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

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 

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 

Judge in Amber Guyger Case Unapologetic After Receiving Intense Criticism for Hugging, Giving Defendant a Bible

Westlake Legal Group JudgeTammyKempAmberGuyger3-620x377 Judge in Amber Guyger Case Unapologetic After Receiving Intense Criticism for Hugging, Giving Defendant a Bible Texas Social Media Race Politics police North Carolina Media Judicial Grace Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Faith democrats Culture & Faith Culture crime Courts Christianity Amber Guyger Allow Media Exception

Screen grab via WFAA.

Last week, former Dallas police officer Amber Guyger, 31, was convicted of murder in the September 2018 shooting death of 26-year-old Botham Jean as he sat in his apartment.

Guyger, who said she mistakenly entered the wrong apartment and shot Jean because she believed he was an intruder, received a 10 year sentence.

Botham Jean’s brother Brandt, who is 18, gave a powerful victim impact statementt on forgiveness and asked for a hug afterwards, which Judge Tammy Kemp okayed after a few seconds of consideration of the request.

Not long after Brandt Jean gave his statement, Judge Kemp walked over to his family and consoled them over their loss. But she also walked over to Guyger and spoke with her for a few moments before retreating and then returning with a Bible. She talked to Guyger about John 3:16, and told Gugyger that God had already forgiven her after Gugyer asked if He ever would.

Watch their interaction below:

Their moving exchange predictably caused social justice warriors and freedom from religion types to erupt in outrage, as streiff noted here.

In her first public comments since the trial, Kemp was unapologetic in the face of criticism:

… Kemp said she felt her actions were appropriate since the trial was over and the former officer told her she didn’t know how to begin seeking God’s forgiveness.
[…]
“If she wanted to start with the Bible, I didn’t want her to go back to the jail and to sink into doubt and self-pity and become bitter,” she said. “Because she still has a lot of life ahead of her following her sentence and I would hope that she could live it purposefully.”
[…]
Kemp said that Guyger asked twice if she could hug her as well and, after a moment’s hesitation, the judge wrapped her arms around the former police officer.

“Following my own convictions, I could not refuse that woman a hug. I would not,” said Kemp, who is black. “And I don’t understand the anger. And I guess I could say if you profess religious beliefs and you are going to follow them, I would hope that they not be situational and limited to one race only.”

What a refreshing way to look at things. Nice work, Judge Kemp.

——-
— Based in North Carolina, Sister Toldjah is a former liberal and a 15+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here. Connect with her on Twitter. –

The post Judge in Amber Guyger Case Unapologetic After Receiving Intense Criticism for Hugging, Giving Defendant a Bible appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JudgeTammyKempAmberGuyger3-300x183 Judge in Amber Guyger Case Unapologetic After Receiving Intense Criticism for Hugging, Giving Defendant a Bible Texas Social Media Race Politics police North Carolina Media Judicial Grace Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Faith democrats Culture & Faith Culture crime Courts Christianity Amber Guyger Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Protesters Storm the Supreme Court, Block the Streets, Then Surround Mitch McConnell’s House

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-06-at-4.42.40-PM Protesters Storm the Supreme Court, Block the Streets, Then Surround Mitch McConnell’s House Supreme Court SCOTUS progressives liberals acting badly Justice Brett Kavanaugh julie swetnick Judicial Impeachment farce Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Courts Allow Media Exception

Screenshot from this video

Here’s a good reminder why not to vote for Democrats, if anyone needed one.

What Democrats did last year to smear Justice Brett Kavanaugh to stop his confirmation was just despicable.

You saw Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) sit on an allegation until it was convenient to drop. You saw people like Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), now presidential candidates but auditioning at the time for the base, get busted spreading falsehoods in the effort.

This is some of the insanity they incited.

It didn’t matter if they smeared a good man’s name forever if they got what they wanted.

Fortunately, they failed.

But some are still trying to push the narrative.

A group of protesters stormed the Supreme Court today, blocked traffic and screamed about Kavanaugh, calling to “Impeach the mother f**ker!” Townhall’s Julio Rosas caught the action.

They spoke of Merrick Garland and had Julie Swetnick among their number. You may recall Swetnick who told the farcical story about Kavanaugh “gang rape parties,” whose story kept changing and who, along with Michael Avenatti, was referred for criminal investigation based on their actions. But these folks cheered her like she was a returning hero, saying “We believe you!”

Best way not to get people to support your cause? Prevent them from getting where they want to go.

Warning graphic language:

They then went to Sen. Mitch McConnell’s house, shouted and wrapped caution tape around it.

They don’t realize they’re the ones attacking the proper process of the courts, not McConnell.

Every time they do something like this, another Republican voter gets his wings.

This is why we vote, to make sure that these folks never get back more power.

The post Protesters Storm the Supreme Court, Block the Streets, Then Surround Mitch McConnell’s House appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Screen-Shot-2019-10-06-at-4.42.40-PM-300x167 Protesters Storm the Supreme Court, Block the Streets, Then Surround Mitch McConnell’s House Supreme Court SCOTUS progressives liberals acting badly Justice Brett Kavanaugh julie swetnick Judicial Impeachment farce Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Courts Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Progressive Judge Makes Tasteless Joke about TX Gov. Greg Abbott’s Paralysis

Westlake Legal Group justice-2071539_1280-620x465 Progressive Judge Makes Tasteless Joke about TX Gov. Greg Abbott’s Paralysis TX Judge Sarah Eckhardt Travis County Republican Chairman Matt Mackowiak Texas state senator Kelly Hancock Texas Governor Greg Abbott Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) progressives President Trump Politics Liberal Elitism Judicial John Daniel Davidson Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Courts Allow Media Exception

Image by Edward Lich from Pixabay

 

Travis County, TX Judge Sarah Eckhardt took a cheap shot at Texas Governor Greg Abbott during a Texas Tribune Festival panel on progressive activism. Abbott has been paralyzed from the waist down since 1984 when a large oak tree fell on him while jogging. He was 26 years old.

The Federalist’s John Daniel Davidson tweeted that Eckhardt was discussing the Texas legislature’s decision to “override local ordinances like Austin’s tree ordinance.” She joked that “Gov. Abbott hates trees because one fell on him.”

Davidson noted that the crowd laughed.

Texas Republicans were quick to call Eckhardt out on this remark.

Travis County Republican Chairman Matt Mackowiak issued a statement saying that Eckhardt’s comments were “disgusting.” He said, “Judge Eckhardt apparently believes that his disability is open to ridicule if it helps her make a political argument. This joke represents a profound lack of compassion from Judge Eckhardt … There is no place for insulting Americans with disabilities and Judge Eckhardt should know better.”

Texas state senator Kelly Hancock tweeted: “Absolutely classless comment! @GovAbbott is a shining example to all Texans of someone who overcame adversity with a smile, a LOT of hard work, and a positive attitude.”

And Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) reacted by tweet writing, “What an unbelievably stupid thing to say about @GovAbbott or anyone. Taking steps to lessen the negative consequences of Austin’s nutball policy-making is hardly a basis to attack the Governor for a tragic injury which he has demonstrated steadfast determination to overcome.”

Eckhardt issued a statement on Friday evening apologizing for her “inappropriate” comment:

In my panel today at the Texas Tribune Festival on ‘Public Enragement’ I spoke about the importance of being able to disagree without being disagreeable. Then I said something disagreeable. I want to apologize to Governor Abbott. I made a flippant comment that was inappropriate. The comment did nothing to further the debate I was participating in, much less further the political discourse in our community, state, and nation. While the Governor and I disagree on a number of issues, that is no excuse to be disagreeable.

“Disagreeable” and “inappropriate” don’t begin to describe Eckhardt’s comment. It was cruel, thoughtless and disrespectful and it has no place in political debate. Is there no line liberals won’t cross in their references to conservatives?

Eckhardt should step down immediately. I can’t imagine being a conservative in her courtroom. Thank God President Trump is making so much progress in reshaping the courts.

The post Progressive Judge Makes Tasteless Joke about TX Gov. Greg Abbott’s Paralysis appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group justice-2071539_1280-300x225 Progressive Judge Makes Tasteless Joke about TX Gov. Greg Abbott’s Paralysis TX Judge Sarah Eckhardt Travis County Republican Chairman Matt Mackowiak Texas state senator Kelly Hancock Texas Governor Greg Abbott Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) progressives President Trump Politics Liberal Elitism Judicial John Daniel Davidson Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Courts Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Dot-Connecting on Some Very Important News Stories

Westlake Legal Group TruthImage2-620x333 Dot-Connecting on Some Very Important News Stories Supreme Court News Never Trumpers Middle East Media Mainstream Media leaks Judicial journalism Israel Iran Government Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story fake news donald trump democrats Courts corruption Corrupt Democrats collusion biased media Abuse of Power

There are a lot of seemingly random events happening lately. Are they truly random, or might there be nefarious purposes behind at least a few of them? Let’s take a look. Here’s a list of some “breaking news” items over the past week or so; are they all they seem to be on the surface, or is the reality being purposely obfuscated?

  • The Left via a NY Times hit piece are going after USSC Brett Kavanaugh yet again.
  • The Israelis were accused of planting spying devices around the White House.
  • The legacy media claimed that the CIA had to pull a spy from Russia because @POTUS was a security risk.
  • A Saudi ARAMCO facility was attacked using Iranian-produced weapons, possibly by Iranian proxies or by Iran itself.
  • The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) arrested a senior intelligence officer for allegedly stealing sensitive documents. Nearly concurrently, Justin Trudeau was exposed in more ways than one – multiple instances of (to use the Left’s jargon) “cultural appropriation.”
  • Andrew McCabe stated during a CNN interview that he would refuse to take a plea deal under any circumstances if indicted.
  • Big Democrat donor Ed Buck was arrested for distributing methamphetamines resulting in death.
  • An intelligence community whistleblower complaint was publicized by the WaPo that questioned a supposed promise made by @POTUS to a foreign leader.

Let’s examine each one and see it we can connect a few dots. First off, the Kavanaugh smear. This was a perfect example of the Leftist Hive in operation: a media hit-piece echoed everywhere, Democrat Star Wars bar scene candidates and others in Congress and the media demand his impeachment, etc. A false NY Times report was derived from a book, and the guy behind it all was on Bill Clinton’s defense team during impeachment proceedings while Kavanaugh was working for Special Counsel Ken Starr. Those are just coincidences, right? The Democrats want us to believe that!

The accusations in the NYT article were immediately debunked (the “accuser” refused to come forward and be deposed by the FBI). And this article seals the deal.

Then there is this report that one of those bearing false witness during the Kavanaugh hearings last year was coerced to do so by the Democrat cabal led by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA). This whole article is VERY interesting and is highly recommended!

Why did this story break now and not during the Senate hearings? What’s the Democrats’ game plan? This is all about them de-legitimizing the US Supreme Court because there are a number of very important cases that will be decided in the next session, and the Left fear the results from a conservative-leaning court. Their 3+ decades of practicing lawfare through the federal courts is crashing down, as POTUS is appointing conservative federal district and circuit court judges at a rapid clip to replace leftists who have usurped their authority and legislated from the bench for years.

In past years, confirmed USSC judges were left alone after being confirmed, but the Left have upped the ante by going after Kavanaugh again! They’ve got nothing – no witnesses, no evidence – only false accusations and innuendos. This is all about de-legitimizing Kavanaugh and thereby the court itself, which will allow the Left to claim that any USSC decisions that go against their politics are “tainted” and to be ignored. This is pretty much analogous to how Democrat-run California ignores federal immigration laws now.

I’ve got news for Democrats and their media lick-spittle: more false accusations aren’t going to move the needle in the direction you want it to move. In fact, it will do the reverse as more and more reasonable people see it as just another high-tech lynching (ode to Clarence Thomas).

Moving on to purported Israeli spying on the White House et al. Here’s one of the stories that broke that news. Note this phrase in the very first sentence of that article: “according to three former senior U.S. officials with knowledge of the matter.” I mean, really! How many times are we supposed to fall for that gambit (unnamed sources)? If we’ve learned anything in the Age of Trump it’s that, unless the sources are named, the articles in the legacy/left media are purposely anti-Trump and bogus. The list of #FakeNews stories is long! Those “unnamed sources” could easily be former Obama Administration people. Or, they could have been NeverTrumpers who’ve been fired or resigned and have grudges. Regardless, I simply don’t believe ANY anti-Trump legacy media story that doesn’t name its sources. Period!

Secondly, the timing of this article is entirely suspect, as it was released right before an important Israeli election. We know that Obama’s crew tried to unseat Netanyahu previously by working with his opponents, as noted here. This latest action smells like more of the same. The Obama crowd views Netanyahu as a major roadblock to restoring the failed JCPOA deal with Iran, and they’d like nothing more than to remove him from power. This was very likely the real purpose for that article!

The next “bombshell” was an accusation –reported by a former Obama administration hack, no less, and much-repeated throughout the legacy media – that the CIA extracted a Russian spy due to “wide concern in the intelligence community about mishandling of intelligence by Trump and his administration.” Yeah, right. Here’s the typical anti-Trump spin by a guy who’s been sliming @POTUS since early 2016.

Well, not so fast! Virtually as soon as the CNN report was published, even the NY Times reported that the spy was recalled even before President Trump took office. Furthermore, the CIA issued this extraordinary statement slamming the CNN report:

The Central Intelligence Agency on Monday evening slammed what it called CNN’s ‘misguided’ and ‘simply false’ reporting, after the cable channel’s chief national security correspondent authored a hole-filled piece claiming that the CIA “had pulled a high-level spy out of Russia because President Trump had ‘repeatedly mishandled classified intelligence and could contribute to exposing the covert source as a spy.’”

Read the rest here.

It was a false report, and yet that former Russian spy was virtually doxed by the legacy media, with his private address publicized for all the world to see. Hmmm. Maybe there’s more to this than meets the eye. This guy was supposedly “close to Putin,” yet he provided no information about Putin’s foreign policy objectives in Syria or with respect to Iran but supposedly confirmed that Putin directed the meddling in the 2016 election? Riiiiiight.  More likely, this was yet another false-flag misdirection to take the heat off Andrew McCabe, whose lawyer’s attempts to get the DoJ to not prosecute him for various crimes was turned down at about the same time this spy story popped up. It was also doubtless intended to keep the “muh Russia” hoax alive in support of Nadler’s “impeachment inquiry” (or whatever the Democrat/media euphemism for their continuing witch hunt is called these days).

Next was the drone and missile strike on two of Saudi Arabia’s ARAMCO facilities in Abqaiq and Khurais. This was a coordinated attack by 25 drones and missiles that put half of Saudi Arabia’s oil production capacity out of business until repaired. Refer to this for more.

The Iranians of course claimed innocence, but the weapons were Iranian-built, and the level of sophistication in the attack, as well as intelligence gathered subsequently from multiple sources, pointed squarely to Iran.

This attack was part of a continuing attempt by Iran to start a kinetic war because the sanctions are drastically affecting the IRI’s ability to pay salaries of the IRGC, internal security forces, and proxy terrorist groups around the region. They’re trying to split off European support for those sanctions, and a war would help do the trick. Given that the EU and even the Chinese are the ones dependent on Middle East oil (the US is a net exporter thanks to @POTUS!), that strategy won’t work. And we know that there are former Obama regime people like John Kerry and Ben Rhodes providing advice on strategy to the Iranians, too. There are a lot behind-the-scenes Logan Act violations that have happened over the past few months.

POTUS hasn’t taken the bait; there are numerous reports of devastating non-kinetic attacks on the Iranian oil industry, as well as another ratcheting up of sanctions on Iranian financial transactions.

How about that senior RCMP intelligence official being arrested for selling secrets? And then, suddenly, Prime Minister Trudeau made “’cultural appropriation” headlines? Are the two stories linked in some way? Here’s a Canadian Global News excerpt that broke the spy story:

Cameron Ortis faces seven counts dating as far back as 2015, including breach of trust, communicating “special operational information,” and obtaining information in order to pass it to a “foreign entity.” Ortis was identified when U.S. authorities “flipped” a suspect who gave him up. His arrest is believed to be part of a wider operation involving NATO allies and the Five Eyes — Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the U.S. and U.K.

Read more about it here.

There are lots of possibilities here. Ortis could have been spying for China (he speaks Mandarin) or Russia or multiple parties. Remember that FVEY spies were almost certainly part of the foreign element of #Spygate that is slowly being unraveled, too.

Nearly concurrently, we learned that Justin Trudeau wore black/brown-face several times “in his youth.” Now why would these two stories break just now when certainly the Trudeau story had to have been previously known? The Canadian election is right around the corner on 21 October. Could these stories be aimed at taking out Trudeau? Could the arrest be the Canadian intel services fighting back against their own corrupt Deep State actors in a manner similar to the exposure of #Spygate?

Some have even speculated that these two stories are part of the ephemeral anti-globalist coalition led by @POTUS pushing back on globalist actors in Canada and elsewhere. That speculation isn’t too far-fetched, especially now that the DoJ OIG’s FISA abuse report is in final review.

Next were the unsurprising statements made by Andrew McCabe during a CNN interview that he would “under no circumstances” take a plea deal with the DoJ. Yes, yes, the crook insists on maintaining his innocence until the bitter end. Gotta keep the GoFundMe $$ coming in! There’s an embedded video of the interview in this article, which describes the matter fairly well; the man is lying through his teeth.

He’s already been referred for prosecution by the DoJ OIG in the Clinton email scandal (that was what his lawyers were begging the DoJ to not indict him for), and the much more serious offenses – and a likely referral – will be forthcoming resulting from the FISA abuse report. He, the rest of the cabal, and their media allies are working overtime to keep the “muh Russia” hoax alive in support of Democrat attempts to “impeach” the president. Sorry, Andy; we’re onto your game BIGLY! Can’t wait for the referral from the OIG on FISA abuse!

Then there was the arrest (finally!) of big Democrat donor Ed Buck in LA on a charge of “distributing methamphetamines resulting in death.” Here’s the criminal complaint filed in California.

It’s SHAMEFUL, if not a complete cover-up, as this is at least the third time around for this guy (two men previously OD-d, and the third one survived to report the incident leading to Buck’s arrest).

Questions abound; here are some of them. Why wasn’t he charged previously after either or both of the two deaths? To which California Democrats (and others) did he donate money? How well does Adam Schiff know him, and how much did he receive from Buck? He donated a lot to the Obamas and Hillary Clinton; what do they say about Buck now, and will they return the contributions? This story is nowhere close to being over.

Finally, there is the evolving story about a supposed “whistleblower” from the intel community who claimed that @POTUS made a “very disturbing promise” to a foreign leader during a phone call. Except that we have subsequently found out WAAAAAY more about the story. We have learned that the whistleblower did not have first-hand access to the transcript of the phone call, nor did he/she have any of the context for that call. Part of that context included an above-board series of contacts between Ukraine and Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani THAT WAS INSTIGATED BY THE US STATE DEPT! Now check this next part out carefully from a recent article:

According to interviews with more than a dozen Ukrainian and U.S. officials, Ukraine’s government under recently departed President Petro Poroshenko and, now, Zelensky has been trying since summer 2018 to hand over evidence about the conduct of Americans they believe might be involved in violations of U.S. law during the Obama years. The Ukrainians say their efforts to get their allegations to U.S. authorities were thwarted first by the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, which failed to issue timely visas allowing them to visit America.

Then the Ukrainians hired a former U.S. attorney – not Giuliani – to hand-deliver the evidence of wrongdoing to the U.S. attorney’s office in New York, but the federal prosecutors never responded. The U.S. attorney, a respected American, confirmed the Ukrainians’ story to me. The allegations that Ukrainian officials wanted to pass on involved both efforts by the Democratic National Committee to pressure Ukraine to meddle in the 2016 U.S. election as well as Joe Biden’s son’s effort to make money in Ukraine while the former vice president managed U.S.-Ukraine relations, the retired U.S. attorney told me.

Read the rest here.

Did you catch all of that? The Ukrainians have apparently got the goods on Obama, Biden, the DNC, and others but were prevented by Deep State operatives from turning that evidence over to the DoJ, and somehow a “whistleblower” accuses @POTUS of making an “improper promise” during a phone call? Talk about reality turned inside-out! Even former CIA analyst and now CNN contributor Phil Mudd crapped all over the whistleblower and Congress, as noted here.

What we’ve got here is REAL foreign collusion – by Democrats! – being covered up by Deep State operatives, including trying to shift the blame onto POTUS and away from the Bidens (and others) who have MUCH to answer for regarding Ukraine! And of course, the legacy media are spinning furiously to protect the Democrat front-runner, when it’s already on the public record that he bragged about blackmailing the Ukrainians to fire a prosecutor looking into Hunter Biden’s “business contacts” (actually, bribery or extortion) in the Ukraine!

I predict that Ukraine will be Joe Biden’s political Waterloo. There is more coming out on this story, and the legacy media won’t be able to spin it away. Get ready for Fauxcahontas to top the Democrats’ Star Wars bar scene leader board, folks!

That concludes some dot-connecting on a number of very interesting stories of late. What’s the common thread throughout? All are bad news for Democrats, and the attacks against the President in particular are boomeranging BIGLY! Shades of Trumpenfreude! Some people are getting desperate, and none of them are named Trump or Trump’s allies!  What do you think?

The end.

 

The post Dot-Connecting on Some Very Important News Stories appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group TruthImage2-300x161 Dot-Connecting on Some Very Important News Stories Supreme Court News Never Trumpers Middle East Media Mainstream Media leaks Judicial journalism Israel Iran Government Front Page Stories Foreign Policy Featured Story fake news donald trump democrats Courts corruption Corrupt Democrats collusion biased media Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Vice Magazine Writer ‘Hopes That Terrible Men Like Jeffrey Epstein and Brett Kavanaugh Will Ultimately Get What They Deserve’

Westlake Legal Group Kavanaugh-4 Vice Magazine Writer ‘Hopes That Terrible Men Like Jeffrey Epstein and Brett Kavanaugh Will Ultimately Get What They Deserve’ Vice (Magazine) Supreme Court Sofia Barrett-Ibarria Politics Media Mark Hemingway Liberal Elitism Justice Brett Kavanaugh Judicial Jeffrey Epstein Front Page Stories Featured Story fake news Culture crime corruption Allow Media Exception Aileen Wuornos Abuse of Power 2020

 

Vice Magazine published an article about the life and death of serial killer Aileen Wuornos, a sex worker who was found guilty of killing seven clients between 1989 and 1990. She claimed she had shot these men in self-defense.

After spending ten years on death row Wuornos died by lethal injection in 2002. She has become a cult hero to some, including rap star Cardi B, who featured her photograph on a single she released in May. According to the author, Sofia Barret-Ibarria, “to her fans, Wuornos’s story offers a powerful example of a survivor who defies the respectability politics of victimhood.”

Writer Mark Hemingway read this article as it was originally published (paragraph below). Barret-Ibarria equates Justice Brett Kavanaugh to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and “countless others.” She hopes they “will ultimately get what they deserve.” That is to say, they deserve to be shot to death by a serial killer.

As reports of powerful men who abuse vulnerable women continue to surface, it’s hard to deny that survivors are craving stories of revenge—stories where victims not only live to survive the abuse, but fight back. “I think part of her appeal to me personally, in this cultural moment, is that Aileen Wuornos was a woman that men feared,” said Bailey. Wournos story offers hope that terrible men like Jeffrey Epstein, Brett Kavanaugh and countless others will ultimately get what they deserve. “A prostitute hunting men instead of being hunted is a deeply comforting story.”

Hemingway rightly points out in the tweet below that “the author is saying Brett Kavanaugh DESERVES TO BE MURDERED BY A SERIAL KILLER?!…Were all the responsible editors left in journalism killed in a purge night or something.”

The emphasized sentence was changed after it was widely criticized.

As reports of powerful men who abuse vulnerable women continue to surface, it’s hard to deny that survivors are craving stories of revenge—stories where victims not only live to survive the abuse, but fight back. “I think part of her appeal to me personally, in this cultural moment, is that Aileen Wuornos was a woman that men feared,” said Bailey. At a time when we are constantly inundated with stories like that of Jeffrey Epstein and Brett Kavanaugh, her story is an example of men facing repercussions for their actions. “A prostitute hunting men instead of being hunted is a deeply comforting story.”

Although the revised sentence no longer implies that Kavanaugh deserves to be murdered by a serial killer, she still includes him in the same category as Epstein.

I am not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that some of the language used by liberal writers and commentators in their coverage of Justice Kavanaugh meets the legal criteria for libel. I realize that Kavanaugh is a public figure and the bar is set higher than if he were a private citizen. He is also a conservative, so the bar goes higher still.

Justice Kavanaugh has not been convicted of a crime. He is the victim of the most vicious character assassination campaign in U.S. political history.

At some point, those who peddle fake news must pay a price for it.

The post Vice Magazine Writer ‘Hopes That Terrible Men Like Jeffrey Epstein and Brett Kavanaugh Will Ultimately Get What They Deserve’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Kavanaugh-4-300x199 Vice Magazine Writer ‘Hopes That Terrible Men Like Jeffrey Epstein and Brett Kavanaugh Will Ultimately Get What They Deserve’ Vice (Magazine) Supreme Court Sofia Barrett-Ibarria Politics Media Mark Hemingway Liberal Elitism Justice Brett Kavanaugh Judicial Jeffrey Epstein Front Page Stories Featured Story fake news Culture crime corruption Allow Media Exception Aileen Wuornos Abuse of Power 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A New York Judge Loses His Seat Over an Incendiary Endorsement of the Death Penalty. Is This Justice?

Westlake Legal Group justice-2060093_1280-620x413 A New York Judge Loses His Seat Over an Incendiary Endorsement of the Death Penalty. Is This Justice? Uncategorized robert h. tembeckjian Politics kyle r. canning Judicial Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture crime Courts Capital Punishment Allow Media Exception

First things first: In case you missed it, please read:

Think You’ve Heard The Stupidest Thing Ever? I Disagree. Witness The Woke’s New Condemnation Of IKEA

Going forward:

In New York, a judge recently expressed favor toward old-fashioned capital punishment, along with what appeared to be an ‘attaboy for Trump.

Altona Town Court Justice Kyle R. Canning posted to social media an image of a noose with the following caption:

“IF WE WANT TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE EVIL PEOPLE FEAR PUNISHMENT AGAIN.”

See the image via this link.

Of course, public hangings used to be the method of choice when death penalty cases were taken to their furthest corporal end. 

But contemporary society seems to have an ever-shorter memory, and the rope was interpreted by some as a murderous message about black people.

A formal complaint was filed by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct, claiming Kyle seemed to “convey racial and/or political bias” and “failed to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”

Commission administrator Robert H. Tembeckjian accused Kyle of using “the image of the noose in making a political point.”

In an issued statement, Robert reamed Kyle:

“The noose is an incendiary image with repugnant racial connotations. It is the very antithesis of law and justice.”

But Kyle told The New York Times he had no intention of anything racial. 

Furthermore, he’s a registered Democrat:

“There is not a man that I could despise more than Donald Trump.”

That statement definitely wouldn’t have gotten him in trouble.

Kyle explained that he was just touting the effectiveness of the death penalty:

“It could have been a gas chamber. It could have been an electric chair.”

Should his posting have brought the scourge of his industry? Was it just that he be censured? What’s more important — his intent or its perception?

Of course, he has a point — despite the evident impression of some in this racially charged climate, hanging was long ago the standard ultimate criminal punishment for all races in America, just as slavery existed all over the world among various races before America undertook its shamefulness.

But the moment’s what matters, and Kyle’s depiction of a noose means he won’t ever have to deal with a hung jury. On Tuesday, he resigned from his position and promised to never again hold judicial office.

He’d only just last year took the $8,700-a-year position.

In his letter of resignation, of the commission’s filing against him, Kyle explained, “They have presented me with several different options in resolving what they claim to be a serious offense.”

Despite a loss of almost ten grand, Kyle’s still rolling in the dough. According to the Times, he delivers bread for a living.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Pro-Communist ‘Revolution Club’ Protests Trump’s Visit By Burning An American Flag In Front Of The Beverly Hills Hotel. Why?

MSNBC Panelist Says He Constantly Fantasizes About Crashing His Car Into Trump Plaza. Maybe He’s Waiting For The 1,000-Year Reich

The BBC Releases A Lesson Plan For 9-Year-Olds: There Are More Than 100 Genders. Disagree And Go To Jail

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. For iPhone instructions, see the bottom of this page.



If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post A New York Judge Loses His Seat Over an Incendiary Endorsement of the Death Penalty. Is This Justice? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group justice-2060093_1280-300x200 A New York Judge Loses His Seat Over an Incendiary Endorsement of the Death Penalty. Is This Justice? Uncategorized robert h. tembeckjian Politics kyle r. canning Judicial Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture crime Courts Capital Punishment Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com