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 > Posts tagged "Front Page Stories" (Page 57)

Worse Than Bad Legislation? Lobbyists Writing Multiple Bad Executive Power Grabs

Westlake Legal Group obama-keep-your-doctor-SCREENSHOT-620x332 Worse Than Bad Legislation? Lobbyists Writing Multiple Bad Executive Power Grabs senator lamar alexander republicans Politics Policy Obamacare News medicare for all lower health care costs act of 2019 law kevin brady healthcare Government Front Page Stories Front Page Economy democrats Business & Economy Bipartisanship bipartisan

Barack Obama spent his first two years as President – enjoying a Democrat-controlled Congress that was as awful for America as he was.

The Democrat Congress passed a lot of really awful legislation – which Obama very happily signed.

We the People loathed said legislation.  So We incepted the Tea Party Movement – and elected a Republican House majority the very next chance we had.

We did this – to impede the previously unimpeded flow of really awful Democrat legislation to which we had been subjected.

Obama’s response to our electoral blockade?  Let’s just say it wasn’t self-reflective – or respectful of our wishes:

“We are not just going to be waiting for legislation….I’ve got a pen – and I’ve got a phone.  And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions….”

But wait a second….  Here’s Obama in 2008 – running for the gig:

“We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.”

I much prefer Obama – Edition 2008.

Why any Republican would seek to emulate Obama 2.0’s executive fiat policy – is light years beyond me.

But that’s exactly what some Republicans may be trying to do.

Some Republicans have thankfully gained no traction with their Elephant colleagues on a really awful bill….

Why Are Some Republicans Looking To Add More Government To Health Care?

Why Do Republicans #Persist In Adding Government To Health Care?:

“Behold – Tennessee Republican Senator Lamar Alexander.  Who very recently penned an editorial defending his government-expanding decision.  His very own title – admits the inherent error.

“‘Lower Health Care Costs Act’ Aims to End Surprise Billing

“Your legislation ‘aims to end surprise billing’ – ?!?

“Government is the worst shot in the history of aiming.

“Obamacare aimed to ‘reduce premiums by $2,500 per year.’  They DOUBLED.

“I guarantee you no one around at Medicare’s inception said they were aiming to put US taxpayers $38 trillion underwater.  Yet that’s what it’s done.

“Yet Senator Alexander #Persists.”

While Alexander #Persists in the Senate – Texas Republican Congressman Kevin Brady may be in the throes of #Persist in the House.  And may be – looking to go one awful step farther.

Massachusetts Democrat Congressman Richard Neal realizes this legislative duck his dead.  So Neal is looking to end run the Congress to which he was elected – and obviously shouldn’t have been:

“House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass.) is proposing a new way to move forward on crafting rules to protect patients from surprise medical bills….

“In a letter to Democratic lawmakers…Neal is proposing a new solution that would essentially punt the details of the fix to a committee consisting of stakeholder groups and the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury.

“The committee would come up with recommendations that would then be issued in a regulation from the administration.”

This is a Congressman – and the Chairman of an allegedly important Committee.  His constituents elected him to the Legislative Branch – thinking they were electing someone to draft and vote upon legislation.

And this person is looking to “punt the details of the fix to a committee consisting of stakeholder groups and the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury.”

Which is an entire gaggle of people – whom NO ONE ELECTED.

This is an unelected gaggle – made up of industry lobbyists…and career Swamp bureaucrats.

Now, we know lobbyists write most of the bills Congress extrudes. Here, gone is even the pretense of legislators legislating.

This unelected gaggle would draft a…not a bill, because that’s what Neal and his colleagues are supposed to draft.  This unelected gaggle would draft a…something.

And then the three departments’ worth of unelected bureaucrats – would unilaterally impose what they’ve unilaterally concocted.

NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with the Constitution – or the representative republic the Constitution created.

If We the People don’t like what these clowns have done to us – we can’t do a thing about it.

Where are the Republicans on this unilateral assault on our Constitution, government and freedom?

The answer isn’t heartening:

“Neal wrote in the letter that he is ‘optimistic’ that Rep. Kevin Brady (Texas), the top Republican on the committee, will agree to his proposal.

“‘Committee Republicans support banning surprise medical billing to protect patients and look forward to reviewing the details of this and other possible solutions to solve this problem in a balanced way for the American people,’ a Brady spokesperson said.”

HARD NO, Congressman Brady.

The ONLY government attempt – MUST come directly from the Legislative Branch.

Your inability to pass this awful piece of legislation – is what the FBI used to call a clue.

You can’t pass this awful piece of legislation – because members of the Legislative Branch have rightly deemed it awful.

This is supposed to mean – the bill dies.

It is NOT an invitation to outsource your gigs.

It is NOT an invitation to hand off crafting law – to unelected lobbyists and bureaucrats.

It is NOT an invitation to the impose this unconstitutional creation – via Obama-esque unilateral fiats.

Congress:

Do your jobs.

Which very often means – doing nothing at all.

The post Worse Than Bad Legislation? Lobbyists Writing Multiple Bad Executive Power Grabs appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group obama-keep-your-doctor-SCREENSHOT-300x161 Worse Than Bad Legislation? Lobbyists Writing Multiple Bad Executive Power Grabs senator lamar alexander republicans Politics Policy Obamacare News medicare for all lower health care costs act of 2019 law kevin brady healthcare Government Front Page Stories Front Page Economy democrats Business & Economy Bipartisanship bipartisan   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Denied: Not Even Facebook Complies With Biden Campaign’s Demand Not to Run Trump’s Ukraine Ad (Watch)

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenAPimage-620x317 Denied: Not Even Facebook Complies With Biden Campaign’s Demand Not to Run Trump’s Ukraine Ad (Watch) washington D.C. Ukraine Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina Joe Biden Impeachment of President Trump impeachment hunter biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats delaware Culture Campaigns biden Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020

Democratic presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden speaks at the Polk County Democrats Steak Fry, in Des Moines, Iowa, Saturday, Sept. 21, 2019. (AP Photo/Nati Harnik)

Last week, I wrote about how desperate Joe Biden’s campaign is to censor any and all negative coverage related to his handling of Ukrainian policy during his time as Vice President.

They’ve warned cable news outlets not to give Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Guiliani any airtime, and also are pressuring those same outlets not to run Trump’s Ukraine ad.

Predictably, CNN didn’t need any prodding from the Biden camp before announcing they weren’t going to run the ad, but Fox News did get a threatening letter urging them not to run the Trump ad nor any ads like it. Fox responded by saying they weren’t “in the business of censoring ads from candidates on either side of the aisle.”

As it turns out, the Biden campaign also demanded Facebook remove the ad from their website but surprisingly enough they, too, said no:

Facebook has denied a request from former Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential campaign to remove an ad being run by President Trump’s reelection campaign that questions Biden’s role in the firing of a Ukranian prosecutor.

CNN reports that Facebook, in a letter, responded to a removal request made by Biden’s campaign by saying its decision to let the ad remain is “grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and belief that in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is.”

The 30-second video from the Trump campaign has also appeared on Twitter and YouTube.

The video accuses Biden of offering military aid money to Ukraine if it agreed to remove the prosecutor investigating a company tied to his son, Hunter Biden.

Here’s the ad for those of you who haven’t seen it:

It’s clear that Biden is beyond frustrated that the issue won’t go away for him. To date he has not done any sit-down chats with any Democrat-friendly journalists in an effort to try and put the issue to bed. He has even shut down and snapped at reporters at press conferences if they ask questions that hit a little too close to home.

He doesn’t want to do any interviews about the subject and won’t release any transcripts related to his conversations with Ukrainian officials (unlike Trump, who did). Just what is he hiding?

——-
— 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 Denied: Not Even Facebook Complies With Biden Campaign’s Demand Not to Run Trump’s Ukraine Ad (Watch) appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group JoeBidenAPimage-300x153 Denied: Not Even Facebook Complies With Biden Campaign’s Demand Not to Run Trump’s Ukraine Ad (Watch) washington D.C. Ukraine Social Media republicans Politics North Carolina Joe Biden Impeachment of President Trump impeachment hunter biden Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post elections donald trump democrats delaware Culture Campaigns biden Allow Media Exception 2020 Elections 2020   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story

Westlake Legal Group ap-clinton-speech-620x483 Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story Woody Allen Ted Frank Ronan Farrow Popular Culture Politics Hollywood Hillary Clinton harvey weinstein Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reacts after giving an address on national security, Thursday, June 2, 2016, in San Diego, Calif. (AP Photo/John Locher)

 

Washington attorney, activist and writer Ted Frank tweeted this morning that “Hillary put pressure on Ronan Farrow to spike Weinstein story. (In contrast, Woody Allen refused.)”

In his new book, Ronan Farrow reveals that former film producer Harvey Weinstein tried to use his long-time relationship with Hillary Clinton to pressure him into spiking the Weinstein’s scoop.

Frank’s tweet includes the following excerpt:

In summer 2017, while Farrow was trying to lock down an interview with Clinton for his foreign policy book – while also still working on the Weinstein story – he received a call from Clinton’s publicist, Nick Merrill, who told him that the “big story”  Farrow was working on was a “concern for us.” Then, in September 2017, according to an email cited in the book, Weinstein wrote to Deborah Turness, the ex-president of NBC News who now runs NBC News International, to propose a docuseries on Clinton. “Your Hillary doc series sounds absolutely stunning,” Turness responded.

Weinstein’s tentacles even stretched to Farrow’s own estranged father. Days before the Times story broke, Weinstein is said to have called Allen on a film set in Central Park, soliciting advice about how to deal with his son. Allen declined. “Jeez. I’m so sorry. Good luck.”

So, why would Hillary Clinton, who often repeated that all women must be believed, go to bat for the notorious Harvey Weinstein? I guess for the same reasons she didn’t believe Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, or Kathleen Willey. It didn’t serve her purposes. She’s not exactly one who is known for her principles.

Several days ago, she expected people to believe her when she said the gutsiest thing she ever did was to stay in her marriage.

Actually, a woman with any self-respect would have quietly left him and moved on. But, had she done so, she wouldn’t have had the Clinton machine behind her as she ran for the Senate in 2000. Nor would she have it for any of her future political endeavors.

No Hill, sorry, not buying it.

Even Woody Allen has higher principles than Hillary Clinton.

The post Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-clinton-speech-300x234 Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story Woody Allen Ted Frank Ronan Farrow Popular Culture Politics Hollywood Hillary Clinton harvey weinstein Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story

Westlake Legal Group ap-clinton-speech-620x483 Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story Woody Allen Ted Frank Ronan Farrow Popular Culture Politics Hollywood Hillary Clinton harvey weinstein Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reacts after giving an address on national security, Thursday, June 2, 2016, in San Diego, Calif. (AP Photo/John Locher)

 

Washington attorney, activist and writer Ted Frank tweeted this morning that “Hillary put pressure on Ronan Farrow to spike Weinstein story. (In contrast, Woody Allen refused.)”

In his new book, Ronan Farrow reveals that former film producer Harvey Weinstein tried to use his long-time relationship with Hillary Clinton to pressure him into spiking the Weinstein’s scoop.

Frank’s tweet includes the following excerpt:

In summer 2017, while Farrow was trying to lock down an interview with Clinton for his foreign policy book – while also still working on the Weinstein story – he received a call from Clinton’s publicist, Nick Merrill, who told him that the “big story”  Farrow was working on was a “concern for us.” Then, in September 2017, according to an email cited in the book, Weinstein wrote to Deborah Turness, the ex-president of NBC News who now runs NBC News International, to propose a docuseries on Clinton. “Your Hillary doc series sounds absolutely stunning,” Turness responded.

Weinstein’s tentacles even stretched to Farrow’s own estranged father. Days before the Times story broke, Weinstein is said to have called Allen on a film set in Central Park, soliciting advice about how to deal with his son. Allen declined. “Jeez. I’m so sorry. Good luck.”

So, why would Hillary Clinton, who often repeated that all women must be believed, go to bat for the notorious Harvey Weinstein? I guess for the same reasons she didn’t believe Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, or Kathleen Willey. It didn’t serve her purposes. She’s not exactly one who is known for her principles.

Several days ago, she expected people to believe her when she said the gutsiest thing she ever did was to stay in her marriage.

Actually, a woman with any self-respect would have quietly left him and moved on. But, had she done so, she wouldn’t have had the Clinton machine behind her as she ran for the Senate in 2000. Nor would she have it for any of her future political endeavors.

No Hill, sorry, not buying it.

Even Woody Allen has higher principles than Hillary Clinton.

The post Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ap-clinton-speech-300x234 Hillary ‘Believe All Women’ Clinton Pressured Ronan Farrow To Spike Weinstein Story Woody Allen Ted Frank Ronan Farrow Popular Culture Politics Hollywood Hillary Clinton harvey weinstein Front Page Stories Featured Story Culture Allow Media Exception Abuse of Power   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 

Rand Paul Stands Almost Alone On Backing Troop Withdrawal From Syria

Westlake Legal Group rand-paul-AP-620x413 Rand Paul Stands Almost Alone On Backing Troop Withdrawal From Syria Turkey Syria Rand Paul President Trump libertarian Kurds International Affairs Human Rights Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump Conservatives Congress Allow Media Exception

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., speaks during an event at the University of Chicago’s Ida Noyes Hall in Chicago on Tuesday, April 22, 2014. (AP Photo/Andrew A. Nelles)

As Turkey launches “Operation Peace Spring” with the goal of preventing what they call a “terror corridor” along the Southern border of the country, those who did not support the U.S.’s decision to slowly move troops out of Syria are held in contrast to the Senator who stands almost completely alone in backing President Trump’s move in the region: Kentucky Republican Senator Rand Paul.

Republicans who worry removal of troops might create a situation leading to an emboldened ISIS also claim concern for Kurdish fighters in the region who have fought alongside U.S. troops to battle terrorists.

Trump’s decision, which he correctly reminds the nation is one he ran on, is being viewed favorably by Paul, who, as a libertarian, prefers a more isolationist foreign policy.

The Kentucky Republican has been pushing Trump to take a less interventionist foreign policy approach for nearly three years, much to the chagrin and discomfort of most Republicans in Congress. And in the face of near unanimous condemnation from both parties in the wake of Trump’s Syria move, Paul is stepping in as the most vociferous defender of the president’s move and a notable beneficiary of his efforts to build an alliance with Trump after their ugly 2016 campaign attacks against each other.

With Republicans and Democrats alike piling on Trump and raising concerns that his decision could lead to Turkish attacks on U.S. Kurdish allies and a resurgence of ISIS, Paul declared that “most Americans would actually agree with President Trump that this is not a war that has our national interest at stake.”

“These are the people that have never met a war they didn’t like and have never met a war they wanted to end,” Paul told reporters on Tuesday afternoon, singling out the Cheney family as part of their long-running feud with Paul. “They’ve been wrong about everything in foreign policy for the last several decades.”

Paul has engaged in foreign policy twitter disputes with GOP Rep. Liz Cheney (MT) of late, accusing her father Dick Cheney, former Vice President under George W. Bush, of the same warmonger spirit he says he sees with the “war caucus.”

As Turkey made its announcement of their intent to secure the southern border, reports of air strikes began leaking out noting Turkish jets “began pounding suspected positions of Syrian Kurdish forces in the town of Ras al Ayn, the Associated Press reported, citing Turkish media and Syrian activists.”

The post Rand Paul Stands Almost Alone On Backing Troop Withdrawal From Syria appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group syrian-kurds-300x153 Rand Paul Stands Almost Alone On Backing Troop Withdrawal From Syria Turkey Syria Rand Paul President Trump libertarian Kurds International Affairs Human Rights Front Page Stories Featured Story donald trump Conservatives Congress Allow Media Exception   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 

Lindsey Graham Draws Senate Battle Lines Against Pelosi On Impeachment

Westlake Legal Group lindsey-graham-pointing-620x413 Lindsey Graham Draws Senate Battle Lines Against Pelosi On Impeachment Ukraine Senate republicans Politics Nancy Pelosi Lindsey Graham impeachment gop Front Page Stories donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception

Lindsey Graham by Gage Skidmore, licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0/Original

Leader of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham, is making it clear to Democrat leadership that if they attempt to impeach President Donald Trump over his call with Ukraine.

According to The Hill, Graham appeared on “Fox and Friends” and reaffirmed that the GOP doesn’t believe the phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president was anything impeachable, and that she can forget about Republican support in the Senate:

Graham, in an appearance on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends,” said that he was going to ask other Senate Republicans to sign a letter to Pelosi saying that they “do not believe the transcript of the phone call between the president and the Ukraine is an impeachable offense.”

“They’re about to destroy the nation for no good reason,” Graham said. “And I want Nancy Pelosi to know that Republican senators are not going to impeach this president based on this transcript, so she can stop now before she destroys the country.”

Graham has been making it absolutely clear from day one that the phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had no quid-pro-quo attached to it, and that the Democratic circus surrounding it was a “sham.”

He also said that the whistleblower complaint that began this controversy was all hearsay, and that a president wouldn’t be impached on hearsay as along as he was around.

(Watch: Lindsey Graham Buries Any Hope That Dems Will Impeach Trump On Whistleblower “Sham”)

He later said that to impeach a president over this phone call would be “insane.”

At this time, Democrats are still in their “impeachment inquiry” phase. It seems to be moving rather slowly and despite there being support from Democrats for it, its leadership has seemed more than a little wary on the subject. However, while Democrats are rallying behind the strategy of impeachment, Republicans have been raising millions of dollars off of it.

In fact, only 24 hours after the impeachment announcement, Trump raised $5 million from small donations.

The post Lindsey Graham Draws Senate Battle Lines Against Pelosi On Impeachment appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group lindsey-graham-pointing-300x200 Lindsey Graham Draws Senate Battle Lines Against Pelosi On Impeachment Ukraine Senate republicans Politics Nancy Pelosi Lindsey Graham impeachment gop Front Page Stories donald trump democrats Allow Media Exception   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 

UN May Run out of Money by the End of the Month

Westlake Legal Group United-Nations-General-Assembly UN May Run out of Money by the End of the Month United Nations Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Economy donald trump democrats Ambassador Nikki Haley Allow Media Exception

Large display monitors show the result of voting from member states during a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly, Wednesday Oct. 26, 2016, at U.N. headquarters. The United States abstained for the first time in 25 years on a U.N. resolution condemning America’s economic embargo against Cuba, a measure it had always vehemently opposed. (AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews)

President Donald Trump caught a lot of flack from media when early onion his tenure, he insisted that NATO members should pay their own way, that the U.S. shouldn’t always have to be carrying the organization when other countries weren’t paying into it according to what they had agreed.

Media called his criticisms an attack on NATO and tried to link it to their Trump-Russia collusion narrative.

But as the Secretary General of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, later noted, Trump’s tough talk forced other countries to come across and at least up their contributions, thus, in his words, making NATO stronger. He praised Trump’s efforts to get everyone to pay their own way.

From USA Today:

President Donald Trump “is committed to NATO” and deserves credit in obtaining $100 billion more in defense spending for the alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, the secretary general of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, said Sunday.

“President Trump has been very clear: He is committed to NATO. He stated that clearly just a few days ago and also at the NATO summit in July,” Stoltenberg said on “Fox News Sunday.”

That’s thinking like a Republican and a business person.

Now, let’s compare that with thinking like a Democrat and believing there’s an endless pot of money from which you can plumb.

Let’s look at the news today that the U.N. may run out of money by the end of the month.

From Yahoo:

The United Nations is running a deficit of $230 million, Secretary General Antonio Guterres said on Monday, and may run out of money by the end of October.

In a letter intended for the 37,000 employees at the UN secretariat and obtained by AFP, Guterres said unspecified “additional stop-gap measures” would have to be taken to ensure salaries and entitlements are paid.

“Member States have paid only 70 per cent of the total amount needed for our regular budget operations in 2019. This translates into a cash shortage of $230 million at the end of September. We run the risk of depleting our backup liquidity reserves by the end of the month,” he wrote.

Their response to being $230 million in the red? Maybe now we should cut down on expenses and restrict travel to “only essential activities.” So they were traveling for “non-essential activities” while they were continuing to rack up that deficit?

And unlike Trump, when member states refused to come across with the money they were obligated to pay, the U.N. simply let the members get away with it.

Of course, it’s always been the U.S. who has contributed the most, despite being the state who needs the U.N. the least. The U.S. pays 22 percent of their operating budget which is about $5.4 billion. It’s been the U.S. whose provided them a safe haven here.

Meanwhile their leadership has been staunchly anti-American for years.

The only president who has seemed to care about that, at least recently, has been Trump who has held their feet to the fire and tried to condition aid, and whose last ambassador, Nikki Haley, stood up to their frequent anti-American moves.

If they go under, one has to wonder what would be lost and how that would change the landscape.

The post UN May Run out of Money by the End of the Month appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group United-Nations-General-Assembly-300x162 UN May Run out of Money by the End of the Month United Nations Trump Front Page Stories Front Page Featured Story Featured Post Economy donald trump democrats Ambassador Nikki Haley Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com