Tag: SCOTUS

Bredesen Evasive About His Prospective Role in Contentious Supreme Court Confirmation Process for President Trump’s Nominee

Tennessee Star Staff
Phil Bredesen

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement on Wednesday has prompted an immediate confirmation battle heading into the Fall mid-terms and is already having an impact on Tennessee’s Senate race. Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN-07), who is running to succeed Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), issued a statement shortly after Kennedy made his plans known and indicated her intent to support President Donald Trump’s nominee. Blackburn called the confirmation of Supreme Court justices “one of the Senate’s most important responsibilities. As Tennessee’s next Senator, I will vote to confirm constitutional justices, who will follow the rule of law and do not legislate from the bench. It’s absolutely critical to confirm justices who understand the importance of upholding the Constitution, including the right to life.” Former Democrat Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen, was more equivocal about his approach to the Supreme Court vacancy, saying a candidate’s character and qualifications are more important than party lines. “I just think we have such a partisan mess in Washington right now,” Bredesen said. “This is a real chance to start unwinding that in something that is very visible and important to the country.” Bredesen also issued a statement on Twitter on Wednesday, just hours after Kennedy announced his retirement.…

Read the full story

Justice Kennedy Retirement Raises the Stakes for Senate Mid-Term Elections

Admin
Marsha Blackburn, Anthony Kennedy, Phil Bredesen

The announcement that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy is retiring, which will prompt a confirmation battle heading into the Fall mid-term election cycle, is already raising the stakes in contested U.S. Senate races across the country. Democrats are defending Senate seats in ten states that President Donald Trump carried in 2016, including five that he won by double digits. The confirmation of a replacement for the 82 year old Justice will certainly have an impact on Tennessee’s Senate race. Trump has already indicated that his appointment of a replacement for Kennedy will come from the list of conservatives that he named during his election campaign, along with five others he added last Fall.  And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says a vote for the confirmation of a new Justice will come this Fall. Liberal activists are already melting down over the announced retirement, though it was widely anticipated.  In fact, a Democratic National Committee rules committee was on a conference call when the announcement came and the anguished reactions were audible. Conservative Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is among those thought to be on Trump’s short list, and was among those on the initial list of 25 conservatives that Trump plans…

Read the full story

Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement

Admin
SCOTUS Kennedy

by Kevin Daley   Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement Wednesday, precipitating a generational political fight over the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. Kennedy’s departure was announced Wednesday morning, after the justices released the final decisions of its current term. Few justices loom as large as Anthony Kennedy in the history of the high court. As the bench became an object of political competition and the tribunal itself began to reflect the country’s ideological entrenchment, Kennedy led narrow majorities to landmark decisions on gay rights, abortion, the First Amendment, and Guantanamo Bay detainees. Dignity and civility occupied the center of his jurisprudence, values he saw emanating from the deepest recesses of the Constitution which provide a single unity to its divergent threads. The justice revived these principles in Tuesday’s travel ban case, where he tacitly admonished the Trump administration in a short concurring opinion many saw as a valedictory message. “It is an urgent necessity that officials adhere to these constitutional guarantees and mandates in all their actions, even in the sphere of foreign affairs,” he wrote. “An anxious world must know that our government remains committed always to the liberties the Constitution seeks to preserve and protect, so…

Read the full story

Professional Educators of Tennessee: SCOTUS Janus Decision a Victory for Workers’ First Amendment Rights

Admin
Mark Janus

The U.S. Supreme Court announced a 5-4 decision on Wednesday in Janus v. American Federation of State, Country, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, that reaffirms the First Amendment, especially people’s freedom of association. The ruling today eliminates compulsory unionism, which requires individuals to join a union as a condition of employment.  It will influence the cycle where government unions collect compulsory fees from government workers and then use it to help elect pro-union politicians to achieve and maintain political power — who then empower and enrich the government employee unions. “No American worker should be forced to become or remain a union member,” JC Bowman, executive director of Professional Educators of Tennessee, told The Tennessee Star after the decision was announced. Bowman added: People should be free to join, or not join any organization or union they want, without losing their job or be forced to pay for political agendas with which they disagree based on political or ideological purposes.  The Janus Decision will not create drastic structural changes to unions.  It will simply make them more accountable to their own members.  And in the case of teacher unions, this greater accountability should focus on making the quality of education…

Read the full story

California Can’t Make Pregnancy Centers Advertise Abortion, Supreme Court Rules

Admin

by Rachel del Guidice   The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling Tuesday, struck down a California law mandating that pro-life pregnancy centers advertise where clients may get an abortion. The decision, supporters said, confirmed that government can’t compel citizens to promote messages they don’t agree with. “No one should be forced by the government to express a message that violates their convictions, especially on deeply divisive subjects such as abortion,” Michael Farris, who argued the case at the Supreme Court, said in a formal statement following the decision. “In this case, the government used its power to force pro-life pregnancy centers to provide free advertising for abortion,” said Farris, who is president, CEO, and general counsel of the Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom. “The Supreme Court said that the government can’t do that, and that it must respect pro-life beliefs.” [ The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values. The good news is there is a solution. Find out more ] In the majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the state law “unduly burdens protected speech,” and in a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the government can’t compel citizens to promote a message they don’t agree with.…

Read the full story

Supreme Court Upholds Trump’s Travel Ban

Admin
Donald Trump

by Masood Farivar   The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday narrowly upheld the Trump administration’s travel restrictions on citizens of five Muslim-majority countries, handing President Donald Trump a victory in enforcing one of his most controversial policies. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the president has the authority under U.S. immigration laws to limit travel from foreign countries on national security grounds, as the Trump administration has argued. The president “has lawfully exercised the broad discretion granted to him under (Immigration and Nationality Act) to suspend the entry of aliens into the United States,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, delivering the majority opinion. The president has “undoubtedly fulfilled” the requirement under the law that the entry of the targeted aliens “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” Roberts wrote. Roberts wrote that the plaintiffs in the case — the state of Hawaii, the Muslim Association of Hawaii and three residents of the state — failed to demonstrate that the travel order “violates” the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars favoring one religion over another. The court’s four liberal justices dissented. Under the so-called “travel ban,” issued in September after two earlier orders were…

Read the full story

Marsha Blackburn Hails SCOTUS Decision Declaring Trump Travel Ban Constitutional, While Leftist Supported Phil Bredesen Appears to Duck Issue

John Bryant

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN-07), the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat held by retiring Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), was quick to weigh in on today’s Supreme Court ruling in favor of President Trump’s travel ban on residents of foreign countries that fail to meet security screening standards challenged in court by Hawaii. #SCOTUS decision is a victory against the Left’s open borders agenda and liberal activist judges. We must be able to vet individuals coming into our country so we can keep Tennesseans and America safe! https://t.co/QlzGmc8LEr — Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) June 26, 2018 As usual, via his social media feed, Democrat Phil Bredesen is doing his best to duck the issue, one critical to many Trump-supporting Tennesseans by saying nothing at all. Were he to do that, he would risk the ire of Progressive Democrats now openly supporting his campaign against Blackburn. One far left activist, former Barack Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau, called out to his fellow travelers in Tennessee to “stop Trump from packing SCOTUS with more Trumpists is to win the Senate,” with candidates like the Democratic candidate, former Nashville Mayor Phil Bredesen, in a tweet this morning: https://twitter.com/jonfavs/status/1011619505187852288 More on today’s ruling here: In…

Read the full story

Supreme Court Lifts Ruling on Christian Florist Barronelle Stutzman, Who Refused to Decorate Same-Sex Wedding for Long-time Customers

Admin
Barronelle Stutzman

Reuters   After siding with a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sent back to lower courts a similar dispute over a florist who declined to create flower arrangements for a same-sex wedding based on her Christian beliefs. The justices threw out a 2017 ruling by Washington state’s Supreme Court that Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers in the city of Richland, about 200 miles (320 km) southeast of Seattle, had violated the state’s anti-discrimination law and a consumer protection measure. The court ordered the top Washington state court to revisit the case in light of its ruling on June 4 in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who similarly cited his Christian beliefs in refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Stutzman in 2013 refused to provide the arrangements to Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, who were getting married after the state legalized same-sex marriage the prior year. She was hit with a $1,000 fine and directed to make floral arrangements for same-sex weddings if she does so for opposite-sex weddings. In the baker case, the court ruled that a Colorado state commission had…

Read the full story

Commentary: Janus Decision Likely to Be Good for Government Workers

Admin
Mark Janus

By Richard McCarty   For over a decade, Mark Janus has had to pay fees to a union to keep his job as a child support specialist at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. Believing that he should not be forced to pay these fees to a union whose views he opposes, Janus filed a lawsuit against the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Council 31. In February, the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, and the Court could issue its ruling any day now. The Janus decision is likely to upend the status quo in much of the country where public unions have been able to coast along forcing workers to pay agency fees without having to sell workers on the benefits of union membership. What are agency fees? Agency fees are fees that non-union members are required to pay to unions to keep their jobs in some states. Agency fees are set by the union, and the cost of agency fees is typically between 80 percent and 90 percent of the cost of union dues. The purported reason for these agency fees is to prevent workers from benefitting from unions without contributing to them. Of…

Read the full story

Oregon Forced Us to Close Our Cake Shop – Here’s What the ‘Masterpiece Decision’ Means for Us

Admin
Aaron and Melissa Klein

by Aaron and Melissa Klein   We are thrilled for our friend, Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop who recently won his case at the Supreme Court. Like Jack, we know what it is like to be treated unfairly by a state agency and mocked, threatened, and abused by critics. We can only imagine the relief Jack is experiencing. At the same time, we wonder what the future holds for our case, our lost business, and our family. Ours may be, as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, the case that allows “further elaboration in the courts.” And we are encouraged to know that seven justices of the Supreme Court agree that a state’s hostility to the religious beliefs of its citizens will not be tolerated under the First Amendment. In one sense, Jack’s case is very similar to ours. We too declined to create a custom cake that would have required us to express a message our faith teaches against. And, like Jack, we faced a commissioner—Brad Avakian, commissioner of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry at the time—who was hostile to our religion and biased in his consideration of our case. [ The liberal Left continue to push their radical agenda against American values.…

Read the full story

Once Again, Obamacare’s Constitutionality Comes Into Question

Admin
Obamacare

by Paul Larkin   Readers might recall that, in 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, colloquially known as Obamacare, by a 5-4 vote in a case captioned NFIB v. Sebelius. Last year, Congress revised Obamacare. In the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Congress eliminated the penalty imposed on people who do not purchase health insurance by reducing the penalty to $0 effective January 2019. What makes that 2017 law interesting for present purposes is this: Chief Justice Roberts wrote the controlling opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius; he concluded that the Obamacare penalty can be characterized as a “tax”; and he decided that, so viewed, Obamacare was a constitutional exercise of Congress’s power to raise taxes. Enter Texas. In February of this year, Texas and several other states filed a lawsuit alleging that, by reducing the Obamacare tax to zero, Congress eliminated the only basis on which the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of Obamacare. A sine qua non of a tax is that it generates revenue, Texas argued, and beginning in January 2019 Obamacare will no longer do so. Accordingly, concluded Texas, starting next…

Read the full story

Supremes Poised For Blockbuster Finish As Current Term Nears Conclusion

Admin
Supreme Court Justices

by Kevin Daley   As the U.S. Supreme Court approaches the conclusion of its 2017 – 2018 term, the justices are expected to release a deluge of decisions in the coming weeks, including marquee opinions addressing mandatory union dues, partisan gerrymandering, and President Donald Trump’s travel ban. As of this writing, there are 25 decisions outstanding. Among the remaining cases is one of the first argued this term, a partisan gerrymandering dispute arising from Wisconsin called Gill v. Whitford. It’s Maryland counterpart, Benisek v. Lamone, is also pending. Both cases ask the justices to declare politically-motivated line-drawing during the 10-year redistricting process unconstitutional. Gill involves a challenge to the entirety of Wisconsin’s state legislative district map, arguing it violates the Constitution’s First Amendment and its equal protection guarantees. The Benisek plaintiffs are challenging the boundaries of a single congressional district and make a slightly different First Amendment argument. The justices heard the Gill case in October and Benisek in March. During the Benisek argument, Justice Stephen Breyer suggested the Court package three pending partisan gerrymandering cases together and set them for re-argument next term. The request has lead some observers to speculate that the tribunal is deeply divided as to the resolution…

Read the full story

The Supreme Court Rules 7-2 for Baker Jack Phillips in Gay Wedding Cake Lawsuit

Admin
Jack Phillips

In a closely watched decision Monday, the Supreme Court found the Colorado owner and master baker of Masterpiece Cakeshop was within his rights when he refused to make a custom wedding for a same-sex wedding, saying that to do otherwise was against his moral and religious convictions. (Full decision embedded below.) Jack Phillips, a Christian, was sued by David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a gay couple, when Phillips said he would not participate in their wedding by designing a custom cake (although he would sell them any non-custom item they wished). The Daily Caller News Foundation reported: After a short discussion with the prospective patrons, Phillips said he would not sell them a custom wedding cake due to his deeply-held religious beliefs. Mullins and Craig filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, prompting a lengthy legal battle culminating in an appeal to the high court. Kennedy explained that the Colorado law can validly protect LGBT patrons, must found the state agency applied the law in a manner hostile towards Phillips’ evangelical beliefs. “That consideration was compromised, however, by the commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection,”…

Read the full story

Supreme Silence In Longrunning Immigrant Abortion Controversy May be Coming to an End

Admin

by Kevin Daley   After six months, the U.S. Supreme Court has not acted on a Justice Department request to vacate a lower court order requiring President Donald Trump’s administration to facilitate an abortion for an illegal alien and punish ACLU lawyers for allegedly unethical behavior. The Court’s protracted silence in the matter is somewhat unusual, suggesting the justices are divided as to how the case should proceed. The case, Azar v. Garza, was occasioned in October 2017, when an undocumented teen in federal custody, known in court papers only as Jane Doe, learned she was pregnant and asked authorities to terminate her pregnancy. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services refused, claiming it had no obligation to facilitate abortions for minors in their care. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded the government’s actions imposed an undue burden on abortion access, in violation to the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. ACLU lawyers immediately moved to schedule an abortion, which occurred on Oct. 25, before the administration could appeal to the Supreme Court. In a remarkable filing to the justices, the Justice Department claimed ACLU lawyers deliberately misled them as to the timing…

Read the full story

Spurious Lawsuit by Infamous ‘Patent Troll’ Against Adam Corolla Defeated in Court with Help from Digital Rights Group, Electronic Frontier Foundation

Admin

by Kyle Perisic   The Supreme Court dismissed a case on Monday involving an infamous patent troll that claimed to own podcasting and previously sued libertarian comedian Adam Carolla. Instead of producing its own goods or services, a patent troll profits off suing or threatening to sue companies or individuals for violating a usually broad and wide-reaching patent it owns. Personal Audio LLC defeated Apple in a 2011 lawsuit, according to its website. Apple had violated U.S. Patent 6,199,076, which was a patent for an “audio program player including a dynamic program selection controller,” the lawsuit found. Personal Audio LLC also owns U.S. Patent 8,112,504. That patent is a “system for disseminating media content representing episodes in a serialized sequence.” The abstract claims it is “an audio program and message distribution system in which a host system organizes and transmits program segments to client subscriber locations.” Patent troll Personal Audio LLC began suing companies, such as CNN and Samsung, for violating its patent in 2013. It was successful in its lawsuit against Adam Carolla’s podcast producers, Lotzi Digital, Inc. [ RELATED: Digital Rights Coalition Slams Facebook, Google’s ‘Secret Algorithms’ ] Rather than pony-up coercion money, Carolla raised $500,000 to fight back. The case ceased in 2014 when…

Read the full story

Steve Gill Analysis: Does Justice Kennedy Control the Post Midterm Balance of Political Power in the US Senate?

Steve Gill
Kennedy

In early March Nevada Senator Dean Heller reignited speculation about the long-rumored retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, a somewhat conservative but often swing-vote on critical legal issues. The 81 year old Justice who will turn 82 in July is the second oldest serving on the Court, behind Ruth Bader Ginsberg who is 85, and was appointed by President Ronald Reagan after Judge Robert Bork fell short of confirmation. Kennedy is the longest serving Justice on the current court. Justice Robert Gorsuch, appointed last year by President Donald Trump, once served as a law clerk for Kennedy.  While there had been some speculation prior to the appointment of Gorsuch that Kennedy might soon retire, once he was named to the Court most observers correctly assessed that Kennedy would spend at least one term on the Court with his former law clerk. But despite their history and the obvious fondness that Kennedy has for Gorsuch, they have not been completely aligned in their rulings. In divided cases, Kennedy and Gorsuch were on the same side of issues in their first term together 38% of the time; by comparison Gorsuch sided with Justice Clarence Thomas 100% of the time. As the…

Read the full story

Three Cases to Watch as the Supreme Court Begins to Wrap This Term

Admin

by Sarah Williams   This week marks the start of the Supreme Court’s final oral argument sessions of the current term. The justices will hear arguments in several important cases, including challenges to the constitutionality of administrative law judges, state sales taxes for out-of-state online retailers, and the infamous Trump “travel ban,” making this month one to watch. South Dakota v. Wayfair Can states require online retailers to collect sales taxes even if they do not maintain a physical presence in those states? That is the question before the court April 17 (fittingly, Tax Day). The court will consider whether it should overturn Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, a 1992 ruling that forbade states from requiring mail-order retailers to collect a state’s sales tax if they do not have a physical presence within that state, such as a store or employees. Given the rapid growth of online sales, many states complain they are losing out on millions of dollars in lost sales tax revenue. [Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can’t be done alone. Find out more >>] South Dakota passed a law directly challenging the Quill case by requiring out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax if they…

Read the full story

Supreme Court to Hear Case Challenging Sex Offender Registry Requirements

Admin
U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear a case involving a man who says he shouldn’t have to be on the sex offender registry because his conviction came before the 2006 federal mandatory listing law was enacted. Congress, in writing the law, gave the attorney general the authority to decide when the registration requirements kicked in, and the Bush administration said it should apply to all sex offenders – including those whose convictions predated enactment.

Read the full story

Justice Alito Exposes the Hypocrisy of Liberal Double-Standards for All to See

Admin

by Joe Carter   You probably haven’t even heard about it, but  there was an exchange in the Supreme Court that future generations will regard as one of the most significant revelations of our political era. The case of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky concerns a Minnesota statute that broadly bans all political apparel at the polling place. When Andrew Cilek went to vote in 2010, he wore a shirt bearing the image of the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag and a button that read “Please I.D. Me.” The poll worker asked him to remove the shirt and button because it supposedly violated the state law. Cilek filed a lawsuit opposing the regulation as an infringement on his First Amendment right to political expression. He also noted that the standard for what is acceptable is arbitrary and the enforcement itself could be politicized since the polling workers are chosen by local political parties. In the oral arguments, Justice Alito agreed that the law does seem arbitrary and observed that “so many things have political connotations, and the connotations are in the eye of the beholder.” How could any poll worker, he asked, be even-handed in enforcing the regulation? Daniel Rogan,…

Read the full story

Commentary: President Trump Might Be the Most Conservative President in Our Lifetime

Admin

By Robert Romano   On Feb. 23, President Donald Trump spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) for the second year in a row as president, after not attending in 2016 during the campaign. At the time, he was still busy building his constituency in the Republican primary and for the general election, where he would ultimately prevail on a very conservative platform of putting America and the American people first in governing. Now, Trump is the leader of the conservative, center-right party in the U.S. and of the executive branch. After one year in office, he has a record he has delivered on: lower taxes, fewer regulations and an opening the doors for economic expansion. ANWR has been opened for drilling. The Keystone XL pipeline is being built. The Obamacare individual mandate has been repealed. Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. He ended the so-called Clean Power Plan. He withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and is looking to revamp NAFTA or else pull out of that one, too. Trump ran on fair and reciprocal trade, and that’s what he’s delivering. At CPAC, Trump declared, “the era of economic surrender is over.” By enforcing trade agreements…

Read the full story

Release Date Set for ‘Little Pink House’ Movie Based on the Supreme Court’s Notorious ‘Kelo’ Decision on Eminent Domain

Admin

Little Pink House, the film based on the notorious 2005 Supreme Court ruling commonly known as Kelo v New London (often shortened to simply “Kelo“) is set to hit theaters April 20 in limited release in Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Atlanta. At present, there are no plans for the movie to be released in the Nashville market, but that could change based on requests from local movie theaters. The movie, based on the book of the same name, tells the true story of Susette Kelo’s struggle against the eminent domain abuse of some twenty neighborhood households by an alliance of business interests, state and city officials of New London, Connecticut. “Little Pink House is more than a movie, it’s a movement, and the hybrid approach gives our fans new ways to use the film to fight for positive change in their neighborhoods,” writer-director Courtney Moorehead Balaker told The Hollywood Reporter. Catherine Keener and Jeanne Tripplehorn star in the film that follows Susette Kelo, a nurse who lived in a modest home on the New England coast. Kelo denied demands by politicians and developers she sell her home. Citing ‘the public interest,’ officials from New London and the State of Connecticut invoked eminent…

Read the full story

Commentary: We Need a Constitutional Supreme Court, Not a ‘Fair’ Supreme Court

Admin
U.S. Supreme Court

 By Natalia Castro   The Supreme Court was never intended to be fair; it was designed to interpret the constitution. Political parties have no place in the branch of government created only to determine the constitutionality of existing laws. The judicial branch does not write laws nor does it express political opinions, it is a system for interpreting current laws and policies policy and how they would be viewed by the Framers and maintain the legacy they created for this country. It seems some need to be reminded of that. National Review’s Michael Brendan Dougherty’s claims, “The Supreme Court’s role…with Kennedy as the swing justice, has been to moderate and restrain the ambitions of each party. Kennedy deals out victories and defeats to each side — giving slightly more defeats to social conservatives. In effect, he constrains what each side can do to the other. His mercurial jurisprudence replicates and even gives the savor of legitimacy to a closely divided country.” Dougherty argues that this is the role the Supreme Court should maintain into the future, equally dealing out wins and losses to each political party, ensuring each side’s constitutional legitimacy, essentially making the Court a purposefully bipartisan enterprise because…

Read the full story

Trump Asks Supreme Court to Overturn 9th Circuit Decision to Reinstate DACA

Tennessee Star Staff

The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court Tuesday to overturn this month’s stunning ruling by a lower court that found the Obama-era DACA deportation amnesty legal – yet also ruled the Trump administration’s effort to phase out the program was illegal. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the ruling “defies both law and common sense,” and said they’re asking the justices to hear the case directly, skipping over the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which would be the normal path.

Read the full story

Texas Supreme Court Judge Don Willett Nominated to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals

Admin

Outspoken conservative and Texas’ official Tweeter Laureate Justice Don Willett was nominated to the join the federal bench as a Circuit Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit by the Trump Administration, the White House announced Thursday. Upon hearing the nomination was made public, Judge Willett took to Twitter to let his 101,000 followers know: No words. I am honored & humbled by @POTUS's nomination to the 5th Circuit. Thank you, Mr. President—also Senators @JohnCornyn & @TedCruz. pic.twitter.com/499LFNdjbC — Judge Don Willett (@JusticeWillett) September 29, 2017 “For over a decade on the Texas Supreme Court, Don Willett has proven himself to be a jurist of the highest order,” Ted Cruz said in a statement lauding the Administration’s decision. “His service on the court was simply one more step in a career of public service, from the Texas Governor Office, to the White House, to the Department of Justice, to the Texas Attorney General’s office. Every step along the way, Justice Willett has stood out as man of intellect and principle, and I am excited to see what he will accomplish on the Fifth Circuit.” Justice Don Willett was appointed to the Texas Supreme Court by Governor Perry in…

Read the full story

Donald Trump’s Travel Ban Temporarily Restored as Supreme Court Issues Stay on Lower Court

Tennessee Star Staff

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily restored a Trump administration executive order that blocks thousands of refugees from entering the United States. The decision comes after the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to block an appellate court ruling issued last week that would require the U.S. to admit any refugees who are already working with…

Read the full story

Commentary: Was Choosing Gorsuch for SCOTUS Trump’s Greatest Accomplishment to Date?

Tennessee Star Staff

  by Jeffrey A. Rendall If you polled a hundred Americans at random and asked what they considered to be President Donald Trump’s greatest accomplishment during his first half-year in office, the responses might look a little like this: “He appointed a great cabinet;” “He reduced illegal immigration by over half;” “He battled the media and won;” “He fired James Comey;” “He met the Pope;” “He got us out of the Paris accord;” “He signed a ton of executive orders that help American businesses,” and, “Not a darn thing, he’s been awful.” The last response would originate from the roughly half of the electorate who can’t stand Trump and aren’t paying attention to anything he does but are still all too willing to believe the Democrats’ gripes on how the country is going straight down the tubes because he’s now the president. But where conservatives are concerned, likely the most numerous response would be, “He appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.” Many a post-election survey listed Supreme Court appointments as a crucial factor in the decision to vote for Trump or Hillary Clinton, so it would hardly be surprising if folks assigned an oversized importance to Gorsuch’s presence now.…

Read the full story

Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch Has Democrats In Meltdown Less Than 80 Days Into His Life Tenure

Tennessee Star Staff
Tennessee Star

Senate Democrats savaged Justice Neil Gorsuch’s early performance on the Supreme Court, as his first rulings evince an important shift in the balance of power on the high court. Three Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee gave grave assessments of the junior justice’s first months on the bench to Politico, lamenting that he has proved a…

Read the full story

BREAKING: Supreme Court Partly Reinstates Trump Travel and Refugee Bans

Tennessee Star Staff
U.S. Supreme Court

  The Associated Press is reporting that ” The Supreme Court is letting a limited version of the Trump administration ban on travel from six mostly Muslim countries to take effect, a victory for President Donald Trump in the biggest legal controversy of his young presidency.” The court said Monday the ban on visitors from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen could be enforced as long as they lack a “credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States.” The justices will hear arguments in the case in October. Trump said last week that the ban would take effect 72 hours after being cleared by courts. The Trump administration said the 90-day ban was needed to allow an internal review of the screening procedures for visa applicants from those countries. That review should be complete before Oct. 2, the first day the justices could hear arguments in their new term. In addition, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration a win on its 120 ban on refugees, as the Associated Press reported: A 120-ban on refugees also is being allowed to take effect on a limited basis. Three of the court’s conservative…

Read the full story

Justice Neil Gorsuch Sworn In

Tina LaFleur
Tennessee Star

  A little more than a year after the sudden death of beloved Justice Anotin Scalia, President Donald Trump introduced Judge Neil Gorsuch to take the Oath of office to be the next Associate Justice on the Supreme Court Monday. Following a private swearing to the Oath of Office all federal officials must take by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Anthony Kennedy officiated a public swearing to the Oath of Office of Supreme Court Justices, making Gorsuch the 113th Justice to sit on the court. Right Side Broadcasting covered the event, held outdoors in the White House Rose Garden: The Oath of the Supreme Court Justice is: I, Neil M. Gorsuch, do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God. Justice Gorsuch’s elevation to the Supreme Court restores the full bench of nine jurists. Reuters reported: Donald Trump reveled in the biggest political victory of his presidency at a…

Read the full story

Commentary: Chuck Schumer Lied and the Filibuster for Supreme Court Nominees Died

Tennessee Star Staff
SCOTUS

  by Jeffrey A. Rendall One could almost sense an audible rumbling sound as the roll was called in the Senate at about half past noon (EDT) on Thursday, with the fate of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees precariously hanging in the balance. When the votes were tallied the infamous “nuclear option” had been triggered; but those expecting a rhetorical mushroom cloud or a lot of fireworks were sorely disappointed. In fact, the moment passed without any kind of Chuck Schumerfanfare or special notation whatsoever. If one didn’t know better you’d think nothing consequential had just happened. Many pundits have suggested through the years that there isn’t much that would unify all Republicans – especially those in the Senate — but as America watched the senators vote on the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, it was evident there is at least one issue that brings the GOP together. First every single Republican voted to end debate on Gorsuch. Then when the Democrats filibustered every Republican voted for the “nuclear option” to bury the practice for future Supreme Court nominees. From here on out it’s a straight up or down vote for Court appointments. Yesterday was…

Read the full story

BREAKING: Senate Confirms Judge Neil Gorsuch to Supreme Court

Admin
Tennessee Star

  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell fulfilled his promise to President Trump and the American people this morning, by successfully ending the partisan Democrats’ filibuster and leading the Senate confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. CNN reports: The vote was 54-45, mostly along party lines. Only three Democrats: Sens. Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Donnelly, sided with the GOP majority. Vice President Mike Pence presided over the vote, but was not needed to break a tie. The court has been operating with eight justices since the sudden death in February 2016 of Justice Antonin Scalia and a protracted fight over President Barack Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland. The confirmation does not alter the so-called “balance of the Court,” however, the precedent-setting move to require only a simple majority vote – first made by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – could return the highest court in the land sharply toward the Constitution, should Justice Ginsberg or Justice Breyer retire. Watch the video: Reaction to the restoration of a full Court has been overwhelmingly positive. Hannah Smith, Senior Counsel with Becket and a former law clerk to Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said: Congratulations to Judge Gorsuch and his…

Read the full story

Senator Lamar Alexander Responds to Threatened Democrat Filibuster of SCOTUS Nominee Gorsuch: ‘One Way Or the Other I’ll Vote for Him’

Tennessee Star Staff

  “The Democrats have once again gone into a room and convinced themselves to do something that’s never been done before in the 230 year history of the Senate and that is to require more than 51 votes to confirm a Supreme Court nominee,” Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) tells The Tennessee Star in an emailed statement received late Wednesday. “I have spoken on the Senate floor twice in recent weeks to try to convince Democrats not to filibuster Judge Gorsuch’s nomination because it will be damaging to the Senate and to the country,” Alexander adds. “When I was in the minority, I opposed President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, but I did not support a filibuster of her nomination – I believed she was entitled to a majority vote – and Judge Gorsuch is also entitled to a majority vote,” the Volunteer State’s senior senator notes. “I also wanted to point to a statement that the senator told a reporter this week,” a spokesperson for Alexander adds in that same email to The Star: “One way or the other I’ll vote for him.” “Finally, here is the senator’s floor speech, from where he talked about how filibustering to death the Gorsuch…

Read the full story

Commentary: The Gorsuch Confirmation ‘Nuclear Option’ Deal Not Even the ‘Stupid Party’ is Dumb Enough to Take

Tennessee Star Staff

by Jeffrey A. Rendall March 25, 2017 Now that the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch are mercifully in the past attention turns to the inevitable upcoming votes on his nomination (Judiciary committee vote set for Monday, April 3 and full Senate on Friday, April 7). Naturally there’s a lot of speculation on which Democrats, if any, will reject a filibuster of Gorsuch and which might be convinced to support him in a final up or down vote. Whatever strategy the Democrats ultimately Trump Gorsuchadopt will determine the Republicans’ countermoves, since they’ll know if the so-called “nuclear option” needs to be used to eliminate a potential filibuster for current and future Court nominations. Or, as some suggested, there could be some sort of backroom “deal” in the works. Burgess Everett of Politico reports, “The deal Democrats would be most likely to pursue, the sources said, would be to allow confirmation of Gorsuch in exchange for a commitment from Republicans not to kill the filibuster for a subsequent vacancy during President Donald Trump’s term. The next high court opening could alter the balance of the court, and some Democrats privately argue that fight will be far more consequential than…

Read the full story

The Judicial Coup Against President Trump Proceeding As Planned

Christina Botteri

by CHQ Staff February 10, 2017 Reprinted with permission from ConservativeHQ.com As we predicted in our column “The Judicial Coup Against President Trump [29]” the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has left in place Federal Judge James’ Robart’s anti-constitutional order suspending President Donald Trump’s Executive Order No. 13,769 pausing immigration from seven terrorist hotspots. The Executive Order is now headed to the Supreme Court where a 4 – 4 tie is expected to leave the order in place, much as a tie left in place Judge Andrew S. Hanen’s preliminary injunction shutting down President Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program while the legal case filed by Texas and other states proceeded. The Obama administration appealed, and a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans affirmed the injunction. When the Supreme Court split, Judge Hanen’s order remained in place while the case went forward. The Left was very strategic in filing the challenge to President Trump’s Executive Order and its strategy is unfolding precisely as planned as Far-Left progressive judges in the Ninth Circuit substitute their liberal policies for the plain language of the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress. Legal scholars, including some liberals, have suggested an alternative, however. Harvard Law School professor emeritus…

Read the full story

Fifteen Federal Judges Have Been Impeached by the House of Representatives

Tennessee Star Staff

Fifteen federal judges have been impeached since the Constitution was ratified in 1789, according to the Federal Judicial Center. Eight have been convicted, three have resigned prior to trial in the Senate, and four have been acquitted. The list includes one associate justice of the Supreme Court, thirteen federal district judges, and one commerce court judge. Here’s the full list, courtesy of the Federal Justice Center: Impeachments of Federal Judges John Pickering, U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 2, 1803, on charges of mental instability and intoxication on the bench; Convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office on March 12, 1804. Samuel Chase, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States. Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 1804, on charges of arbitrary and oppressive conduct of trials; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on March 1, 1805. James H. Peck, U.S. District Court for the District of Missouri. Impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives on April 24, 1830, on charges of abuse of the contempt power; Acquitted by the U.S. Senate on January 31, 1831. West H. Humphreys, U.S. District Court for…

Read the full story

Critics: Whacky 9th District Court of Appeals Ignore Basic Legal Principals, Side with Open Borders Zealots

Christina Botteri

Thursday evening, America’s dinner hour was interrupted by an unsavory display of jurist malpractice as the 9th District Court of Appeals once again lived up to its reputation as the Most Incompetent Court in the nation. The Court ruled 3-0 to DENY the Trump Administration’s pleading to stay the lower Court’s decision to disallow a pause in the admittance of (un)vetted refugees from 7 countries plagued by out-of-control terrorist activity and utterly failed central governments. Upon a quick review of the rambling, 29-page ruling, Legal Insurrection founder and attorney William Jacobson let loose a withering hot take on Twitter: When do confirmation hearings start to appoint 9th Circuit panel co-Directors of Homeland Security? https://t.co/1opVnWwfCA — Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) February 9, 2017 1/ Here's how insane 9th Circuit Order on Trump Immigration EO is: Because Court refused to draw distinction among permanent residents, — Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) February 10, 2017 2/ lawful visa holders in U.S., visa holders traveling abroad temporarily, and people abroad who never even have applied — Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) February 10, 2017 3/ some guy sitting on mountain in Yemen who has no connection to U.S. and hasn't even applied for visa yet has U.S. constitutional —…

Read the full story