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…)

For more than a year the House Judiciary Committee (HJC) led by Chairman Jerry Nadler has been seeking: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and  (3) Trump financial/tax records.  Each of these issues have slowly worked their way to the Supreme Court.

Today, in the first step to take up the grand jury issue, the Supreme Court has placed a stay on a divided lower court ruling to grant the HJC access to Mueller’s grand jury material:

While the stay is only temporary, pending the DOJ requesting a writ of certiorari for the Supreme Court to take up the 6(e) grand jury issue, it is very likely the DOJ will make the request; and also likely the Supreme Court will take up the case.

(more…)

Supreme Court – “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent non-surgical treatment for acute cholecystitis, a benign gallbladder condition, this afternoon at The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. Following oral arguments on Monday, the Justice underwent outpatient tests at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C., that confirmed she was suffering from a gallstone that had migrated to her cystic duct, blocking it and causing an infection.”

“The Justice is resting comfortably and plans to participate in the oral argument teleconference tomorrow morning remotely from the hospital. She expects to stay in the hospital for a day or two. Updates will be provided as they become available.” (link)

The resistance appears to be coming together.  In a stunning and historic change of protocol the United States Supreme Court will hold teleconference hearings and will actually live-stream broadcast the oral arguments and questions. Two elements are remarkable.

First, that the Supreme Court would permit a livestream broadcast of any hearing is historic. The purposeful controls of the Court, never allowing video, cameras or live audio broadcasting for their hearings, was always justified around the court never wanting to allow politics and media to shape the serious legal issues being debated.

Secondly, and perhaps not coincidentally, during this live-stream session, the Supreme Court is going to be hearing legal arguments after they consolidated a series of cases targeting the financial and business records of President Donald Trump.  The various lawsuits against President Trump are not only going to be heard, they are going to be broadcast.   It doesn’t get much more political than that.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Monday it will hold arguments by teleconference in May in key cases, including President Donald Trump’s bid to shield his tax and other financial records.

The court will make live audio of the arguments available for the first time. It had previously postponed courtroom arguments for March and April because of the coronavirus.

(more…)

New York Mayor Bill deBlasio is officially attempting to establish himself as the United States first totalitarian dictator by announcing a revocation of all New York City citizen rights under the first amendment.   A stunning move.

“[Government] shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In a stunning announcement Mayor deBlasio threatens that all religious services will be forcibly closed by city authorities “permanently” if they do not comply with the established dictates of city government. WATCH:

.

Let us be clear, the government can request, suggest and recommend that faith-based assemblies suspend their services; and in many cases those churches and religious groups may indeed choose to suspend their services. However, under no circumstance, including: war, famine or virus pandemics that could leave only a hand-full of people alive, can the government force the suspension; or punish those who refuse to comply.

Religious worship, including the assembly therein, is enshrined within the first amendment as it carries the first and ultimate essential service. There is absolutely no situation where that right can be removed.

(more…)

Earlier today Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer threatened supreme court justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch today during a rally in support of abortion.

“I want to tell you Gorsuch, I want to tell you Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price.” “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

The leading democrat Senator Schumer accused the supreme court justices of taking away peoples’ “fundamental rights” to kill babies, as the Supreme Court is currently hearing a case about a Louisiana law that regulates abortion providers.
Alarmed by the radical threats against the court, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts released the following statement:
(more…)

It should not be a 5-4 split and majority decision, but that just goes to reflect how radical and structurally political the Supreme Court has become.  In an important ruling today the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that illegal aliens can be prosecuted by the states for stealing the identity of U.S. persons on employment eligibility paperwork.  [Direct pdf link]

Stunningly four justices (BREYER, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN) dissented from the majority decision; and instead gave their minority opinion that federally mandated I-9 employment eligibility certifications should not be permitted for use as evidence in cases surrounding identity theft.
According to the dissenting opinion, if your identity or social security number was stolen by an illegal alien; and used to falsify employment eligibility documents; that illegal action is not itself criminal conduct because the documents are not permissible as evidence to show the alien falsified information. An absolutely bizarre position in a nation of laws.
The primary issue surrounds federal laws that state employment affidavits, like an I-9 eligibility declaration, cannot be used to prosecute illegal aliens, unlawfully residing in the U.S.  However, it is simultaneously unlawful under federal law to provide false information on those employment eligibility documents.
(more…)

Lou Dobbs reminds everyone tonight about a rapidly approaching FISA reauthorization deadline coming quickly on March 15th without any public input, public hearings, information about current DOJ/FBI corrective measures, or sunlight on the issues.
Appearing tonight with Mr. Dobbs is House Judiciary Committee ranking member Doug Collins who has been trying to draw attention to an upcoming reauthorization and the refusal of House democrats to hold hearings on the need for reform in the wake of yet another IG report hightlighting abuses of the current system.

.
As outlined by Lou Dobbs, in November of 2019 buried deep in the congressional budget Continuing Resolution (CR) was a short-term extension to reauthorize the FISA “business records provision”, the “roving wiretap” provision, the “lone wolf” provision, and the more controversial bulk metadata provisions [Call Detail Records (CDR)], all parts of the Patriot Act.  As a result of the FISA CR inclusion the terminal deadline was pushed to March 15, 2020:
(more…)

While presiding over the Senate impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald Trump, apparently Chief Justice John Roberts will not allow questions that are targeted to the origination of the House impeachment plot.  WATCH:

.
Senator Rand Paul’s question was:

“Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together; and are you aware -and how do you respond to- reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings?“

(more…)

Today the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to continue enforcement of the “public charge” rule on immigration. The SCOTUS decision allows the government to enforce a provision of federal immigration law banning non-citizens from receiving a green card if the government believes the applicant is likely to become a “public charge” – or reliant on government assistance.

The ruling blocks a nation-wide injunction put into place by a single activist judge.

WASHINGTON – […] The Monday order followed a 5-4 split vote that divided the court’s conservatives and liberals.

At issue is the administration’s rule issued in August that would restrict immigrants entering the United States if the government believes they will rely on public assistance, such as housing or health care benefits. Lower federal courts had blocked the policy from being implemented while the issue is being litigated.

(more…)