Apparently stall tactics are all the rage amid a political judiciary that is collapsing from a quickly metastasizing cancer inside the third branch of government.

Today the Supreme court blocked in part, and punted in part, on three cases related to the resistance effort to gain the private financial records of President Trump.  The bottom line is that none of the decisions today will likely be resolved before the November election.

♦ In the Trump -v- Vance case, a subpoena by a Manhattan district attorney, the justices (by a vote of 7-2) rejected the president’s claim that he is immune from state grand jury proceedings while he is in office. However, the decision in that case does not mean  financial records the grand jury seeks will be turned over.  As Amy Howe notes: “the court sent the case back to the trial court and agreed that the president could still argue that complying with this subpoena would interfere with his ability to do his job.”

This was the case outcome that likely frustrated President Trump the most because it forces him to continue fighting, and spending, against Lawfare resistance activists in state courts as accusations are brought by politically motivated state prosecutors.

♦ In the Trump -v- Mazars case, which is a combination of two rolled-up cases combining different legislative efforts (congressional subpoenas) to gain Trump’s financial records, the justices (again 7-2) sent the combined cases back to lower courts after highlighting that legislative subpoenas must be made for a “valid legislative purpose” not for law enforcement.  This aspect is based on the clear separation of powers in the constitution.

(more…)

Judge Emmet Sullivan is refusing to accept the three-judge appeals court ruling – which granted a writ of mandamus and instructed Sullivan to dismiss the Flynn case per the DOJ and Flynn defense unopposed motion. Today Judge Sullivan is asking the Full DC Circuit Court panel to conduct an en banc rehearing of the issues. [pdf here]

There is no guarantee the full DC Circuit will agree to the en banc request. However, given the nature of the court, it should be anticipated. What really appears to be the undiscussed background is an effort to keep dragging this issue out as long as possible. This is beyond judicial activism running amok, we have now entered the realm of judicial weaponization.

The Lawfare resistance was strongly advocating for this judicial approach. However, what we can infer from the need for Sullivan to trigger the en banc request is that no individual circuit court judge was going to do it independently (sua sponte) which was an option.

It appears Sullivan waited to see if one of them would; then, after a period of time where he identified no circuit judge would independently put himself/herself into the spotlight, Sullivan makes the en banc request himself.  The panel will likely accept the request.

Sullivan’s en banc petition essentially says his requests to have an outside amicus brief the court -on all the reasons not to accept the unopposed motion to dismiss- as commonplace; and he decries the DC appeals court mandamus decision as “a dramatic break from precedent that threatens the orderly administration of justice.”  [I think he’s stalling.]

Here’s the full filing outlining the position of Judge Sullivan:

(more…)

Michael Flynn’s lead defense counsel Sidney Powell sits down for a lengthy discussion with Epoch Times’ host Jan Jekielek.

In the court case against Lt. General Michael Flynn, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has ordered Judge Emmet Sullivan to grant the DOJ’s request to dismiss. But what will happen next?

In the eyes of General Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell, what are the implications of Judge Sullivan keeping the case open? Is there more exculpatory evidence to come in the Flynn case? And, what are some possible steps to take to strengthen the U.S. Department of Justice as an institution?

(more…)

This is a great example why law-abiding citizens need to be very involved in local elections.  The husband and wife who defended themselves and protected their property from looters/protestors are now being threatened by a Soros funded STL Circuit Attorney.

Ms. Kimberly M Gardner is an activist within the legal profession who has an expressed purpose to destroy property rights, advance the cause of a socialist society, and collapse the legal system that allows citizens to protect themselves from the rampaging mob.

ST. Louis Dispatch […] The McCloskeys had been at home and heard a loud commotion coming from the street; they went to investigate and saw “a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Street’ signs,” police said.

“The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims,” police said. “When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.”

(more…)

Chicago has been under Democrat political control for two generations.  The murder rate amid black communities is horrific.  No-one has done anything to stop the crime and violence and it continues to escalate.

Yesterday President Trump wrote a letter to Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot offering assistance from his administration:

continued..

(more…)

The Big Con.

What Senator Josh Hawley called the fraud of “the conservative bargain” is taking on an entirely new light thanks to the work of The National Pulse in what should be a game-changing expose’ on just who is funding, or should we say ‘controlling’, key aspects of expressed U.S. conservatism.

President Trump, in a tenuous alignment with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, has previously said the list of judicial nominees presented, considered, nominated and confirmed, were assembled and vetted by two specific groups: The Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation; both of whom claim to hold conservative outlooks.

As a result, it’s a little more than concerning to discover that both organizations are being funded by the ultra-left wing Google ideology.   Yes, the same Big Tech outlet currently working on an advanced directive to block, control, censor and eliminate conservative speech on-line, is financing the organizations who claim to support conservative speech.

That revelation should get some attention…. but it won’t… because the same conservative pundits who are in place to get the attention of conservative Americans, and ultimately control what outrages should garner the attention of conservative thinkers, are financial benefactors of the same organizations under the control of their left-wing financing.

Think about that carefully.

Let that sink in.

Things starting to make sense now?

(more…)

A supreme court ruling today has blocked the termination of a court-admitted unconstitutional executive action known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals).  The background of the DACA controversy, and the prior position of the court on the sister program DAPA, makes this ruling the most political ruling yet by Chief Justice John Roberts.  [pdf link to ruling here]

The court decision was a 5-4 ruling.  Justice Roberts sided with the four liberal justices in blocking the termination of the executive program.  What makes this ruling outrageous is within the majority opinion of the court they recognize the Trump administration has the legal and constitutional authority to terminate the program; but the court, specifically John Roberts, doesn’t like the way in which the administration might do it.

The crux of Justice Roberts’ opinion is openly political.  The majority admit there is no constitutional protection for DACA recipients, and the Trump administration has the authority to dissolve and reverse the protections under the previous executive action; however, Roberts specifically cites his concern with deportation.

(more…)

U.S. Senator Josh Hawley delivered a speech on the floor of the senate that deserves some attention.  The larger issue outlined by Senator Halwey surrounds the recent Supreme Court Bowstock decision authored by Justice Gorsuch.  However, in overlaying the judicial outcome, Hawley hits on the central issue he calls the “conservative bargain.”

The entire speech is worth listening to, as the senator encapsulates many of the frustrations within the recent decision; but the segment at 07:15 cuts to the heart of the distinction between MAGA-Trump republicanism and the pathetic GOPe wing of the Mitch McConnell UniParty. We have previously called this “The Decepticon”  WATCH:

(more…)

There is considerable conversation, on all sides of the issue, surrounding a 6-3 supreme court decision today recognizing “gay” and/or “transgender” persons as being protected by the 1964 civil rights act under the definition of “sex”.  Factually, the decision authored by Judge Gorsuch writes those terms into the legislative definition; that’s a problem.

However, that said, for all practical purposes and intents, sexual orientation has been a protected employment category -as viewed by the Dept. of Labor and EEOC- since the mid-90’s. So some of the over-the-top exclamations, in both directions, are moot amid the world of practical application.

As to the issue of SCOTUS usurping the legislative responsibility for the practical wording of law, yes, this ruling is an issue, and Judge Alito is absolutely correct in all corners of his dissent.  Justice Gorsuch has opened a can of worms for downstream consequences unrelated to employment eligibility; and a myriad of potential future cases based on gender orientation are likely to flow to the court; so the big picture is problematic.

All arguments surrounding the issue of SCOTUS writing legislation through the delivery of opinion are merited and worthy.  However, on the specific application of ‘gender’ to employment eligibility, today’s ruling was already in place.  Amy Howe has a good encapsulation at SCOTUS Blog:

“Today the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, ruled that even if Congress may not have had discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status in mind when it enacted the landmark law over a half century ago, Title VII’s ban on discrimination protects gay, lesbian and transgender employees. Because fewer than half of the 50 states currently ban employment discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation, today’s decision is a major victory for LGBT employees.”

(more…)

DOJ Spokesperson Kerri Kupec is interviewed by Liz MacDonald to discuss today’s DC Circuit Court hearing in the Flynn case.  As Ms. Kupec notes there are several irregularities in the case stemming first-and-foremost from a decision by Judge Emett Sullivan refusing to accept an unopposed motion by both the DOJ and Flynn defense to drop the case.

(more…)