Lake Erie Conservative

thoughtful discussion(s) about issue(s)

Posts Tagged ‘court’

… and These Idiots Want Congress to Pass a Bill [#Immigration Reform]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,September 20th,2016

.. when the ObamaCrap Administration cannot obey a simple injunction that is issued by a judge …

.. the State of Texas and 25 other states brought a suit to stop His Lordship ‘ s abusive executive actions . They got lucky , and found a sympathetic judge in Texas . District Judge Andrew Hanen issued an injunction that blocked his executive action on immigration . So what else happens …

.. [h/t — theRightScoop.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. those idiots continued to issue even more DAPA permits , even though a federal judge said NO ! . Oh , the federal judge is going to love this …

.. and the Administration wants Congress to cooperate with them on passing an immigration bill ? Are they crazy ! …

Advertisements

Posted in body of law, personal opinion, stupidity (legal), stupidity (political) | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

… DePaul university has a Serious Problem [#political chalking]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Thursday,April 28th,2016

.. they are in very deep doo – doo , folks ..

.. why ? if you allow chalkings for other issues , but ban political chalking , that is a very big no -no . Remember the Bill of Rights ? Remember the U. S. Constitution ? Political speech is the highest form of speech , and is granted the most protection by the courts ..

political chalking (depaul university)

.. there is going to be a foot race to the courts to nail DePaul for this . Banning political speech ? Are you kidding ?

.. [h/t — TruthRevolt.org]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. No , and hell , No !! ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… This One Could Be a Game Changer [#Labour Law case][#Friedrichs v C.T.A.]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Monday,January 11th,2016

.. yes , this one could really be a doozy ..

.. I think that there could be as many 6 votes for this one , possibly 7 …

.. well , start at the beginning . Lori Friedrichs is a schoolteacher in California . She resigned for her union , the C.T.A . This union is , to be specific , the California Teachers Association ..

.. California is not a union – friendly state . Since the latter part of the 1970s , the reigning SCOTUS precedent , Abood v Detroit Bd of Ed , has allowed unions to collect fees [agency fees , to be exact] from non – members of the union . These people are required by law , however , to be members of the collective bargaining unit , no matter what ..

.. [h/t — Politico.com]..
.. [link] to the blog article …

.. like many who resign from the union , Friederichs endured quite a bit . Teachers who resign from their union get a large amount of professional shunning and personal abuse from their fellow teachers . Yet she endured , as did several dozen others ..

.. now SCOTUS has offered certiorari on these folks appeal from their loss at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals . Given the rulings and precedents of recent years , such as Beck v CWA , Ferris State Teachers , and Knox v CTA, the ground could be extremely dangerous for the AFL – CIO and their member unions ..

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Are the Palestinians Crazy [#efforts at the I.C.C.]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Sunday,December 6th,2015

.. no , I do not support the I.C.C. [the International Criminal Court]. You may ask why ? ..

.. simple , there is no political supervision over the actions of the Court , either for the judiciary , or for the prosecutors …

.. in our system of 3 branches , each is [or is supposed to] balance the actions of the other . In that way any branch of government cannot get excessively out of control . When they do , there are political consequences …

.. [h/t — TruthREvolt.org]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. with the I.C.C. , there is no control . If the prosecutors or the judges [individually , or as a group] run wild , there is no political control …

.. the Israelis have every right to resist the efforts of the P.A. . What they are doing is immoral and the highest height of criminal hypocricy . Especially with the conduct of Hamas during the recent war …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

… Dummies , the Point is Religious Freedom [#accomodation][#religious freedom]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Saturday,November 14th,2015

.. the 7th Circuit is highly libertarian , and the D.C. Circuit has [for now] gone totally loonie – leftie with Dingy Harry Reid ‘ s court – stuffing stunt ..

.. neither one seems to get the point , though . The point is that the filling out of the HHS form is a substantial burden on the religious order ‘ s freedom of religion , dummies ….

.. [h/t — HotAir.com]..
.. [link] to the blog post …

.. D.C. Appeals Court Judge Janice Rogers – Brown [a future GOP Supreme Court justice nominee] puts it very well in her stinging dissent , exceprted here …

This seems to miss an obvious causal step: the “mandate on insurers” at issue here is not merely a general ACA requirement to provide contraception coverage, but a series of cost-sharing mandates that are not triggered unless the religious groups fill out the form. In a powerful dissent, Judge Janice Rogers Brown explains why this is nonsense:

[T]his case is not “paradoxical” because Plaintiffs object to regulatory requirements the government intended as a religious accommodation. That the government’s expressed intent in enacting the regulations at issue was to allay religious adherents’ concerns about the contraception mandate is not determinative of the ultimate question of whether Plaintiffs were in fact accommodated. Where the government imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise and labels it an “accommodation,” that burden is surely as distressing to adherents as it would be if imposed without such a designation. Therefore, heightened skepticism is not appropriate. We should look at Plaintiffs’ claims as we would any RFRA claim. After all, in the substantial burden analysis, the government’s motivations— no matter how benevolent—are irrelevant; we ask only whether the government’s action operates to place “substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs.”

[…]

Plaintiffs identify at least two acts that the regulations compel them to perform that they believe would violate their religious obligations: (1) “hiring or maintaining a contractual relationship with any company required, authorized, or incentivized to provide contraceptive coverage to beneficiaries enrolled in Plaintiffs’ health plans,” Pet. for Reh’g En Banc at 3; and (2) “filing the self-certification or notification,” id. at 4. Plaintiffs have therefore shown both that they are being compelled to modify their behavior and that, if undertaken, the modification would be a violation of their religious beliefs.

[…]

The panel did not dispute that federal law operates to compel Plaintiffs to maintain a relationship with an issuer or TPA that will provide the contraceptive coverage and to execute the self-certification or alternative notice. Their disagreement with Plaintiffs is about the significance of those compelled acts; in other words, the panel rejected the “adherents’ claim about the religious meaning of the undisputed operation of [] federal regulation[s].”

.. you can count on this one going before the Supremes . SCOTUS will not be able to avoid it . The Court could even be down one justice , though . Why ? ..

.. I think that Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is slowly dying . Especially since she has already escaped pancreatic cancer once [already] , she is living on borrowed time . She wants to do as much damage as she still can while she still lives . However , I am betting [especially with Chuck Grasseley in charge of the Senate Judiciary Cmte] that …. His Lordship will try to push thru a radical leftist as her replacement , and the GOP – controlled Senate will have nothing of it …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Well , His Lordship Loses Again [#exec action][#immigration][#appeals court]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Tuesday,June 2nd,2015

.. yep , he lost again ..

.. in a 2 to 1 decision , POTUS had his request for the injunction on his policy change on DAPA [and DACA] to be lifted . The court heard the request . The court majority [the 2 judges] said no ..

.. they said that there was no reason to lift the injunction [it was granted properly] . Also , the case for which the injuction that was granted is still at the district court level . Judge Andrew Hanen of the 5th Circuit still has the case in his court . Also was it most important is whether the Government has the possibility of winning the case on the merits …

.. [h/t — McClatchyDC.com]..
.. [link] to the news story ..

.. the court said the likelihood was no .

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… A Ruling on #Halbig should be Here any day now [#ObamaCrapCare]…

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,July 18th,2014

.. yes , this one .

.. this is the latest one to threaten the creation of ObamaCrapCare .

.. it does not threaten its Constitutionality , though . What it does is go after its economic and policy foundations …

.. [h/t — HotAir]..
.. [link] to the blog news …

.. you can thank the dumb – dumbs on Crapitol Hil for this one . No , not the Republicans . Remember , not one GOP rep or Senator voted for ObamaCrapCare . This drafting blooper was a DemoCrap creation . And those dummies meant it , to entice the ” states ” to create their health insurance exchanges . They wanted them to , and were going to penalize them if the did not . However , the Supremes got in the way …

Remember the Halbig case? If not, catch up right now by re-reading this post from January, written after a D.C. district court judge ruled in Obama’s favor. O-Care is a famously complex law but the lawsuit that could end up demolishing it is surprisingly simple.

In a nutshell, there’s a line buried deep in the statutory text that says federal subsidies for insurance premiums will be available to anyone who buys a plan on “an Exchange established by the State.” Question: Does Healthcare.gov, the exchange built by the federal government after 34 states refused to build their own exchanges, qualify as an “Exchange established by the State”? Or do only state exchanges qualify ?

If it’s the latter, then millions upon millions of people who’ve signed up for O-Care through Healthcare.gov since October in the expectation that Uncle Sam will be paying part of their bill are in for a nasty surprise. The only fix that’s available (unless His Majesty tries some executive gambit, of course) is for Congress to amend the statute so that subsidies are available on the federal exchange too, but what are the odds of the House GOP agreeing to that? If the D.C. Circuit, which is set to rule any day now on the appeal of the earlier ruling, sides with the challengers against O, consumers will be forced to either come up with the money for their premiums themselves or drop their coverage. And if most of them choose to drop coverage, leading to a mass exodus of healthy people from various insurance risk pools, suddenly the White House is facing a death-spiral problem where hiking premiums on the remaining enrollees is the only way to pay for all the sick people still in the pool. That’ll lead to more dropped coverage, which means even higher premiums, and then it’s spiralmania.

It’s a magic bullet, aimed right at the heart of ObamaCare. What will the D.C. Circuit do? TPM wonders:

The challenge was initially written off by some as a fool’s errand because there’s a lack of evidence that the Democrats who crafted and passed the Affordable Care Act intended to block subsidies on the federal exchange, which was designed as a backstop on behalf of the states. (They’ve signed a brief saying as much.) But the challengers seized on an ambiguity in the language of the statute which says the subsidies are to be provided by “an Exchange established by the State.”

“If the legislation is just stupid, I don’t see that it’s up to the court to save it,” Judge A. Raymond Randolph said during oral arguments in March.

Randolph, a George H.W. Bush appointee, said the text of the statute “seems perfectly clear on its face” that the subsidies are confined to state-run exchanges. Carter-appointed Judge Harry T. Edwards slammed the challengers’ claims as “preposterous.” So the deciding vote appears to be with George W. Bush-appointed Judge Thomas B. Griffith, who wasn’t resolute but sounded unconvinced of the Obama administration’s defense, saying it had a “special burden” to show that the language “doesn’t mean what it appears to mean.”

In a way, this is an analog to Obama’s power grab on immigration, which he defends as necessary because Congress is paralyzed. Will the D.C. Circuit read the statute as it’s written and leave it to Congress to resolve the ambiguity over “state” exchanges or, knowing that Congress won’t do a thing to resolve it, will the court feel obliged to minimize disruption to America’s new insurance regime by interpreting the word “state” broadly? The lower court reasoned that the federal ObamaCare exchange isn’t really a “federal” exchange, it’s an amalgamation of 34 different state exchanges that the federal government established on behalf of each of those 34 states. In that sense, the federal exchange is a “state” exchange (or a group of state exchanges) and therefore its customers are eligible for subsidies.

Law prof Jonathan Adler has led the charge in arguing the opposite, that the whole reason the statute was drafted the way it was is because Congress wanted to give states an extra incentive — namely, subsidies for its residents — to set up their own individual insurance exchanges. If a state refused to comply and forced the feds to set up an exchange on its behalf instead, its residents would be punished by having their eligibility for subsidies removed. (Adler wrote a thorough reply to the district court’s ruling for WaPo back in March.) The D.C. Circuit needs to choose between those two interpretations. And depending upon how they rule, SCOTUS may get a crack at it — which, per Jonathan Turley, is potentially also bad news for O-Care fans:

But the D.C. Circuit Court may see things quite differently, especially in light of recent Supreme Court opinions holding that the Obama administration has exceeded its authority and violated separation of powers.

In Michigan vs. Bay Mills Indian Community, for example, Justice Elena Kagan noted that “this court does not revise legislation … just because the text as written creates an apparent anomaly as to some subject it does not address.” In Utility Air Regulatory Group vs. EPA, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stressed that “an agency has no power to tailor legislation to bureaucratic policy goals by rewriting unambiguous statutory terms.” And a third strike came last week in National Labor Relations Board vs. Canning, when the Supreme Court unanimously found that President Obama had violated the Constitution in circumventing Congress through his use of recess appointments…

Moreover, a ruling against the administration would mean that Obama has been responsible for ordering what could amount to billions of dollars to be paid from the federal Treasury without authority. And it would mean the administration has committed yet another violation of the separation of powers.

It’s impossible for me to believe that the Supremes generally and John Roberts specifically, having eaten boatloads of crap from the right for upholding ObamaCare on the challenge to the individual mandate, are now going to pull a “never mind” and torch the whole thing because of a drafting ambiguity, but hope springs eternal for separation-of-powers aficionados like Turley. So much for the legal angle to all this.

Here’s the political angle: What happens if the D.C. Circuit does nuke the subsidies eligibility for federal-exchange consumers? Would the House GOP even consider a bill reinstating those subsidies in exchange for other concessions of some kind? Before you say “hell no,” bear in mind that there’ll be a lot of voters out there PO’d that they’ve just lost their sugar from Uncle Sam and a lot of Democrats whispering to them that they could have that sugar back if only the damned Republicans didn’t want to see them suffer. Plenty of hay could be made before the midterms. Phil Klein, who has more faith in Boehner and crew than me, thinks there’s no way House Republicans would dare cave on subsidies, certainly not before SCOTUS has ruled on this at least. Hopefully he’s right — emphasis on “hopefully.” But maybe it’s all moot: If the GOP held out and refused to reinstate the subsidies, His Majesty would be tempted to issue some sort of dubious executive order (say, right around November 1st) proclaiming that the subsidies will be reinstated under HHS’s authority. That might be illegal, but even if it is, what’s anyone going to do to stop him? And even if there is a way to stop him by suing him over it, how will that stop him in time to prevent him from reaping the benefits at the polls on election day? Gulp.

LEC here again — I am figuring on a 2 to 1 decision that overturns the trial court . Given the editing blooper , and the clear intent of Congress originally in drafting the thing , it is not up to the courts to rewrite it , and it is not up to H.H.S. and the Infernal Revenue Service to ” screw around ” with it .

.. the questions after that :

[-] what do the courts do — the newer and more liberal majority may want to get their hands on this one . But the Supremes may decide to intervene , once the Government appeals , and take it away from them . That would force the appeal up to the US Supreme Court , and they would not overturn that ruling …

[-] House GOP — it may well give them leverage . But His Lordship has shown no inkling towards compromise . He never does . Remember , OCC is THAT unpopular , I  will bet that the House GOP will do nothing , pending an appeal to the Supreme Court ..

[-] You – Know – Who — He is stupid , but is he that stupid to try a ” power play ” on the subsidies before the elections . If he did (or does) , he will definitely face impeachment proceedings after the elections . Congress then may well have had enough …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

… Here we Go Again [Wisconsin John Doe case , again] …

Posted by paulfromwloh on Friday,May 9th,2014

.. yea , the judge strikes again ..

.. basically , the Federal District Court judge [Rudolph Randa] was shut down , at least temporarily , by the 7th Federal Appeals Court . One would think that it would be a bummer , but not so . The appeals court shut down the judge ‘ s action on a technicality ..

.. so , yesterday , the judge reinstated it …

.. [h/t — hotair]..
.. [link] to the blog post ..

.. the Milwaukee County DA and his flunkies in the state can still appeal the judge ‘ s order to the Appeals Court , but they will need grounds . They will need grounds that they will have a strong likelihood that they will prevail on the arguments , which is a tall order …

.. by the way , nice going , Judge Randa . Prosecutors do not have the absolute immunity to ” run amok . ” (i.e. , indict a ” ham sandwich ” ) …

.. [link] to the court ‘ s updated order …

Posted in personal opinion | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »