL THEATER.


Post Sources: BBC News, Fox News, NBC News, Washington Post, Youtube


***** Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh hearing: Key takeaways so far


With a seat on the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh are appearing in front of senators to state their case and share their stories. Here are some of the key takeaways so far.

Everyone knew what Christine Blasey Ford was going to say before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Thursday morning. Her formal opening statement was released to the public on Wednesday evening.

Reading what she was going to say and hearing her speak it, in a quiet, sometimes faltering voice, are two very different things, however.

The committee hearing began with statements by Republican chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein, and the exchanging accusations of political obfuscation and procedural misconduct threatened to cover the proceedings in a political fog.

For a taut 20 minutes, however, Ms Ford cut through the fog with searing emotion. She spoke of traumatic memories and decades of shame; of a civic duty to come forward and recent months of hounding media and death threats.

The images of her speaking - the first glimpse the public at large has had of her besides a few grainy photos - will linger well beyond Thursday's hearing or even Brett Kavanaugh's ultimate professional fate.


Once Ms Ford concluded, the fog descended again. Thanks in large part to a disjointed format that featured five-minute segments alternating between veteran sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, a surrogate questioner for the Republicans, and Democratic senators, there was little flow to proceedings.

It was as if viewers were flipping back and forth between a CourtTV criminal cross-examination and a public-access television congressional hearing.

Democrats succeeded in gleaning a few memorable moments from Ms Ford. She said she was 100% certain that Brett - referring to Mr Kavanaugh repeatedly by his first name - was the teenager who assaulted her.

She also, in reply to a question by Vermont Democrat Pat Leahy, recounted how the enduring recollection she has from the incident was Mr Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge, laughing as they stumbled down the stairs after the alleged attack.


Ms Mitchell, in her interrogation, pulled at a number of threads in Ms Ford's story.

Who drove her to and from the house on the night of the party?

Why did she tell Senate investigators that she couldn't meet them in Washington because she was afraid of flying if she frequently travelled by air for pleasure?

Did she or did she not share her 2012 therapist records with a reporter from the Washington Post?

That final line of questioning is key, since it's those records that help corroborate that Ms Ford had spoken about the assault well before Mr Kavanaugh became a candidate for the Supreme Court.

The other questions seemed more geared toward undermining Ms Ford's credibility - the kind of strategy useful during depositions or trials to undermine a jury's trust in a witness or, perhaps, force them to crack under the accumulated pressure of the interrogation.

Every five minutes, however, Democrats threw Ms Ford a lifeline.


In the end, however, Ms Mitchell herself seemed slightly exasperated by the format she was working under. When it comes to trying to arrive at the accurate recollection of trauma, she said, "there's no study that shows that this setting, in five-minute increments, is the best way to do that.

As the first half of the hearing drew to a close, the senators began to argue about entering various outside statements into the record, only to be interrupted by one of Ms Ford's lawyers.

"Can we be excused?" he asked.

With the partisan fog thick again, it's a sentiment many Americans may have shared.

SCOTUS BLOCKS NORTH CAROLINA ANTI-GERRYMANDERING DECISION FROM LOWER COURT (2018 & 2020)

SCOTUS BLOCKS NC ANTI-GERRYMANDERING DECISION FROM LOWER COURT:

GOP’S NC VOTING DISTRICTS APPROVED.

BLACK ELITE NORTH CAROLINA LEADERS & WHITE DEM LEADERS WERE TOO BUSY BEING RACIALLY DIVIDED TO SEE THIS POLITICAL ALBATROSS LOOMING OVERHEAD.

WHILE BLACK ELITE & WHITE DEM LEADERS WERE COMFORTABLY BLOCKING PROGRESS FOR LOCAL NC VOTERS, THE GOP QUIETLY REVISED NORTH CAROLINA’S VOTING DISTRICTS.

“We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”

DR MARTIN LUTHER KING JR, 1964


Sources: NY Times, PBS News, The Young Turks, YouTube


**** Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks North Carolina Gerrymandering Ruling


WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday temporarily blocked a trial court’s order requiring North Carolina lawmakers to produce a revised congressional voting map, making it likely that the midterm elections this year will be conducted using districts favorable to Republican candidates.

The trial court had found that Republican legislators in the state had violated the Constitution by drawing congressional voting districts to hurt the electoral chances of Democratic candidates.

The Supreme Court’s move was expected and not particularly telling. The court, which is considering two other major tests of partisan gerrymandering, has granted stays in similar settings. Its decisions in the pending cases, from Wisconsin and Maryland, are likely to effectively decide the North Carolina case, too.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor noted dissents from Thursday’s order, which was brief and unsigned.

The previous North Carolina decision, issued by a three-judge panel last week, was the first from a federal court to strike down a congressional map as a partisan gerrymander. Republican state lawmakers, the court said, had violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection by drawing voting districts to their party’s advantage.

The judges noted that the legislator responsible for drawing the map had not disguised his intentions. “I think electing Republicans is better than electing Democrats,” said the legislator, Representative David Lewis, a Republican. “So I drew this map to help foster what I think is better for the country.”

The plan worked. In 2016, the court said, Republican congressional candidates won 53 percent of the statewide vote. But they won in 10 of the 13 congressional districts, or 77 percent of them.

The Supreme Court has ruled that racial gerrymandering can violate the Constitution. But it has never struck down a voting map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

Republicans and, in private, many Democrats in North Carolina had expected the Supreme Court to stay last week’s ruling, which ordered legislators to prepare a new map by Jan. 24. But elected officials and political strategists had been preparing for the possibility of a hasty redrawing of the congressional map and an upending of carefully laid plans for the midterm campaigns.

Even the brief gap between the trial court’s ruling and the Supreme Court’s order left the state in turmoil weeks before the deadline to declare candidacies.

Few states in recent years have seen as much political turbulence as North Carolina, where Republicans took control of the General Assembly in 2010 and now face off regularly with a Democratic governor. Many of the high-decibel clashes in North Carolina, even before Gov. Roy Cooper was elected in 2016, focused on elections and voting procedures.

A voter ID law has been the subject of contentious litigation, and a different three-judge panel concluded that many of the state’s legislative districts had been racially gerrymandered. In 2016, a court struck down a different version of the congressional map, saying it was a racial gerrymander.

But last week’s ruling stirred particular anger in Raleigh, the state capital, with Republicans infuriated that the judges had begun making arrangements for a court-appointed expert to draw a map as an alternative to one that the Legislature might develop.

Although observers said the three-judge panel’s ruling, stayed or not, had offered Democrats a valuable talking point in the months before midterm elections, Republicans welcomed the Supreme Court’s order on Thursday.

“We did fully expect this, but we are still grateful,” said Dallas Woodhouse, the executive director of the North Carolina Republican Party, who complained in an interview that the lower court had tried to “inject chaos into our elections.” Mr. Woodhouse said he fully expected that this year’s elections would be carried out under the existing map.

Critics of the map expressed disappointment and frustration with the court’s order.

“We still believe the day is coming soon for the General Assembly to be held to account for this madness,” said Allison Riggs of the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, which represents the League of Women Voters of North Carolina, a group that challenged the map. “The law and the facts of this case make that clear.”

J. Michael Bitzer, a political scientist at Catawba College, near Charlotte, said the Supreme Court’s order was an important, if perhaps temporary, win for Republicans in North Carolina.

“Certainly, Republicans will view this as a victory but probably a short-term victory,” he said. “They certainly dodged a bullet tonight. The question is: ‘How long do we have before the Wisconsin decision comes down, and what kind of impact will that have on 2018’s elections?’”

In October, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case from Wisconsin. The trial court in that case had struck down a voting map for the State Assembly as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

The Supreme Court has also agreed to decide whether Maryland Democrats crossed a constitutional line by redrawing House districts to flip a Republican-held seat to Democratic control.

In asking the Supreme Court to block the North Carolina ruling, state lawmakers said the trial court had made legal errors and unreasonable demands, notably in ordering new congressional maps to be drawn by Jan. 24.

The lawmakers’ brief reminded the justices that they had granted a stay in the Wisconsin case. “Particularly given the relief this court already granted to Wisconsin,” they wrote, “it makes no sense whatsoever to force North Carolina to immediately remedy a purported partisan gerrymandering violation and commence its 2018 election cycle under a new court-imposed map before this court can even decide whether and under what circumstances such claims may be adjudicated.”

In their own brief, lawyers for Democrats challenging the map said the lawmakers’ motive in seeking a stay was “plain as day.”

“The Republican contingent of the legislature wants to enjoy the fruits of their grossly unconstitutional actions for yet another election cycle,” the brief said.

SCOTUS UPHOLDS TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN ON SEVERAL MUSLIM COUNTRIES (GORUSH)

SCOTUS UPHOLDS TRUMP'S TRAVEL BAN ON SEVERAL MUSLIM COUNTRIES (GORUSH):

IRAN
LIBYA
SYRIA
YEMEN
SOMALIA
CHAD
NORTH KOREA
VENEZUELA

NEIL GORUSH BALANCES SCOTUS & RULES AS SCALIA MAY HAVE.

DEMOCRATS STOP WAITING FOR TRUMP'S IMPEACHMENT OR TRYING TO ENCOURAGE AN ASSASSINATION.

INSTEAD KEY DEMS SHOULD BE STRATEGIZING TO WIN IN 2018 OR 2020.


Sources: BBC, CTV News, NY Times, TIME, Youtube


***** Supreme Court allows Trump travel ban to take full effect


The US Supreme Court has ruled President Donald Trump's travel ban on six mainly Muslim countries can go fully into effect.

But the directive against travellers from Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen still faces legal challenges.

On Monday, seven of the nine justices lifted injunctions imposed by lower courts on the policy.

The ruling covers the third version of the directive that President Trump has issued since taking office.

The presidential proclamation also imposed restrictions on travellers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials, which have gone into effect.

In striking down the other parts, lower court judges had cited Mr Trump's campaign description of his policy as a "Muslim ban".

Further arguments will be heard this week by federal courts in San Francisco, California, and Richmond, Virginia.

In June, the Supreme Court allowed an earlier version of the policy to take partial effect.

The president's travel bans have each been frustrated by the courts to some degree:

In January, he signed an order banning people from seven Muslim-majority countries and suspending all refugee entry. The measure prompted protests and legal challenges across dozens of states
A revised version in March exempted green card holders and dual citizens. By June, the Supreme Court allowed most of it to go into effect, a including 120-day ban on all refugees entering the US, but granted a wide exemption for those with a "bona fide connection" to the US
President Trump's third order was announced in late September. It added non-Muslim-majority nations North Korea and Venezuela, provisions which lower courts have allowed to proceed
What have lower courts said?

In striking down the other parts, federal judges have cited Mr Trump's campaign description of his policy as a "Muslim ban".

Lower courts have also found the policy violated the first amendment of the US constitution covering freedom of religion.

In October, a Maryland federal judge said: "The 'initial' announcement of the Muslim ban, offered repeatedly and explicitly through President Trump's own statements, forcefully and persuasively expressed his purpose in unequivocal terms."

A federal judge in Hawaii said the administration "lacks sufficient findings that the entry of more than 150 million nationals from six specified countries would be 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'".

A court in Virginia ruled: "The illogic of the government's contentions is palpable. The notion that one can demonstrate animus toward any group of people only by targeting all of them at once is fundamentally flawed," the court ruling said, pointing out that the countries' populations were between 90% and 99% Muslim.

TRUMP'S NATIONAL SECURITY TRAVEL BAN UPHELD BY SCOTUS (VICTORY)

TRUMP'S NATIONAL SECURITY TRAVEL BAN UPHELD BY SCOTUS (VICTORY):

BANS TRAVEL FROM SIX MUSLIM COUNTRIES LINKED TO TERRORISM.

IRAN, LIBYA, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, YEMEN,

SCOTUS AGREES TO HEAR FULL ARGUMENTS ON TRAVEL BAN IN OCTOBER.


Sources: BBC News, CBS News, Fox News, Youtube


****** Supreme Court Upholds Trump Administration’s Travel Ban


The Supreme Court is allowing President Donald Trump to forge ahead with a limited version of his ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to the U.S. Trump hailed the decision as a “victory for national security,” but it’s likely to set off a new round of court disputes over anti-terror efforts and religious discrimination.

The justices will hear full arguments in October in the case that has stirred heated emotions across the nation and pointed rebukes from lower courts saying the administration is targeting Muslims. Until then, the court said Monday, Trump’s ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen can be enforced if those visitors lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.”

The ruling sets up a potential clash between the government and opponents of the ban over the strength of visitors’ ties to the United States. A senior official said plans already had been written to enforce the ban aggressively. But immigrant groups said relatively few people try to enter the United States without well-established ties. Those groups said they will be sending lawyers and monitors back to American airports, where the initial, immediate implementation of the ban in January caused chaos and confusion.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the ban would be implemented starting 72 hours after being cleared by courts. That means it will take effect Thursday morning.

The president has denied that the ban targets Muslims but says it is needed “to protect the nation from terrorist activities” committed by citizens of the six countries. All six have been designated as presenting heightened concerns about terrorism and travel to the United States.

The 90-day ban is necessary to allow an internal review of screening procedures for visa applicants from the countries, the administration says. That review should be complete before Oct. 2, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term.

The ban will have run its course by then, raising a question of whether the justices will even issue a decision in the case or dismiss it because it has been overtaken by events.

The court asked both sides to address the issue of timing, along with questions about whether the ban is aimed at Muslims, the impact of Trump’s provocative campaign statements and federal courts’ authority to restrain the president in the area of immigration.

A 120-day ban on refugees also is being allowed to take effect on a similar, limited basis.

Three of the court’s conservative justices said they would have let the administration apply the bans without the limits imposed by their colleagues.

Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, said the government has shown it is likely to win the legal case in the end. Thomas said the government’s interest in preserving national security outweighs any hardship to people denied entry into the country.

Trump hailed the court’s order as a “clear victory for our national security,” especially after lower court rulings that blocked the travel ban in its entirety. He said in a statement that his “number one responsibility” is to keep Americans safe.

His administration’s implementation plans, largely orchestrated by White House adviser Stephen Miller, focus on refusing entry to people who are unable to show a substantial and pre-existing tie to a person or institution in the United States. The plans were described by a senior official who was familiar with them, speaking on condition of anonymity because this person was not authorized to discuss them publicly by name.

But some immigration lawyers said relatively few people would fall under the ban because people coming to study, work or visit family members already have sufficient relationships with others already is in the country.

“This order, properly construed, should really allow for only the narrowest implementation of any part of the ban. It’s going to be really important for us to make sure the government abides by the terms of the order and does not try to use it as a backdoor into implementing the full- scale Muslim ban,” said Omar Jadwat, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who is representing some of the challengers to the travel ban.

The court’s opinion explained the kinds of relationships people from the six countries must demonstrate to obtain a U.S. visa.

“For individuals, a close familial relationship is required,” the court said. For people who want to come to the United States to work or study, “the relationship must be formal, documented and formed in the ordinary course, not for the purpose of evading” the travel ban.

The opinion faulted the two federal appeals courts that had blocked the travel policy for going too far to limit Trump’s authority over immigration. The president announced the travel ban a week after he took office in January and revised it in March after setbacks in court.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the ban was “rooted in religious animus” toward Muslims and pointed to Trump’s campaign promise to impose a ban on Muslims entering the country as well as tweets and remarks he has made since becoming president.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ban does not comply with federal immigration law, including a prohibition on nationality-based discrimination. That court also put a hold on separate aspects of the policy that would keep all refugees out of the United States for 120 days and cut by more than half, from 110,000 to 50,000, the cap on refugees in the current government spending year that ends Sept. 30.

Trump’s first executive order on travel applied to travelers from Iraq and well as the six countries, and took effect immediately, causing chaos and panic at airports as the Homeland Security Department scrambled to figure out whom the order covered and how it was to be implemented.

A federal judge blocked it eight days later, and that was upheld by a 9th circuit panel. Rather than pursue an appeal, the administration said it would revise the policy.

In March, Trump issued the narrower order.

GORSUCH REPLACES SCALIA; BALANCES SCOTUS (CONGRATS)

GORSUCH REPLACES SCALIA; BALANCES SCOTUS:

FULL CONSERVATIVE POWER RETURNS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

CONGRATS


Sources: Los Angeles Times, The White House, YouTube


***** Gorsuch thanks Trump as he takes oath as Supreme Court justice


Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch went to the White House on Monday to take a second oath and to publicly thank President Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, the lawyers in the White House counsel’s office, and Republican Senate leaders for helping put him on the nation’s highest court.

“This process has reminded me of how outrageously blessed I am,” Gorsuch said in the Rose Garden ceremony.

There has been some controversy in the past decade over whether it was appropriate for a newly confirmed justice to be sworn in at the White House. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens said such ceremonies give the appearance the new justice is going to the court as the president’s appointee rather than an independent justice.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan took their oaths at the Supreme Court and did not go the White House for a public ceremony. When they had a ceremonial investiture in the courtroom, President Obama attended. But in prior decades, the newly confirmed justices routinely went to the White House to take the oath alongside the president.

Rose Garden ceremony, the president said he was proud and pleased to have chosen an outstanding jurist to replace to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. “I got it done in the first 100 days!” he said.

“This is a very, very special moment,” Trump told Gorsuch as he was about take the oath. “I have no doubt you will go down as one of the truly great justices in the history of the United States Supreme Court.”

Gorsuch won his seat after an unusually partisan battle. Senate Republicans, led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), refused to consider Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama's nominee, and they were forced to change the filibuster rule to confirm Trump's nominee after Democrats sought to block a vote on Gorsuch.

Earlier Monday morning, Gorsuch took the constitutional oath in a private ceremony at the Supreme Court. He then went to the White House to take a second “judicial oath” in a public ceremony.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and the other seven associate justices were in attendance at the Rose Garden ceremony, and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy administered the oath to Gorsuch, who served as his law clerk in the 1993-94 term.

Gorsuch will soon be hearing and deciding cases involving the Trump administration, including possibly whether to uphold the president’s temporary travel ban on people from six majority-Muslim nations. Two federal judges decided to put the ban on hold, and lawyers for the administration are appealing.

Trump used the ceremony to tout the changes he has brought to Washington. “We are in a process of reviewing and renewing, and also rebuilding, our country. A new optimism is sweeping across our land, and a new faith in America is filling our hearts and lifting our sights,” he declared.

The president also praised Justice Kennedy as “a man of outstanding accomplishment. Throughout his nearly 30 years on the Supreme Court, [he] has been praised by all for his dedicated and dignified service. We owe him an enormous debt of gratitude, and I am honored that he is with us today.”

Kennedy, 80, is now the longest serving justice. And though a Republican appointee, he has been somewhat of a disappointment to conservatives. Last year, he joined with the court’s liberals to strike strict abortion clinic regulations from Texas, and the year before, he wrote the landmark decision making same-sex marriage a constitutional right.

If Kennedy were to retire in the next few years, it would give the president and Senate Republicans the opportunity to give conservatives firm control of the court. As if to reassure Kennedy, Trump’s lawyers have mentioned several of his former law clerks as strong candidates for the next Supreme Court nomination.

TRUMP TO "SEE 9TH CIRCUIT IN COURT" (BORDER SECURITY & INADMISSIBLE ALIENS)

TRUMP VOWS TO "SEE 9TH CIRCUIT IN ANOTHER COURT" AFTER STUNNING DECISION:

TRUMP WILL PREVAIL BUT MUST COOLY RETHINK STRATEGY REGARDING INADMISSIBLE ALIENS.

THE SECURITY OF AMERICA'S BORDERS MATTERS MORE THAN 2016 POLITICS.


Sources: CNN, Fox News, Hot Air, NBC News, YouTube


***** Trump seizes on omission in court's travel ban ruling, plots next move


President Trump got to work early Friday picking apart a federal court’s decision not to reinstate his controversial travel ban, noting that the detailed 29-page order did not include one mention of the statute he claims gives him broad authority on immigration.

“A disgraceful decision!” Trump tweeted, while quoting an analyst who flagged the omission in a Lawfare blog post.

The writer, Brookings fellow and Lawfare editor-in-chief Benjamin Wittes, had noted the order skipped over a key part of the U.S. code on “inadmissible aliens” which Trump had publicly recited two days earlier in defense of his immigration restrictions.

The statute reads in part: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Wittes wrote that this statute speaks to one of two “big questions” on which the case will turn.

He said the statute indeed gives Trump “sweeping power” to restrict entry, writing: “Remarkably, in the entire opinion, the panel did not bother even to cite this statute, which forms the principal statutory basis for the executive order (see Sections 3(c), 5(c), and 5(d) of the order).

That’s a pretty big omission over 29 pages, including several pages devoted to determining the government’s likelihood of success on the merits of the case.”

The Trump administration has pointed to that statute for days in defending the controversial move to suspend refugee admissions as well as travel and immigration from seven mostly Muslim countries.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, though, declined to lift a lower-court ruling that suspended the policy on other grounds.

In their unanimous decision, the judges generally referred to the government’s position that such presidential decisions on immigration policy are “unreviewable” – but rejected that argument.

“There is no precedent to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy,” the judges wrote. “…Although our jurisprudence has long counseled deference to the political branches on matters of immigration and national security, neither the Supreme Court nor our court has ever held that courts lack the authority to review executive action in those arenas for compliance with the Constitution.”

The ruling did address what Wittes said was the other “big” question at play: How statements from the president and his campaign team could “render an otherwise valid exercise of this power invalid.”

This aspect pertains to past statements by Trump and his advisers that they were looking at ways to suspend immigration to the U.S. for Muslims. While the administration now insists this is not a “Muslim” ban, the states challenging the order say it violates the establishment and equal protection clauses of the Constitution because it was meant to target Muslims – pointing to the president’s past statements and other factors.

The court wrote: “The States’ claims raise serious allegations and present significant constitutional questions.”

The Justice Department is now reviewing its options -- which include the possibility of appealing the matter to the Supreme Court, asking for a review from a broader panel of judges or taking the dispute back to the lower court. Or the White House could issue a revised order.

Trump tweeted overnight, “SEE YOU IN COURT,” without specifying which court.

Wittes argued that the 9th Circuit was right to leave the restraining order in place, “for the simple reason that there is no cause to plunge the country into turmoil again while the courts address the merits of these matters over the next few weeks.”

Before the measure was put on hold, Trump’s order caused chaos at airports amid confusion over which travelers were affected. Green-card holders initially were thought to be included in the freeze, though the Homeland Security Department later made clear they were exempt.

Wittes cautioned in his post that the fight over the merits is different than the battle that just played out in San Francisco: “Eventually, the court has to confront the clash between a broad delegation of power to the President—a delegation which gives him a lot of authority to do a lot of not-nice stuff to refugees and visa holders—in a context in which judges normally defer to the president, and the incompetent malevolence with which this order was promulgated.”

PHILANDO CASTILE'S SENSELESS MURDER SPURRED BY JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS

PHILANDO CASTILE'S SENSELESS MURDER SPURRED BY JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS:

 PHILANDO'S MURDER SHOULD SPUR BLACK VOTERS TO THE POLLS IN NOV.

PHILANDO HAD A GUN (LEGALLY) BUT POSED NO THREAT TO THE FIVE COPS WHO SHOT HIM.

HOWEVER I STILL DON'T CONDONE KILLING COPS OUT OF VENGEANCE.

Sources:  Slate,  Boyce Watkins, NY Times, CNN, Five Thirty Eight, YouTube

The week of June 20, 2016 SCOTUS Justice Clarence Thomas (Black man) wrote a Concurring opinion which states that going forward, Police Officers are now legally permitted to seize evidence obtained during ILLEGAL STOPS, which includes TRAFFIC STOPS.

Good-bye FOURTH AMENDMENT!

Wednesday, July 5, 2016 Philando Castile, 33, (another Black man) was murdered by White Cops during a TRAFFIC STOP in Minnesota.

Although Philando was legally carrying a Concealed Weapon when stopped by Police Wednesday, he posed absolutely no threat to the five Police Officers who brutally murdered him in cold blood.

And yes.....

The Officers who murdered him should be prosecuted!

I don't care if Philando did have a criminal record, he did NOT deserve to DIE like an animal if he posed NO threat to a Police Officer or any other human being.

However It's not fair nor reasonable to Hate the POLICE, nor blame all Cops because not all Cops are Racist.

In fact there are many good Cops still serving in our communities.

Thus I DON'T condone Killing Cops out of Vengeance for any reason.

So what can Black citizens in America expect now?

What ACTION do we take for RESOLUTION?

Demonstrations or Riots appear to be Futile and outdated.

Instead Black voters should express their anger at the Polls this November.

POLICY Changes occur on the Federal level and nominating SCOTUS Justices who have not become NUMB to the plights of regular people are the best SOLUTIONS to curbing Police Brutality.

Voting for a new President is not the panacea for curbing Police Brutality, but if Black voters forsake the system, they indeed forsake their future.

Especially the futures of Black men in America.

It's time to hold our Elected Officials accountable!

To the family of Philando Castile I send my prayers and condolences for his senseless murder.

**** Are Black People at Risk When They Carry a Concealed Weapon?

Here’s what three Minnesota gun instructors think.

TThe story of how Philando Castile died, as told by his girlfriend Diamond Reynolds, is one of a man who did everything he could to comply with the police officer who pulled him over. 

As Reynolds recounted in a harrowing press conference Thursday, Castile told the officer he was armed with a gun after being asked for his license and registration; 

Reynolds says she then told the officer the gun was legal and that her boyfriend had a permit allowing him to carry it. Moments later, the officer shot Castile multiple times, causing injuries that soon proved fatal.

It’s important to note that we don’t know exactly why the officer decided to shoot Castile—there’s no footage of the shooting itself and the St. Anthony Police Department has yet to release its version of events. 

The actions that Reynolds describes, though, sound perfectly reasonable—it’s hard to imagine what Castile, a 32-year-old black man, could have done differently. 

It’s also reasonable to wonder, given the horrific litany of cases in which police officers have used deadly force against black men and women, whether Castile ever had a chance at surviving the encounter.

Thursday, I spoke with three men who don’t agree with that assessment: a trio of white firearms instructors in Minnesota who provide formal training to people applying for concealed-carry permits like the one Reynolds says her boyfriend had. 

In spite of what seems to have happened to Castile, all three instructors told me they firmly believe there are steps people with concealed firearms can take to ensure their safety when dealing with law enforcement. 

Underlying their conviction on this point is a deeply felt optimism about the reasonableness of police. 

Their thoughts, which have been lightly edited for clarity, are below.

~  MIKE BRIGGS,  instructor and owner at Minnesota Fire Arms Training

Advice to students: “Here’s the first thing we say: If you get pulled over and you’re friendly and you don’t lie, and when they ask for ID, if you voluntarily hand up your permit to carry, our experience is you’ve got a huge chance of getting out of your ticket. Cops in Minnesota appreciate you volunteering it up. 

A lot of police in Minnesota teach this class, and most police officers are in favor of permit to carry. And they appreciate you being forthcoming.

“By putting your permit to carry right underneath your license and just giving it to them, you’ve told them without saying a word, I’m a good guy or I wouldn’t have a license to walk around with a gun. 

The sheriff has checked me out. I don’t have to volunteer this up but here you go. You don’t have to worry about me.

 And then if they start asking questions, you answer them truthfully. And that’s what we tell all of our students.”

~ JON KAUTZ,  director of operations and instructor at Gun Permit Center

Personal experience: “I myself have gotten out of several tickets by law enforcement officers by being friendly and completely honest when I got pulled over. When they ask for ID, I don’t say a word—I just put my permit right with my ID and give it to them. And then most of them will say, ‘Are you carrying a firearm?’ And then I’ll say, ‘Yeah, it’s in my center console, or it’s in my backpack, or under my seat, or whatever. What would you like me to do next?’ A lot of them have even been sort of funny with it. I had one state trooper say, ‘You keep your gun in your holster, I’ll keep mine in mine.’ ”

On whether black people can safely follow the same protocol as whites: Absolutely. For sure. It doesn’t matter if you’re black or white. The instructions and the advice are the same.

On Philando Castile: To be honest with you, it sounds to me like he did everything you’re supposed to do. That’s what I’m assuming so far. It sounds like he handled it the way you should. And it sounds like the officer had a short-circuit. That’s what it’s sounding like, but I don’t know what happened before the video.

Advice to students: “In Minnesota there’s no standard protocol for a traffic stop like this, where you have someone who’s carrying. Each police department sets their own policy for how to handle it. Minneapolis might do one thing; in Falcon Heights they might do another. So we always instruct our customers in our training to do whatever the officer says, to always keep their hands visible at all times, and to always ask, ‘How would you like me to proceed?’ and leave it up to the police officer to offer directions on how they want to handle it.”

Personal experience: “If I’m pulled over and an officer asks for my credentials, the next thing I would say is, ‘Officer, I am a permit-to-carry holder. I am carrying at this time. The pistol, or whatever, is located in X spot.’ I’d keep my hands visible on the steering heel or on the dashboard, and I’d say, ‘How would you like me to proceed?’ ”

Thoughts on concealed carry: “If you’re a concealed-carry permit holder and you’re carrying, you assume some risk, you know? Things happen. Whether it’s on accident or intentional—you’re carrying a firearm. You’re assuming some risk in carrying a firearm. You have to assume some risk—it’s just like when you drive a car.”

How the Philando Castile situation will affect his work: “Will we change the way we do the training? No, because we believe we’re teaching it correctly. Will we emphasize this part of the training more? Yes. Will it come up for discussion? Guaranteed.”

~ JOE PENAZ, instructor at Plane Cents Self Defense

Advice to students: “Be totally compliant. If they ask if you have a gun, tell them you have a gun, and make sure you ask them what to do next.

“I also say that if you have a gun on you and it’s on the same side as your wallet, and going for your wallet is going to expose the weapon, it would behoove you to tell the officer at that time, even though you don’t necessarily have to, ‘I have a weapon on me and it’s on the same side as my wallet.’ ”

Personal experience: “I usually start out by asking, ‘Are you having a good night, sir?’ I do. So few people ever say anything like that to a police officer. I’ve ridden with police many, many, many times. And all they ever do is get yelled at, spit on, cussed out. ‘Why aren’t you out arresting real criminals?’ and stuff like that. What does it hurt to ask, ‘Are you having a nice day?’ Wouldn’t you say that to someone at a Home Depot or a Dairy Queen? The only reason you’re not saying that is you’re getting pulled over and generally you don’t get pulled over unless you’ve done something wrong.”

On whether it’s dangerous for black people to take his advice: “Absolutely not. I have quite a few black people in my classes. I just don’t see that as a problem.”

IMMIGRATION AMNESTY POLICY BLOCKED BY SCOTUS 4-4 (SCALIA'S ABSENCE)

IMMIGRATION AMNESTY POLICY BLOCKED BY SCOTUS 4-4 (SCALIA'S ABSENCE):

ISIL HAS RUINED ANY CHANCE FOR IMMIGRATION AMNESTY IN THE UNITED STATES.

Sources:  NY Times, CNN,  NBC News, WSJ, Youtube

****** Supreme Court Deadlocks on Obama Immigration Plan. It Remains Blocked.

The Supreme Court on Thursday announced that it had deadlocked in a case challenging President Obama’s plan to shield millions of immigrants from deportation and allow them to work. 

The 4-4 tie left in place an appeals court ruling blocking the plan, dealing a sharp blow to an ambitious program that Mr. Obama had hoped would become one of his central legacies. 

Instead, even as the court deadlocked, it amplified the already contentious election-year debate over the nation’s immigration policy and presidential power.

The case, United States v. Texas, No. 15-674, concerned a plan to allow as many as five million unauthorized immigrants who are the parents of citizens or of lawful permanent residents to apply for a program that would spare them from deportation and provide them with work permits. 

The program was called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA.

Mr. Obama has said he took action in 2014 after years of frustration with Republicans in Congress who had repeatedly refused to support bipartisan Senate legislation to update immigration laws. 

A coalition of 26 states, led by Texas, promptly challenged the plan, accusing the president of ignoring administrative procedures for changing rules and of abusing the power of his office by circumventing Congress.

In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Federal District Court in Brownsville, Tex., entered a preliminary injunction shutting down the program while the legal case proceeded. 

The government appealed, and a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans affirmed the injunction.

In their Supreme Court briefs, the states acknowledged that the president had wide authority over immigration matters, telling the justices that “the executive does have enforcement discretion to forbear from removing aliens on an individual basis.”

 Their quarrel, they said, was with what they called a blanket grant of “lawful presence” to millions of immigrants, entitling them to various benefits.

In response, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the justices that this “lawful presence” was merely what had always followed from the executive branch’s decision not to deport someone for a given period of time.

“Deferred action does not provide these individuals with any lawful status under the immigration laws,” he said. “But it provides some measure of dignity and decent treatment.”

“It recognizes the damage that would be wreaked by tearing apart families,” Mr. Verrilli added, “and it allows individuals to leave the shadow economy and work on the books to provide for their families, thereby reducing exploitation and distortion in our labor markets.”

The states said they had suffered the sort of direct and concrete injury that gave them standing to sue.

Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for the majority in the appeals court, focused on an injury said to have been suffered by Texas, which he said would have to spend millions of dollars to provide driver’s licenses to immigrants as a consequence of the federal program.

Mr. Verrilli told the justices that Texas’ injury was self-inflicted, a product of its decision to offer driver’s licenses for less than they cost to produce and to tie eligibility for them to federal standards.

Texas responded that being required to change its laws was itself the sort of harm that conferred standing. 

“Such a forced change in Texas law would impair Texas’s sovereign interest in ‘the power to create and enforce a legal code,’” the state’s lawyers wrote in a brief.

Judge Hanen grounded his injunction on the Obama administration’s failure to give notice and seek public comments on its new program. 

He found that notice and comment were required because the program gave blanket relief to entire categories of people, notwithstanding the administration’s assertion that it required case-by-case determinations about who was eligible for the program.

The appeals court affirmed that ruling and added a broader one. The program, it said, also exceeded Mr. Obama’s statutory authority

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (RACE-BASED) FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION UPHELD BY SCOTUS 4-3

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION (RACE-BASED) FOR COLLEGE ADMISSION UPHELD BY SCOTUS 4-3:

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION KICKS OPEN THE DOOR FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN AMERICA.

ELENA KAGAN RECUSED HERSELF.

Sources: NY Times, NBC News, YouTube

****** Supreme Court Upholds Affirmative Action Program at University of Texas

 The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to a race-conscious admissions program at the University of Texas at Austin, handing supporters of affirmative action a major victory.

The vote was 4-3. 

Only seven justices participated in the decision, as Justice Elena Kagan had recused herself for prior work on the case as United States solicitor general and the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat remains vacant.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., dissented.

The case concerned the University of Texas’ idiosyncratic admissions program. 

Most applicants from within the state are admitted under a part of the program that guarantees admission to top students in every high school in the state.

 (This is often called the Top 10 Percent program, though the percentage cutoff can vary by year.)

The Top 10 Percent program has produced significant racial and ethnic diversity. In 2011, for instance, 26 percent of freshmen who enrolled under the program were Hispanic, and 6 percent were black. Texas is about 38 percent Hispanic and 12 percent black.

The case challenged a second part of the admissions program. 

Under it, remaining students from Texas and elsewhere are considered under standards that take into account academic achievement and other factors, including race and ethnicity. 

Many colleges and universities base all of their admissions decisions on such holistic grounds.

In Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, the Supreme Court endorsed free-standing admissions programs, saying it was permissible to consider race as one factor among many to achieve educational diversity. 

Writing for the majority in that case, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said she expected that “25 years from now,” the “use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary.”

The case, Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 14-981, was brought by Abigail Fisher, a white woman who said the university had denied her admission based on her race. 

She has since graduated from Louisiana State University.

When the court last considered Ms. Fisher’s case in 2013, supporters of affirmative action were nervous. 

But the court deferred conclusive action in what appeared to be a compromise decision.

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA'S FUNERAL MASS (A GREAT MAN)

JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA'S FUNERAL MASS:

A GREAT MAN & CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERT MURDERED FOR 2016 POLITICS.

Sources: AP, MSN, PBS, Youtube

**** Scalia Remembered For Love Of God, Country, Family

 Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was remembered Saturday as a man who loved God, country and family at a funeral Mass capping two days of mourning for a jurist who left a long and sometimes provocative legacy on the nation.

Scalia's son Paul — a Catholic priest — led the service and mixed humor with reverence for the conservative icon and father of nine who died unexpectedly last weekend.

"Sure he forgot our names at times or mixed them up, but there are nine of us," Scalia told thousands of mourners at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

"He loved us and sought to show that love and sought to share the blessing of the faith he treasured," Scalia said.

Dignitaries including Vice President Joe Biden, former Vice President Dick Cheney, members of Congress and all eight sitting justices of the Supreme Court were among those attending.

Scalia's sons and sons-in-law served as pallbearers, carrying his flag-draped casket up the steps of the basilica. Scalia lay in repose at the Supreme Court on Friday, where thousands of visitors came to honor one of the country's most influential conservative voices.

The service was a traditional Catholic funeral Mass filled with pageantry, celebrity and a little bit of humor. It was simple, with no formal eulogy, in keeping with the justice's philosophy that funerals should not be dominated by effusive praise.

Washington's archbishop Cardinal Donald Wuerl drew chuckles during opening remarks when he told the massive crowd that he would keep his comments brief "in keeping with your desire to have a simple parish family Mass."

Only two people read from Scripture. Leonard Leo, executive director of the conservative Federalist Society, read a passage from the Old Testament's Book of Wisdom. Justice Clarence Thomas read a passage from the New Testament's Book of Romans.

During the homily, Scalia's son recalled how his father reacted once after accidentally standing in his son's confessional line.

"He quickly departed it. As he put it later, 'Like heck if I'm confessing to you,'" the younger Scalia said. "The feeling was mutual,"

The Rev. Scalia joked that "the Roman collar was not a shield against his criticism."

The younger Scalia also honored his mother, to whom the justice was married for 55 years, as "a woman who could match him at every step and could even hold him accountable."

The family departed for a private burial at an undisclosed site immediately after the Mass. A memorial service for Scalia has been set for March 1 at a Washington hotel.

Scalia, 79, died last weekend at a remote Texas ranch after spending nearly three decades on the high court. As the court's most prominent conservative voice, Scalia was known for his biting dissents that mixed humor with scathing barbs.

He was known as a champion of originalism — interpreting the Constitution according to the meaning understood when it was adopted. He famously sparred with liberals who view the constitution as a "living document" and frequently declared in public speeches his view that the Constitution is "dead, dead, dead."

Several federal judges who are considered possible replacements for Scalia also attended the funeral Mass, including Judges Sri Srinivasan and Patricia Millett and Chief Judge Merrick Garland, all of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They were joined by a who's who of the political and legal world in Washington.

President Barack Obama did not attend Saturday's funeral Mass, despite criticism from some Republicans. He and first lady Michelle Obama were among the more than 6,000 people who paid tribute to Scalia at the Supreme Court on Friday. Scalia's flag-draped casket rested on a funeral bier that first held President Abraham Lincoln's casket after his assassination.

GOP presidential hopeful Ted Cruz interrupted his campaign ahead of Saturday's South Carolina primary to attend the Mass. The Texas senator has been among those urging the Senate not to consider replacing Scalia until after the November election. Obama has insisted that he will nominate a successor.

SCALIA'S BODY LIES IN REPOSE; OBAMA VISITS

ANTONIN SCALIA'S BODY LIES IN REPOSE:

PRES OBAMA & THE FIRST LADY PAY RESPECTS.

ONLY GOD & SCALIA KNOWS HOW HE REALLY DIED.

September 26, 1986 – February 13, 2016

Sources: CBS News, Fox News, YouTube 

**** Mourners Pay Respects To Late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

Dignitaries and tourists alike are flocking to the Supreme Court on Friday to pay tribute to the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Scalia's casket lies in repose on the Lincoln catafalque in the court's Great Hall as mourners file through during a daylong remembrance honoring one of the court's most influential members.

The justice's former law clerks will take turns standing vigil by their former boss throughout the day and night in a tradition most recently observed after the 2005 death of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

Scalia's casket arrived Friday morning, with Supreme Court police carrying it up the marble steps. Scalia's former clerks followed as honorary pallbearers.

After the private ceremony, Scalia's casket will be on public view from 10:30am until 8:30pm.

The President and First Lady paid their respects Friday afternoon and met privately with some members of Justice Scalia's family, according to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest. The president and Mrs. Obama "extended their personal condolences on behalf of the nation, and expressed gratitude for Justice Scalia's decades of public service, Earnest said.

Father Paul Scalia, Justice Scalia's son, will deliver the homily at the funeral mass on Saturday. The service will be held at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C.

Scalia died Saturday at age 79. He joined the court in 1986 and was its longest-serving justice. He sat to the right of Chief Justice John Roberts, the seat given to the senior justice. He is survived by his wife, Margaret Jane, nine children and 36 grandchildren.

OBAMA NOT ATTENDING SCALIA'S FUNERAL; WHITE HOUSE DEFENDS

OBAMA NOT ATTENDING SCALIA'S FUNERAL; WHITE HOUSE DEFENDS:

Sources:  CNN, The Hill, YouTube 

**** White House Defends Obama's Decision To Skip Scalia's Funeral

The White House is defending President Obama’s decision not to attend the funeral of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and pushed back on critics who called it a deliberate snub. 

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Thursday it makes sense to send Vice President Biden to the funeral instead because his “security footprint is a little bit lighter” and he has a longtime relationship with Scalia’s family.

"We believe we have settled on an appropriate and respectful arrangement," the spokesman said.

Earnest called it disrespectful for Obama’s critics to use the funeral “as some sort of political cudgel."

"The president doesn't think that that's appropriate, and in fact, what the president thinks is appropriate is respectfully paying tribute to high-profile patriotic American citizens even when you don't agree on all the issues," he said. "And that's what he's going to do."

In lieu of attending the funeral, the president and first lady Michelle Obama are paying their respects to Scalia and his family on Friday while his body lies in repose in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court. 

But Republicans have slammed Obama for not attending the funeral of the longtime conservative justice, interpreting it as a sign of disrespect to someone who was often at odds with the president. 

The criticism comes at a crucial time for the president, who is making a long-shot bid to get nominee confirmed by the GOP-controlled Senate in an election year.

Republican senators have already vowed to block any nominee Obama puts forth, but his decision not to attend the funeral further inflamed the debate.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a 2016 presidential candidate, on Thursday dubbed Obama “a lawless and faithless president who's eager to travel to Cuba but unwilling to attend the funeral of Justice Scalia.” 

The White House hasn’t said what the president will be doing during Scalia’s funeral on Saturday, which will be held at the Basilica of the National Shrine in Northeast Washington. 

Biden was a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee when President Ronald Reagan nominated Scalia in 1986. He joined 98 other senators who voted to confirm him. He said seven years later it was the vote he most regretted "because he was so effective."

The vice president said Saturday that Scalia would be remembered as "one of our most influential justices."

Obama also honored Scalia's contributions to the high court during a statement on Saturday after his death.

"He influenced a generation of judges, lawyers, and students, and profoundly shaped the legal landscape," the president said. "He will no doubt be remembered as one of the most consequential judges and thinkers to serve on the Supreme Court."