#integrity of U. S. Supreme Court | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

masterofd1saster · 3 months

Text

CJ court watch - last cases Jun & Jul 24

SCt decided a tranche of important cases recently. The decisions were divided along familiar ideological lines.

Snyder v. United States, 603 U. S. __ (2024) held that gratuities paid after a state/local official act is not the same as a bribed paid seeking an official act. Accordingly, offering/accepting a gratuity is not prohibited by 18 U. S. C. §666. States are free to make gratuities illegal, and this was clearly the right decision.

As relevant here, §666 originally extended the gratuities prohibition in §201(c) to most state and local officials. See Salinas, 522 U. S., at 58; 18 U. S. C. §666(b) (1982 ed., Supp. II). But after only two years, Congress reversed course. In 1986, Congress amended §666 and thereby avoided the law’s “possible application to acceptable commercial and business practices.” H. R. Rep. No. 99–797, p. 30 (1986); see 100 Stat. 3612–3613. As a result of its amendment in 1986,

the statute no longer applies to gratuities.

***

Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U. S. __ (2024) was a disappointment to many conservatives and libertarians, but it was really just a matter that the plaintiffs had not fine tuned their allegations to their evidence.

During the 2020 election season and the COVID–19 pandemic, social-media platforms frequently removed, demoted, or fact checked posts containing allegedly false or misleading information. At the same time, federal officials, concerned about the spread of “misinformation” on social media, communicated extensively with the platforms about their content-moderation efforts. The plaintiffs, two States and five social-media users, sued dozens of Executive Branch officials and agencies, alleging that they pressured the platforms to suppress protected speech in violation of the First Amendment.***

The problem was that the plaintiffs did not connect any censorship of their speech to specific acts by the government. If the next plaintiffs point to the same censorship and connect the dots between the government and the censorship of their speech, they should win.

***

Moyle v. United States, 603 U. S. __ (2024), the Idaho abortion case, is not what some people have claimed. Idaho's statute prohibits abortion. The Federal Government sued the State under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act alleging that the Act preempted Idaho law.

During the course of the litigation, the state and the federal gov't changed their positions what what prohibited or allowed by the laws. Accordingly, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts to settle what positions the parties were taking.

For what it's worth, EMTALA never required hospitals to perform abortions. Indeed, it requires hospitals to protect "the health of the unborn child." 42 U.S.C. §1395dd. It never authorized or required termination of those children.

***

Fischer v. United States, 603 U. S. __ (2024) was a January 6 case. The government prosecuted many J6 defendants under a statute that had long prohibited obstructing justice. Nobody ever thought the statute applied to anything about judicial proceedings until these cases.

In Count Three, the only count now before us, the Government charged Fischer with violating 18 U. S. C. §1512(c)(2). Fischer moved to dismiss that count, arguing that the provision criminalizes only attempts to impair the availability or integrity of evidence. The District Court granted his motion in relevant part. It concluded that the scope of Section 1512(c)(2) is limited by subsection (c)(1) and therefore requires the defendant to “‘have taken some action with respect to a document, record, or other object.’”*** Section 1512 provides: “(c) Whoever corruptly— “(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or “(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, “shall be fined . . . or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”*** One way to discern the reach of an “otherwise” clause is to look for guidance from whatever examples come before it. Two general principles are relevant. First, the canon of noscitur a sociis teaches that a word is “given more precise content by the neighboring words with which it is associated.” *** That “avoid[s] ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with” “the company it keeps.” *** And under the related canon of ejusdem generis, “a ‘general or collective term’ at the end of a list of specific items” is typically “‘controlled and defined by reference to’ the specific classes . . . that precede it.” ***These approaches to statutory interpretation track the common sense intuition that Congress would not ordinarily introduce a general term that renders meaningless the specific text that accompanies it.*** As the Solicitor General acknowledged at oral argument, under the Government’s interpretation, a peaceful protester could conceivably be charged under §1512(c)(2) and face a 20-year sentence. Tr. of Oral Arg. 51–52. And the Government would likewise have no apparent obstacle to prosecuting under (c)(2) any lobbying activity that “influences” an official proceeding and is undertaken “corruptly.” Those peculiar results “underscore[] the implausibility of the Government’s interpretation.”*** To prove a violation of Section 1512(c)(2), the Government must establish that the defendant impaired the availability or integrity for use in an official proceeding of records, documents, objects, or as we earlier explained, other things used in the proceeding, or attempted to do so. *** The judgment of the D. C. Circuit is therefore vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.***

I thought this was an easy case for the defendants. I was surprised that three justices dissented. It's not as if the J6 defendants can't be charged with anything.

***

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U. S. __ (2024) was the homeless case from the world's most reversed court, the 9th Cir. In Martin v. Boise, the 9th Cir. said cities could not prohibit camping on public sidewalks, parks, or property. Martin was based on the 8th Amendment. Two homeless people sued Grants Pass because it has an ordinance that forbids such camping.

The Constitution and its Amendments impose a number of limits on what governments in this country may declare to be criminal behavior and how they may go about enforcing their criminal laws*** But if many other constitutional provisions address what a government may criminalize and how it may go about securing a conviction, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” focuses on what happens next. That Clause “has always been considered, and properly so, to be directed at the method or kind of punishment” a government may “impose for the violation of criminal statutes.”*** All that would seem to make the Eighth Amendment a poor foundation on which to rest the kind of decree the plaintiffs seek in this case and the Ninth Circuit has endorsed since Martin. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause focuses on the question what “method or kind of punishment” a government may impose after a criminal conviction, not on the question whether a government may criminalize particular behavior in the first place or how it may go about securing a conviction for that offense.***

In Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962), the plaintiffs and the dissent observe, this Court addressed a challenge to a criminal conviction under a California statute providing that “‘no person shall . . . be addicted to the use of narcotics.’” Ibid., n. 1. In response to that challenge, the Court invoked the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause to hold that California could not enforce its law making “the ‘status’ of narcotic addiction a criminal offense.” Id., at 666. The Court recognized that “imprisonment for ninety days is not, in the abstract, a punishment which is either cruel or unusual.” Id., at 667. But, the Court reasoned, when punishing “‘status,’” “even one day in prison would be . . . cruel and unusual.”*** Mr. Robinson’s resort to the Eighth Amendment was comparatively brief. He referenced it only in passing, and only for the proposition that forcing a drug addict like himself to go “‘cold turkey’” in a jail cell after conviction entailed such “intense mental and physical torment” that it was akin to “the burning of witches at the stake.” Robinson Brief 30. The State responded to that argument with barely a paragraph of analysis, Brief for Appellee in Robinson v. California, O. T. 1961, No. 61–554, pp. 22–23, and it received virtually no attention at oral argument. By almost every indication, then, Robinson was set to be a case about the scope of the Due Process Clause, or perhaps an Eighth Amendment case about whether forcing an addict to withdraw from drugs after conviction qualified as cruel and unusual punishment. Of course, the case turned out differently.***

Public camping ordinances like those before us are nothing like the law at issue in Robinson. Rather than criminalize mere status, Grants Pass forbids actions like “occupy[ing] a campsite” on public property “for the purpose of maintaining a temporary place to live.”*** As we have seen, Robinson already sits uneasily with the Amendment’s terms, original meaning, and our precedents. Its holding is restricted to laws that criminalize “mere status.” Nothing in the decision called into question the “broad power” of States to regulate acts undertaken with some mens rea. And, just as in Powell, we discern nothing in the Eighth Amendment that might provide us with lawful authority to extend Robinson beyond its narrow holding.*** Yes, people will disagree over which policy responses are best; they may experiment with one set of approaches only to find later another set works better; they may find certain responses more appropriate for some communities than others. But in our democracy, that is their right. Nor can a handful of federal judges begin to “match” the collective wisdom the American people possess in deciding “how best to handle” a pressing social question like homelessness. Robinson, 370 U. S., at 689 (White, J., dissenting). The Constitution’s Eighth Amendment serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges to wrest those rights and responsibilities from the American people and in their place dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy. The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Status crimes and Robinson are ordinarily the completely wrong answer. In Robinson there was no evidence that he had ever performed any act in California. In 99.999% of cases that make it to court, the defendant did something; the defendant is not charged with anything related to status.

***

The last big case was Trump v. United States, 603 U. S. __ (2024).

***the indictment charged Trump with (1) conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U. S. C. §371, (2) conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of §1512(k), (3) obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding in violation of §1512(c)(2), §2, and (4) conspiracy against rights in violation of §241.1 Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity. In his view, the conduct alleged in the indictment, properly characterized, was that while he was President he (1) “made public statements about the administration of the federal election”; (2) communicated with senior Justice Department officials “about investigating election fraud and about choosing the leadership” of the Department; (3) “communicated with state officials about the administration of the federal election and their exercise of official duties with respect to it”; (4) “communicated with the Vice President” and with “Members of Congress about the exercise of their official duties regarding the election certification”; and (5) “authorized or directed others to organize contingent slates of electors in furtherance of his attempts to convince the Vice President to exercise his official authority in a manner advocated for by President Trump.”*** [This case] requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. We undertake that responsibility conscious that we must not confuse “the issue of a power’s validity with the cause it is invoked to promote,” but must instead focus on the “enduring consequences upon the balanced power structure of our Republic.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 634 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). The parties before us do not dispute that a former President can be subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts committed while in office. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28. They also agree that some of the conduct described in the indictment includes actions taken by Trump in his unofficial capacity. See id., at 28–30, 36–37, 124. They disagree, however, about whether a former President can be prosecuted for his official actions. Trump contends that just as a President is absolutely immune from civil damages liability for acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756, he must be absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for such acts.***

Although the Government agrees that some official actions are included in the indictment’s allegations, see id., at 125, it maintains that a former President does not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for any actions, regardless of how they are characterized. See Brief for United States 9. We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient.***

The exclusive constitutional authority of the President “disabl[es] the Congress from acting upon the subject.” Id., at 637–638. And the courts have “no power to control [the President’s] discretion” when he acts pursuant to the powers invested exclusively in him by the Constitution. Marbury, 1 Cranch, at 166. If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills. See id., at 582–589 (majority opinion). But once it is determined that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot be subject to further judicial examination.***

Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. B But of course not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. As Justice Robert Jackson recognized in Youngstown, the President sometimes “acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” or in a “zone of twilight” where “he and Congress may have concurrent authority.” 343 U. S., at 635, 637 (concurring opinion). The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive authority therefore do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress.***

Taking into account these competing considerations, we conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. Indeed, if presumptive protection for the President is necessary to enable the “effective discharge” of his powers when a prosecutor merely seeks evidence of his official papers and communications, id., at 711, it is certainly necessary when the prosecutor seeks to charge, try, and imprison the President himself for his official actions. At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”***

C As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. The principles we set out in Clinton v. Jones confirm as much. When Paula Jones brought a civil lawsuit against then-President Bill Clinton for acts he allegedly committed prior to his Presidency, we rejected his argument that he enjoyed temporary immunity from the lawsuit while serving as President. *** Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. We offer guidance on those issues below. Certain allegations—such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General—are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual. Other allegations—such as those involving Trump’s interactions with the Vice President, state officials, and certain private parties, and his comments to the general public—present more difficult questions. Although we identify several considerations pertinent to classifying those allegations and determining whether they are subject to immunity, that analysis ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.

A Distinguishing the President’s official actions from his unofficial ones can be difficult. When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office.*** some Presidential conduct—for example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, see Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701 (2018)—certainly can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision. For those reasons, the immunity we have recognized extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”*** In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect.***

Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. For instance, when Fitzgerald contended that his dismissal violated various congressional statutes and thus rendered his discharge “outside the outer perimeter of [Nixon’s] duties,” we rejected that contention. 457 U. S., at 756. ***

The indictment alleged that Trump called DoJ to challenge the election results.

The Government does not dispute that the indictment’s allegations regarding the Justice Department involve Trump’s “use of official power.” Brief for United States 46; see id., at 10–11; Tr. of Oral Arg. 125. The allegations in fact plainly implicate Trump’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. “investigation and prosecution of crimes is a quintessentially executive function.”*** The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. App. 186–187, Indictment ¶10(c). And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is therefore absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.***

The indictment alleged that Trump asked his VP to interfere with the election in his role of counting electoral votes.

The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.*** It is ultimately the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.***

The indictment alleged some contacts with state officials relating to the election.

Unlike Trump’s alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons. And the parties’ brief comments at oral argument indicate that they starkly disagree on the characterization of these allegations. The concerns we noted at the outset—the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis by the lower courts, and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties—thus become more prominent. We accordingly remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance—with the benefit of briefing we lack—whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.***

The indictment alleged Trump committed crimes in his communications on January 6 itself.

[The president is] expected to comment on those matters of public concern that may not directly implicate the activities of the Federal Government—for instance, to comfort the Nation in the wake of an emergency or tragedy. For these reasons, most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President, notwithstanding the prominence of his position, speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). But “there is not always a clear line between [the President’s] personal and official affairs.” Mazars, 591 U. S., at 868. The analysis therefore must be fact specific and may prove to be challenging.***

The essence of immunity “is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct” in court. *** Presidents therefore cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. As we have explained, the indictment here alleges at least some such conduct. See Part III–B–1, supra. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct.***

Official acts cannot be used as evidence even

“for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence would “be admissible to prove, for example, [Trump’s] knowledge or notice of the falsity of his election-fraud claims.”***

The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.

#Supreme Court #constitutional law

0 notes

carolinemillerbooks · 5 months

Text

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/findidng-the-golden-mean/

Findidng The Golden Mean

My U. S. Senator voted against the Ukrainian-Istreal aid package that Congress passed recently. He said he opposed it because of Benjamin Netanyahu’s conduct in the Gaza war. I like my Senator. Nonetheless, I sent him an email that accused him of being long on principle, but short on common sense. The bill he rejected included aid for the people of Gaza, victims forced to live in tents under a barrage of bombs. We live in an imperfect world, so life requires compromises. People with pollen allergies, for example, accept that bees need clover fields to survive. Sometimes, imperfection can be a positive force. Donald Trump’s flawed presidency has taught us that our 235-year-old Constitution may do more than guarantee equality for all. If the Supreme Court upholds Trump’s claim of presidential immunity, it will mean our head of state is a monarch able to commit any crime without fear of consequences. The High Court considered Presidential immunity concerning civil conduct three decards ago. A case in 1982 involving Richard Nixon ended with a decision that gave a sitting President a degree of absolution. The Constitution makes no mention of that, but the judges based their findings on the Speech or Debate section of the document. It grants civil immunity to members of Congress. Trump pushes the envelope when he argues that immunity extends to Presidential crimes. If the integrity of some jurists deciding Trump’s case weren’t also in disrepute, all might be well. But the High Court has been slow to promulgate rules of conduct for itself and members like Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have shown little inclination to police themselves. A citizen may wonder how these appointed jurists came to hold their sweeping authority over the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Article 111 of the Constitution restricts them to disputes between the states or those arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers. Their expanded authority arose from Maybury v. Madison. In 1801, before leaving office, President John Adams commissioned William Maybury to be a justice of the peace. Adams’s successor, James Madison, refused to deliver the appointment, so Marbury sued. Taking the Federal government to court was novel, so before hearing the argument, the Supreme Court had to determine if it had jurisdiction. Chief Justice John Marshall decided that Maybury’s petition raised a legal question, so the Court could rule. That opinion which was never challenged was far-reaching. The Constitution, being silent on the matter, Marshall and his cohorts chose to reserve for themselves extraordinary power over the two other branches of government. Article 111 does offer a defense against an overreaching judiciary. Court-stripping permits Congress to limit or reduce a state court’s jurisdiction in federal matters except for those originally granted. The remedy poses complications that I’m not qualified to discuss. What matters is that besides Court-stripping, Congress has only one other way to assert its authority. It can write new legislation. If a bill fails, the judicial ruling stands. Because the High Court chooses the cases it hears, its involvement can seem political. For example, when it overturned Roe v. Wade with its almost 50-year-old standing, members of the public were outraged and called for a change in that body’s composition, either by adding to the number of members or imposing term limits Times of social and political upheaval can encourage extremism. Some people become heated enough to demand a scorched earth policy and let democracy be damned. Those of us standing in the middle watch in awe. Fortunately, enough of us exist to enforce the Golden Mean. At once a mathematical and philosophical construct, the Golden Mean, which also exists in nature, calls for a middle way–living without the extremes of excess and deficiency. It teaches that compromise enables inclusion. In ancient thought, it defined a moral life. When my Senator rejected aid for Gaza because the package was imperfect, he abandoned the middle way. He also forgot two important truths. First, he forgot that Israel is our ally and the only democracy in the Middle East. Its citizens deserve our support regardless of Netanyahu’s crimes. He will answer for his conduct in his country’s next election and, eventually, at the International Criminal Court in Haag. Second, my Senator forgot that imperfection attends to every human endeavor. Purity is the posture of angels and those who imagine they are.

#Article 111 of Constitution #Benjamin Netanyahu #Cheif Justice John Marshall #court stripping #Donald Trump #Golden Mean #Justice Clarence Thomas #Justice Neil Gorsuch #Maybury v. Madison #presidential immunity #Roe v Wade #Speech & Debate in U. S. Constitution #Supreme Court code of ethics #Ukrainian-Isreal aid

0 notes

dertaglichedan · 1 year

Text

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

More than 100 former clerks for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas signed an open letter defending his independence and integrity amid media reports that suggest he received improper gifts from a Texas billionaire.

"As his law clerks, we offer this response. Different paths led us to our year with Justice Thomas, and we have followed different paths since. But along the way, we all saw with our own eyes the same thing: His integrity is unimpeachable," their letter said (pdf).

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas poses for the official group photograph at the U.S. Supreme Court in the District of Columbia on Nov. 30, 2018. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

The 112 individuals who signed the letter include three circuit court judges, including Judge David Stras of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Judge James Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Judge Allison Rushing of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

"And these stories are malicious, perpetuating the ugly assumption that the Justice cannot think for himself. They are part of a larger attack on the Court and its legitimacy as an institution," the letter also stated. "The picture they paint of the Court and the man for whom we worked bears no resemblance to reality."

"His independence is unshakable, deeply rooted seven decades ago as that young child who walked through the door of his grandparents’ house for a life forever changed," they continued.

1 note · View note

cksmart-world · 2 years

Text

SMART BOMB

The completely unnecessary news analysis

by Christopher Smart

January 31, 2023

WHO LEAKED THE LEAK — THE SUPREME COURT SNIPE HUNT

A curious odor is coming from the investigation into the mysterious leak of the U. S. Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health that overturned Roe v. Wade. The leak is said to be the biggest breach of integrity in Supreme Court history. But a just-completed probe by the Supreme Court's Marshal (not the U.S. Marshals Service) came up with nothing, nada, zilch. Justice Samuel Alito, who authored the Dobbs decision, said the leak could have led to his assassination. Where's John Grisham when you need him. Fact 1 – The court's marshal is the chief security officer and facilities administrator for the Supreme Court building — not an investigatory body, like the FBI. Fact 2 – The court's marshal did not ask the justices to sign affidavits swearing they didn't leak it. Fact 3 – Michael Chertoff, the former secretary of Homeland Security, who wrote a letter endorsing the investigation's findings had previous undisclosed financial ties to the court. Fact 4 – The marshal did not question former clerks. Fact 5 – It did not gather telephone or text data. “A nuclear bomb went off at the Supreme Court,” said Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor at Slate. “Now it's so sad, too bad.” When is an investigation not an investigation — when no one really wants to know who done it.

SAVE THE LAKE — CUT DOWN THE FRIGGIN' TREES

Finally, someone has come up with a real sense solution to saving the Great Salt Lake: Cut down all the friggin' trees — they're using up all the friggin' water. Isn't it always the case, the solution was staring us right in the face all along. Trees aren't much good anyway, all they do is make shade, absorb carbon dioxide and produce oxygen. Then every fall we have to rake, rake, rake instead of watching football. Cutting them down is a solution that's so simple even Utah legislators grasped it and — surprise — they just love it. Of course there are those people who think too much Bear River water goes to growing alfalfa instead of going into the lake. Sure, some of the alfalfa is sold to China, but only 30 percent. And it only takes about 450,000 gallons of water to grow a ton of alfalfa. We're talking tradition here, it's part of our pioneer heritage. We can't just throw that away simply because the lake will disappear leaving a lakebed of toxic dust. Besides, sending all that water into the lake would mean less alfalfa for China. Let's just cut down trees and let all that tree-water refill the shrinking lake. Anyway, the Wasatch Front has way too many trees. And here's a bonus, if we cut down the trees, they won't blow over in the next big windstorm. It's a win/win solution if there ever was one.

INVESTIGATE THE INVESTIGATORS

Things are about to get a lot better. Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan, who now chairs the House Judiciary Committee, is about to clear all the pinkos, deep state Democrats and Black Panthers out of the federal government. Props for Jim. We know the Democrats have weaponized the Department of Justice. Why else would the FBI raid Donald Trump's seaside castle? We know why, because they're mean, hideous thugs who want to make Trump look silly — as though that were even possible. This is not retribution for the DOJ investigating Republicans who were close to Jan. 6 insurrectionists. It only looks like retribution. Jimmy Jordan and his Republican statesmen in the House are going to de-weaponize the weaponized DOJ. See, here's the thing, the DOJ, FBI, etc. only investigate Republicans. They never investigate Democrats. And what about that Fauci dude and Hunter Biden. They haven't been investigated. It's just not right. And it only gets worse — in its report the House select committee for Jan. 6 described Jordan as a “significant player” in Trump's failed coup. And we know that's intended to sick the FBI on Jimmy. Isn't it obvious that someone has to investigate the investigators. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Lucky for us, Jimmy Jordan just loves dirty jobs.

Post script — That's it for another frigid week here at Smart Bomb where we keep track of pollutants from Mag Corp wafting over Salt Lake Valley so you don't have to. US Magnesium, located on the western shore of the Great Salt Lake, is responsible for 25 percent of chemicals released into the air that form PM2.5 — very nasty pollution. This, of course, is among the reasons why we have The Greatest Air On Earth. Why doesn't the Utah Travel Council advertise that with big electronic billboards in every major airport in the country, like it does with our ski resorts and national parks. Yes Wilson, that was a rhetorical question. But take heart, the air in New Delhi, India, is worse than ours — on some days. From our “News U Can Use” -file: A woman in Coventry, Conn., opened a breakfast cafe named “Woke Breakfast & Coffee,” not realizing she had just jumped head first into the culture wars. Facebook lit up with nasty comments and accusations she was making a political statement with breakfast. (How dastardly.) But the backlash had a backlash, and according to The Washington Post, folks lined up for a woke breakfast. And finally this: HORMEL has come out with a beer called Chili Cheese Brew that “captures the essence of HORMEL Chili Cheese Dip.” Bottoms up.

Alright Wilson, we gotta do something for the poor Supreme Court. They can't find the leak and its the worst thing that ever happened to Samuel Alito. He could've been assassinated or worse. Really? Well, on second thought maybe you and the guys in the band can take us out with something for the cat burglar who leaked the leak:

There's a man who leads a life of danger To everyone he meets he stays a stranger With every move he makes Another chance he takes Odds are he won't live to see tomorrow Secret Agent Man Secret Agent Man They've given you a number and taken away your name Beware of pretty faces that you find A pretty face can hide an evil mind Oh, be careful what you say Or you'll give yourself away Odds are you won't live to see tomorrow Secret Agent Man Secret Agent Man They've given you a number and taken away your name Swinging on the Riviera one day And then laying in a Bombay alley next day Oh, don't you let the wrong words slip While kissing persuasive lips Odds are you won't live to see tomorrow Secret Agent Man Secret Agent Man They've given you a number and taken away your name

(Secret Agent Man — Johnny Rivers)

0 notes

eve-is-a-terf · 2 years

Note

Brett Kavanagh lied about his position on roe v wade though. Why should we believe what he says now?

[all emphasis is mine, all quotes are from here]

i see your point, but his private word is different from a supreme court opinion, in which a justice would theoretically write based on an objective interpretation of the law. (even if that's not how it always works in real life.)

here's a quote from the syllabus of the opinion:

The Court emphasizes that this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

and from the main opinion:

None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. They are therefore inapposite. They do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and by the same token, our conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way.

and:

[T]he Solicitor General suggests that overruling those decisions would “threaten the Court’s precedents holding that the Due Process Clause protects other rights.” ... That is not correct for reasons we have already discussed. As even the Casey plurality recognized, “[a]bortion is a unique act” because it terminates “life or potential life.” 505 U. S., at 852; see also Roe, 410 U. S., at 159 (abortion is “inherently different from marital intimacy,” “marriage,” or “procreation”). And to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

and:

The most striking feature of the dissent is the absence of any serious discussion of the legitimacy of the States’ interest in protecting fetal life. This is evident in the analogy that the dissent draws between the abortion right and the rights recognized in Griswold (contraception), Eisenstadt (same), Lawrence (sexual conduct with member of the same sex), and Obergefell (same-sex marriage). Perhaps this is designed to stoke unfounded fear that our decision will imperil those other rights, but the dissent’s analogy is objectionable for a more important reason: what it reveals about the dissent’s views on the protection of what Roe called “potential life.” The exercise of the rights at issue in Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell does not destroy a “potential life,” but an abortion has that effect.

as well as what i quoted earlier, from kavanaugh's concurring opinion:

First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents.

as you can see, it's mentioned a lot in the majority opinions. other than thomas (who did mention he wanted to reconsider the other cases even though he agreed they weren't relevant in this particular ruling), the justices seem to agree that this ruling is for abortion and abortion only.

of course, i won't try and pretend their word or their opinions are worth anything. here's a quote from the dissenting opinion:

And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work. The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. ... In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. ... They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decision making over the most personal of life decisions. The majority (or to be more accurate, most of it) is eager to tell us today that nothing it does “cast[s] doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” ... But how could that be? The lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not “deeply rooted in history”: Not until Roe, the majority argues, did people think abortion fell within the Constitution’s guarantee of liberty. ... The same could be said, though, of most of the rights the majority claims it is not tampering with. The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, “there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives].” ... So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid 19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.

they make excellent points, and of course they know infinitely more about this than i do. however, i would still agree with my original opinion, with this quote from clarence thomas in mind:

Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

this is also brought up in the dissenting opinion:

In saying that nothing in today’s opinion casts doubt on non-abortion precedents, Justice Thomas explains, he means only that they are not at issue in this very case.

so, in conclusion, yes - other rights besides abortion are very much under attack. we must fight to make sure that they aren't destroyed as women's reproductive rights were last friday. but that's exactly the point... they haven't been affected yet. abortion has. this is a women's rights issue, an abortion-specific issue, as the court states over and over again. even when justice thomas says that he wishes to overturn other precedents such as obergefell, he reaffirms that those would be future cases, and would not be relevant in dobbs v jackson (this decision).

#ask #eve's posts #roe v wade overturned #radblr #radfems do interact #terfs please touch #terf safe #abortion #reproductive rights #roe v wade #long post #abortion rights

2 notes · View notes

npr · 5 years

Link

"It did not have to be this way, and there was a time when it was not," Adam Cohen writes in his introduction to Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court's Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America.

America could have top notch, racially integrated schools, a criminal justice system that hadn't ballooned to the world's largest by locking up generations of black and brown people, a political system that wasn't suffocating in money, and a legal system that valued individuals over big business. Today, though, the likelihood of implementing such a vision looks dim.

#book #book review #npr reads #Book list #Supreme Court #inequality #wealth gap #prison #politics

353 notes · View notes

sarcasticcynic · 4 years

Link

Called it

The Voice of America was founded in 1942, to combat Nazi propaganda with credible news reports. Its formal charter, created in 1976, guarantees: “VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news” and will be “accurate, objective, and comprehensive.” In 1994, Congress enacted the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, which formally codified these standards into federal law. (22 U.S.C. § 6202(c)(1).)

The IBA also established the position of Chief Executive Officer of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. Federal law specifically states: “The Secretary of State and the Chief Executive Officer [of the Broadcasting Board], in carrying out their functions, shall respect the professional independence and integrity of the Board, its broadcasting services, and the grantees of the Board.” (22 U.S.C. § 6204(b).)

In June of 2020, when Trump announced that he was replacing the CEO with Michael Pack--a guy who used to make documentaries with Steve Bannon--the current CEO and the rest of the BBG (now also known as the U.S. Agency for Global Media) felt it necessary to confirm the foregoing principles in a formal federal regulation entitled “Firewall and Highest Standards of Professional Journalism.” The regulation reaffirms:

“All USAGM-funded Networks must adhere to the highest professional standards of journalism ... in order to produce news which is consistently reliable and authoritative, accurate, objective, and comprehensive.”

The regulation also addresses Trump’s habit of pressuring government entities to support whatever he says, and his equally noxious habit of viciously attacking any news organization that is anything short of laudatory, by expressly clarifying that it is improper misconduct when:

“...any person within the Executive Branch or a Network, but outside the newsroom, attempts to direct, pressure, coerce, threaten, interfere with, or otherwise impermissibly influence any of the USAGM networks, including their leadership, officers, employees, or staff, in the performance of their journalistic and broadcasting duties and activities. ... Such impermissible influence would undermine the journalistic and editorial independence, and thus the credibility, of that USAGM network, and their reporters, editors, or other journalists.”

As David Kligerman, the agency’s general counsel, explained: “The key to the credibility of any news organization is editorial independence and adherence to the professional standards of journalism.”

Trump’s appointee lived up down to expectations almost immediately.

Pack “investigated the agency’s journalists for bias against President Trump and pushed for their dismissals and reassignments.”

Pack also “instigated investigations of ... VOA’s White House bureau chief over perceived anti-Trump bias.”

“Pack has purged USAGM and its broadcasters of top executives whom he believed to be insufficiently loyal.”

Pack suspended general counsel David Kligerman in August.

Pack “ignored a subpoena” that the House Foreign Affairs Committee issued to compel his testimony before Congress.

“He has embraced Trump’s talk of a so-called ‘deep state’ thwarting the president’s priorities at USAGM.”

Now Pack has decided that the “professional independence and integrity” the CEO owes under federal law doesn’t require him (or Trump) to allow the VOA and her sister stations any actual “independence.” Indeed, as far as he is concerned, allowing the VOA any “independence” would interfere with the CEO’s duty to “direct” and “supervise.” He also maintains that the phrase “highest standards of journalism” is too “vague” for him or anyone else to comply with, or even understand.

So Pack unilaterally repealed the regulation in its entirety, effective immediately.

Pack announced the repeal “at 10:18 p.m. Eastern Time in a note to all of USAGM's several thousand employees, on the same night as the swearing-in of a new U.S. Supreme Court justice, and just eight days before Election Day.” Conveniently enough, Pack also declared that his repeal is “exempt from review,” and that all provisions requiring “notice of proposed rulemaking” and “opportunity for public participation” are “inapplicable.”

Trump finally got the state-run global news network he always envied.

2 notes · View notes

libertariantaoist · 5 years

Link

News Roundup 11/27/19

By Kyle Anzalone

US News

Three Baltimore men were free after spending 36 years in prison for a murder they did not commit. [Link]

Rand Paul highlights millions of US tax dollars going to waste on subsidizing Serbian cheese and getting fish addicted to nicotine. [Link]

The Supreme Court declines to hear an appeal for Adnan Syed. Syed was convicted of murder in 2000. However, a podcast and HBO series cast serious doubt about his guilt. [Link]

The Energy Department IG says it has several cyber vulnerabilities that have not been fixed. [Link]

Trump says he is working to designate Mexican cartels as terror groups. [Link]

The US blacklists a Cuban company for doing business with a sanction Venezuelan company. [Link]

NATO

Turkey is refusing to sign off on a NATO defense plan until NATO starts to recognize the Syrian Kurdish militia the YPG as a terror group. [Link]

NATO countries are working on a plan to pay more of NATO’s budget in an attempt to appease Trump. France has said they will not sign on to the plan and already contribute enough to defense. [Link]

Turkey says their newly purchased Russian-made S-400 air defense system will not be integrated into NATO’s air defense. Russia says Turkey is looking to purchase more S-400s. [Link]* Russia showed US inspectors its hypersonic nuclear missile system under the auspices of the NEW START Treaty. [Link]

Afghanistan

An American civilian was killed by a grenade attack on a UN convoy in Afghanistan. [Link]

Middle East

A car bomb killed 17 people in a Turkish controlled Syrian city. Turkey blames the YPG for the attack. [Link]

Saudi Arabia arrests several dissidents. [Link]

Iraqi security forces killed two protesters. [Link]

Three explosions killed six people in Iraq. [Link]

Iraqi Children born near a US military base are showing higher rates of serious birth defects. [Link]

The Saudi coalition says it has released 200 Houthi prisoners. [Link]

Libya

Congressional Democrats have pushed the State Department to investigate US weapons sold to Saudi Arabia and the UAE that ended up in the hands of AQAP in Yemen. [Link]

#kyle anzalone #immersion news #libertarian institute #news roundup

4 notes · View notes

carolinemillerbooks · 2 years

Text

New Post has been published on Books by Caroline Miller

New Post has been published on https://www.booksbycarolinemiller.com/musings/criminal-minds-2/

Criminal Minds

Sometimes, in the course of human affairs, actions are so preposterous, laws don’t exist to prevent them from occurring. For example, no one has suggested we need a rule that bars killer whales from competing in Olympic swimming competitions. Dogs aren’t required to have driver’s licenses or passports. So, when Sean Hannity, a Fox News commentator, noted that a felon could run for U. S. President, all but the corrupt were surprised. We must blame the honorable men who drafted the U. S. Constitution for the oversight. Innocence may become them, but it leaves the country facing the absurd. Even so, Hannity’s remark points to a new norm. If we embrace his notion of inclusiveness, we are obliged to accept liars, cheats, and felons as eligible to hold high office. Consequences for crime disappear. Instead, we must reward those guilty of sleazy intent with our confidence. True believers go further. They will defend those who are found with their hands in the cookie as victims of a conspiracy. Or, they will paint the offense as being trivial. Donald Trump took top secret documents to Mar-a-Lago? Or swallowed them? Other than the effect on the former president’s digestion, where’s the harm? If the United States is becoming a kinder, more forgiving nation, I applaud the change and hope the new standard applies to immigrants, minorities of every stripe, the poor, and the working class. Think of the tax savings the nation would enjoy if we emptied our prisons. We could give the money to the military to develop a death ray. People who embrace absurdity and contradictions without blinking show an enviable tolerance. Liars and cheats and crooks have long existed, but few have felt free to exhibit the blimp-sized bravado tolerated today. We have Trump to thank for this phenomenon. An accomplished liar, he had taught us to double down when accused of impropriety. No more blushing with shame. A lie we now know, if often repeated, gains the ring of truth. His appointments to the U. S. Supreme Court share his talent for dissembling. Each of them swore to Congress that Rove v. Wade was settled law. Yet, how easily they betrayed their words after attaining the high bench. A chameleon couldn’t have changed color faster. With the forty-fifth President and the high court as an example of the new norm, I sympathize with Congressman Louis Gohmert. He feels discriminated against. “If you’re a Republican, you can’t even lie to Congress or lie to an FBI agent or they’re coming after you.”

#A felon can be U. S. President #dishonesty as the new norm #Donald Trump #inclusiveness and crime #integrity of U. S. Supreme Court #Louis Gohmert #Mar-a-Largo #Roe v Wade #Sean Hannity #the rise of the cheat #Trump's handling of classified documents #What Trump's big lie has taught us #when consequences for bad actions disappear

0 notes

southernsagestoryteller · 3 years

Text

Freedom of Choice

In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school segregation was unconstitutional and must end. Mostly it didn’t. In 1955 the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that integration should happen with “all deliberate speed.” And yet when I entered high school in 1964 our school remained all white. North Carolina, along with a number of other schools throughout the United States, had a Freedom of Choice…

View On WordPress

#black #brave #bravery #choices #cross burning #forgive #forgiveness #Freedom of Choice #grace #integration #love #real love #school #segregation #white

0 notes

aichls · 3 years

Text

MEMBERSHIP OPEN AICHLS AND National Council of News and Broadcasting (Join as Journalist) JOIN THE TOP AND MOST REPUTED HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT OF THE COUNTRY AND RAISE YOUR VOICE FOR THE VOICELESS PEOPLE Top Criminal Advocate Top Human Rights Advocate

SPEAK BEFORE APPLY FOR THE MEMBERSHIP For more details, visit below 9873005424, 9873087903 https://humanrightscouncil.in/ https://humanrightscouncil.in/membership-form-download.php https://www.hrcin.org/membership-form.html http://ihrac.org/membership-form-download.php https://hrcin.org/ http://ihrac.org/ https://twitter.com/AdvAnthonyRaju Email: [email protected] ALL INDIA COUNCIL OF HUMAN RIGHTS, LIBERTIES & SOCIAL JUSTICE (AICHLS) is founded by Dr. Anthony Raju - Advocate, Supreme Court of India, Dynamic Internationally Accredited Human Rights Defender, Inspirational, spiritual and motivational speaker, Peace Activist & Social Worker and is one of global's foremost voices of Human Rights and powerful voice for voiceless people globally. All India council of human rights, liberties & social justice has been added as signatory to UNITED NATION GLOBAL COMPACT. The world's largest corporate responsibility initiative with nearly 12,000 business and non-business participants in 140 countries. That All India Council of Human Rights, Liberties & Social Justice (AICHLS), is a duly registered Society under the Societies Registration Act XXI of 1860, and is functioning with commitment to the Noble Cause of Human Rights Protection and Promotion, Justice for All, Economic Upliftment of the Underprivileged, Education, Love, Peace, Harmony and Friendship, National & International Integration by Exchange of Ideas & Ethos in India and also amongst the neighbouring countries and the people of the rest of the World at large. Dr. Anthony Raju Advocate , Supreme Court of India. Global Chairman , All India Council of Human Rights, Liberties & Social Justice. Chairman - National Legal Council International Convener, Universal mission for Peace and Human Rights. Chairman, National Council of News and Broadcasting. Secretary General : Asian Human Rights Council International Peace keeper

http://www.ihrac.org/ http://www.awardsforhumanrights.com/ https://www.newsindiatoday.tv/home/ http://www.ncnb.in/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/anthonyraju/ https://www.facebook.com/allindiacouncilofhumanrights/ https://twitter.com/aichls http://www.anthonyraju.com/ http://www.juneann.in/ https://plus.google.com/u/1/?tab=mX https://www.youtube.com/user/TheHumanrightsindia/ http://www.xavierinstitutions.org/ www.asianhumanrightscouncil.org www.internationalhumanrightscouncil.org ====================================================== In Public Interest, More Links Of Human Rights Organisation working for the promotion and protection of Human Rights.

#Tophumanrightscouncil, #Humanrightsinindia #Socialjustice, #freelegalhelp #HumanRightsOrganizationsInIndia, #HumanRightsComplaint, #HumanRights, #AdvocateSupremeCourt #HumanRightsMembership #TopHumanRightsOrganisationofIndia #peace #gahrc #humanrightseducation #humanrightsleadership #humanitarian #ihrac #dranthonyraju #aichls #humanrightsambassador #humanrightsactivist #motivationalspeaker #inspirationalspeaker #humanrightsadvocate #nhrc #tophumanrightsadvocate #topcriminaladvocate

Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commissionhttps://nhrc.nic.in › statecommission › andhra-pradesh-s... 09-Jun-2021 — Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission. Andhra Pradesh State ... Member (Judicial). Sri Dande Subramanyam. 3. Member (Non Judicial).

Gandhi Bhavan, Nampalli Hyderabad-500001 - National ...https://nhrc.nic.in › about-us › state-commission Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission. Tel.No. ... 3, Member (Non Judicial), Dr. Gochipata Srinivasa Rao.

AP State | Human Rights Forumhttp://humanrightsforum.org › contact-2 › state-board Human Rights Forum is a non-political, non-funded voluntary organisation and is NOT RELATED to the Human Rights Commission of Telangana or Andhra Pradesh ...

State human rights commission's temporary office inaugurated ...https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › city › articleshow 01-Sep-2021 — Andhra Pradesh human rights commission's temporary office was inaugurated at the state guest house at Kurnool on Wednesday.

srinivasa rao: Andhra Pradesh: Human rights commission will ...https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › ... › amaravati News 16-Sep-2021 — AMARAVATI: Stating that human rights are fundamental rights granted by the Constitution, Andhra Pradesh Human Rights Commission (AP HRC) ...

After seven-year-long wait, Andhra Pradesh to get its SHRC ...https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › city › articleshow 17-Feb-2021 — The commission is responsible for the protection and promotion of human rights, related to life, liberty, equality and dignity of individuals as ... People also ask How many members are there in state human rights commission?

What is the qualification for Human Rights Commission?

Who are the members of National Human Rights Commission?

Who is the chairman of AP Human Rights Commission?

Feedback

APSHRC office inaugurated in Kurnool - The Hinduhttps://www.thehindu.com › ... › States › Andhra Pradesh 01-Sep-2021 — The Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission Chairman Justice Mandhata Seetharama Murthy inaugurated the commission office in the State ...

Andhra Pradesh Committee Members - International Human ...https://www.ihrcworld.org › andhra_pradesh Organising Secretary Andhrapradesh State ID. No. V460C/AP15/01K. Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ...

After Lokayukta, Andhra Pradesh human rights panel starts ...https://www.newindianexpress.com › states › sep › after... 02-Sep-2021 — SHRC chairman Justice M Sitharama Murthy along with District Collector P Koteswara Rao, SHRC judicial member Dande Subramanyam and non-judicial ...

Andhra Pradesh - IHRAhttps://ihra.co.in › teamdetail › val=Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh · Mr. Anchula Venkata Murali Krishna · Mr. S. Pothuluraiah · Mr. Y. Venkat Srikanth Reddy · Mr. Devara Parameswaraiah · Mr. Naram Mutyala Rao · Dr. P. Related searches andhra pradesh human rights commission chairman 2020 what is state human rights commission state human rights commission vijayawada address andhra pradesh state human rights commission address telangana state human rights commission human rights commission hyderabad case status a.p. state human rights commission mail id how to file a complaint in human rights commission hyderabad

Telangana State Human Rights Commissionhttps://nhrc.nic.in › statecommission › telangana-state-h... Gruhakalpa Complex, M.J. Road, Opp: Gandhi Bhavan, Nampalli Hyderabad-500001. 1. Chairperson. Shri Justice Gunda Chandraiah. 24601574. 2. Member (Judicial).

Gandhi Bhavan, Nampalli Hyderabad-500001 - National ...https://nhrc.nic.in › about-us › state-commission Telangana State Human Rights Commission. Tel.No.: ... Hyderabad-500001. Swipe to view ... 2, Member (Judicial), Shri Ananda Rao Nadipally, 24601571. People also ask How can I join Human Rights Commission in Hyderabad?

Is toll free for human rights?

What is the qualification for Human Rights Commission?

How many members are there in state human rights commission?

Feedback

Join us , Membership open for Talengana State -.::HRCIN::.https://www.hrcin.org › single_page Map of human rights membership in telangana Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission 4.2 (67) · Government office Hyderabad, Telangana Open ⋅ Closes ...

Join Us - HUMAN RIGHTS & SOCIAL JUSTICE MISSIONhttps://www.hrsjm.org › join-us APPLICATION PROCESS · 1) Whatsapp on 8108410031 and Ask for the Membership Form · 2) Print the Form on Legal Size Paper. · 3) Fill the form in BLOCK letters. · 4) ... You've visited this page 4 times. Last visit: 2/10/20

call for all human rights membership freehttps://www.humanrightscouncil.in › single_page Why has the Human Right Commission sent a notice to the Mumbai . ... We work in cities including Bengaluru, Chennai, Hyderabad, Mumbai and .

63. 040-23226946, Fax: 23241614 8688322366 98490https://tshc.gov.in › documents › jspltp_18_2021...PDF 08-Feb-2021 — TELANGANA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, FAX : 24601573. Gruhakalpa Complex, M.J.Road,Nampally, Hyderabad-01- 24601572. 1 page

Telangana | Human Rights Forumhttp://humanrightsforum.org › contact-2 › telagana Telangana · STATE COMMITTEE. Member, phone, Email, Address. Gorrepati. · Adilabad. Member, Phone, E-Mail, Address. Athram Suguna · Hyderabad. Member, Mobile, E- ...

Telangana - IHRAhttps://ihra.co.in › teamdetail RED ALERT FOR MEMBERS · DONATE & HELP · BECOME AN IHRA MEMBER ... International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights · International Human Rights Law ...

Human Rights Commission Hyderabad Address, Contact ...https://address001.com › Address-of-Human-Rights-Co... Human Rights Commission Hyderabad Address and Contact Number of Human Rights ... membership in hyerabad india; human rights commission india hyderabad ...

Telangana Committee Members - International Human Rights ...https://www.ihrcworld.org › telangana Telangana Committee Members ... Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, ... Related searches how to join in human rights commission hyderabad how to file a complaint in human rights commission hyderabad human rights commission membership human rights commission hyderabad case status state human rights commission human rights commission hyderabad telangana address human rights commission hyderabad contact number human rights commission complaint

Goa Human Rights Commissionhttps://nhrc.nic.in › statecommission › goa-human-right... 09-Jul-2021 — Panaji, Goa-403001. 1. Chairperson. Justice Utkarsh V. Bakre. 0832-2424031,2424032. 2. Member. Shri Desmond D'costa. 2424031, 2424032.

State Human Rights Commissions | National Human Rights ...https://nhrc.nic.in › about-us › state-commission State Human Rights Commissions. Select State ... Goa Human Rights Commission. Tel.No.: ... 3, Member, Shri Pramod kamat, 2424031, 2424032, 2462828. People also ask How can I get human rights membership?

Does Goa have Human Rights Commission?

What is the qualification for Human Rights Commission?

Who are the members of Human Rights Commission?

Feedback

Goa Human Rights Commission Goa | Official Websitehttps://goahumanrightscommission.goa.gov.in Kamat, former District and Additional Sessions Judge and former Law Secretary of the State of Goa, were appointed as Members of the Commission. The Police ...

Organizational chart of Goa Human Rights Commissionhttps://www.goa.gov.in › uploads › 2021/08 › Cit...PDF Organizational chart of Goa Human Rights Commission. Member. Chairperson. Member. (1). (1). (1). Secretary – (1). (Administration). (Investigation Cell).

Goa Human Rights Commission - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Goa_Human_Rights_C... Appointment of chairperson and other members of State Commission — The Goa Human Rights Commission was constituted in the month of March 2011 to perform the ...

Headless for four years, Goa human rights commission finally ...https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › ... › goa News 25-Jan-2020 — The state government has cleared the file to appoint former high court judge U V Bakre as its new chairperson, with former district judges ...

Goa human rights commission: Latest News, Videos and Photoshttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › topic › Goa-huma... 16-Oct-2021 — Explore Goa human rights commission profile at Times of India for photos, ... Man-animal conflict: SHRC member visits forest areas.

nE~l). GOA - Government Printing Presshttp://goaprintingpress.gov.in › 9394-51-SI-EOG-3PDF Constitution of a National Human Rights Commission. . 4. Appointment of Chairperso:Q. and other Members. 5. Removal of a Member of the Commission. 9 pages

Goa+human+rights+commission | India Judgments - CaseMinehttps://www.casemine.com › search › Goa+human+righ... The family of the deceased have challenged these...instructions, suggested the following course of action. They jointly suggested that a two Members panel, ...

Goa - IHRAhttps://ihra.co.in › teamdetail › val=Goa They had business logic in place catering content and engagement strategy engagement marketing program. IHRA HELPLINE · RED ALERT FOR MEMBERS. Related searches goa human rights commission act goa human rights commission case status state human rights commission protection of human rights act, 1993 national human rights commission in 1993 human rights complaint number human rights lawsuit the protection of human rights act, 1993 ppt

home department::itanagar - Government of Arunachal Pradeshhttps://www.arunachalpradesh.gov.in › 2021/02PDF 09-Feb-2021 — Requisite Qualification for appointment of Members of the Arunachal Pradesh. State Human Rights Commission: (a) One Member who is, or who has ...

Setting up of the Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights ...http://www.arunachalpradesh.gov.in › setting-up-of-the... 14-Aug-2017 — The Protection of Human Rights Act 2006 provides for creation of a State Human Rights Commission. The Commission will be mandated to enquire ...

District West Kameng, Government of Arunachal Pradesh | Indiahttps://westkameng.nic.in › notice › advertisement-for-t... Advertisement for the posts of Chairperson and Members of Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission. People also ask How many members are there in state human rights commission?

How can I join Human Rights Commission in Hyderabad?

Which government rules Arunachal Pradesh?

What is the uniqueness of Arunachal Pradesh?

Feedback

Department of Information Technology - Government of ...http://ditc.arunachal.gov.in › ... Advertisement for the posts of Chairperson and Members of Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission. 16Sep By apit.

government of arunachal pradesh ap civil secretariat block-2 ...https://cdn.s3waas.gov.in › uploads › 2019/02PDF 25-Feb-2019 — Requisite Qualification for appointment of Members of the Arunachal Pradesh State. Human Rights Commission: (a) One Member who is, or who has ... 9 pages

NHRC Open Hearing and Camp Sitting at Arunachal Pradeshhttps://nhrc.nic.in › press-release › nhrc-open-hearing-a... Justice H.L. Dattu, Chairperson, NHRC said that the 'Open Hearings and Camp Sittings' are mechanisms to monitor and review significant issues of human rights, ...

Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commissionhttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › topic › Arunachal-... Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission News: Latest and Breaking News on Arunachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission. Explore Arunachal Pradesh ...

National Human Rights Commission vs State Of Arunachal ...https://indiankanoon.org › doc Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, ... National Human Rights Commission vs State Of Arunachal Pradesh & Anr on 9 January, 1996.

List of State Women Commissionshttp://ncw.nic.in › important-links › list-state-women-co... Andhra Pradesh; Arunachal Pradesh; Assam ... Chairperson, Arunachal Pradesh State Commission for Women, ... Smt Chimo Devi Uraon, Member, -do-, Mobile:

NHRC directs Centre, Arunachal Pradesh govt to ensure basic ...https://www.aninews.in › news › national › general-news 11-Jun-2021 — New Delhi [India], June 11 (ANI): The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) has recently directed the Chief Secretary, Government of ... Related searches state human rights commission arunachal pradesh central information commission chairman nhrc members shrc full form arunachal pradesh capital arunachal pradesh in map

The Punjab State Human Rights Commission (PSHRC) of Punjab, India is a Statutory public body constituted on 17 March 1997. ... Punjab State Human Rights Commission Agency overview Agency executives Justice Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, Chairperson Avinash Kaur, Members Website Official website 10 more rows

Punjab State Human Rights Commission - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Punjab_State_Human_Ri... About featured snippets • Feedback

Punjab Human Rights Commissionhttps://nhrc.nic.in › statecommission › punjab-human-ri... 29-Sep-2021 — Member. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur. 2635410. 3. Member. Smt. Avinash Kaur. 2635405. 4. Principal Secretary to Govt. of Punjab.

sco no. 220-221, sector-34/a, chandigarh-160022 - National ...https://nhrc.nic.in › about-us › state-commission State Human Rights Commissions. Select State ... Punjab Human Rights Commission. Tel.No.: 0172-2635401 ... 2, Member, Justice Nirmaljit Kaur, 2635410. People also ask How can I get human rights membership?

What is the qualification for Human Rights Commission?

Who are the members of Human Rights Commission?

How many members are in the SHRC?

Feedback

PUNJAB STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION: PSHRChttp://www.pshrc.net HOME · ABOUT US; CHAIRPERSON & MEMBERS. MEMBERS · CHAIRPERSON · FORMER CHAIRPERSONS'S · HOLIDAY LIST · IMPORTANT CONTACTS · CONTACT US · Libra. PUNJAB STATE ... ‎Contact Us · ‎Case Search · ‎Cases Fixed for Hearing · ‎About Us

Members - PSHRC - PUNJAB STATE HUMAN RIGHTS ...http://www.pshrc.net › Home › Members Members · Worked as District President Istry Akali Dal (Urban), Hoshiarpur · Ex President, District Bar Association, Hoshiarpur · General Secretary, Legal Cell, ...

Punjab State Human Rights Commission | LinkedInhttps://in.linkedin.com › company › punjab-state-human-r... Punjab State Human Rights Commission is a consumer services company based out of SCO 20-21-22, Dakshin marg, Sector 34 A, .., Chandigarh, Chandigarh, India.

PUNJAB STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - jstorhttps://www.jstor.org › stable by SS Deol · 2010 — PSHRC to promote and protect human rights in Punjab. ... were also concerned that active and dedicated members of the. Punjab had been deliberately excluded ...

Punjab State Human Rights Commission - Times of Indiahttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › topic › Punjab-Sta... 26-Oct-2021 — Explore Punjab State Human Rights Commission profile at Times of India for photos, ... Man-animal conflict: SHRC member visits forest areas.

A Policy of Impunity in Punjab, India: I. Summary - Human ...https://www.hrw.org › reports › india1007 › 1.htm Sikh militants were responsible for serious human rights abuses including the ... family members of victims in Punjab who wish to pursue legal remedies.

state human right commission - Indian Kanoonhttps://indiankanoon.org › search › formInput=state hu... Protection of Human Rights Act by the State Human Rights Commission is only a ... this Higher Authorities and complaint to Punjab Human Right Commission an ... Related searches punjab human rights commission punjab human rights commission case status punjab human rights commission cause list chairman human rights commission punjab address punjab state human rights commission contact number punjab state human rights commission email id dgp human rights punjab who is the chairman of punjab state human rights

Himachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commissionhttps://nhrc.nic.in › statecommission › himachal-prades... 16-Sep-2021 — Dr. Ajai Bhandari, IAS(Retd.) 3. Member.

State Human Rights Commissions | National Human Rights ...https://nhrc.nic.in › about-us › state-commission Himachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission. Tel.No.: ... https://hphrc.hp.gov.in/. Address: ... 2, Member, Dr. Ajai Bhandari, IAS(Retd.).

about hpshrc - Human Rights Commission Shimlahttps://hphrc.hp.gov.in › front-about ABOUT HPSHRC · Particulars of the organisation. Himachal Pradesh Human Rights Commission , Pines Grove Building Shimla 171002 · Constitution of human rights ...

Human Rights Commission Shimlahttps://hphrc.hp.gov.in Himachal Pradesh Human Rights Commission , Pines Grove Building Shimla 171002 · In Accordance with the provisions of the section-21 of the protection of human ... People also ask How do I apply for the Human Rights Commission membership?

Who can be member of State Human Rights Commission?

Who is the chairman of Himachal Pradesh human Right Commission?

How many members are there in state human rights commission?

Feedback

STOF - High court of Andhra Pradeshhttp://hc.ap.nic.in › hpshrcPDF 06-Dec-2019 — Inviting the application for filling up of 01 (one) post of Member in. Himachal Pradesh State Human Rights Commission - Willingness from. 7 pages

Government of Himachal Pradeshhttps://himachal.nic.in › WriteReadData › Vacanc...PDF 11-Nov-2019 — The applications should be super-scribed as “Application for the Post of. Chairperson/Member of the HP State Human Rights Commission”. 2 pages

Himachal's leader of opposition questions selection of ...https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com › ... › shimla News 13-Jun-2020 — SHIMLA: Selection of chairperson and member of State Human Rights ... of democratic values and rule of law are upheld in Himachal Pradesh.

Dr Ajai Bhandari appointed as HP Human Rights Commission ...http://www.uniindia.com › north › news 27-Jun-2020 — Dr Ajai Bhandari appointed as HP Human Rights Commission member ... Shimla, Jun 27(UNI) The Government of Himachal Pradesh, in exercise of the ...

b4b757-19.pdf - District Courtshttps://districts.ecourts.gov.in › sites › default › filesPDF and willing Officers for the post of Member, in Himachal Pradesh Human Rights. Commission, to the High Court on or before 05-12-2019. - 673 032. (By Order). 5 pages

Other SHRCs - State Human Rights Commissionhttp://www.shrc.tn.gov.in › other_shrc HIMACHAL PRADESH — HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. PINES GROVE BUILDING, SHIMLA-171002 ... Member, Shri B.S. Chauhan, Tara View, Khalini, Shimla-171002. Related searches Image of National Human Rights Commission National Human Rights Commission Feedback state human rights commission hp human rights commission recruitment 2021 state human rights commission case status first information commissioner of himachal pradesh state human rights commission pdf human rights commission shimla recruitment 2020 chief information commissioner of himachal pradesh

0 notes

patriotsnet · 3 years

Text

How Many Congressional Representatives From Indiana Are Republicans

New Post has been published on https://www.patriotsnet.com/how-many-congressional-representatives-from-indiana-are-republicans/

How Many Congressional Representatives From Indiana Are Republicans

Rep Greg Murphy North Carolina

Republicans target each other in Indiana Senate primary

Murphy voted to object to the Pennsylvania count, but not to the Arizona count.

In questioning results in key swing states, Murphy was explicit when explaining his stance on whether or not those states’ results violated the Constitution. He also claimed executive officials and judges usurped the legislative power in order;to rewrite election laws from “thin air.”;;

Rep Bill Posey Florida

Posey;voted to support objections for both contested states.

There has not been a serious investigation by federal agencies into the growing body of evidence of election fraud,” Posey told USA TODAY Network paper TCPalm in a statement Monday, “and among the court cases dismissed, most were dismissed on technical grounds rather than review of evidence of fraud, thus I will object as the evidence must be examined.”

Rep Kevin Mccarthy California

McCarthy;voted to support objections for both contested states.

McCarthy, the House Minority Leader, expressed support ahead of Congress meeting;for his colleagues’ efforts.;

I think it’s right that we have the debate. I mean, you see now that senators are going to object, the House is going to object how else do we have a way to change the election problems? McCarthy said.

Also Check: How Many Republicans Are Now In The House Of Representatives

Filed Candidates By Political Party

As of September 7, 2020, there were 3,263 candidates filed with the FEC to run for U.S. House in 2020. Of those, 2,767â1,291 Democrats and 1,476 Republicansâwere from one of the two major political parties. In 2018, 3,244 candidates filed with the FEC, including 1,566 Democrats and 1,155 Republicans.

The following chart shows the number of filed candidates by political party.

Sen Marsha Blackburn Tenn

Blackburn previously announced she was joining her Senate colleagues in planning to object, but did not do so.

“I will vote in support of certifying the electoral college results,” she tweeted following the violence at the Capitol.

“I cannot in good conscience turn a blind eye to the countless allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election,” Blackburn previously posted on Twitter.;”On January 6, I will vote in favor of objecting to the certification of the electoral college results.”

Don’t Miss: How Do Republicans Really Feel About Trump

Arguments For Expanding The Number Of House Members

Advocates;for increasing the number of seats in the House say such a move would increase the quality of representation by reducing the number of constituents each lawmaker represents. Each House member now represents about 710,000 people.

The group ThirtyThousand.org argues that the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights never intended for the population of each congressional district to exceed 50,000 or 60,000. The principle of proportionally equitable representation has been abandoned, the group argues.

Another argument for increasing the size of the House is that is would diminish the influence of lobbyists. That line of reasoning assumes that lawmakers would be more closely connected to their constituents and therefore less likely to listen to special interests.

Sen John Kennedy Louisiana

Kennedy objected to Arizona’s electoral votes count, but not to Pennsylvania’s.

Kennedy previously announced he would join his 11 Republican colleagues and object to certifying Biden’s Electoral College victory.;

Accordingly, we intend to vote on January 6 to reject the electors from disputed states as not regularly given and lawfully certified , unless and until that emergency 10-day audit is completed,” a joint statement that includes Kennedy states.

Read Also: Why Do Republicans Really Want To Repeal Obamacare

What Braun’s Letter Said

Braun, in a joint statement with 10 other sitting and incoming Senate Republicans, said the 2020 presidential election “featured unprecedented allegations of voter fraud” and called for an emergency 10-day audit of the election returns in states in which President Trump had challenged results.;

Voter fraud has posed a persistent challenge in our elections, although its breadth and scope are disputed,” the statement said. “By any measure, the allegations of fraud and irregularities in the 2020 election exceed any in our lifetimes.”;

Ideally, the courts would have heard evidence and resolved these claims of serious election fraud,” the senators added. “Twice, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to do so; twice, the Court declined.”

Last month,;Attorney General William Barr said;that the Justice Department has not found evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the outcome of the vote.

In the statement, the senators acknowledged they would face pushback.

“We are not naive. We fully expect most if not all Democrats, and perhaps more than a few Republicans, to vote otherwise,” the statement said.;”But support of election integrity should not be a partisan issue.”

Former Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly criticized Braun saying he believed the senator broke with a tradition of always doing what was right upheld by predecessors such as;Republican Richard Lugar and;Democrat Birch Bayh.

Braun unseated Donnelly in 2018.;

Rep John Joyce Pennsylvania

Indiana Republicans Embrace President Donald Trump Ahead Of Primary | Morning Joe | MSNBC

Joyce voted to support objections for both contested states.

Joyce said, Unfortunately, the many unlawful actions undertaken by the Pennsylvania Governors office, the Secretary of State, and what has been described as a rogue Pennsylvania Supreme Court exceeded and circumvented the state legislatures clear constitutional authority.”

Don’t Miss: Why Is There Republicans And Democrats

Voting Members By State

Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. United States Congress. Retrieved October 31, 2020.

Washington, U. S. Capitol Room H154; p:225-7000, DC 20515-6601. Mike Rogers ), 117th Congress Profile. Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved January 14, 2021.

Washington, U. S. Capitol Room H154; p:225-7000, DC 20515-6601. David Schweikert ), 117th Congress Profile. Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved January 14, 2021.

Washington, U. S. Capitol Room H154; p:225-7000, DC 20515-6601. Doug LaMalfa ), 117th Congress Profile. Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved January 14, 2021.

Washington, U. S. Capitol Room H154; p:225-7000, DC 20515-6601. Julia Brownley ), 117th Congress Profile. Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved January 14, 2021.

History of Maryknoll. Retrieved March 13, 2016.

Rep Fred Keller Pennsylvania

Keller voted to object to Pennsylvania’s result, but not to Arizona’s result.

Keller added his name to the joint statement, and;tweeted that “PA’s Governor, Secretary of State and Supreme Court acted unlawfully to violate the state legislature’s clear, constitutional authority to set election procedure. Until these actions are addressed, I cannot support electors chosen based on an inaccurate vote count.”

He also elaborated during an interview;why he would not certify his state’s electors, insisting that the “Executive Branch in Pennsylvania violated the Constitution” and “they need to be sent a message that this is unacceptable.”

Recommended Reading: Are Any Republicans Running Against President Trump

Rep Rob Wittman Virginia

Wittman objected in Pennsylvania, but not in Arizona.

Wittman said he is in full support of the GOP effort seeking to overturn the election results.

“Like many of my constituents, I have concerns that several states failed to follow the Constitution in conducting elections and deserve scrutiny to ensure a fair and free election, Wittman wrote, concluding;a thread via Twitter.

What Is Gerrymandering And Does Indiana Do It

Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing electoral district lines to favor one political party or group over another.;

Indiana’s current state and congressional maps substantially favor Republicans, according to a recent study commissioned by activist group Women4Change and completed by;Christopher Warshaw, a political science professor at George Washington University.

Warshaw arrived at that conclusion by looking at the number of wasted votes; or the number of votes above what is needed to win in Democratic districts compared to those in Republican districts.;

During the 2012 House race immediately following redistricting, for example, the efficiency gap; or difference between wasted Republican and wasted Democratic votes;; was more extreme than 95% of other statehouse elections;throughout the country and in Indiana over the past five decades.;

Likewise, the 2014 state Senate election results, when the 2011 plan fully went into effect, had a higher efficiency gap than 96%;of other state Senate elections. A similar gap exists on the congressional side.;

Warshaw concluded the disparity wasn’t just due to Indiana’s natural geographical makeup.;

Wesco argued that the maps Indiana uses currently are more fair than those used in the early 2000s when Democrats controlled the House.

Read Also: Which 4 Republicans Voted Yes Today

Rep Mike Garcia California

Garcia;voted to support objections for both contested states.

I do believe there is enough evidence of compromised processes and breakdowns in election integrity by certain state legislatures that do in fact warrant a closer examination, Garcia said in a statement. We need a full forensic audit of several states to ensure all Americans have confidence in our elections.”;

Incumbents Defeated In Primary Elections

The following table lists incumbents defeated in 2020 House primary elections or conventions.

Incumbents defeated in primaries

See also: Incumbents defeated in 2018 congressional elections

In the 2018 midterm elections, 378 U.S. House incumbents ran for re-election. This was the lowest number of U.S. House incumbents seeking re-election since 1992.

Thirty-four incumbentsâ9 percentâlost their re-election bids. That included two Democrats and 32 Republicans. This was the highest percentage of incumbents defeated since 2012, when 10.2 percent were not re-elected.

The following data for congressional re-election rates from 2000 to 2016 was reported in Vital Statistics, a joint research project of the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute. Find the original datasets and methodology here. Data for the 2018 election came from Ballotpedia.

Defeated U.S. House incumbents by party, 2000-2018 Year

97.8

Also Check: Are There Republicans On The Impeachment Committee

Rep Jack Bergman Michigan

Bergman;voted to support objections for both contested states.

Bergman tweeted:;”Our options arent binary -Congress has an obligation to the millions of Americans who have lost faith in our election process.;@RepWalberg;and I join our Senate colleagues calling for an Emergency Electoral Commission to perform an audit of the election.”

Rep Ralph Norman South Carolina

Republicans keep control of the House and Senate

Norman;voted to support objections for both contested states.

“At the end of the day, I believe Congress has a responsibility to ensure that our federal elections are fair and transparent, Norman said in a statement.

He continued, “Because there remain valid questions as to whether several states have actually met this threshold for certification, Congress has a right and a responsibility to examine and debate the results.”

Don’t Miss: How Many Democrats Have Been President Vs Republicans

Indiana House Of Representatives

The Indiana House of Representatives is the lower chamber of the Indiana General Assembly. Alongside the Indiana State Senate, it forms the legislative branch of the Indiana state government and works alongside the governor of Indiana to create laws and establish a state budget. Legislative authority and responsibilities of the Indiana House of Representatives include passing bills on public policy matters, setting levels for state spending, raising and lowering taxes, and voting to uphold or override gubernatorial vetoes.

The Indiana House of Representatives meets in the Indiana Statehouse in Indianapolis, Indiana.

All 100 seats in the Indiana House of Representatives were up for election in 2020. The chamber’s Republican majority increased from 67-33 to 71-29.

Indiana has a Republican state government trifecta. A trifecta exists when one political party simultaneously holds the governors office and majorities in both state legislative chambers. As of September 8, 2021, there are 23 Republican trifectas, 15 Democratic trifectas, and 12 divided governments where neither party holds trifecta control.In the 2020 election, Republicans had a net gain of two trifectas and two states under divided government became trifectas. Prior to that election, Indiana had a Republican trifecta. There were 21 Republican trifectas, 15 Democratic trifectas, and 14 divided governments.

This page contains the following information on the Indiana House of Representatives.

Rep Dan Meuser Pennsylvania

Meuser;voted to object in Pennsylvania, but not Arizona.

Eight Republican congressmen from Pennsylvania, including Meuser and Joyce, signed a joint statement saying;they would;object.

The congressmen claim Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat,;did nothing to stop alleged unlawful activities regarding issues like signature requirements on mail-in ballots.

You May Like: Are There Any Republicans For Impeachment

Rep William Timmons South Carolina

Timmons;voted to support objections for both contested states.

Timmons announced his intention to object to the Electoral College certification process in an email on Saturday after soliciting input from constituents through a survey.

He;said last-minute revisions in election rules “may have enabled widespread fraud that could have altered the results of the election.”

Rep Andy Biggs Arizona

Biggs;voted to support objections for both contested states.

Biggs, who chairs the conservative House Freedom Caucus, told Fox Business the group that met with Trump discussed the process for objecting to electoral votes on Jan. 6.

“We think we’re going to actually be able to contest this, as you say, with at least one objection from the House and we’ll have dozens of objectors in the House and then at least one in the Senate, and we think we’ll have more than that,” he said.

Recommended Reading: How Many Seats Did Republicans Gain In The House

About Legislative Sessions In Indiana

The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution declares that any power not already given to the federal government is reserved to the states and the people. State governments across the country use this authority to hold legislative sessions where a state’s elected representatives meet for a period of time to draft and vote on legislation and set state policies on issues such as taxation, education, and government spending. The different types of legislation passed by a legislature may include resolutions, legislatively referred constitutional amendments, and bills that become law.

Article 4 of the Indiana Constitution establishes when the Indiana General Assembly, of which the House of Representatives is a part, is to be in session. Section 9 of Article 4 states that the General Assembly will begin its regular session on the Tuesday following the second Monday in January of each year. However, Section 9 allows the starting state for the session to be changed by law. This happened in 2010, as the General Assembly’s session convened on January 5th instead of the constitutionally designated date, which was January 12th. Section 9 also gives the governor of Indiana the power to call special sessions of the General Assembly.

What Was The Outlook Prior To The Election

Republicans needed to get to 218 seats to win back the majority they lost in 2018. The National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm of House Republicans, in early 2019 identified dozens of Democratic-held districts to target. They included;30 Democrats;who were elected or re-elected in 2018 in districts that voted for President Donald Trump in 2016. All but one Dave Loebsack of Iowa sought re-election. Most were first-term members who defeated or succeeded Republicans in the 2018 election. Republicans won some of these Trump Democrat districts but needed to unseat most to win back control of the House.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the campaign arm of House Democrats, identified more than 40 Frontline Democrats it expected to have very competitive re-election campaigns. Many of these members represented;suburban districts;that have diversified their populations in recent years. In most of these districts, Democrats were running for re-election for the first time. The Frontline Democrats amassed large campaign funds.

Democrats also identified more than three dozen Republican-held districts they intended to target, including seven in Texas.

Democrats also made a play for the suburban Texas districts of retiring Republican Reps.;Pete Olson;of the 22nd District and Kenny Marchant of the 24th District. They lost the 22nd District, but the 24th is currently too close to call, with Republican Beth Van Duyne leading.

You May Like: How Did The Democrats And Republicans Switch

Sen Bill Hagerty Tenn

Hagerty, recently sworn in, also changed course and voted to certify election results in contested states.;

He had previously announced he would be joining Blackburn and his other GOP colleagues in objecting.

On behalf of Tennesseans, we are taking a united stand against the tainted electoral results from the recent Presidential election,;said Hagerty and Blackburn in a joint statement. American democracy relies on the consent of the governed. Allegations of voter fraud, irregularities and unconstitutional actions diminish public confidence in what should be a free, fair and transparent process. Protecting the integrity of the electoral process is paramount to preserving trust and legitimacy in the final outcome.

Rep Chris Stewart Utah

Guide to the 2018 Indiana US Senate race

Stewart voted to object in Pennsylvania, but not Arizona.

Stewart, in a thread posted to Twitter, said he will not vote to certify the election results.;

“Until we have resolved the issues surrounding voting irregularities, ballot integrity and security, and the implementation of state election laws, I can not, in good conscience, uphold the oath I took to protect and defend our constitution by voting to certify the election.”

Recommended Reading: Did Any Republicans Own Slaves In 1860

About The House Of Representatives

The United States is also divided into 435 congressional districts with a population of about 750,000 each. Each district elects a representative to the House of Representatives for a two-year term.

As in the Senate, the day-to-day activities of the House are controlled by the majority party. Here is a count of representatives by party:

Rep Sam Graves Missouri

Graves;voted to support objections for both contested states.

In a joint statement, Graves joined three other Republican representatives from Missouri in stating they will object.

“This isn’t going to change the outcome of the 2020 election, but it’s about standing up for the thousands of North Missourians and millions of Americans that have legitimate concerns about the integrity of the 2020 elections and every election from here on,” Graves said in a Facebook post.;

Also Check: Who’s Winning The Democrats Or The Republicans

0 notes

massielandnetwork · 3 years

Text

Important Economic Trends During Anarchy

2021 – Let the Games Begin

12. A Christian Secession – “Double Double toil and trouble”

The Demented Marxists (DM) have the cauldron at the rolling boil stage. A few weekly highlights included Arizona calling out their National Guard because of the catastrophe occurring along their Mexican border but Biden and his merry band of DMs say everything is fine. The DM’s favorite harpy, Dr. Fauci, announced Xi “Masks forever!”. Our military is now politicized with Critical Race Theory (all whites are bad) being used to remove political conservatives, now to be treated as domestic terrorists. Biden has appointed his panel of liberals to recommend expanding the U. S. Supreme court from 9 to 13 justices. Why only 13?

If they are going to make the Supreme Court a source of mockery, perhaps they should increase it to 90. Afterall, the DMs and BLM have successfully eliminated “blind justice” and replaced it with mob rule and intimidation. An illustration of the DM’s definition of capitalism, the BLM Founders have become wealthy shaking down major corporations including sports organizations. When does the Marshall arrive to be the adult in the community and wipe out the bad guys?

With Hong Kong now fully “integrated” into China, Xi is sending large sorties of fighters and bombers into Taiwan air space. Meanwhile, Russia has amassed 80,000 troops along the Ukraine border. The explanation given is that Trump was unpredictable but Biden is known. Does that mean “owned”. Which is more important to these characters, money or power?

Shakespeare Plays. Most of my years in high school that phrase signaled something to be endured in English class. But his writings took on a new meaning when I saw my first live Shakespeare play with professional British actors in a professional theatre. I have been hooked ever since. While I am not a student of his plays, I seek them out because I enjoy them. My preference is his comedies but even his tragedies are enjoyable because Mr. Shakespeare interspersed humor in odd places in them. He knew his audience. He poked fun at everything.

This past week, if not this year, has reminded me of the famous scene in William Shakespeare’s play “Macbeth” where the witches gather around their cauldron to stir up the trouble to be endured by the characters in the play. Those witches are hyper-active today. I can hear them chortling as they chant “Double Double toil and Trouble” while stirring their boiling pot.

Talk about boiling pots, the NBA announces its number of viewers is estimated to have dropped to around one-half of the pre-BLM level. Some former NBA fans have been quoted using a different phrase “Shut up and dribble”. While quite descriptive and clear in its communication, it does not have quite the same ring as Shakespeare’s famous witches’ quote.

Another popular phrase heard in the discussion about the NBA is “Go Woke and Go Broke”. Apparently, the NBA Commissioner is concerned because he said this week that the BLM phase was about over. Do you think he meant his players would shut up and dribble or was he commenting on the fact that the three self-described Marxist BLM founders have become multimillionaires? Woke folks are hard to understand.

In contrast with “Wokeness”, a group of artists in Cuba have created and performed a song that has become amazingly popular. It is called “Patria y Vida” (“Homeland and Life”) and lauds freedom while celebrating George Washington. Can we send the BLM folks to Cuba?

Meanwhile, Portland continues to be a war zone. The police are the equivalent of unarmed rangers and the downtown area is, well, destroyed. Beyond heartbreaking, one church had been feeding 1,000 homeless folks but has been forced to stop because they are spending their money on repeatedly repairing their building from the riots. Is this still America? When do the adults show up and re-establish sanity? No wonder there is a movement in Oregon to merge most of that state with Idaho. The Idaho legislature has voted to consider it. A sign?

1. Keep watching the activity about the fraudulent election last November.

a. The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that the Michigan Secretary of State exceeded her authority when she approved a variety of changes to the state’s election laws. Was the “certified” election in Michigan a fraud? YES.

b. The Arizona legislature authorized recount of 2.1 Million votes in Maricopa County, Arizona is about to start.

c. Wisconsin’s legislature voted to investigate the 2020 election. All the DM’s voted against it. Odd behavior for anyone convinced the election was honest.

d. The Georgia Secretary of State is blocking the review of the Fulton County (Atlanta) Georgia actual ballots by the auditors. Odd behavior if there is nothing to hide.

e. Lawsuits have been filed and counter filed by Mike Lindell, Sidney Powell, and Dominion (the voting machine company). Stay tuned, much more to come.

100 days into the DMs’ coup (am I the only one that feels like it has been 100 years), here are some quick observations of events that will impact our economy:

1. This week it was reported that the rate of inflation in March was 1%. That is an annual rate of 12%. Talking heads reading their teleprompters reassured the public that the rate of inflation was going to calm down as we move through the year. After all, the DM’s are in control using economic techniques refined in Venezuela. What could go wrong?

2. Biden and his fellow DM’s continued to push their twin infrastructure bills. The DM’s have us on a path of massive spending to make the national debt “manageable” via devaluation of the Dollar which the consumer experiences as inflation (rising prices). In contrast the Trump Administration had the USA on a path of rapid economic growth which would thus enable the payment of our national debt. The contrast in pain is enormous. Churchill once said that “Believing you can tax and spend to create prosperity is the equivalent of standing in a bucket and trying to raise it by its handle.”

3. In a truly capitalistic economy, the brake on this run-away train would be applied by the 10-year Treasury. While it continues to fluctuate 1.50% to 1.70%, I do wonder what the rate would be if The Fed was not distorting the financial market via Quantitative Easing (QE) - The Fed buying our government debt. Even in the face of QE forecasts from various sources estimate that by the end of 2021 the 10-year Treasury will be 2.5% to 3.0% and mortgage rates will increase to 4.0% to 4.5%. That is a low mortgage rate but a huge increase over the lowest rate last fall.

4. This week NAR released a study on the land market in 2020 which highlighted that the land and the residential markets were the two real estate segments that did well in 2020. The others suffered significant losses. The residential market experienced significant increases in prices. The NAR report indicated that land prices were more stable but they did not dissect the land market into its different segments. Our database indicates the segments experiences varied greatly.

In the land market, I am hearing the same conversations I have heard just before each of the last four recessions. Environmental regulations have gotten worse and approval times are lengthening.

Remember, higher interest rates mean lower real estate prices. We are in the peak of this real estate cycle. Every previous time I have witnessed bubbles burst, shortage become surplus seemingly overnight. Unsustainable things continue until that unpredictable moment when they stop. In a financial crisis “Cash is King”. Get prepared.

A great piece of land remains The Best investment long term unless the DMs get us to full-fledged Marxism. Capitalism builds wealth, Marxism/Socialism consumes it in self destruction. Pray for a return to honest elections in the USA. God is in control. Men make plans, but God ALWAYS wins as Paul describes in a letter written while he was imprisoned in Rome.

“I want you to know, beloved, that what happened to me has actually helped to spread the gospel, so that it has become known throughout the whole imperial guard and to everyone else that my imprisonment is for Christ; and most of the brothers and sisters, having been made confident, dare to speak the word with greater boldness and without fear.”

(Philippians 1:12-14) New Revised Standard Version, Oxford University Press)

Stay healthy,

Ned

April 22, 2021

0 notes