web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

San Francisco Refuses To Do Business With 22 States Over Anti Abortion Laws That Protect Babies.

Westlake Legal Group AP_1602261913331116-300x192 San Francisco Refuses To Do Business With 22 States Over Anti Abortion Laws That Protect Babies. progressives pro-abortion political correctness Patriotism Liberal Elitism Hollywood healthcare Government Gender Issues Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture & Faith Courts Conservatives Congress California Allow Media Exception Abortion 2019

A city worker uses a power washer to clean the sidewalk by a tent city along Division Street Friday, Feb. 26, 2016, in San Francisco. Homeless people have until the end of Friday to vacate a rambling tent city along a busy San Francisco street declared a health hazard by city officials earlier this week. The mayor’s office says about 40 tents remain, down from a high of 140 tents this winter. The tents have lined both sides of a street under a freeway overpass for months, drawing complaints from residents and businesses. (AP Photo/Eric Risberg)

As you can see from the photo above, San Francisco and California have no other problems to deal with so this state ban does take precedence.

As it has been previously written everywhere, we all know that California and her cities are a bit of a hot mess. San Fran, home of Nancy Pelosi, always makes sure to be one of the cities leading the charge of creating havoc. That, of course, gives them the right to dictate how other cities or states should be run.

Now they want to export their craziness by refusing to spend money in states that they disagree with about abortion. That’s right, states that are moving to protect children shall not benefit from San Francisco and it’s an influence.

How sad.

According to Fox News

City employees in San Francisco are now forbidden to take work trips or do business with companies in 22 states that have “restrictive abortion laws.”

Mayor London Breed and Supervisor Vallie Brown announced the measure last week.

“Every day in this country, women’s reproductive rights are threatened, and we have to fight back. Just as we restricted spending with states that have laws that discriminate against LGBTQ people, we are standing up against states that put women’s health at risk and that are actively working to limit reproductive freedoms,” Breed said in a statement.

She added: “By limiting travel and contracting with certain states, we are sending a clear message to states that disregard the right to abortion.”

The only clear message you are sending is that you are griding an ax about states moving to protect the unborn and you look moronic doing it. Do you think the homeless person you are ignoring and letting suffer on the street gives a flying you know what about your moral preening Mayor Breed?

So what states are they planning on banning?

Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

I’m disappointed that Michigan is not on there.

With the technology of saving and improving life in all stages advancing, this is a big problem for the pro-abortion crowd. They yell CHOICE at any cost but frequently it is becoming clear that life inside the womb can also live outside the womb weeks before previously thought.

So why would you snuff out that life at 18 weeks when it can thrive at 24 weeks? This is becoming more and more obvious for people with a conscious that actually care about human life and don’t just pay it lip service like the politicians in San Francisco.

I look forward to the day where these people are only allowed to travel within California and nowhere else. What a glorious day that will be.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post San Francisco Refuses To Do Business With 22 States Over Anti Abortion Laws That Protect Babies. appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_1602261913331116-300x192 San Francisco Refuses To Do Business With 22 States Over Anti Abortion Laws That Protect Babies. progressives pro-abortion political correctness Patriotism Liberal Elitism Hollywood healthcare Government Gender Issues Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Culture & Faith Courts Conservatives Congress California Allow Media Exception Abortion 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Roger Gale: Parents and doctors should be spared court when debating the best treatment for ill children

Sir Roger Gale is MP for North Thanet.

The parents of Tafida Raqeeb will be relieved that the High Court has given its consent to her being taken to Italy for specialist medical treatment for the serious brain injury the five-year-old suffered, leaving her on life support. But they, like all parents who find themselves in the traumatic situation of doctors withholding treatment or preventing access to it elsewhere, have been ill-served by the confrontational legal process that pits clinicians against families.

Such court cases are a distraction for medical and nursing teams, a costly frustration for NHS managers, and a nightmare for caring parents, all of whom quite genuinely want the best for the sick child. The only beneficiaries from these emotional and often protracted cases, sometimes heard in the full glare of the gawping media, are the lawyers.

We must find a way of striking a better balance so that where genuine disagreements arise, and they inevitably will, there are ways of resolving the situation through mediation and conciliation, avoiding the need to go to court. That is why I support the Children (Access to Medical Treatment) Bill proposed by Bambos Charalambous, the Labour MP.

The purpose of the Bill is to reduce the number of confrontational court cases that arise, and there are many more going on behind the scenes that don’t make the headlines, distressing parents and distracting doctors every day. We intend to do this by ensuring that clinicians and parents have access to mediation and conciliation services, that there is access in place to second opinions (that may or may not provide a different view), by identifying sources of practical advice on ethical challenges, and by building upon the current test of the best interests of the child so that potential treatment options can only be blocked by the courts if they present the risk of significant harm.

Easy access by parents to medical information is vital not only in the interests of openness, trust and transparency, but also so that parents are able to make informed decisions and other, alternative medical advice can be sought. We hope to provide for this access.

If there is a credible alternative medical opinion, and a reputable institution is willing to provide the treatment, then that treatment option should be available.

We are particularly encouraged that two former Presidents of the British Medical Association have already publicly supported our approach. Baroness Hollins spoke recently in the House of Lords to support the principle of the Bill and Baroness Finlay has done so on Radio 4’s Today Programme. Demonstrating cross-party support with those two crossbenchers, Baroness Jolly, the Liberal Democrat Health Spokesperson, is also on the case, and many leading lawyers and medical ethicists are supportive, including Raanon Gillon, emeritus professor of medical ethics at Imperial College and currently President of the BMA.

At the heart of this issue is the relationship of trust between families and clinicians, and what we want to do is to ensure that trust is nurtured, not undermined, when differences of perspective inevitably arise in these complex and deeply distressing cases. The confrontational nature of our legal system is the antithesis of such nurturing of trust.

We are motivated in our mission by the death in 2017 of baby Charlie Gard who was cared for by Great Ormond Street Hospital, but who sadly died when the courts preventing his parents, Chris and Connie, taking him abroad for an alternative treatment option. I make no comments on the medical aspects of the case, but the way it was handled brings shame upon our existing legislation and adversarial legal system.

The law must be brought up to date, so that it is fit for the 21st Century, and so that clinicians, parents and NHS executives are spared the trauma of court proceedings. That would be a fitting legacy for Charlie.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Leftist Group is DEMANDING That Democrats Name Who They Would Appoint To Supreme Court

Westlake Legal Group SCOTUS-300x200 Leftist Group is DEMANDING That Democrats Name Who They Would Appoint To Supreme Court white house washington D.C. the washington post Supreme Court Special Counsel Social Media Social Justice SCOTUS republicans progressives President Trump Politics Policy Morning Briefing Media Liberal Elitism law Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Culture & Faith Criminal Justice Reform Courts Constitution Conservatives Congress Bipartisanship Allow Media Exception Academia Abortion 2019

The Left wants a list of who POTUS candidates would put in this building. 

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, even if it involves progressives copying Donald Trump.

Ripping a page right out of Donald Trump’s election playbook from 2016, the group Demand Justice has called for all the Democrats running for President declare publicly who that would nominate out of the handy dandy list they provided.

How convenient and very copy cat-ish of Trump 3 years ago.

According to The Washington Post

Democratic presidential contenders are coming under increased pressure from their base to take a page from Donald Trump’s 2016 playbook and release a shortlist of potential Supreme Court nominees — one part of a larger strategy from party activists to make the courts a central issue in the 2020 race.

Demand Justice, a group founded to counteract the conservative wing’s decades-long advantage over liberals in judicial fights, will release a list of 32 suggested Supreme Court nominees for any future Democratic president as they ramp up their push for the 2020 contenders to do the same.

The slate of potential high court picks includes current and former members of Congress, top litigators battling the Trump administration’s initiatives in court, professors at the nation’s top law schools and public defenders. Eight are sitting judges. They have established track records in liberal causes that Demand Justice hopes will energize the liberal base.

Seems like the progressives have FINALLY learned the lesson of paying some attention to the third branch of the government.

Now you can go ahead and take a look at that list and if you are like me, be absolutely puzzled by who all those people are. Lucky for us commoners, Carrie Severino from the Judicial Crisis Network just yesterday wrote a piece over at National Review called Demand Justice’s SCOTUS List Is Too Extreme Even for Obama that helps give us an idea of the backgrounds of these folks.

From the article…

Demand Justice’s list has 32 names on it. Only four of those are Obama-nominated judges. Shockingly, only eight have any judicial experience at all! While President Trump’s list of Supreme Court nominees currently includes 24 individuals, of whom 23 are experienced federal or state judges, the extremists at Demand Justice have clearly taken a different tack. Their list — which they are lobbying Democratic candidates to adopt — is wholly consumed by far-left activism and identity politics.

They see the courts as their ticket to implementing their radical policy agenda, which includes gutting the First and Second Amendments, establishing a right to illegal immigration and abortion on demand straight through birth, and destroying our economy by imposing burdensome regulations on everyone from Main Street to Wall Street.

When I first read this I thought, well maybe the Obama nominated judges that were confirmed don’t have enough seasoning yet. Then further on reading, I find out that 24 of them don’t have ANY JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE at all.

Did no one pay attention during the Harriet Miers fiasco under Bush 43?

So the left has put together a list of people that they want on the court that the vast majority have ZERO experience on the bench. They are straight-up activists. I actually admire Demand Justice brazen truthfulness here in trying to push this on the Dems.

Severino commented on twitter about how the candidates when finally asked ran from the subject and tried to change the subject like it was the plague.

What this tells me is that the left is organizing to do the same thing conservatives have done but the candidates are not focused on this at the stage of the game they are currently in. This might change after a nominee is picked but for now, it looks like they are more interested in impeachment than who they would put onto the court.

That works for me.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Leftist Group is DEMANDING That Democrats Name Who They Would Appoint To Supreme Court appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group SCOTUS-300x200 Leftist Group is DEMANDING That Democrats Name Who They Would Appoint To Supreme Court white house washington D.C. the washington post Supreme Court Special Counsel Social Media Social Justice SCOTUS republicans progressives President Trump Politics Policy Morning Briefing Media Liberal Elitism law Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats Culture & Faith Criminal Justice Reform Courts Constitution Conservatives Congress Bipartisanship Allow Media Exception Academia Abortion 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

V.P. Mike Pence Tells House Committees No Thanks on Impeachment Inquiry

Westlake Legal Group MikePenceAPimage-300x153 V.P. Mike Pence Tells House Committees No Thanks on Impeachment Inquiry white house washington D.C. Social Media progressives President Trump Patriotism Morning Briefing Mike Pence Media Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism journalism Internet Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump Courts Constitution Conservatives Congress Campaigns axios AOC Allow Media Exception 2019

(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

You just know that when the Veep told the House committee people he would not cooperate he was really nice about it also.

Late Tuesday night, the Vice President of the United States, through counsel, informed the House committees that are scrounging around doing impeachment-like things that he would not play along.

According to Axios

The counsel for Vice President Mike Pence sent a letter to the chairmen of the House committees investigating President Trump and Ukraine on Tuesday informing them that he will not cooperate with a request for documents in their “self-proclaimed” impeachment inquiry.

This was fully expected, so no surprise.

However, the announcement that Nancy Pelosi blinked and will not hold an impeachment vote as of now means that the White House strategy of pressuring the House to hold a formal vote has worked. Pence and other White House officials will not face much pressure until the House holds a vote or they take this to the courts. The courts won’t take this up soon so this is looking like a suave move by the White House.

The Trump administration is still going to have its hands full dealing with other aspects of this Ukraine story but for now, the House vote on Impeachment is tabled and the Vice President of the United States can just hang out and do what V.P’s do.

Which I’m not sure of exactly.

Here is the letter sent on behalf of the Vice President…

Dear Chairmen:

The Office of the Vice President has received the Committees’ Letter to the Vice President, dated October 4, 2019, which requests a wide-ranging scope of documents, some of which are clearly not vice-presidential records, pursuant to a self-proclaimed “impeachment inquiry.” As noted in the October 8, 2019 letter from the White House Counsel to each of you and to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the purported “impeachment inquiry” has been designed and implemented in a manner that calls into question your commitment to fundamental fairness and due process rights.

The Office of the Vice President recognizes the oversight role of your respective committees in Congress. Please know that if the Committees wish to return to the regular order of legitimate legislative oversight requests, and the Committees have appropriate requests for information solely in the custody of the Office of the Vice President, we are prepared to work with you in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for the separation of powers. Until that time, the Office of the Vice President will continue to reserve all rights and privileges that may apply, including those protecting executive privileges, national security, attorney-client communications, deliberations, and communications among the President, the Vice President, and their advisors.

As detailed in the White House Counsel Letter, the House of Representatives has not authorized any “impeachment inquiry.” Specifically, the operative House rules do not delegate to any committee the authority to conduct an inquiry under the impeachment power of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution. Instead of being accountable to the American people and casting a vote to authorize what all agree is a substantial constitutional step, you have instead attempted to avoid this fundamental requirement by invoking the Speaker’s announcement of an “official impeachment inquiry” at a press conference? Never before in history has the Speaker of the House attempted to launch an “impeachment inquiry” against a President without a majority of the House of Representatives voting to authorize a constitutionally acceptable process.

The Office of the Vice President encourages the Committees to forgo their request to the Office of the Vice President, or hold it in abeyance, pending your discussion with the White House Counsel’s Office concerning compliance with constitutionally mandated procedures. Similarly, the Office of the Vice President encourages the Committees to first seek information from primary sources that may be responsive to your broad requests.

Sincerely,
Matthew E. Morgan

Counsel to the Vice President

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post V.P. Mike Pence Tells House Committees No Thanks on Impeachment Inquiry appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group MikePenceAPimage-300x153 V.P. Mike Pence Tells House Committees No Thanks on Impeachment Inquiry white house washington D.C. Social Media progressives President Trump Patriotism Morning Briefing Mike Pence Media Mainstream Media Liberal Elitism journalism Internet Impeachment of President Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump Courts Constitution Conservatives Congress Campaigns axios AOC Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The NBA, China, the Bidens and Free Speech: The Ultimate Intellectual Property

 

Westlake Legal Group 17329344-1af8-4a1f-8631-ab65d20076a0-1-620x317 The NBA, China, the Bidens and Free Speech: The Ultimate Intellectual Property trademark Technology Science Politics Policy Patents law intellectual property theft Intellectual Property Protections Intellectual Property Government Front Page Stories Front Page Economy Courts copyright Capitalism

The China Syndrome

 

The National Basketball Association (NBA)’s ongoing, rolling self-emasculation continues apace and unabated.

One League Guy called for freedom in Hong Kong from Communist China’s totalitarianism.

And the League flashed into action – against the one League Guy.

Since, a thousand and one League Guys have groveled, prostrated, genuflected or simply played really, REALLY stupid in the face of Communist China’s totalitarianism.

Free speech isn’t just squashed by totalitarian Communist China in Communist China and Hong Kong.

Totalitarian Communist China is now squelching free speech – in the United States.  Via its good little toadies in the NBA.  Because money.

NBA China: Philadelphia 76ers Fan Kicked Out for Hong Kong Sign, Chant

Security Removes ‘Free Hong Kong’ Signs from Fans at (NBA’s Washington) Wizards Game

The League Guys get paid billions of dollars by Communist China – to be Communist China’s toadies.

The League’s Average Guy fans have to way overpay for NBA tickets – to then have the privilege of being censored by Communist China’s NBA toadies.

National Review’s Jim Geraghty astutely summed up this one-way, wrong-way cultural transfer:

We’re Not Exporting Our Values to China – We’re Importing Theirs

This fiasco is perfectly emblematic of the sort of fake “free trade” with Communist China – to which our Betters in DC have subjected us for decades.

The NBA, South Park And Communist China: The Very High Price Of Fake ‘Free Trade’

The Swamp Creature likes of Joe Biden pretend the fake “free trade” with Communist China – isn’t fake.

And the Swamp Creature likes of Joe Biden’s son Hunter – get $1.5 billion in Communist China “investment” money.  As payment for his father pretending the fake “free trade” with Communist China – isn’t fake.

Call it the Swamp’s Friends and Family Plan.

DCs Swamp Creatures trade our national interest and security – for personal and familial enrichment.

Obama, Biden Cronies Made Billions Off China Trade Deals and Regulatory Policies

Clinton Says Chinese Money Did Not Influence U.S. Policy:

“President Bill Clinton said today that reported political campaign contributions from China to the Democrats had not influenced his foreign policy….

“‘The decisions we made, we made because we thought they were in the interests of the American people,’’ Mr. Clinton said….”

I’ll pause while you laugh uproariously…….

Okay….

Almost certainly the most offensive aspect of our fake “free trade” with Communist China – is their titanic theft of our Intellectual Property (IP).

Over the decades of fake “free trade” – Communist China has stolen trillions of dollars of our IP:

“The United States Trade Representative, which led the seven-month investigation into China’s intellectual property theft and made recommendations to the Trump administration, found that ‘Chinese theft of American IP currently costs between $225 billion and $600 billion annually.’”

We’ve been fake “free trading” with China since the early 1970s.

But as a safety, let’s only calculate Chinese IP theft – since we quite stupidly granted them membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO): December 2001.

And as another safety, let’s take the lowest number in China’s annual IP theft range.

That’s $225 billion in Chinese IP theft.  Every year – for eighteen years.

That makes the most conservative estimate – more than $4 TRILLION in Chinese IP theft.

And it’s not just the money – though the money is gigantic.

Totalitarian Communist China is rapidly becoming our equal on the global stage.  A truly disconcerting concept for anyone who likes, you know, freedom and peace.

And totalitarian Communist China got here not by their own creation and invention – but by stealing ours.  For decades.

Intellectual Property isn’t just about licensing patents, trademarks and copyrights.

IP is about protecting the property of the minds of men.  So we can all have access to and use those creations and innovations – to improve our lives and advance our society.

Communist China outsourced their IP creation – to US.  Advancing their totalitarian state not by their ingenuity – but by stealing ours.

And for decades, the Swamp Creatures – did absolutely nothing about it.

Except secure mass Communist China money transfers to their families and friends.

This has been a MASSIVE, government-forced transfer of IP and its attending wealth and societal benefit.

From our IP creators – to Communist China.  And then from Communist China – to DCs Swamp Creatures.

China’s isn’t the only government forcing this ongoing, rolling titanic heist.

The US government has been forcing it too.

Because money.

The corruption is so pervasive and deep – it has polluted our nation all the way down the food chain.

To regular Americans at NBA games – simply trying to hold pro-freedom signs…for a nation on the other side of the planet.

Regular Americans’ free speech – and their signs, the products of their minds – are squelched and silenced.

By Swamp Creatures – who now exist way beyond DC.

The Communist Chinese corruption of our country – now being wholly pervasive.

Because money.

The post The NBA, China, the Bidens and Free Speech: The Ultimate Intellectual Property appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 17329344-1af8-4a1f-8631-ab65d20076a0-1-300x153 The NBA, China, the Bidens and Free Speech: The Ultimate Intellectual Property trademark Technology Science Politics Policy Patents law intellectual property theft Intellectual Property Protections Intellectual Property Government Front Page Stories Front Page Economy Courts copyright Capitalism   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Mark Zuckerberg Is Meeting In Secret With Conservatives Discussing Free Speech

Westlake Legal Group AP_18100671669782-300x184 Mark Zuckerberg Is Meeting In Secret With Conservatives Discussing Free Speech white house washington D.C. warren Social Media progressives President Trump Media Mainstream Media Front Page Stories facebook Elizabeth Warren donald trump democrats Cybersecurity Culture & Faith Courts Cory Booker Conservatives Congress California Bipartisanship Allow Media Exception 2019

 (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

Well, what do you know?

Seems that CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, has been sitting down in secret with conservative pundits, writers and even a congressperson as of late. Maybe he realizes that Elizabeth Warren and her merry bunch of zealots are worse than dealing with people he opposes politically.

According to Politico this has been going on for a short time…

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has been hosting informal talks and small, off-the-record dinners with conservative journalists, commentators and at least one Republican lawmaker in recent months to discuss issues like free speech and discuss partnerships.

The dinners, which began in July, are part of Zuckerberg’s broader effort to cultivate friends on the right amid outrage by President Donald Trump and his allies over alleged “bias” against conservatives at Facebook and other major social media companies. “I’m under no illusions that he’s a conservative but I think he does care about some of our concerns,” said one person familiar with the gatherings, which multiple sources have confirmed.

Some of the people who have been rumored to have attended the meetings are Mary Katharine Ham, Ben Shapiro, Matt Continetti, Guy Benson, and Brent Bozell. Byron York confirmed he attended one of the dinners but refused to discuss what was talked about.

The article does say that this outreach was to try and ease some of the fears of those that might have some influence with the Trump administration in the hope to quiet some of the saber-rattling.

Trump is not your problem Mark.

Elizabeth Warren is on the warpath (PUN FULLY INTENDED) and she is coming for your monopoly buddy.

This is a classic example of liberals wanting to claim the higher ground while shutting down any discussion of any ground under the rules of feelings being hurt. Zuckerberg is part of this mindset no matter how many dinners he holds to try a charm offensive and act otherwise.

All you have to do is treat both sides equally.

In this case, what that means is to let the words fly. Don’t referee to any side and you will not have any issue. The notion that Facebook has been treating all sides fairly is ludicrous. Just go and google how many grievances people that are “right” leaning have been banned as opposed to “left” leaning. The complaints are numerous on the right. If you think the left doesn’t like to complain when they get axed I have a bridge to sell you in Chappaquiddick.

Hopefully, these meetings do show Mark that conservatives are not that scary and these concerns should be dealt with going from the top down.

Otherwise, you will have to deal with Elizabeth Warren and no one rational wants to do that.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Mark Zuckerberg Is Meeting In Secret With Conservatives Discussing Free Speech appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group AP_18100671669782-300x184 Mark Zuckerberg Is Meeting In Secret With Conservatives Discussing Free Speech white house washington D.C. warren Social Media progressives President Trump Media Mainstream Media Front Page Stories facebook Elizabeth Warren donald trump democrats Cybersecurity Culture & Faith Courts Cory Booker Conservatives Congress California Bipartisanship Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Beto vs Booker, Who Will Drop Out First After Religious Bigotry Statements?

Westlake Legal Group Freedom-of-religion-stand-up-300x164 Beto vs Booker, Who Will Drop Out First After Religious Bigotry Statements? white house washington D.C. Supreme Court Social Media religion progressives polls Politics Media journalism Human Rights Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post entitlements Entertainment donald trump democrats Courts Cory Booker Constitution Conservatives collusion CNN catholic news agency Campaigns anti-semitism Allow Media Exception Academia Abuse of Power 2019

What a week in truly finding out where some of the Democrats running for President feel about the separation of Church and State.

The topic of the Beto Bomb that was dropped in a CNN forum has been covered extensively all over the interwebs by others and right here at Red State by Bonchie and Joe Cunningham.

However, something that did not garner much attention was that Sen. Corey Booker from New Jersey essentially said the same thing. He just didn’t go all SPARTACUS about it.

The Catholic News Agency picks it up…

On Thursday night, during and Equality Townhall hosted and broadcast on CNN, Robert Francis O’Rourke, a former congressman, was asked by CNN anchor Don Lemon if he thought that “religious institutions like colleges, churches, charities, should they lose their tax exempt status if they oppose same sex marriage?”

O’Rourke answered “yes,” and after applause and cheers from the crowd, added, “there can be no reward, no benefit, no tax break, for anyone or any institution, any organization in America that denies the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us. And so, as president, we’re going to make that a priority, and we are going to stop those who are infringing upon the human rights of our fellow Americans.”

That’s the part we already know. Here is the part most people have not seen.

Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), another presidential candidate, was asked earlier in the night if he would strip the tax-exempt status of churches who were opposed to same-sex marriage. Booker said that such a move would entail a “long legal battle,” but signaled his sympathy with the idea.

“I’m saying I believe fundamentally that discrimination is discrimination,” he said. “And if you are using your position to try to discriminate others, there must be consequences to that. And I will make sure to hold them accountable using the DOJ or whatever investigatory [body].”

So here we have in the year 2019, two major candidates for President of the United States saying that they want the United States government to FORCE religious institutions to abide by the modern-day #WOKENESS that has gripped the Feelings over Facts crowd.

That should scare you.

Now it is no coincidence that both Beto and Booker are both circling the drain at just around 2% in the latest polling I have read. This is obviously a desperate attempt to shoot up to over 4% and steal the nomination from Biden.

Will it work? No, not for this cycle.

The way these things work though is those two candidates floated an idea and now the top tier candidates will do polling to see if it works with the base. My guess is those churches in the deep south and the mosques in Minnesota will be equally opposed to being singled out for being called bigots and losing any sort of tax-exempt status they have.

The idea though, now having been introduced will be debated among the progressive left and will gain steam. Bernie Sander candidacy in 2016 and this time around has shown that the actual ideas do not matter. Just the feelings that surround those ideas. If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy than roll with it.

We should all be about the discussion of ideas and have vigorous national debates on it. These things usually turn into a discussion on your feelings though and that is just irrelevant and that is just a damn shame.

The only thing left to do for Beto and Booker after agreeing that this horrible idea is worth exploring is to guess which one of these “serious” candidates will be the first to call it quits in their futile race.

My money is on Beto. Anyone who is scared to use their real name that DOESNT work in Hollywood is too timid to be President.

Place your bets.

Check out my other posts here on Red State and my podcast Bourbon On The Rocks plus like Bourbon On The Rocks on Facebook and follow me on the twitters at IRISHDUKE2 

The post Beto vs Booker, Who Will Drop Out First After Religious Bigotry Statements? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Freedom-of-religion-stand-up-300x164 Beto vs Booker, Who Will Drop Out First After Religious Bigotry Statements? white house washington D.C. Supreme Court Social Media religion progressives polls Politics Media journalism Human Rights Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post entitlements Entertainment donald trump democrats Courts Cory Booker Constitution Conservatives collusion CNN catholic news agency Campaigns anti-semitism Allow Media Exception Academia Abuse of Power 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Julian Brazier: Let’s resist a written constitution – and restore the Law Lords

Sir Julian Brazier is a former Defence Minister, and was MP for Canterbury from 1987-2017. He is Chairman of a security company.

When the Supreme Court delivered its judgments on the Miller and Cherry cases, the Prime Minister commented:

 “… if judges are to pronounce on political questions in this way, then there is at least an argument that there should be some form of accountability. The lessons of America are relevant.”

Let’s examine this.

Britain has, famously, an unwritten constitution. Our constitution does have some important statutory elements, including the Bill of Rights, the Representation of the Peoples Act and the Parliaments Act but, for most purposes, it is driven by convention, policed by Parliament itself and, crucially, by the wider court of public opinion.

Our flexible constitution has served us well in peace and war, as shown by the astonishing lack of constitutional crises, since the 17th Century. Our nearest neighbour, France, by contrast, is on its Fifth Republic since 1789 with interludes of monarchic rule. No British political leader has defied the courts since the Bill of Rights in 1688, unlike the USA where several presidents have rejected court rulings, including most famously Abraham Lincoln, who did so repeatedly, starting with the notorious Dred Scott verdict.

After Britain’s civil wars in the 17th Century, pitting the Crown against much of Parliament and the parliamentary coup known as the ‘Glorious Revolution’, the Bill of Rights (1688) was our founding constitutional compromise. It established that sovereignty lay with ‘The Crown in Parliament’. It also, crucially, prescribed

“That the Freedome of Speech and Debates or Proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any Court or Place out of Parlyament.”

This means inter alia that the courts cannot challenge the legitimacy of legislation on the basis of parliamentary process. Such process is subject only to the standing orders of the two houses of Parliament and the rulings of the Speaker and Lord Speaker.

Sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament, in practice, has meant that the government (signified by ‘The Crown’) has governed, while requiring explicit parliamentary sanction to raise taxes and make laws – and having to answer to Parliament for its actions. Crucially, Parliament has the power to dismiss a government through a no confidence vote.

A number of important factors have distorted this; joining the EU and the European Convention of Human rights made us subject to directives from abroad and allows courts to strike down legislation where it conflicts with the former and register formal protests under the latter. The other critical change is David Cameron’s Fixed Term Parliament Act which prevents a Prime Minister from calling an election, without Parliamentary action.

Nevertheless, the basic structure of rule by the Crown in Parliament remained in place. At its heart was the arrangement that, to allow a government to govern, legislation could only be initiated with the agreement of the government. All bills were government bills, except those like Private Members Bills whose arrangements depend on government.

This arrangement has recently been stood on its head by John Bercow, by allowing an ad hoc majority in the Commons to table and pass legislation – directing the government in its duties.

Constitutional authorities in this country are few – precisely because we have so few constitutional issues – and are mostly not lawyers. Probably the best known of them is Vernon Bogdanor. He comments:

‘The truth is that 650 MPs cannot make policy. Only the government can do that. The role of parliament is not to govern but to scrutinise those who do. That is especially the case with the treaty-making power… And parliament is in no position to renegotiate a treaty… MPs have rejected the government’s flagship policy without providing any alternative. It is enabled to pursue this course because of the wretched Fixed-term Parliaments Act.’

In other words, this group, answerable to nobody – until election time – are blocking an election to enable their rule to continue

In response, the government decided to use the ‘Crown prerogative’ to prorogue Parliament leading to the court case which sparked this article. Some Brexit supporters like myself felt that this was a political mistake, but courts are not supposed to rule on politics. What was at stake in that case was the simple question of whether or not the Crown prerogative to prorogue Parliament was justiciable or not.

The view of most senior lawyers, before the Supreme Court considered the case, was that it was not. Indeed a very senior panel of English judges, including the Lord Chief Justice, ruled that is was not, but their counterparts in Scotland disagreed and the Supreme Court decided that this was a matter it could rule on – and did so against the government.

Students will study this judgment for generations. Two things stand out: first the dearth of constitutional precedents. Apart from its own ruling on the putative Brexit Treaty just three years ago, the court is forced to rummage around for cases on local authority budgets, criminal injuries compensation and employment tribunal fees. It it can find only one unmistakably constitutional case, the Case of Proclamations (1611), which ruled that altering the law of the land by the use of the Crown’s prerogative powers was unlawful. To this one case, last month’s judgment returns again and again.

That should send alarm bells ringing. British law looks back (occasionally) to the reign of Richard II but, on constitutional matters, 1688 has always, hitherto, been regarded as a watershed. We simply weren’t governed in a near-universally agreed way before that, so leaning heavily on a case from earlier is extraordinary. That is especially so here as the judgment also dismisses the provision of the Bill of Rights itself quoted above (on the unprecedented grounds that prorogation happens in Parliament without its consent and so is not a parliamentary proceeding).

Equally, the judgment talks about Parliamentary sovereignty but assumes a distorted doctrine of what that actually means. The judgment never formally defines Parliament but, in paragraph 55, implies that it consists only of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. One does not have to read Dicey to know that Parliament has a crucial third element, the Crown.

The Government was hog-tied. It could not defend its actions by setting out how today’s temporary majority in Parliament had trashed the conventional interaction between government and Parliament. This was because doing so so would have invited the Court to trespass still further behind the screen on parliamentary proceedings erected by the Bill Of Rights. We have indeed witnessed a judicial coup.

So what to do? The worst option would be to move to a written constitution – such an arrangement would increase the powers of the courts because, once codified, all constitutional matters would be justiciable.

Restoring the power to the Lord Chancellor (put back in the Lords) to appoint – but not sack – judges would be helpful. Most governments wish to discourage activism, but it is difficult to see how hearings would help, as MPs would take different views. Secondly, the FTPA should be repealed, allowing government to proceed with its business – or resign and call an election.

The other key measure to heal this breach would be to disband this new court with its beguiling name – and restore Parliament as the highest court of the land by re-introducing the judicial committee of the Lords (the Law Lords) to replace the Supreme Court. While the current Supreme Court judges are members of the Lords too, bringing their institution back into Parliament would surely improve mutual understanding.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Court Is in Session – Part II

Westlake Legal Group AP_17174023673327 The Court Is in Session – Part II transgender Title VII Supreme Court SCOTUS LGBT law Judicial Guns gun control Gender Issues gay rights Front Page Stories Front Page employment discrimination Courts Constitution Allow Media Exception Abortion 2019

FILE – This Jan. 25, 2012, file photo, shows the U.S. Supreme Court Building in Washington. The Supreme Court enters its final week of work before a long summer hiatus with action expected on the Trump administration’s travel ban and a decision due in a separation of church and state case that arises from a Missouri church playground. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Earlier, we highlighted the cases heard by the Supreme Court on Monday of this week (as well as the many delights of October!) Three more cases were heard by the Court yesterday, all on very “hot button” issues.  (READ: The Court Is in Session – Part I.)

First up was Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia. This case examines the applicability of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to claims of employment discrimination based on sexual orientation.  The pertinent portion of the Act prohibits discrimination in the employment context “because of [an] individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.”  The law was first passed in 1964 and has not, to date, been construed (by SCOTUS) to encompass sexual orientation or transgenderism. Plaintiff Gerald Bostock was a coordinator for child welfare services in Clayton County, Georgia, for a number of years.  In 2013, he joined a gay recreational softball league and, according to Bostock, “from that point on, my life changed, ” he says. “Within months, I was fired for being gay. I lost my livelihood. I lost my medical insurance and at the time I was fighting prostate cancer. It was devastating.” Bostock filed suit in federal court in Georgia, alleging that his termination violated Title VII, in that his termination (ostensibly for being gay) was prohibited by the “because of sex” provision.

Bostock’s case was consolidated for oral argument with Altitude Express v. Zarda, a case filed in federal court in New York by Donald Zarda following his 2010 termination by his skydiving company employer.  Zarda had informed a customer that he was gay in order to allay her concerns about being strapped together with him during the jump.  The customer complained and Zarda was terminated. He asserted this was due to the customer’s homophobia (though the customer also contended that he had touched her inappropriately during the jump.) Zarda died in a base jumping accident in Switzerland in 2014 and his family continued the litigation in his name.  Similar to BostockZarda involves the question of whether discrimination based on sexual orientation is encompassed within the language of Title VII.

The consolidated cases were then followed by the case of Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC. This was another employment discrimination case, only Harris involves the question of whether the provisions of Title VII also prohibit discrimination based on an individual being transgender. In that case, Aimee Stephens, a Michigan funeral director, was terminated following her declaration in 2013 that she intended to live and dress as a woman. (Prior to 2013, Stephens was known as “Anthony” and dressed and lived as a man.) Stephens made a claim for discrimination with the EEOC, which then sued the funeral home, asserting that firing Stephens for being transgender violated Title VII.

ACLU attorney David Cole presented an interesting argument on behalf of Stephens:

Cole described the case in simple terms. Stephens is being treated differently because of the sex she was assigned at birth. If she had been assigned a female sex at birth, he argued, she would not have been fired for wanting to come to work dressed as a woman. But instead she was assigned a male sex, Cole continued, and so she was fired because she failed to conform to the sex stereotypes of her employer. It can’t be the case, Cole asserted, that Ann Hopkins – the plaintiff in the Supreme Court’s original case on sex stereotyping – couldn’t be fired or denied a promotion for being insufficiently feminine, but Stephens could be fired for being insufficiently masculine.

Once again, SCOTUSblog’s Amy Howe provides an excellent analysis of Tuesday’s arguments.  The transcripts of the arguments can be found here and here.

We’ll provide additional overviews as to upcoming arguments, as well as some in-depth analysis, in the coming days. However, I also want to point out that the Court granted certiorari this past Friday on several more cases of interest: June Medical Serv., et al. v. Gee, Sec., LA Dept. of Health (consolidated with) Gee, Sec., LA Dept. of Healthv. June Medical Serv., et al. – cases involving a challenge to the Louisiana law which requires admitting privileges for doctors who perform abortions; United States v. Sineneng-Smith (reviewing a 9th Circuit decision which found a federal law making it a felony to encourage or induce illegal immigration for financial gain unconstitutionally broad).  Look for these cases to be heard early in 2020. Additionally, on Monday, the Court opted to move forward with oral argument in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, New York, a case involving New York City’s since-repealed ban on transporting guns outside the city limits, despite the fact that the ban was subsequently changed.  This one is now scheduled to be heard in December.

 


Follow me on Twitter @SmoosieQ

Find my RedState archive here.

 

The post The Court Is in Session – Part II appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 2019-supreme-court-300x153 The Court Is in Session – Part II transgender Title VII Supreme Court SCOTUS LGBT law Judicial Guns gun control Gender Issues gay rights Front Page Stories Front Page employment discrimination Courts Constitution Allow Media Exception Abortion 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The Court Is in Session – Part I

October brings with it so many good things: Playoff baseball (go, Cards!), hockey (go, Blues!), football (go, Packers!), brilliant fall colors, pumpkin everything…and for SCOTUS geeks like me, the beginning of a new term for the Court. Oral arguments for the October sitting began Monday and continued yesterday, with eight more slated to be heard next week. This term promises to include some controversial topics and fascinating decisions, both in terms of outcome and alignments among the justices. Following is a quick rundown of the cases heard Monday. We’ll have a separate rundown of Tuesday’s cases and follow that with an overview of what we can expect to see going forward.

On Monday, the Court heard oral argument in Kahler v. Kansas, a case involving the insanity defense. In 1995, Kansas abolished insanity as an affirmative defense, enacting a law that, instead, allows for a criminal defendant to assert that he was unable to form the requisite intent to commit the crime due to mental illness.  James Kahler shot and killed his estranged wife, her grandmother, and his two teenage daughters in 2009. Kahler was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. His sentence was upheld by the Kansas Supreme Court. Kahler contends that the Kansas law which prevented him from raising an insanity defense violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Amy Howe over at SCOTUSblog (an invaluable resource for SCOTUS junkies) provided a thorough post-argument analysis here.  The transcript of the argument can be found here.

Next up was Ramos v. Louisiana, a case involving the question of whether the Sixth Amendment a) requires a unanimous verdict in a criminal case; and b) is incorporated to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. This might not seem like an earth-shattering sort of thing. However, this case could shape up to be a game-changer.  At the heart of the dispute is the 1972 Supreme Court Case of Apodaca v. Oregon, which involved a divided court decision: four of the justices took the position that the Sixth Amendment does not guarantee the right to a unanimous verdict at all, while four others contended it guaranteed it both at the federal and the state level. Justice Lewis Powell split the difference and asserted that the Sixth Amendment guarantees a unanimous verdict in federal criminal cases but not in state cases.  Ramos, the defendant in the current case, was convicted of second-degree murder by a 10-2 jury verdict.  Louisiana is one of only two states that, prior to 2019, that followed the non-unanimity rule (Oregon being the other one.) That rule was repealed by Louisiana voters in 2018 and the unanimity requirement went into effect for all crimes committed on or after January 1, 2019. (The crime for which Ramos was convicted occurred in 2014.) What is truly fascinating about this case is that during the argument the liberal wing of the Court appeared to be pushing back the hardest against the defense position (which would require overruling Apodaca – possibly signaling concern about disregard for stare decisis and the “sanctity” of Roe v. Wade, particularly in light of Louisiana abortion cases looming.)  Catch a full analysis of the argument here and the transcript here.

Also on Monday, the Court heard argument in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc., a case involving the award of attorney fees for appeals of patent application denials. This one’s a bit on the drier side, but interesting nonetheless, since it involves a close look at the “American Rule,” which presumes that losing litigants should not be compelled to pay the winning side’s attorney’s fees. What’s unusual about this case is that it involves a process under Section 145 of the Patent Act which compels the party appealing the patent application denial to pay for the other side’s (i.e., the Patent & Trademark Office’s) “expenses” regardless of whether the appeal is successful or fails.  Until recently, “expenses” were thought to include only out-of-pocket expenses, such as copying fees and travel. The PTO has now interpreted that to include attorney fees and other attendant expenses. Ronald Mann’s analysis of the argument can be found here. The transcript is here.

Stay tuned for our next installment – a review of the cases heard by the Court yesterday.  (Talk about controversial!)

 


Follow me on Twitter @SmoosieQ

Find my RedState archive here.

 

The post The Court Is in Session – Part I appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group SupremeCourtSCOTUS-300x153 The Court Is in Session – Part I Supreme Court SCOTUS Judicial Front Page Stories Front Page Fourteenth Amendment Criminal Justice Reform crime Courts Constitution Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com