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 > News Media (Page 210)

This Champagne Explosion May Be The Cringiest ‘Bachelor’ Moment Ever

Westlake Legal Group 5e1dd95521000033001f6e62 This Champagne Explosion May Be The Cringiest ‘Bachelor’ Moment Ever

You don’t even need to watch “The Bachelor” to appreciate the chaos (and subsequent literal explosion) that ensued during last night’s episode over a bottle of champagne.

On Monday, contestant Kelsey waxed poetic about a bottle of Dom Perignon that she brought from her hometown of Des Moines, Iowa. Kelsey explained that she’d be saving the bottle for a special occasion and wanted to share it with Bachelor Peter. 

After telling her fellow contestants her plan, she heard a cork pop in the distance and believed that someone else stole her bubbly moment, confronting contestant Hannah Ann (who was responsible for the cork pop heard ’round the world) and creating what will now forever be known as #ChampagneGate.  (Editor’s note: It was not Kelsey’s bottle Hannah Ann opened.)

Peter attempted to make things right, settling in to have a glass of champagne with Kelsey after all and things went… messy. In an effort to savor the moment (???), Kelsey quipped that she’s “not a classy bitch all the time” when the duo realized they had no glasses and insisted she could drink the booze straight from the champagne bottle. 

Not sure if you’ve ever tried to do that before, but, uh, don’t. It didn’t go well for Kelsey as the bottle basically exploded in her face, resulting in a scene that yielded a whole lot of vaguely inappropriate memes and images that one cannot unsee. 

Here’s a smattering of what people were saying about #ChampagneGate and the champagne shower: 

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

Princes Harry and William’s relationship is ‘at an all-time low’ following ‘Megxit,’ experts say

As Prince Harry gears up to embark on his new life alongside Meghan Markle, many have wondered whether we will ever see the British royal alongside his brother again.

Their grandmother Queen Elizabeth II responded on Monday that she is supportive of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s request to “step back” as senior members of the royal family. But some royal experts believe the controversial departure has rocked the relationship between the two brothers.

“There is no doubt that the relationship between Princes Harry and William are at an all-time low,” Nick Bullen, editor-in-chief of True Royalty TV, told Fox News.

Bullen has been making programs about the British royal family for nearly 20 years and has worked closely with their father Prince Charles for eight of those years. He is optimistic, however, that the princes will ultimately settle their differences.

WHAT LED TO MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY’S ROYAL DEPARTURE

Westlake Legal Group William-Harry Princes Harry and William’s relationship is ‘at an all-time low' following 'Megxit,' experts say Stephanie Nolasco fox-news/world/personalities/will fox-news/world/personalities/queen fox-news/world/personalities/kate fox-news/world/personalities/british-royals fox-news/person/prince-harry fox-news/entertainment/features/exclusive fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news/meghan-markle fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 4b69fe72-bb32-5706-a3a2-5dcfe3515825

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex attend a service marking the centenary of WW1 armistice at Westminster Abbey on November 11, 2018, in London, England. (Getty)

MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY DIDN’T GIVE SON A ROYAL TITLE DUE TO ‘MEGXIT’ PLANS, ROYAL EXPERT SAYS

“Everyone around them is working flat out to try and repair things,” he explained. “The next few weeks and months will be fascinating for anyone interested in the royal family.”

The brothers did form a united front on Monday to deny a report that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s behavior played a role in Harry and Markle’s decision to “step back” from their royal duties.

In a statement on behalf of both princes released by the palace, the brothers denied reports from a U.K. newspaper that Harry and Markle felt pushed out of the royal family by William and his wife Kate Middleton.

In a statement confirmed by Fox News, the brothers said: “Despite clear denials, a false story ran in a UK newspaper today speculating about the relationship between the Duke of Sussex and The Duke of Cambridge. For brothers who care so deeply about the issues surrounding mental health, the use of inflammatory language in this way is offensive and potentially harmful.”

MEGHAN MARKLE WILL NEVER LIVE IN BRITAIN AGAIN, FRIEND CLAIMS

Westlake Legal Group prince-william-harry-3-getty Princes Harry and William’s relationship is ‘at an all-time low' following 'Megxit,' experts say Stephanie Nolasco fox-news/world/personalities/will fox-news/world/personalities/queen fox-news/world/personalities/kate fox-news/world/personalities/british-royals fox-news/person/prince-harry fox-news/entertainment/features/exclusive fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news/meghan-markle fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 4b69fe72-bb32-5706-a3a2-5dcfe3515825

Prince Harry, left, and his older brother Prince William watch a flypast to mark the centenary of the Royal Air Force from the balcony of Buckingham Palace on July 10, 2018, in London, England. (Max Mumby/Indigo/Getty Images)

UK MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: HARRY IS WEAK-WILLED, ‘MEGXIT’ MAKES ROYAL BRAND LOOK WEAK

The rebuke comes in response to a story published by The Times that stated that Harry, 35, and Markle, 38, came to their historic decision to step back from their royal duties and become financially independent from the crown after two years of being “bullied” and “told their place” by William, Middleton and other senior royals.

Royal author Leslie Carroll pointed out that riffs among princes and princesses are nothing new to the monarchy. And while the brothers may be faced with tension behind palace walls, it’s clear William, who is second in line to the throne, is dedicated to duty.

“He does not appear to be a cruel person,” Carroll explained. “But he is far more inscrutable than Harry, who is much more of an open book to the rest of the world in terms of his outgoing nature, and his very unroyal and unBritish willingness to publicly discuss (and reveal his emotions). In this, he is indeed his mother’s son.

“William’s path was mapped out for him since the day he was born,” she continued. “Harry has always needed to feel useful to a wide world behind himself and has always been happier outside the confines of England — long before he met Meghan. In fact, he truly came into his own during all those years he spent in the army.”

CANADA HASN’T DECIDED IF IT WILL PAY BILL FOR MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY’S SECURITY, SAYS FINANCE MINISTER

Westlake Legal Group Meghan-Markle-prince-harry-timeline-photo Princes Harry and William’s relationship is ‘at an all-time low' following 'Megxit,' experts say Stephanie Nolasco fox-news/world/personalities/will fox-news/world/personalities/queen fox-news/world/personalities/kate fox-news/world/personalities/british-royals fox-news/person/prince-harry fox-news/entertainment/features/exclusive fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news/meghan-markle fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 4b69fe72-bb32-5706-a3a2-5dcfe3515825

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle attend an official photocall to announce their engagement at The Sunken Gardens at Kensington Palace on November 27, 2017, in London, England. (Getty)

MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY: SOCIAL MEDIA REACTS TO QUEEN ELIZABETH’S STATEMENT REGARDING ROYAL EXIT

Numerous sources have long insisted there were deep tensions between the brothers after Harry revealed to his family he wanted to marry the former American actress after less than a year of dating. When William cautioned Harry that the whirlwind romance was moving too quickly, Harry reportedly became angry and hurt.

William dated Middleton, his college sweetheart, for about eight years before tying the knot in 2011.

Harry hinted at the ongoing rift between him and his older brother in the ITV documentary “Harry & Meghan: An African Journey,” which aired in October 2019.

“Inevitably stuff happens,” explained the British royal. “But we’re brothers, we’ll always be brothers. We’re certainly on different paths at the moment. I’ll always be there for him and as I know, he’ll always be there for me. We don’t see each other as much as we used to because we’re so busy, but I love him dearly.

“The majority of stuff is created out of nothing,” added Harry. “As brothers, we have good days and we have bad days.”

DID QUEEN ELIZABETH DROP A HINT THAT MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY MIGHT BE LOSING THEIR ROYAL TITLES?

Westlake Legal Group Prince-Louis Princes Harry and William’s relationship is ‘at an all-time low' following 'Megxit,' experts say Stephanie Nolasco fox-news/world/personalities/will fox-news/world/personalities/queen fox-news/world/personalities/kate fox-news/world/personalities/british-royals fox-news/person/prince-harry fox-news/entertainment/features/exclusive fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news/meghan-markle fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 4b69fe72-bb32-5706-a3a2-5dcfe3515825

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge with Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Louis on the balcony during Trooping The Colour, the Queen’s annual birthday parade, on June 8, 2019, in London, England. (Getty)

QUEEN ISSUES STATEMENT ON MEGHAN MARKLE, PRINCE HARRY AFTER FAMILY TALKS, AGREES TO PART-TIME MOVE TO CANADA

Carroll shared that it is now more crucial than ever for Harry and William to mend their reported differences for the sake of the monarchy.

“Harry has never coveted William’s position at all,” she said. “It would be wonderful if the two brothers could head somewhere quiet for a week, Balmoral perhaps… so they could just talk quietly and listen to each other. Harry needs a mission, a portfolio. He has been one of the favorite members of the royal family.

“Less naturally gregarious family members would do well to see past any envy they might harbor and recognize that their own strengths are different ones; and allow the shining stars to do what they do best and shine on behalf of The Firm — which will be all to the good of everyone concerned.”

Westlake Legal Group William-Harry Princes Harry and William’s relationship is ‘at an all-time low' following 'Megxit,' experts say Stephanie Nolasco fox-news/world/personalities/will fox-news/world/personalities/queen fox-news/world/personalities/kate fox-news/world/personalities/british-royals fox-news/person/prince-harry fox-news/entertainment/features/exclusive fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news/meghan-markle fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 4b69fe72-bb32-5706-a3a2-5dcfe3515825   Westlake Legal Group William-Harry Princes Harry and William’s relationship is ‘at an all-time low' following 'Megxit,' experts say Stephanie Nolasco fox-news/world/personalities/will fox-news/world/personalities/queen fox-news/world/personalities/kate fox-news/world/personalities/british-royals fox-news/person/prince-harry fox-news/entertainment/features/exclusive fox-news/entertainment/celebrity-news/meghan-markle fox-news/entertainment fox news fnc/entertainment fnc article 4b69fe72-bb32-5706-a3a2-5dcfe3515825

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

Trump’s Impeachment Trial a Perilous Duty for Chief Justice

Westlake Legal Group 00dc-roberts-1-facebookJumbo Trump’s Impeachment Trial a Perilous Duty for Chief Justice United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Roberts, John G Jr impeachment Constitution (US)

WASHINGTON — When Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. walks out of his chambers at the Supreme Court, crosses First Street and enters the Capitol to preside over President Trump’s impeachment trial, he will leave behind an institution that prides itself on reason and decorum and enter one marked by partisan warfare.

The chief justice’s responsibilities at the trial are fluid and ill-defined, and they will probably turn out to be largely ceremonial. What is certain is that they will be full of peril for his reputation and that of his court.

“It’s not a heavy lift, but it’s going to put him in a very, very unpleasant role,” said Philip Bobbitt, a law professor at Columbia and an author, with Charles L. Black Jr., of “Impeachment: A Handbook.” “I’m sure he’ll get ulcers.”

Any presidential impeachment trial thrusts the chief justice into unfamiliar and unwelcome terrain, said Frank O. Bowman, a law professor at the University of Missouri and the author of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors: A History of Impeachment for the Age of Trump.”

“This one in particular is so poisonous,” Professor Bowman said, “that he’s going to be concerned that any perception of partiality to either side will potentially damage the institutional legitimacy of the court.”

Chief Justice Roberts has plenty on his plate already, much of it related to Mr. Trump. He is working on a Supreme Court docket crowded with divisive issues, including three cases on whether to allow release of Mr. Trump’s financial records and one on Mr. Trump’s efforts to withdraw protection from deportation for young immigrants.

The Supreme Court is still reeling from a series of ugly confirmation battles that placed two of Mr. Trump’s nominees on its bench. And Chief Justice Roberts has exchanged sharp remarks with Mr. Trump, laying bare a fundamental disagreement about the independence of federal judges.

He seemed to allude to the dispute in his annual report on the state of the federal judiciary, issued on New Year’s Eve. “We should celebrate our strong and independent judiciary, a key source of national unity and stability,” he wrote. “But we should also remember that justice is not inevitable.”

And he set out a goal for 2020, knowing it would include the impeachment trial. “As the new year begins, and we turn to the tasks before us,” he wrote, “we should each resolve to do our best to maintain the public’s trust that we are faith fully discharging our solemn obligation to equal justice under law.”

If there were a good time for Chief Justice Roberts to help determine whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office, this would not be it. But he cannot quarrel with the Constitution, which mentions the chief justice just once — and it is in the context of impeachment.

“When the president of the United States is tried,” Article I, Section 3 says, “the chief justice shall preside.” But the founding charter says no more, and just what role the chief justice is meant perform has proved baffling.

The framers of the Constitution had considered having impeachment trials take place in the Supreme Court. But they rejected the idea for fear the justices would have to recuse themselves from an appeal should the president be prosecuted for the same conduct after being removed from office.

“The framers instead chose the Senate as the place for the impeachment trial,” Professor Bobbitt said. “But they needed to replace the vice president, who is ordinarily the Senate’s presiding officer but here had an obvious conflict of interest. They settled on the chief justice.”

That constitutional design suggests that the chief justice would have “a ceremonial role to give some dignity to the proceedings,” Professor Bobbitt said. “You take the chief, with the majesty of his office, but strip him of any power so he can still sit on an appeal from any criminal conviction.”

At the start of the trial, which could be as soon as Wednesday, Chief Justice Roberts’s first official act will be to take an oath to “do impartial justice.” He will then ask senators to raise their hands and to make the same pledge. That scripted exchange will set the tone for the chief justice’s role the proceedings, which history indicates will be limited.

In 1868, at the nation’s first presidential impeachment trial, of President Andrew Johnson, “no one knew what to do,” Brenda Wineapple wrote in “The Impeachers,” her history of the trial.

“The Constitution offered no procedural guidelines to instruct the chief justice how to preside over an impeachment trial,” Ms. Wineapple wrote.

Chief Justice Salmon Chase insisted on having more than an incidental role. “He wished to rule on the admissibility of evidence — subject to the vote of the Senate — and on the reliability of witnesses,” Ms. Wineapple wrote. “His campaign to organize the Senate as a legal court was largely successful.”

More than a century later, at the second presidential impeachment trial, of President Bill Clinton in 1999, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist did as little as possible.

Chief Justice Roberts is likely to follow the example set by the predecessor, for whom he served as a law clerk in 1980 and 1981 before Justice Rehnquist was elevated to chief justice in 1986.

Chief Justice Rehnquist was a student of impeachment trials, and he wrote a history of them, “Grand Inquests,” which was published in 1992. At the Clinton trial, he made only one ruling of any consequence, but it was one that helped define the chief justice’s role. It followed an objection from then-Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, who took issue with a Republican House manager’s characterization of the senators hearing his presentation as “the distinguished jurors in this case.”

Chief Justice Rehnquist sided with Mr. Harkin. “The Senate is not simply a jury,” he ruled. “It is the court in this case. Therefore, counsel should refrain from referring to the senators as jurors.”

John A. Jenkins, in his 2012 biography of Chief Justice Rehnquist, “The Partisan,” said the ruling was telling.

“It was a shrewd move on Rehnquist’s part,” Mr. Jenkins wrote, “because even though it seemingly reduced his authority it inoculated him against complaints about evenhandedness from one side or the other. If proceedings devolved, the senators had only themselves to blame.”

Years later, reflecting on his role in the Clinton impeachment trial, Chief Justice Rehnquist was self-deprecating, borrowing a line from “Iolanthe,” a favorite Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera.

“I did nothing in particular,” he said, “and I did it very well.”

Chief Justice Rehnquist’s most memorable choice at the impeachment trial was sartorial. He had taken to wearing black judicial robes adorned with four gold stripes on each sleeve, and he brought the enhanced outfit to the Senate chamber.

The garment was inspired, the Supreme Court’s public information office explained in 1995, by one worn by the Lord Chancellor in a local production of “Iolanthe.” Chief Justice Rehnquist’s friends said the stripes were a refreshing bit of whimsy, but others wondered if they fit the gravity of the occasion.

In his 2011 memoir “Five Chiefs,” Justice John Paul Stevens recalled that Chief Justice Rehnquist had urged his colleagues to consider similar adornments on their own robes.

“We had immediately and uniformly given him a negative response to that suggestion,” Justice Stevens wrote. Chief Justice Roberts has shown no inclination to accessorize his robes.

Under the Senate’s rules, the chief justice’s decisions are provisional and may be overruled by a majority vote. “It would be as if a trial judge were presiding at a jury trial at which the jury always had the ability to overrule him by a vote of seven to five,” Professor Bowman said.

But former Representative Thomas Campbell, who was a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment and is now a law professor at Chapman University, said he expected Chief Justice Roberts’s rulings to stand.

“How would a senator feel about overruling a judgment on the merits by the chief justice?” Professor Campbell asked. “I think ‘hesitant’ would be the adjective I’d use.”

Professor Campbell suggested that Chief Justice Roberts would not hesitate to reject positions taken by Mr. Trump’s lawyers, saying, “He would not be intimidated.”

The public has had only passing glimpses of Chief Justice Roberts since his winning presentation at his 2005 confirmation hearings. Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, declared that Chief Justice Roberts “retired the trophy” for an outstanding performance by a judicial nominee.

In 2009, though, the nation saw a misstep — Chief Justice Roberts and President Barack Obama managed to botch the simple call-and-response task of reciting the presidential oath at Mr. Obama’s first inauguration.

A televised trial will subject Chief Justice Roberts to intense and unwelcome scrutiny, said Daniel Epps, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

“Everything he does — his body language, his precise phrasing — is going to get picked apart,” Professor Epps said.

In his judicial rulings, Chief Justice Roberts has generally been a reliable member of the court’s conservative majority.

The exceptions — two opinions sustaining aspects of Mr. Obama’s health care law, one rejecting the Trump administration’s efforts to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census — have been hailed as statesmanship by liberals and denounced as treachery by conservatives.

In his 2016 presidential campaign, Mr. Trump called the chief justice “an absolute disaster.”

Last year, after Mr. Trump criticized an asylum ruling by saying it had been issued by an “Obama judge,” the chief justice issued an extraordinary statement: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

At the impeachment trial, Chief Justice Roberts will have two goals, said Julian Epstein, who served as chief Democratic counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment.

“He’s going to look to be as ministerial as he can,” Mr. Epstein said. “That said, he’s going to bend over backward to look nonpartisan.”

Chief Justice Roberts will resist any attempt by Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, to rob the proceedings of their solemnity, Mr. Epstein added.

“Roberts represents in many ways the institutionalist,” Mr. Epstein said. “He believes in the institutions of the Senate and the judiciary and the separation of powers. In many ways what McConnell is doing is throwing his lot in with the anti-institutionalists —- the people who aren’t taking this process seriously.”

Professor Epps said Chief Justice Roberts is used to conflict, but only to a point.

“He has to deal with an unruly group of justices, and there are serious divisions,” Professor Epps said. “But the court, divided as it is, is just never as partisan as the United States Senate.”

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

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow rule restricting green cards for immigrants on welfare

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6119161975001_6119161603001-vs Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow rule restricting green cards for immigrants on welfare fox-news/us/immigration fox-news/politics/judiciary/supreme-court fox news fnc/politics fnc edbca6a7-3d9c-52fd-b434-96760108b999 Bill Mears article Adam Shaw

The Justice Department on Tuesday filed an emergency request to the Supreme Court to lift injunctions on the administration’s “public charge” rule — which would restrict green cards for immigrants deemed likely to be reliant on welfare.

The administration issued the rule in August that would define a “public charge” as an immigrant who received one or more designated welfare benefits for more than 12 months within a 36-month period.

COURT BLOCKS TRUMP PUSH TO RESTRICT GREEN CARDS FOR WELFARE-TAPPING IMMIGRANTS

While a standard of not admitting “public charges” to the U.S. has been part of immigration law for decades, it has never been formally defined in statute. Officials say it will protect taxpayers and make sure immigrants are self-sufficient.

The designated benefits include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), as well as most forms of Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. Usage of those benefits would be considered when an immigrant applies for permanent residency along with standard considerations such as age, health and financial assets.

But the controversial rule was blocked in nationwide injunctions by lower federal courts. The states of Connecticut, Vermont, and New York, as well as New York City and immigrant rights groups had sued over the rule. Opponents say the rule would have a chilling effect on immigrants and prevent them from getting the help they may need.

The DOJ wants the Supreme Court to allow the policy to be enforced temporarily until the issues are resolved on merits. The time-sensitive application goes first to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who will ask the states to respond to the government’s enforcement request. She will also likely ask her colleagues to weigh in before issuing an order in the coming days.

TRUMP TOUTS COURT RULING ALLOWING MILITARY FUNDS FOR BORDER WALL CONSTRUCTION

The Trump Justice Department repeatedly has gone to the Supreme Court to lift court-ordered injunctions, bypassing the traditional appellate process.

The public charge rule hit another roadblock last week when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift an injunction imposed by a New York federal judge in October.

U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels in October ruled that the government failed to provide a reasonable explanation for changing the definition and objected to parts of it, including the inclusion of English proficiency as a sign of self-sufficiency, calling it a “new agency policy of exclusion in search of justification.”

Legal and immigrant rights groups behind the push for the injunction issued a statement after the Supreme Court request, accusing the administration of trying to push what they described as a “racist wealth test” for immigrants.

“The Trump administration is grasping at straws in their desperate attempt to expedite implementation of their racist wealth test for immigrants even before the government’s appeals have been heard by the circuit courts. We hope that the Supreme Court sees this motion for what it truly is and immediately denies it,” said the statement from groups including The Legal Aid Society and Make the Road New York.

“Now, more than ever, it is critical that the public charge policy, which the lower courts called ‘repugnant to the American Dream of prosperity and opportunity through hard work and upward mobility,’ continues to be blocked,” it said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency responsible for the rule, has remained confident about its hopes for being found legal.

“The public charge inadmissibility rule enforces long-standing immigration law that Congress reaffirmed in 1996,” a spokesperson told Fox News. “We are confident that an objective judiciary will see that this rule lies squarely within existing law.”

Ginsburg, part of the court’s liberal wing, has ruled in favor of the Trump administration on emergency requests before. In December, she granted a request from President Trump’s lawyers to delay enforcement of subpoenas House Democrats issued to Deutsche Bank and Capital One for Trump’s bank records.

Fox News’ Shannon Bream, Marta Dhanis and Marisa Schultz contributed to this report.

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6119161975001_6119161603001-vs Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow rule restricting green cards for immigrants on welfare fox-news/us/immigration fox-news/politics/judiciary/supreme-court fox news fnc/politics fnc edbca6a7-3d9c-52fd-b434-96760108b999 Bill Mears article Adam Shaw   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6119161975001_6119161603001-vs Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow rule restricting green cards for immigrants on welfare fox-news/us/immigration fox-news/politics/judiciary/supreme-court fox news fnc/politics fnc edbca6a7-3d9c-52fd-b434-96760108b999 Bill Mears article Adam Shaw

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

House Will Vote Wednesday to Send Impeachment Articles, Pelosi Says

Westlake Legal Group 14dc-impeach-sub-facebookJumbo House Will Vote Wednesday to Send Impeachment Articles, Pelosi Says United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Trump-Ukraine Whistle-Blower Complaint and Impeachment Inquiry Senate Pelosi, Nancy House of Representatives Democratic Party

WASHINGTON — The House will vote on Wednesday to send the Senate impeachment charges against President Trump, allowing a long-awaited trial to begin, Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Democrats privately Tuesday, according to officials in the room.

The proceeding will be only the third time an American president has been put on trial in the Senate.

In a closed-door gathering with Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday morning, Ms. Pelosi detailed her plan to move on Wednesday to appoint the team of lawmakers who will prosecute the case against Mr. Trump, known as the House managers in his impeachment trial. The officials who described her private remarks spoke on condition of anonymity.

Unless things change, her timetable means that the House managers would ceremonially walk the articles of impeachment from the House chamber to the Senate well later in the day Wednesday, formally presenting them and prompting a trial to commence.

The speaker said she was not yet ready to share the names of the lawmakers she would select as managers, they said.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.

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

Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow rule restricting green cards for immigrants on welfare

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6119161975001_6119161603001-vs Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow rule restricting green cards for immigrants on welfare fox-news/us/immigration fox-news/politics/judiciary/supreme-court fox news fnc/politics fnc edbca6a7-3d9c-52fd-b434-96760108b999 Bill Mears article Adam Shaw

The Justice Department on Tuesday filed an emergency request to the Supreme Court to lift injunctions on the administration’s “public charge” rule — which would restrict green cards for immigrants deemed likely to be reliant on welfare.

The administration issued the rule in August that would define a “public charge” as an immigrant who received one or more designated welfare benefits for more than 12 months within a 36-month period.

COURT BLOCKS TRUMP PUSH TO RESTRICT GREEN CARDS FOR WELFARE-TAPPING IMMIGRANTS

While a standard of not admitting “public charges” to the U.S. has been part of immigration law for decades, it has never been formally defined in statute. Officials say it will protect taxpayers and make sure immigrants are self-sufficient.

The designated benefits include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), as well as most forms of Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. Usage of those benefits would be considered when an immigrant applies for permanent residency along with standard considerations such as age, health and financial assets.

But the controversial rule was blocked in nationwide injunctions by lower federal courts. The states of Connecticut, Vermont, and New York, as well as New York City and immigrant rights groups had sued over the rule. Opponents say the rule would have a chilling effect on immigrants and prevent them from getting the help they may need.

The DOJ wants the Supreme Court to allow the policy to be enforced temporarily until the issues are resolved on merits. The time-sensitive application goes first to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who will ask the states to respond to the government’s enforcement request. She will also likely ask her colleagues to weigh in before issuing an order in the coming days.

TRUMP TOUTS COURT RULING ALLOWING MILITARY FUNDS FOR BORDER WALL CONSTRUCTION

The Trump Justice Department repeatedly has gone to the Supreme Court to lift court-ordered injunctions, bypassing the traditional appellate process.

The public charge rule hit another roadblock last week when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift an injunction imposed by a New York federal judge in October.

U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels in October ruled that the government failed to provide a reasonable explanation for changing the definition and objected to parts of it, including the inclusion of English proficiency as a sign of self-sufficiency, calling it a “new agency policy of exclusion in search of justification.”

Legal and immigrant rights groups behind the push for the injunction issued a statement after the Supreme Court request, accusing the administration of trying to push what they described as a “racist wealth test” for immigrants.

“The Trump administration is grasping at straws in their desperate attempt to expedite implementation of their racist wealth test for immigrants even before the government’s appeals have been heard by the circuit courts. We hope that the Supreme Court sees this motion for what it truly is and immediately denies it,” said the statement from groups including The Legal Aid Society and Make the Road New York.

“Now, more than ever, it is critical that the public charge policy, which the lower courts called ‘repugnant to the American Dream of prosperity and opportunity through hard work and upward mobility,’ continues to be blocked,” it said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency responsible for the rule, has remained confident about its hopes for being found legal.

“The public charge inadmissibility rule enforces long-standing immigration law that Congress reaffirmed in 1996,” a spokesperson told Fox News. “We are confident that an objective judiciary will see that this rule lies squarely within existing law.”

Ginsburg, part of the court’s liberal wing, has ruled in favor of the Trump administration on emergency requests before. In December, she granted a request from President Trump’s lawyers to delay enforcement of subpoenas House Democrats issued to Deutsche Bank and Capital One for Trump’s bank records.

Fox News’ Shannon Bream, Marta Dhanis and Marisa Schultz contributed to this report.

Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6119161975001_6119161603001-vs Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow rule restricting green cards for immigrants on welfare fox-news/us/immigration fox-news/politics/judiciary/supreme-court fox news fnc/politics fnc edbca6a7-3d9c-52fd-b434-96760108b999 Bill Mears article Adam Shaw   Westlake Legal Group 694940094001_6119161975001_6119161603001-vs Trump administration asks Supreme Court to allow rule restricting green cards for immigrants on welfare fox-news/us/immigration fox-news/politics/judiciary/supreme-court fox news fnc/politics fnc edbca6a7-3d9c-52fd-b434-96760108b999 Bill Mears article Adam Shaw

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

Johnson says chances of US diplomat’s wife wanted in teen’s death to be extradited to UK are ‘very low’

The American charged with causing the death of a British teenager in a car crash last year has a “very low” chance of being extradited to the United Kingdom to face trial, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said Tuesday.

Harry Dunn, 19, was killed in August after a car allegedly driven by Anne Sacoolas – the wife of an American diplomat – struck his motorcycle near RAF Croughton, a British military base that’s home to a signals intelligence station operated by the U.S. Air Force.

Johnson’s comments regarding the case come after the U.K. issued an extradition request for Sacoolas on Friday.

“I think the chances of America actually responding by sending Anne Sacoolas to this country are very low,” Johnson told the BBC. “That’s not what they do. But we will continue to make every effort that we can.”

Westlake Legal Group Harry-Dunn-FACEBOOK Johnson says chances of US diplomat's wife wanted in teen's death to be extradited to UK are 'very low' Greg Norman fox-news/world/world-regions/united-kingdom fox-news/us/crime fox news fnc/world fnc article 61cf3d09-8251-5846-9cfc-2d3f036afe6b

Harry Dunn, 19, was killed in the United Kingdom when his motorcycle was struck by a car near a military base last summer.  (Facebook)

UK ISSUES EXTRADITION REQUEST FOR ANNE SACOOLAS

Sacoolas left the U.K. three weeks after the Aug. 27 collision that killed Dunn.

Radd Seiger, a spokesperson for the Dunns, said family members are planning to meet Johnson in the coming days to discuss the matter.

“I do not know what is in the prime minister’s mind in making those comments, because the parents and I have not yet had the opportunity to sit down and talk with him but we expect to do so within the next few days,” Seiger told the BBC. “If he is basing those comments on what is currently emanating from Washington, he may well be right.”

“However,” Seiger said, “the extradition request has now been delivered and therefore the legal process has commenced – Mr. Johnson’s officials have been working extremely hard over the last few months to prepare a thorough and diligent case.”

SACOOLAS IS FORMALLY CHARGED IN DUNN’S DEATH

The U.S. State Department last week said extraditing Sacoolas would constitute an “abuse.”

“The United States has been clear that, at the time the accident occurred, and for the duration of her stay in the UK, the driver in this case had status that conferred diplomatic immunities,” it said in a statement. “The use of an extradition treaty to attempt to return the spouse of a former diplomat by force would establish an extraordinarily troubling precedent.”

Sacoolas’ lawyer, Amy Jeffress, added that “Anne is devastated by this tragic accident and would do anything to bring Harry back.”

“We remain willing to work with the U.K. authorities to identify a path forward,” she said.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Under international law, diplomats and their families can avoid prosecution for crimes committed in a foreign country unless the diplomat’s home country waives their diplomatic immunity. Diplomats and their families based at the Croughton base are entitled to the protection based on an agreement between the American and British governments.

Johnson previously has said Sacoolas was wrong to use diplomatic immunity for “this type of purpose” and urged President Trump “to reconsider the U.S. position so the individual involved can return to the U.K., cooperate with police and allow Harry’s family to receive justice.”

Fox News’ Louis Casiano contributed to this report.

Westlake Legal Group Harry-Dunn-FACEBOOK Johnson says chances of US diplomat's wife wanted in teen's death to be extradited to UK are 'very low' Greg Norman fox-news/world/world-regions/united-kingdom fox-news/us/crime fox news fnc/world fnc article 61cf3d09-8251-5846-9cfc-2d3f036afe6b   Westlake Legal Group Harry-Dunn-FACEBOOK Johnson says chances of US diplomat's wife wanted in teen's death to be extradited to UK are 'very low' Greg Norman fox-news/world/world-regions/united-kingdom fox-news/us/crime fox news fnc/world fnc article 61cf3d09-8251-5846-9cfc-2d3f036afe6b

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

This Champagne Explosion May Be The Cringiest ‘Bachelor’ Moment Ever

Westlake Legal Group 5e1dd95521000033001f6e62 This Champagne Explosion May Be The Cringiest ‘Bachelor’ Moment Ever

You don’t even need to watch “The Bachelor” to appreciate the chaos (and subsequent literal explosion) that ensued during last night’s episode over a bottle of champagne.

On Monday, contestant Kelsey waxed poetic about a bottle of Dom Perignon that she brought from her hometown of Des Moines, Iowa. Kelsey explained that she’d be saving the bottle for a special occasion and wanted to share it with Bachelor Peter. 

After telling her fellow contestants her plan, she heard a cork pop in the distance and believed that someone else stole her bubbly moment, confronting contestant Hannah Ann (who was responsible for the cork pop heard ’round the world) and creating what will now forever be known as #ChampagneGate.  (Editor’s note: It was not Kelsey’s bottle Hannah Ann opened.)

Peter attempted to make things right, settling in to have a glass of champagne with Kelsey after all and things went… messy. In an effort to savor the moment (???), Kelsey quipped that she’s “not a classy bitch all the time” when the duo realized they had no glasses and insisted she could drink the booze straight from the champagne bottle. 

Not sure if you’ve ever tried to do that before, but, uh, don’t. It didn’t go well for Kelsey as the bottle basically exploded in her face, resulting in a scene that yielded a whole lot of vaguely inappropriate memes and images that one cannot unsee. 

Here’s a smattering of what people were saying about #ChampagneGate and the champagne shower: 

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

Bernie Sanders Doubles His Lead Over Donald Trump In Hypothetical General Election Poll

Westlake Legal Group 9VtXuZ04hUE9R8LWH5vvaji8DAU-O2rdZUjgokB7Spw Bernie Sanders Doubles His Lead Over Donald Trump In Hypothetical General Election Poll r/politics

the amount of people openly turning on Trump

That’s the thing. Some people are a lost cause. Trump could shoot their dog and they would still support him. But who on earth is joining his camp that wasn’t already there? All he does is alienate more and more people, without doing anything to gain new supporters.

No, not everyone who’s turned off by his actions will vote for the democratic candidate. Some will still vote for him, others will vote third party, others will abstain from voting. But I just cannot fathom any scenario in which someone voted against trump in 2016, has watched this shitshow of an administration, and decided to support him this time around.

And then of course, there are people who have no idea what’s he’s done, but he has the R, so they think he’s doing a great job and will vote for him again.

The only people I could actually see joining his camp are teenage edgelords who think he’s funny. And they’re either too young to vote, or they’re too young to care about voting.

But it bears repeating that no one should be complacent here. Everyone figured trump was gonna lose in 2016 and look what that got us.

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

House Votes Wednesday To Send Impeachment Articles To Senate

HuffPost is now part of the Verizon Media family. We (Verizon Media) and our partners need your consent to access your device, set cookies, and use your data, including your location, to understand your interests, provide relevant ads and measure their effectiveness. Verizon Media will also provide relevant ads to you on our partners’ products. Learn More

How Verizon Media and our partners bring you better ad experiences

To give you a better overall experience, we want to provide relevant ads that are more useful to you. For example, when you search for a film, we use your search information and location to show the most relevant cinemas near you. We also use this information to show you ads for similar films you may like in the future. Like Verizon Media, our partners may also show you ads that they think match your interests.

Learn more about how Verizon Media collects and uses data and how our partners collect and use data.

Select ‘OK’ to allow Verizon Media and our partners to use your data, or ‘Manage options’ to review our partners and your choices. Tip: Sign In to save these choices and avoid repeating this across devices. You can always update your preferences in the Privacy Centre.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

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