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
Westlake Legal Group > Criminal Justice Reform

Trump Nukes Kamala Harris On Twitter Over Attempted Boycott.

Westlake Legal Group trump-face-nuclear-cloud-251x300 Trump Nukes Kamala Harris On Twitter Over Attempted Boycott. white house washington D.C. Social Media republicans progressives President Trump Media kamala harris gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post FBI and DOJ Corruption Endorsements elections donald trump doj democrats Criminal Justice Reform crime Conservatives Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 2019

Just when you think you have Donald Trump figured out and can put him in a box, he zigs zags and makes you stop and wonder what in the hell is going on. This time it is with people that allegedly he hates and wants them all to die.

Except that he also wants to there shorten prison sentences or eliminate them altogether. That has made Kamal Harris very mad being she put a LOT of people away in her time as a prosecutor in California.

From Fox News

 

President Trump took a rare swipe at 2020 Democratic hopeful Kamala Harris on Saturday, criticizing the California senator for boycotting a South Carolina criminal justice forum in protest of the group giving an award to him.

“Badly failing presidential candidate @KamalaHarris will not go to a very wonderful largely African American event today because yesterday I received a major award, at the same event, for being able to produce & sign into law major Criminal Justice Reform legislation, which will greatly help the African American community (and all other communities), and which was unable to get done in past administrations despite a tremendous desire for it,” Trump tweeted Saturday morning.

The president’s tweets came after he received the Bipartisan Justice Award from the 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center for his efforts to pass the First Step Act, which grants early release to thousands of nonviolent offenders who are currently serving time in federal prisons.

Trump has by and large not mentioned Kamala and the other dwarfs running on the Democratic side. He has had a lot of fun picking on Joe and Bernie and the fake Indian and left it at that. However, Kamala who once was considered the shining star of this primary season has never fully recovered from the shot that Tulsi Gabbard landed on her in the Detroit debate about her lock up record.

I will admit that when Trump met with Kim Kardashian about commuting the sentence of a lady that had clearly served way more time than she should have, I thought it was a mere publicity stunt of two reality T.V. stars meeting. That has proven to not be the case.

When Van Jones showed up at CPAC and praised Trump and conservatives for this I knew something positive was happening. Van Jones Praises Conservatives on Criminal Justice Reform: ‘You Are Stealing My Issue’

Kamala probably was thinking that her law & order cred was going to get her major props and so far it has been a dud. Her at first instinct of boycotting this event and trying to look holier than thou does not look like it will work and might not even last a full news cycle. Stunts like this are meant to raise your profile and so far it looks like it has sent her into deeper muck. Now that she has changed her mind she looks even more indecisive.

There are only 99 days left until the Iowa caucuses. Kamala better get in front as many people as possible or her campaign is going to be dead on arrival before next February.

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 Trump Nukes Kamala Harris On Twitter Over Attempted Boycott. appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group trump-face-nuclear-cloud-251x300 Trump Nukes Kamala Harris On Twitter Over Attempted Boycott. white house washington D.C. Social Media republicans progressives President Trump Media kamala harris gun control Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post FBI and DOJ Corruption Endorsements elections donald trump doj democrats Criminal Justice Reform crime Conservatives Congress Campaigns Allow Media Exception 2020 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Wins Bipartisan Justice Award, Kamala Harris Throws a Fit

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-26-at-5.16.35-PM Trump Wins Bipartisan Justice Award, Kamala Harris Throws a Fit kamala harris Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Criminal Justice Reform Congress award

Screenshot from this video

On Friday, President Donald Trump received the Bipartisan Justice Award for his work on criminal justice reform from the 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center.

The bipartisan group consists of Republicans, Democrats and Independents whose primary focus is on criminal justice reform.

Trump spoke after receiving the award at a historically black college, Benedict College in Columbia, South Carolina about the work he and a bipartisan group had done on reform with the First Step Act that he championed and passed in December. The Act focused on gaining release for thousands of non-violent offenders from federal prisons and provided programs to bring down recidivism. One of the men who gained release through the Act, Matthew Charles, was there to present Trump with the award.

Others who had benefitted from the reform also spoke including Tanesha Bannister.

Bannister spoke about how the Act not only freed thousands of people, but he helped rehabilitate and increase opportunities to work and reintegrate back into society.

According to WLTX 19:

Trump also said his policies on trade, taxes, and as he phrased it, “putting America first,” have contributed to a better job market for those released from prison and millions of others.

“We’re acting, not talking,” he said.

He’s now moving to work on the Second Step Act, to do even more to rehab people back into society.

But he was attacked by someone who does a lot of talking but not a lot of action for positive change.

The president’s speech kicked off a weekend forum on criminal justice that included 2020 Democratic candidates.

Kamala Harris was to be among the candidates in attendance but she decided to play politics instead and announced that she would boycott the event because of Trump’s presence. “I said I wouldn’t come because I couldn’t believe that Donald Trump would be given an award as it relates to criminal justice reform,” Harris complained.

Imagine boycotting a specifically bipartisan event because she’s so nakedly political and trying to pull a stunt to score points. Actions like this perhaps explain why she’s so low in the polls now. The more people know about her, the less they care for her. She’s wallowing around 5 recent.

She later flip-flopped and changed her mind, saying she would be attending because the college removed the 20/20 Bipartisan Center as the sponsor of the forum.

So she’s attacking a bipartisan group for daring to give Trump an award?

Meanwhile she has an incredibly bad reputation in relation to criminal justice, so much so that many people on the left have nicknamed her “Kamala the Cop” and would never think of voting for her. It’s not because she’s locked people up in the interests of justice, it’s because they don’t feel her actions have been consistent with justice.

The post Trump Wins Bipartisan Justice Award, Kamala Harris Throws a Fit appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-26-at-5.16.35-PM-300x179 Trump Wins Bipartisan Justice Award, Kamala Harris Throws a Fit kamala harris Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post donald trump democrats Criminal Justice Reform Congress award   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Kamala Harris throws a hissy fit, withdraws from South Carolina forum

Westlake Legal Group Kamala-Harris Kamala Harris throws a hissy fit, withdraws from South Carolina forum The Blog Second Step Presidential Justice Forum President Trump kamala harris https://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Kamala-Harris.jpg hbcu FIRST STEP Act Criminal Justice Reform Central Park Five Benedict College 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center

On Friday, the campaign of presidential candidate Kamala Harris announced the senator will skip a forum on criminal justice reform in South Carolina this weekend. Her reason for that decision was the equivalent of an adult woman throwing a toddler-style temper tantrum. She is angry that the organization holding the weekend forum honored President Trump with an award Friday.

It is really as simple as that. Kamala Harris, a sitting U.S. senator was so triggered by the decision to honor the President of the United States by black folks in South Carolina that she is taking the low road. She is disrespectfully dishonoring her acceptance of the invitation to participate in the forum at Benedict College, a historically black college. Is she not familiar with the fact that good manners are very important in the south? Backing out at the last minute because a bipartisan collegiate group acted in a bipartisan manner and acknowledged Trump’s leadership in criminal justice reform legislation is not a good look. Friday’s event with the president was sponsored by the 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center. Bipartisan is in the name, for heaven’s sake.

“As the only candidate who attended an HBCU, I know the importance that these spaces hold for young Black Americans,” Harris, who was slated to participate in Second Step Presidential Justice Forum at Benedict College on Saturday, said in a statement.

The California senator cited the fact that only a limited number of students from the school were allowed to attend Trump’s remarks as the final straw.

“Today, when it became clear Donald Trump would receive an award after decades of celebrating mass incarceration, pushing the death penalty for innocent Black Americans, rolling back police accountability measures and racist behavior that puts people’s lives at risk, and then learned all but ten Benedict students are excluded from participating, I cannot in good faith be complicit in papering over his record,” Harris said.

Harris, the candidate of Indian and Jamaican heritage who frequently plays the race card, trashed the president without offering up any proof of her allegations. That’s common with lazy candidates who just repeat basic talking points on the campaign trail but it is insulting to the people who decided to honor the president. She is calling them “complicit in papering over his record” and she, the moral better, will not do that. The bad Orange Man is a racist, you know.

Is Harris’ reference to “pushing the death penalty for innocent Black Americans” a reference to the Central Park Five case? It’s made a comeback during the Trump presidency and I wrote about the Netflix version of the story for NewsBusters this year. In that piece, there is a quote from one of the mothers – “They need to keep that bigot off tv, is what they need to do,” the mother angrily responds. “That devil wants to kill my son.” “That devil” references private citizen Donald Trump who was being interviewed by a New York reporter. Trump paid for a full-page ad that ran in several newspapers at the time which called for the return of the death penalty. He was referencing the rise in crime the city was experiencing. The Netflix version conveniently twists it to the disadvantage of Trump. The teens wouldn’t have been eligible for the death penalty because they were minors at the time of the crime.

Kamala Harris has won this award herself. That’s the kicker. She has no reason to be bitter, she’s already been given the same award, as has the junior senator from South Carolina, Tim Scott. It looks like she’s petty and vindictive. Not all of America buys into the trope that Donald Trump is a racist. Is she just looking for publicity for a failing campaign? According to Real Clear Politics, as I write this Saturday morning, Harris is at 7% in South Carolina. That’s fourth-place behind Biden, Warren, and Sanders. Biden has a 19.5% lead.

If the concern of Harris is the number of students allowed to attend, well, a local newspaper reports that half of the tickets were reserved for Trump and half for locals. Ten spots were reserved for students of the college. Remember, the event was to honor the president – not a student or professor or a local leader in the community. The theatre in which the event was held has a capacity of 275 people and it is reported to have been packed.

Harris is taking her campaign and moving on. She said she plans to hold a roundtable discussion on criminal justice elsewhere in the state. Maybe she doesn’t understand how badly this reflects on her character and her ability to lead an entire nation, not just those who think as she does. How can she be the president of all Americans if she can’t handle a decision made by a bipartisan group of people to give an award to someone she dislikes?

Trump’s interest in criminal justice reform puts a pin in the argument that partisans like Kamala Harris like to advance – if they aren’t saying Trump is a liar, they are saying he is a racist. The fact is that Trump treats everyone the same whether she likes it or not. No one is out of bounds from a Trump attack. Or from Trump’s praises. Trump was honored by African-Americans when he was a private citizen and when he was a reality show star. Trump’s support of law and order is not new. He can claim ownership of signing into law some criminal justice reform and it’s a thorn in Kamala’s side. Trump signed into law bipartisan legislation that included easing harsh minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders, as well as other changes.

President Trump responded on Twitter:

Many of Kamala’s competitors will participate in the forum over the course of the weekend.

Other Democratic presidential candidates still taking part in the forum at Benedict over the next two days are former Rep. John Delaney, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, former Vice President Joe Biden, former Housing Secretary Julián Castro, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

The South Carolina primary is February 29.

The post Kamala Harris throws a hissy fit, withdraws from South Carolina forum appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group Kamala-Harris-300x153 Kamala Harris throws a hissy fit, withdraws from South Carolina forum The Blog Second Step Presidential Justice Forum President Trump kamala harris https://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Kamala-Harris.jpg hbcu FIRST STEP Act Criminal Justice Reform Central Park Five Benedict College 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center   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 

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 

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 Sixth Amendment SCOTUS Patent Law october Judicial Incorporation Doctrine 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 

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 Sixth Amendment SCOTUS Patent Law october Judicial Incorporation Doctrine 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 

Something Smells Fishy In Fraser, Michigan.

Westlake Legal Group Upsidedown-300x197 Something Smells Fishy In Fraser, Michigan. Richard Haberman Front Page Stories Front Page Fraser Michigan Doug Hagerty Criminal Justice Reform crime corruption collusion Barbara Jennigs Allow Media Exception 2019

Everything is upside down in the Hamlet.

I am telling you people……local politics is just as messed up as anything in Washington D.C. and maybe even a bit more so.

I have written here at Red State about some of the “interesting” events that have happened in my town of Fraser, Michigan which is nestled WARMLY in the middle of Macomb County. We are just a small town of under 15,000 but we seem to have a knack for having really odd things happen in this lil hamlet.

Here are some of my previous musings…

Getting Local: How It All Began.

Preventing And Exposing Corruption Starts Locally. Welcome To Fraser, Michigan.

Today’s curious tale starts off a mere 4 years ago in a beer tent right before an election in Fraser.

The gentleman pictured above that is upside down was the Mayor at the time, Doug Hagerty. The lady next to him in an equally topsy turvy picture is a councilperson serving with Doug at the time by the name of Barbara Jennings. They were colleagues in the sense of serving on the same board but they made sure to let everyone know that they would not be sending CHRISTmas cards to the other one if you know what I mean.

If you don’t know what that means, what I’m saying is that they were not really fond of each other.

On this fateful day, while the beer tent was hot, humid yet had the smell of stale Bud Light and shattered dreams, an alleged but interesting incident occurred that still has heads scratching to this day. Doug propositioned Barbara ( allegedly ) to extend the contract of the city manager whom at the time was a lad by the name of Richard Haberman, for a vote on a contract to provide towing services for the city.

Very Washington D.C. like if you ask me.

According to the Macomb Daily

A Fraser councilwoman who claims she was lobbied to vote for a local towing company in exchange for a contract extension for the city manager has filed a police report against Mayor Doug Hagerty.

Fraser police have confirmed Barbara Jennings recently made a complaint to the Public Safety Department, and said the matter will be referred to an outside law enforcement agency for review. Jennings told The Macomb Daily it’s the first time in her 12 years on the council that someone offered action in return for her vote on an issue.

She alleges Hagerty asked to speak privately to her while both were under the beer tent July 23 at the Fraser City Carnival. Jennings said Hagerty sought her support to have Fraser-based Foster’s Towing reinstated as the official towing firm to haul away vehicles driven by arrested drivers and cars and trucks disabled in traffic crashes.

Pretty gosh darn sleazy right? Well, it gets better and sleazier my friends.

Why would Doug approach Barbara about a vote to extend the city managers contract? Well according to Doug, he seemed to think Barbara was in a relationship with him.

Once again according to the Macomb Daily…

Hagerty told a reporter Monday he was unaware of the police report until he was contacted by the newspaper.

He denied any notion of a quid pro quo.

‘I polled her to see what her vote may be. I said, ‘Where do you stand on the towing contract?” the mayor said. ‘It was in the beer tent for about 30 seconds.’ Hagerty, who is not seeking re-election, said Jennings has a romantic relationship with the city manager and suspects she’s trying to conceal it.

‘It’s well-known throughout every employee in the city, every elected official and most elected officials around us,’ the mayor said of the relationship. ‘I think her accusations (against me) are trying to cover up something else. She’s running for office again. I think she wants to keep the city manager employed.

‘I think it’s a smokescreen.’

As the old saying goes where there is smoke there is a fire. A really smelly, stinky fire.

Fast forward just a mere 4 years and now Barbara is no longer a city councilperson, Doug is no longer Mayor and Richard Haberman is no longer city manager but he is living with Barbara and enjoying life as a seasoned citizen.

Yet now Richard Haberman wants a city council term of his own and he needed 50 signatures from residents to get his name on the ballot.

Who did he and his gal pal ask to sign his petition for eligibility ?

Well, wouldn’t ya know, Barbara and Richard asked the guy who they claim had allegedly tried to bribe her 4 years before to give Haberman another year on his contract?

Doug Hagerty.

Westlake Legal Group Sig2-300x225 Something Smells Fishy In Fraser, Michigan. Richard Haberman Front Page Stories Front Page Fraser Michigan Doug Hagerty Criminal Justice Reform crime corruption collusion Barbara Jennigs Allow Media Exception 2019
Can you believe that?

Whoever said small-town politics isn’t interesting lied to us.

Now, this raises some questions to the logical mind…

*If you were accused of trying to bribe someone to get a vote and you DIDNT DO IT, would you want to sign the petition to get that certain persons boyfriend on the ballot?

*If someone had propositioned you for a vote to extend your significant others contract for a year and you were so appalled, would you ask them 4 years later for any signature?

*Would you deal with anyone who accused you of a crime? Would you deal with anyone who wanted you to commit a crime?

*Could it be possible that a deal was struck to let bygones be bygones?

As you can see here, it is not just the national political scene where politicians seemingly are willing to smear and cut deals to make the ends justify the means. This can happen anywhere, even in a small town in the middle of a county going through a corruption probe by the F.B.I.

Something fishy is going on in Fraser, Michigan. This is only the beginning and we are going to get to the bottom of it.

Get ready.

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 Something Smells Fishy In Fraser, Michigan. appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Upsidedown-300x197 Something Smells Fishy In Fraser, Michigan. Richard Haberman Front Page Stories Front Page Fraser Michigan Doug Hagerty Criminal Justice Reform crime corruption collusion Barbara Jennigs Allow Media Exception 2019   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Biden: “Nobody should be in jail for a non-violent crime”

Westlake Legal Group biden-nonviolent Biden: “Nobody should be in jail for a non-violent crime” violent crime The Blog Joe Biden Criminal Justice Reform 2020 Democrat debates

Joe Biden once again took the germ of a good idea — and botched it by reductioing his own absurdum. ABC News correspondent Linsey Davis challenged Biden on his criminal justice reform plans to release inmates convicted of drug use, referring to criticisms from Cory Booker that Biden’s plan won’t go far enough. Oh yeah, Biden seemed to say? He began expanding his vision of reform until it reached the stage where “nobody should be in jail for a nonviolent crime.”

Emphasis mine:

DAVIS: Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. You all believe that the war on drugs has put too many Americans behind bars. Vice President Biden, you have a plan to release many nonviolent drug offenders from prison. Senator Booker says that your plan is not ambitious enough. Your response?

BIDEN: Well, first of all, let me say that, when I came back from law school, I had a job with a great — a big-time law firm. I left and became a public defender because my state was under siege when Dr. King was assassinated. We were occupied by the National Guard for 10 months.

I’ve been involved from the beginning. As a young congressman — as a young councilman, I introduced legislation to try to keep them from putting a sewer plant in a poor neighborhood. I made sure that we dealt with redlining; banks should have to lend where they operate, et cetera.

The fact of the matter is that what’s happened is that we’re in a situation now where there are so many people who are in jail and shouldn’t be in jail. The whole means by which this should change is the whole model has to change. We should be talking about rehabilitation.

Nobody should be in jail for a nonviolent crime. As — when we were in the White House, we released 36,000 people from the federal prison system. Nobody should be in jail for a drug problem. They should be going directly to a rehabilitation. We build more rehabilitation centers, not prisons.

We — I’m the guy that put in the drug courts to divert people from the criminal justice system. And so we have to change the whole way we look at this. When we put people in prison, we have to equip them that when they get out — nobody who got in prison for marijuana, for example, immediately upon being released — they shouldn’t be in there; that should be a misdemeanor. They should be out and their record should be expunged. Every single right should be returned.

When you finish your term in prison, you should be able not only to vote but have access to Pell grants, have access to be able to get housing, have access to be able to move along the way. I’ve laid out a detailed plan along those lines. And the fact is, we’ve learned so much more more…

DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Vice President.

BIDEN: Thank you.

Nobody, eh? Not even Wall Street fraudsters who steal millions from retirement accounts? You’ve won Bernie Madoff’s vote, if he had one, Mr. Vice President. Congrats!

How about those who lie to investigators? Cheat the IRS? Conduct lobbying for foreign nations without properly disclosing those connections? Congratulations again, Mr. Biden — you’ve just won Paul Manafort’s vote!

And let’s face it, Andrew McCabe’s too, but that was probably already in the bag.

Violent crime is not the only crime that requires significant penalties, as even a moment’s thought would make clear. Espionage rarely involves violence on the part of the spy, for instance, but can lead to the destruction of a nation’s defenses. Embezzlement can ruin companies and wipe out hundreds or thousands of jobs or retirement accounts. Public corruption undermines the necessary trust in institutions needed in a self-governing republic. Perjury does the same for the justice system, and so on and so on. There are many, many examples of people belonging in prison for significant periods of time despite having committed no violent act themselves.

This has always been Joe Biden’s problem: he’s a mile wide but only an inch deep. He’s a BS artist as a politician, inclined toward resumé inflation and only having a passing familiarity with issues. When pushed, Biden reacts not by calmly and rationally explaining the nuances but by doubling down on claims. He’s become the eminence grise of the Democratic Party for three reasons, and three reasons only:

  1. He’s old and has been around for nearly 50 years, thanks to voters in Delaware.
  2. Barack Obama needed a supposed foreign-policy expert in 2008 after booting the issue of Russia invading Georgia
  3. They don’t have anyone else who qualifies for that role.

This is precisely the kind of gaffe Biden makes on a regular basis, and you can bet we haven’t seen the last of them.

The post Biden: “Nobody should be in jail for a non-violent crime” appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group biden-nonviolent-300x162 Biden: “Nobody should be in jail for a non-violent crime” violent crime The Blog Joe Biden Criminal Justice Reform 2020 Democrat debates   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Latest Harris fumble: Exposed campaign document shows worry over “summer slump”

Westlake Legal Group harris-view Latest Harris fumble: Exposed campaign document shows worry over “summer slump” The Blog kamala harris Criminal Justice Reform collapse

Kamala Harris’ team might publicly insist that their candidate is not rattled by her downward trajectory in polling, but that’s not what they’re saying in private. Thanks to a briefing memo left in a restaurant, Politico got a good look at the Harris campaign’s concerns over her “summer slump.” Needless to say, they’re taking the collapse seriously:

A briefing memo accidentally left behind at a restaurant here showed Kamala Harris’ staff expected her to be grilled on her lack of presence in the state as well as her campaign’s “summer slump.”

The document, obtained exclusively by POLITICO, detailed intricacies of her campaign’s relationships with Granite Staters she was set to meet last weekend — from how much her campaign has donated to local politicians to advice she received from a local TV reporter. It included talking points to rebut expected criticisms from voters or reporters, such as the limited number of visits she’s made to the first-in-the-nation primary state and her lackluster poll results.

The timing on this revelation isn’t terribly propitious. Harris has actually arrested her slide in the RealClearPolitics aggregate average of polls at 7.2%. That’s in the same range Harris was in before the first Democratic debate at the end of June, when her attack on Joe Biden more or less doubled her polling support.

That raises an uncomfortable question for Harris. Is this really a “slump” or “collapse,” or is it just a return to her normal position in the race? Many observers figured Harris would be the candidate best positioned to knit together the various strands of progressivism, identity politics, and practicality in 2020, but she’s been a mediocre presence in the race almost from the moment she launched her campaign. It became apparent very quickly that Harris had not thought in depth about any of the major issues of the cycle, especially health care as she pinballed all over the place on private health insurance and Medicare for All. After sponsoring Bernie Sanders’ bill in the Senate, Harris disavowed it last month when pressed to answer for its potential costs and impacts.

The campaign needs yet another reboot, and this time it’s aiming for something more familiar to Harris:

Sen. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) is building her Democratic presidential campaign, in large part, around her experience as a prosecutor, a job she regularly tells voters she took to help improve what she viewed as a broken and biased system from the inside. The criminal justice plan she released Monday morning seeks to overhaul that system — and to eliminate the long-standing biases and disparities that have long plagued the ways it handles Americans of color.

Harris’s plan aims to significantly reduce the number of people incarcerated in the United States by ending mandatory minimum sentences, legalizing marijuana and funding reentry programs to reduce recidivism.

The campaign argues today that Harris’ experience as a state attorney general makes her the most qualified to reform criminal justice in America. That runs into two obvious problems. First, Harris has done almost nothing about this as a member of the US Senate, which calls her passion and credibility on this point into question. More important, however, is Harris’ track record as California’s AG:

Harris has faced criticism of her prosecutorial record since she entered the race. Some of those critiques are specific, centered on policies such as the one she implemented to combat truancy as San Francisco district attorney. That policy threatened legal action against parents of chronically truant students, which some activists argued had an outsize effect on impoverished families and families of color.

Other critiques center on Harris’s lack of action on issues of accountability, arguing that when she had the power to order DNA testing that could have exonerated an inmate on death row, she did not do so, or that she did not initiate independent investigations of county prosecutors or individual police shootings while she was serving as California’s highest law enforcement officer. In many of those cases, Harris chose to defer to local jurisdictions of district attorneys.

Here’s another question, although whether it’s a problem remains to be seen. Why is Harris only now embracing criminal justice reform as her central focus in 2020? It’s been a politically sexy topic ever since Kim Kardashian got Donald Trump to embrace it in the summer of 2018. This should have been Harris’ central focus from the start of her campaign, where her obvious experiential edge over the other candidates in the field would have made her nearly untouchable. Instead, Harris chased all of the other progressive hobby horses first, distinguishing herself only in her superficial grasp of those issues, before belatedly developing a platform she should have had ready from the start.

Her campaign may have fumbled this campaign memo at a restaurant, but Harris has been fumbling the entire campaign from the start. It’s tough to see how she recovers now, even with yet another reboot.

The post Latest Harris fumble: Exposed campaign document shows worry over “summer slump” appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group harris-view-300x162 Latest Harris fumble: Exposed campaign document shows worry over “summer slump” The Blog kamala harris Criminal Justice Reform collapse   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com