Author Topic: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War  (Read 8101 times)


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
WSJ: DC Statehood is Unconstitutional
« Reply #53 on: July 02, 2020, 04:15:45 PM »
Voting along party lines except for one Democratic dissent, the House last week approved a bill to grant statehood to almost all of the District of Columbia—and create two safe Democratic Senate seats in a city that typically votes 90% Democratic in presidential elections. But while Congress has the power to admit new states, changing the district’s status would require a constitutional amendment.

The Framers had good reason to put the capital outside the borders or control of any state. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, writing in opposition to a 1964 statehood bill, summed up their view: “It was indispensably necessary to the independence and the very existence of the new Federal Government to have a seat of government which was not subject to the jurisdiction or control of any State.”

In 1783, a mutinous band of Continental soldiers drove Congress out of Philadelphia after Pennsylvania’s government refused assistance. The recent protests and riots in Washington’s streets make it easy to imagine a similar clash if the federal government lacked sovereignty over the city. To prevent such a situation, the Constitution’s Framers wrote a provision giving Congress the power “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States.” Congress took over 100 square miles of Maryland and Virginia with the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801.

In 1846, Congress retroceded Virginia’s portion, now Arlington County and a portion of the city of Alexandria. Was that constitutional? We think not. While the retrocession didn’t alter the configuration of the district in as fundamental a way as the House is now trying to do, the most logical reading of the Constitution is that no change in the district’s boundaries is permissible and that the original cession is irrevocable.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the question. When it reached the justices, in Phillips v. Payne (1875), they dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiffs—taxpayers seeking reunion with the District of Columbia, which had lower taxes than Virginia—lacked standing. But if Congress approves statehood, other states would clearly have standing to challenge the dilution of their voting rights by the addition of two senators from an area ineligible for admission as a state.

The House bill attempts to hew to the Constitution’s design by excluding a small area of the district—including the White House, other federal buildings and the National Mall—and leaving it as a federal district. RFK rejected a similar proposal in 1964: “A small Federal enclave comprised primarily of parks and Federal buildings . . . clearly does not meet the concept of the ‘permanent seat of government’ which the framers held.”

There’s an additional problem: The bill violates the 23rd Amendment, ratified in 1961, which enfranchised the district’s residents in presidential elections. The amendment allocates three electoral votes to “the district constituting the seat of government of the United States.” Under the House bill, that would be not the new state (which would get three electors of its own), but the rump federal district, with lots of structures but few or no inhabitants.

The bill provides for “expedited procedures” in both congressional chambers to propose an amendment repealing the 23rd. But doing so would require two-thirds majorities, and ratification needs approval from 38 state legislatures. That would require broad bipartisan cooperation—a tall order in today’s political climate, especially if one party sees an advantage in leaving the problem unsolved.

There are strong arguments for granting Washington residents representation in Congress. The Framers understood and were troubled by the undemocratic contradiction of denying capital residents the vote. Alexander Hamilton believed the federal district should have representation in the House but not the Senate (whose members were chosen by state legislatures until 1913). James Madison countered that the new capital’s residents would have an elected local government and “find sufficient inducement of interest to become willing parties to the cession” to justify their lack of congressional representation.

The District of Columbia has always been an imperfect solution to a constitutional problem. The debate over its role and status will and should continue. But abolishing the permanent seat of the federal government would be a profound change—the sort that can be accomplished only with a national consensus implemented through a constitutional amendment, not by a law pushed through for partisan advantage.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. They served in the White House Counsel’s Office and Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
WSJ: Statutes
« Reply #54 on: July 02, 2020, 04:18:00 PM »
Matthew Fontaine Maury isn’t a household name, but an active naval vessel and a building at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Md., are named for him. That should change.

Maury (1806-73) was 19 when he joined the Navy. For years he navigated the globe, studying the ocean and learning about wind patterns. He became one of the founders of oceanography.

He made his mark on the country in another way. At the outset of the Civil War, Maury returned home to Virginia. He resigned his commission, choosing treason, secession and slavery over his oath to the Constitution. While fighting for the Confederacy, Maury designed naval mines that sank Union ships. Nothing in the U.S. military should honor his name.

I’m a proud graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy. As an F-18 fighter pilot, I flew more than 30 combat missions in Operation Iraqi Freedom. I know from experience how the military can transform lives and teach leadership.

That’s why it’s time for the military to rename bases, buildings, vessels and anything else that honors those who fought for the Confederacy. Their support for slavery was wrong—and calamitous for the country. Some 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, nearly as many as have perished in the nation’s other wars combined.

Some claim that stripping the rebels’ honors is erasing history. I respectfully disagree. I believe Americans must study history and learn from it; service members are encouraged to read history on their own time, and veterans like me maintain the habit. But studying history doesn’t require honoring Confederate figures.

Likewise, you can celebrate towering leaders from the past for their contributions to America—such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln—while drawing a firm line against honoring those who fought to destroy America.

The work of reckoning with the Confederate past is too important to be left to the mob. Vandalism is an affront to the rule of law. Renaming buildings and removing statues must be done in an orderly fashion through legitimate channels. American society is built on laws. Adherence to the law is the only thing that separates any society from barbarism.

This is also why the calls to defund or abolish police departments are outrageous. My stepfather, a member of the Los Angeles Police Department, put his life on the line for every family in our community. The sacrifices of law enforcement officers and their families too often go unnoticed.

An overwhelming majority of Americans agree that law enforcement needs reform and that abusive officers should be held accountable. But slashing the police budget defies logic and invites disaster.

America’s true heroes are those who fight to preserve order, deliver us from evil and ensure all Americans are treated equally. Pro-slavery secessionists who split the nation in two and killed so many of their countrymen don’t deserve such honors.

Let’s agree on new American heroes to honor. This nation knows no shortage of valor.

Mr. Garcia, a Republican, represents California’s 25th Congressional District.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
sullivan partisan
« Reply #56 on: July 09, 2020, 03:01:53 PM »
I don't really understand how the legal profession simply allows endless repeat going over the same ground over and over again

why can this not be ended for this rogue judge
why  can he keep doing this?




« Last Edit: July 09, 2020, 03:50:45 PM by ccp »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19765
    • View Profile
Re: sullivan partisan
« Reply #57 on: July 09, 2020, 03:03:39 PM »
I don't really understand how the legal profession simply allows endless repeat going over the same ground over and over again

why can this not be ended for this rogue judge
why does can he keep doing this?

Running out the clock. Hoping for a Biden (Deep State Puppet) Presidency.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
WSJ: Of Pardons and Presidents
« Reply #58 on: July 13, 2020, 06:21:23 AM »
Of Pardons and Presidents
Trump’s clemency for Stone has nothing on Clinton and McDougal.
By The Editorial Board
July 12, 2020 4:00 pm ET

Say this for President Trump’s commutation of Roger Stone’s 40-month prison sentence late Friday: At least he did it during an election campaign so voters can add this to the ledger of character issues they take into the voting booth. Like everything else about this Presidency, its scandals, real and imagined, are public.

On the merits, the judgment of Attorney General William Barr sounds right. Mr. Barr recently called Mr. Stone’s prosecution “righteous” and “appropriate.” He had his department review the excessive recommendation of up to nine years in prison by special counsel Robert Mueller’s prosecutors, and Justice revised its recommendation in line with what the judge ordered.

Mr. Stone is no martyr. He is by his own description a political performance artist, and he finally ran into prosecutors who weren’t amused. There are legitimate questions about the anti-Trump bias of the jury forewoman, but the full jury found Mr. Stone lied to investigators and tried to bully witnesses. He was probably trying to protect the lies he had previously told to make himself seem more influential than he was. The proper avenue for addressing trial bias is on appeal.

The commutation spared Mr. Stone from having to report to prison on Tuesday, where the 67-year-old would have been vulnerable to Covid-19. But Mr. Trump didn’t issue a full pardon, which means Mr. Stone’s felony conviction stands and so does his appeal. It’s too bad Mr. Trump let Mr. Barr spend political capital to recommend a lighter prison sentence only to commute that sentence later. Mr. Trump tends to do that to people who work for him.

Mr. Trump is right that there’s no evidence that Mr. Stone knows some deep, dark secrets about his ties to Russia. The Mueller investigators spent two years digging into that and came up with little beyond Mr. Stone’s lies about his contacts with WikiLeaks and the 2016 Trump campaign.

As for the cries of “corruption” and “cronyism,” join the presidential club. Mr. Trump views the world in terms of political friends and enemies, and the commutation rewarded a friend. That is an abuse of the pardon power in our view, but we recall Bill Clinton’s last-minute January 2001 pardon of Susan McDougal, who went to jail for contempt rather than tell prosecutors what she knew about Mr. Clinton’s Whitewater transactions. Worse, Mr. Clinton made public comments in the autumn of 1996 that suggested Ms. McDougal could expect the pardon she received. That history is now whitewashed away by a press corps that talks as if the pardon power was a sacred trust before Mr. Trump took office.

Mr. Trump is also scored for not following Justice Department protocol on pardons, but that’s precisely what Mr. Clinton did in pardoning Marc Rich in 2001. Does anyone recall that Barack Obama commuted the sentence of an unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorist who had become a cause celebre on the political left, and of Chelsea Manning, whose leaks jeopardized American troops and Afghan translators fighting the Taliban?

Nancy Pelosi claims to be so upset by the Stone commutation that she’s considering legislation to restrict the President’s pardon power. She surely knows that no Speaker of the House is above the law, which means Article II of the U.S. Constitution that makes the pardon power as close to categorical as anything in the great document. For some reason, she never introduced such a bill when Democratic Presidents were pardoning their friends.

Our hope is that the Stone commutation doesn’t interfere with what would be a deserved pardon for Michael Flynn. The former national security adviser was railroaded by James Comey’s FBI, then denied exculpatory evidence by Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors. That would be a proper use of the pardon power, which is to correct an injustice. The voters can judge it all in November.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
WSJ: Pardon Flynn
« Reply #59 on: July 13, 2020, 06:23:59 AM »
second

Pardon Michael Flynn
Time for the President to end this highly politicized prosecution.
By The WSJ Editorial Board
July 10, 2020 7:05 pm ET

The prosecution of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has already exposed the bad faith of the FBI and Justice Department in pursuing him even when they knew there was no basis for an investigation. Now federal Judge Emmet Sullivan is continuing the legal torture by appealing an order from a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to drop the charges. President Trump should step in now and end this farce by pardoning Mr. Flynn.

In an honest process, Judge Sullivan would have signed off on dropping charges once prosecutors and the defense agreed there is no case to adjudicate. He refused. Mr. Flynn then sought a writ of mandamus from the D.C. Circuit, and he prevailed in a 2-1 opinion that ordered Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case.

Judge Sullivan is now refusing again by requesting this week an en banc review of the writ by the full D.C. Circuit. Though we don’t know whether the full court will take the appeal, remember that Senate Democrats and Barack Obama packed the D.C. Circuit with liberal judges after ending the judicial filibuster on a partisan Senate vote in 2013.

Judge Sullivan knows that once the court takes the case en banc, the panel opinion is immediately vacated under D.C. Circuit rules. That means the writ ordering him to dismiss vanishes, and the eventual en banc ruling would control. Mr. Flynn’s legal agony would continue for months and perhaps until a Biden Administration takes office.

This is outrageous and continues the politicized nature of this sorry prosecution. The review of the Flynn case ordered by Attorney General Bill Barr found the FBI and Justice Department withheld exculpatory evidence, revised the bureau’s 302 interview forms, and did an end run around normal White House procedures to sandbag Mr. Flynn. All of this has tarnished two powerful executive branch institutions, and Judge Sullivan’s behavior threatens to do the same for the judicial branch.

Start with the court appearance when Judge Sullivan from out of left field accused Mr. Flynn of “treason.” This is a man who served in the 82nd Airborne and had top intelligence jobs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Judge Sullivan has suggested he might call career officials to explain how Justice decided to drop the charges against Mr. Flynn, an intrusion into executive authority.

He also appointed a former judge, who had already made his bias clear in a Washington Post op-ed, to present arguments against the government’s motion to dismiss. Judge Sullivan has even suggested he might charge Mr. Flynn with perjury for changing his plea after the discovery of new evidence.

***
Cases like this are precisely when a President’s pardon power is most appropriate. Mr. Flynn’s defenders have let the legal process play out in hopes he might be fully vindicated with the case’s dismissal. But because of Judge Sullivan’s gamesmanship, which seriously impinges on powers the Constitution reserves for the executive branch, the process no longer serves justice.

Mr. Flynn has been vindicated twice—first by a Justice Department motion to dismiss, and then the writ of mandamus by the D.C. Circuit panel. Mr. Trump should act while the panel decision by Judge Neomi Rao joined by Judge Karen Henderson still controls and offers a solid legal rationale.

By ordering Judge Sullivan to drop the charges but stopping short of removing him from the case, the panel treated the judge with far more respect than he is treating the panel’s opinion. If the Flynn case weren’t so political, there is no chance that the full court would hear an en banc appeal of a panel’s writ of mandamus ruling.

Mr. Trump’s pardon statement would be most persuasive if it sticks to the facts and the law rather than assailing his own political enemies. He could rightly emphasize the general’s innocence, the dishonesty of the prosecution, and the transparent bias of a partisan judge.

By pardoning Mr. Flynn now, President Trump would spare a man who served his country for decades from further tribulation. He would also rescue the courts from discrediting themselves as much as the FBI and Justice have already done.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #61 on: July 15, 2020, 04:24:50 PM »
".The argument against allowing state prosecutors to rummage through a sitting president's papers and documents is that there is no limiting principle..."

doesn't there have to be probable cause

is the DA going after a suspected crime or simply searching to hope to find a crime?

is this case the latter?
« Last Edit: July 15, 2020, 06:01:00 PM by ccp »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19765
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #62 on: July 15, 2020, 05:29:51 PM »
".The argument against allowing state prosecutors to rummage through a sitting president's papers and documents is that there is no limiting principle..."

doesn't there have to probably cause

is the DA going after a suspected crime or simply searching to hope to find a crime?

is this case the latter?



https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2010/criminalization-almost-everything

 Dershowitz points out that this was a technique developed by Beria, the infamous sidekick of Stalin, who said, “Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.” That really is something that has survived the Soviet Union and has arrived in the good old USA. “Show me the man,” says any federal prosecutor, “and I can show you the crime.” This is not an exaggeration.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #63 on: July 15, 2020, 06:01:52 PM »
Beria would fit right into the modern Democratic Party
like a key in a lock


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
BORTAC in Portland
« Reply #64 on: July 18, 2020, 02:33:58 PM »
https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-heck-are-federal-law-enforcement-officers-doing-portland


=================================

NYT

Were the Actions of Federal Agents in Portland Legal?
The Department of Homeland Security can point to federal statutes protecting property to justify the arrests of protesters in Portland, Ore., but whether they stretched the law would be up to a judge.


Published July 17, 2020
Updated July 18, 2020, 1:04 p.m. ET

The Department of Homeland Security’s deployment of federal agents to Portland, Ore., has shown the broad legal authority an agency created to protect the United States from national security threats has to crack down on American citizens.

After President Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to send personnel to protect monuments, statues and federal property during continuing protests against racism and police brutality, the Department of Homeland Security formed “rapid deployment teams.” Those are made up of officers from Customs and Border Protection, the Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard and Immigration and Customs Enforcement who back up the Federal Protective Service, which is already responsible for protecting federal property.

Videos showing federal agents using tear gas on protesters and complaints that federal agents lacking insignia are pulling people from the streets have raised questions over the legal authority that homeland security officials have to crack down on citizens. In Portland, federal agents have acted against the expressed opposition of the local authorities.

But officials in Washington said they had clear authority. Customs and Border Protection, which sent tactical border agents to Portland, cited 40 U.S. Code 1315, which under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 gives the department’s secretary the power to deputize other federal agents to assist the Federal Protective Service in protecting federal property, such as the courthouse in Portland.

Those agents can carry firearms, arrest those accused of committing a crime without a warrant and conduct investigations “on and off the property in question.”

“An interpretation of that authority so broadly seems to undermine all the other careful checks and balances on D.H.S.’s power because the officers’ power is effectively limitless and all encompassing,” said Garrett Graff, a historian who studies the Department of Homeland Security’s history and development.

The department has justified the tactics of the federal agents in Portland by pointing to dozens of episodes, including the defacement of federal property with graffiti, the damaging of buildings with fireworks and the throwing of rocks and bottles at officers.

Detaining demonstrators away from federal properties has also raised questions. Former officials at the Department of Homeland Security said it would normally only dispatch agents to assist with local incidents if the state or municipal governments asked for help and deputized that responsibility. In Portland, local leaders have done the opposite.

But the lack of any consent from local officials just means federal agents cannot rely on state and local laws to justify the arrests. Federal agents can still detain the demonstrators away from federal property if they can assert probable cause that a federal crime was violated, according to Peter Vincent, a former top lawyer with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has also sent agents to cities across the United States.


“Homeland security’s authorities are so extraordinarily broad that they can find federal laws that they are authorized to enforce across the spectrum, so long as it has some national security, public safety, human trafficking, criminal street gang conspiracy,” Mr. Vincent said.

But civil rights lawyers and demonstrators have questioned whether the department has used that authority to violate protesters’ right to free speech.

“What is happening now in Portland should concern everyone in the United States,” said Jann Carson, the interim executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon. “Usually when we see people in unmarked cars forcibly grab someone off the street, we call it kidnapping. The actions of the militarized federal officers are flat-out unconstitutional and will not go unanswered.”

The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Oregon on Friday also sued the Department of Homeland Security and the Marshal’s Service for “indiscriminately using tear gas, rubber bullets and acoustic weapons.”

One demonstrator, Mark Pettibone, 29, said agents who were in camouflage but lacked any insignia forced him into an unmarked van and did not tell him why he was being arrested. Deploying agents without any identification violates the protocols of police departments across the United States.

Mark Morgan, the acting secretary of Customs and Border Protection, said the agents did display signs that they were federal agents but withheld their names for their own safety.

Zolan Kanno-Youngs is the homeland security correspondent, based in Washington. He covers the Department of Homeland Security, immigration, border issues, transnational crime and the federal government's response to national emergencies and security threats. @KannoYoungs
« Last Edit: July 18, 2020, 08:40:46 PM by Crafty_Dog »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Shifty Schiff flaps his gums
« Reply #65 on: July 22, 2020, 01:06:32 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
this ain't going to change one person's voting opinioin
« Reply #67 on: August 06, 2020, 07:47:11 AM »
more Dem lawyer political warfare
are the lawyers the largest group of funding for Democrat Party?

https://www.syracuse.com/state/2020/08/ny-ag-letitia-james-to-make-major-announcement-after-deutsche-bank-turns-over-trump-finances.html

 :roll: :x



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #70 on: September 05, 2020, 12:05:22 PM »
Foreign Tyranny by U.S. Lawsuit
Dictators from Napoleon III to Fidel Castro have taken advantage of the American legal system.
By Diego A. Zambrano
Sept. 2, 2020 6:52 pm ET

If you have a grievance against a foreign government, it’s almost impossible to find redress in U.S. courts. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 bars most such claims. But there’s no bar to foreign governments bringing cases as plaintiffs—and dictators have increasingly taken advantage of the U.S. legal system to pursue political ends and strengthen their rule.

As the Journal reported recently, the Chinese Communist Party has systematically used U.S. civil lawsuits as part of a “multidimensional legal war” to harass dissidents and force them to return to China. In 2016 Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan used proxy plaintiffs to file a claim in the U.S. against his main opponent, Muhammed Fethullah Gülen, a cleric who lives in Pennsylvania. Venezuela’s socialist regime has litigated cases against its democratic opponent, Juan Guaidó, over Venezuelan property and business interests in this country. A top-ranking Venezuelan official sued the Journal for libel in 2016 over an article reporting he was under investigation for his possible involvement in drug trafficking; a federal judge dismissed the case in 2017.

I have found in my research that over the years foreign dictators—including Mao Zedong and Fidel Castro—have litigated a wide variety of civil claims in U.S. courts, using the American legal system as a tool to promote their policies or harass opponents.

Why does the U.S. give foreign authoritarians expansive access to its courts? The answer lies in old legal precedent involving Napoleon III, who reigned as emperor of France from 1852-70. In 1867, an American ship, the Sapphire, collided with a French transport vessel near San Francisco. The French government, in the name of the emperor, filed suit in a federal court to recover damages for the crash. The Sapphire’s owner challenged the “right of the Emperor of France to have brought suit in our courts.” In The Sapphire (1870), the Supreme Court rejected that argument, holding that to deny a foreign emperor access to American courts “would manifest a want of comity and friendly feeling.”

As a general matter, opening courts to foreigners makes sense. Foreign litigants often have legitimate claims against U.S. citizens or corporations, and U.S. courts have an interest in holding domestic parties accountable. Moreover, opening courts to foreign litigants promotes reciprocity. If foreign countries can sue in U.S. courts, they are more likely to give the U.S. government permission to sue in their own courts.

The problem is that U.S. courts have given unfettered access to almost any foreign regime imaginable. In 1960 Castro nationalized and expropriated any property in Cuba “in which American nationals had an interest.” This prompted disputes between American property owners and Cuba’s Communist regime. Castro’s government filed a case in New York against an American company, asking a federal court to enforce its expropriation order. The defendants argued that U.S. courts shouldn’t aid a foreign totalitarian government, especially because Cuba didn’t grant Americans reciprocal access to Cuban courts. Less than two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, in Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino (1964), the Supreme Court rejected the defendant’s arguments, allowed Cuba to expropriate property from U.S. nationals, and even recognized Cuba’s expropriation order as an “act of state” that U.S. courts couldn’t re-examine.

The power of these precedents largely laid dormant until recently. But legal cases filed by China, Russia, Turkey and Venezuela make it imperative to rethink foreign regimes’ access to the American legal system. Vladimir Putin’s Russia has been one of the most prolific authoritarian governments to take advantage of U.S. courts. Since 2011, “Kremlin proxies have exploited U.S. courts by pursuing superficially legitimate lawsuits” as part of “global harassment campaigns against the Kremlin’s enemies,” according to a 2018 Atlantic Council report.

Only Congress can prevent America’s democratic institutions from lending a hand to illiberal regimes around the world. And there is a straightforward fix. State governments have adopted laws to address similar claims in the free-speech context: anti-Slapp statutes, an acronym for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. These laws allow defendants to demonstrate that they are being sued for exercising their constitutional right to freedom of speech or association. If defendants can make that showing, the statutes make it much harder for plaintiffs to pursue their claims and even penalize plaintiffs who engage in political harassment through lawsuits.

Congress could easily enact a Foreign Sovereign anti-Slapp statute. Like state anti-Slapp laws, it would allow defendants to demonstrate that a foreign government or its proxy has sued them for political purposes, or for exercising rights protected by the Constitution. The burden would then shift to the plaintiffs to demonstrate that they will prevail on the merits, that they aren’t attempting to abuse legal process, and, in the case of individuals or companies, that they are not a proxy for a foreign dictatorship. The statute could also provide for successful defendants to collect attorney’s fees and petition for further penalties.

The U.S. needs new weapons to address this abuse of the legal system. By erecting barriers to political litigation, a federal statute would discourage authoritarian regimes from filing these cases in U.S. courts.

Mr. Zambrano is an assistant professor of law at Stanford.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile



ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
Democrat partisan lawyers again
« Reply #76 on: January 11, 2021, 03:57:40 PM »
Headed by guess who ,

Larry the Liberal

https://www.yahoo.com/news/thousands-yale-harvard-law-school-170240369.html

the elites
who know what is best for us

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
dominion sues Ruddy et al
« Reply #79 on: February 04, 2021, 03:51:51 PM »
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/voting-company-sues-fox-giuliani-180000020.html

don't worry dominion
Democrat DC lawyers to your rescue

Thanks to the FB of Impedence we can never know if the machines are /were rigged

I wonder if lawsuit opens up the defenses ability to evaluate the machines
though Dem operatives likely have had chance to get to them first
 so doubtful we can ever know for sure






DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: dominion sues Ruddy et al
« Reply #80 on: February 04, 2021, 04:01:15 PM »
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/voting-company-sues-fox-giuliani-180000020.html

don't worry dominion
Democrat DC lawyers to your rescue

Thanks to the FB of Impedence we can never know if the machines are /were rigged

I wonder if lawsuit opens up the defenses ability to evaluate the machines
though Dem operatives likely have had chance to get to them first
 so doubtful we can ever know for sure

That they sue makes Dominion look innocent, but what everyone out here would like is some fact finding discovery and closure, especially if the vote fraud charges are proven false.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
Cyrus Vance junior
« Reply #84 on: March 12, 2021, 09:45:09 AM »
retiring on Dec 31

after he oversees Trump vandetta
and the  political hit job

Jimmy Earl. is so proud

Cy Sr passed in 2002

waiting for grinning CCN types announcing arrest of DJT.




Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
McCarthy: The Thuggery of the Dem court packing scheme
« Reply #87 on: April 17, 2021, 03:53:42 PM »
The Supreme Thuggery of Democrats’ Court-Packing Scheme
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY
April 17, 2021 6:30 AM

From left: Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), and Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) introduce the Judiciary Act of 2021 aimed at expanding the Supreme Court from nine to thirteen justices outside the court in Washington, D.C., April 15, 2021. (James Lawler Duggan/Reuters)
The sponsors of this plan are gaslighting the nation with nonsensical explanations.

That settles it. Henceforth, for baseball, we need 13 on the field. You know, for “balance.” After all, when the big leagues started playing the World Series in 1903, there were only 16 teams. Now there are 30. If you’re going to have 30 teams, there should be at least 13 players on each side, right? Maybe even 30!


Okay, okay, it’s a stupid idea. But you’ll have to forgive me: I watched Thursday’s Rockin’ Jerry & the Wokes show on the steps of the Supreme Court, and ever since, I’ve felt much stupider.

According to Congressman Nadler (D., N.Y.) and his progressive posse, the high court must be expanded, from the nine-member body it has been for over 150 years to the 13-member tribunal they say we urgently need it to be, because there are now 13 federal circuit courts of appeal. There were only nine circuits when the Supreme Court was set at nine justices in 1869.

This is nonsense, but that is par for the course, because it is not meant to be taken seriously as an argument.

The Dems’ Court-expansion-and-packing project is not a public-policy proposal. It’s thuggery. That explains the zany rationales Nadler et al. offered for it at their presser. Maybe the number should be 13 because that’s how many times they said “racism” (though I could be low-balling here). Or maybe expanding the Court is infrastructure, or part of the existential climate crisis. Makes total sense. See, the less this has to do with logic, the more the justices will have it in the front of their minds that the Left is crazy enough to do anything at this point, so they’d better be careful how they decide these cases — and even about what cases they decide to decide.

The size of the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the number of circuits — no more than the size of the Ninth Circuit bench (29 judges) has to do with that of the First Circuit’s (nine judges), or than the geographic jurisdiction of the Eighth Circuit (seven states) has to do with that of the Federal Circuit (nationwide for limited categories of cases), or of the District of Columbia Circuit (just the city of Washington).

When constitutional governance began, the Supreme Court had six members, covering three circuits. The lower federal courts — today’s 13 circuit courts of appeal and 94 district courts, in their majestic courthouses — did not exist as we know them today. Supreme Court justices used to “ride circuit” on horseback or in carriages over the rough terrain of our growing country. In the circuits, they’d hear cases with a local district judge. It was a time-consuming, physically demanding, mentally exhausting job.

Congress did not create circuit judgeships — not courts, judgeships — until 1869. That’s the same year it set the high court’s size at nine justices. No less a liberal icon than Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who just might have known a tad more than Jerry Nadler about how the Court works — believed nine was just the right number.

Prior to 1869, the size of the Supreme Court bench had varied, from as many as ten justices to as few as five. The numbers were driven by politics, not a perceived need to correlate to the number of circuits.

Yes, when Congress set the number at nine, there were also nine circuits. But that was because Supreme Court justices were still riding circuit. That practice was largely phased out with the Evarts Act of 1891, which established the U.S. circuit courts of appeal. It was completely ended in 1911, when Congress abolished the circuits, transferring their jurisdiction to the district courts.

That is to say, the circuit system that Democrats claim calls for an overdue expansion of the Supreme Court has not existed for more than a century. And when Congress created the system we’ve now had for a very long time, lawmakers concluded, much as Justice Ginsburg concluded, that nine was just the right number of Supreme Court justices.

The woke Left’s circuit-court argument is no more sincere than its laugh-out-loud “balance” argument. If the complaint is that the Court now has a 6–3 conservative majority, why would “balance” require adding four progressives?

But Jerry & Co. were on a roll. The unbalanced conservative majority has ushered in the era of dark, icky corporate campaign money! Yes, that would be the era whose most recent campaign has given Democrats control of the White House and both houses of Congress. The conservative majority is the grossly illegitimate handiwork of, yes, Donald Trump, who also “packed” the lower federal courts. Right. The Court “packing” (a.k.a. filling vacancies) worked so well for Trump that these cat’s-paw jurists rejected each and every one of his challenges to the 2020 election — ensuring Democratic control of Washington, including two years of conveyor-belt judicial confirmations of young progressive firebrands.

The only authentic part of Thursday’s performance came when a reporter asked Nadler why Speaker Nancy Pelosi had not committed to taking up the progs’ Court-expansion proposal. The Judiciary Committee chairman replied that the speaker is wisely monitoring how things develop over the coming months. Right . . . just like Biden’s similar theater, the “Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court.” Just like Obama’s 2012 warning that the justices had better not invalidate Obamacare. (Mission accomplished!) And just like the “amici curiae” brief that Democratic senators filed with the high court in a 2019 gun case — the kind of “friends of the court” whose advice is, “Nice place you have here, it’d sure be a shame if anything happened to it . . .”

Democrats are not really going to expand the Supreme Court. They are going to extort the Supreme Court.

What’s today’s favorite conservative talking point in Washington? “Court-packing is so beyond the pale that even FDR couldn’t get it done at the height of his power, with far bigger congressional majorities than Joe Biden will ever have.” Well, as Paul Harvey used to say, there’s a “rest of the story” that we prefer to forget: Court-packing was actually a smashing success as a threat. The Supreme Court felt FDR’s heat and changed its jurisprudence. As progressives browbeat conservative justices and gradually filled vacancies with liberals, the Court abandoned its defense of the Constitution’s limits on federal government power, laying the groundwork for the imperial presidency, a Congress that concedes no boundaries, and the administrative state.

Do the Democrats really have their eyes on four Supreme Court seats? Yeah, I suppose they do. You can call those seats Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.

ANDREW C. MCCARTHY is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, an NR contributing editor, and author of BALL OF COLLUSION: THE PLOT TO RIG AN ELECTION AND DESTROY A PRESIDENCY. @andrewcmccarthy

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14378
    • View Profile
Re: McCarthy: The Thuggery of the Dem court packing scheme
« Reply #88 on: April 19, 2021, 02:08:40 PM »
In the end, for the Dems, it is about intimidation.

For the Republicans, the only thing that seems to advance their cause is Democrat over-reach and this takes the cake..  Packing the Court rings well only for the most militant far Left, not the center.

Dems think seats were stolen.

Merrick Garland owns a seat, they say.  He was appointed but failed to get the "advice and consent of the Senate".  How does that make it his rightful seat? 

Seats on the Court were filled without the use of the filibuster.  Who ended the use of the filibuster for Judicial appointments?  That would be Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid.  Republicans extended it to Supreme Court appointees.  If that was wrong, did Democrats restore the old rules with their return to power?  No, just the opposite.  They propose eliminating the filibuster for all legislation and confirmations.  So how does that make it seats were stolen?  For another thing, Trump appointed and Republicans confirmed 3 Justices in that term, and Democrats want to add 4 new seats.  Coincidentally, that is the number they calculate they need to make a new Left majority.

The greatest irony would be if Dems vote to pack the Court, then don't get the seats filled before losing power again, and the new Court count becomes 10-3 of lifetime appointments.  Then what?  Expand it to 21 Justices on their next return to power?  Then what?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2021, 02:18:22 PM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12482
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #89 on: April 19, 2021, 05:30:54 PM »
"The greatest irony would be if Dems vote to pack the Court, then don't get the seats filled before losing power again, and the new Court count becomes 10-3 of lifetime appointments.  Then what?  Expand it to 21 Justices on their next return to power?  Then what?"

Is there anything in the Constitution that prevents reducing the number of seats?
next time (if there is one) we can reduce the number of seats corresponding to the number of liberals
or why not make it one seat doing away with all but one then re expand it with the president nominating 8 new conservative justices .

where does this end?


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
AG Garland does the right thing
« Reply #91 on: May 26, 2021, 08:43:56 AM »
Merrick Garland Defends Bill Barr
Both oppose a judge’s order to make public an internal DOJ memo.
By The Editorial Board
May 25, 2021 6:15 pm ET


Who knew Attorney General Merrick Garland would ride to predecessor Bill Barr’s rescue?

On Monday the Justice Department announced it will appeal federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s order to release an internal Justice Department memo from the Trump years dealing with the Robert Mueller report. Justice is appealing despite a May 14 plea not to do so from nine of the 11 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

At issue is a March 2019 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo advising then Attorney General Barr on how to handle the Mueller findings. Mr. Barr’s department took the view that the memo should not be made public because it is part of protected internal deliberations. Under both Mr. Barr and predecessor Jeff Sessions, Justice also opposed a Judicial Watch suit to depose Hillary Clinton and top aide Cheryl Mills about talking points generated after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. It did so on similar institutional grounds of protecting senior executive branch officials from invasive discovery.


In her May 3 order, Judge Jackson accused Mr. Barr of being “disingenuous” and claimed the OLC memo isn’t protected because the AG had already made up his mind. In response, Justice on Monday released the first page and a half of the memo—but has sensibly taken Mr. Barr’s side and kept the rest shielded. No doubt the new AG appreciates the implications for his own internal deliberations.

In the process the Justice Department has exposed Judge Jackson’s order for the partisan mischief and judicial overreach it represents. As the appeals court considers what to do, the Biden and Trump administrations are now on the same page. This is what a nonpartisan and even-handed Justice Department policy should look like.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19765
    • View Profile
Re: AG Garland does the right thing
« Reply #92 on: May 26, 2021, 10:04:36 AM »
Watching both wings of the deep state work together to hide things from the American public makes me cry tears of joy!


Merrick Garland Defends Bill Barr
Both oppose a judge’s order to make public an internal DOJ memo.
By The Editorial Board
May 25, 2021 6:15 pm ET


Who knew Attorney General Merrick Garland would ride to predecessor Bill Barr’s rescue?

On Monday the Justice Department announced it will appeal federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson’s order to release an internal Justice Department memo from the Trump years dealing with the Robert Mueller report. Justice is appealing despite a May 14 plea not to do so from nine of the 11 Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

At issue is a March 2019 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo advising then Attorney General Barr on how to handle the Mueller findings. Mr. Barr’s department took the view that the memo should not be made public because it is part of protected internal deliberations. Under both Mr. Barr and predecessor Jeff Sessions, Justice also opposed a Judicial Watch suit to depose Hillary Clinton and top aide Cheryl Mills about talking points generated after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. It did so on similar institutional grounds of protecting senior executive branch officials from invasive discovery.


In her May 3 order, Judge Jackson accused Mr. Barr of being “disingenuous” and claimed the OLC memo isn’t protected because the AG had already made up his mind. In response, Justice on Monday released the first page and a half of the memo—but has sensibly taken Mr. Barr’s side and kept the rest shielded. No doubt the new AG appreciates the implications for his own internal deliberations.

In the process the Justice Department has exposed Judge Jackson’s order for the partisan mischief and judicial overreach it represents. As the appeals court considers what to do, the Biden and Trump administrations are now on the same page. This is what a nonpartisan and even-handed Justice Department policy should look like.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #93 on: May 26, 2021, 04:29:08 PM »
IMHO Barr, and by extension, Garland, are correct.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19765
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #94 on: May 26, 2021, 05:12:14 PM »
IMHO Barr, and by extension, Garland, are correct.

DC Uniparty swamp creatures.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #95 on: May 26, 2021, 07:06:50 PM »
Nonetheless on the legal issue in question IMHO they are correct.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19765
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #96 on: May 26, 2021, 07:20:53 PM »
Nonetheless on the legal issue in question IMHO they are correct.

Oh, the rule of law!


 :roll:

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #97 on: May 27, 2021, 03:44:54 AM »
Something we are for, yes?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 19765
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #98 on: May 27, 2021, 09:09:34 AM »
Something we are for, yes?

Being for something doesn't mean pretending it exists when it doesn't.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 54752
    • View Profile
Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« Reply #99 on: May 27, 2021, 10:20:23 AM »
Here Barr's action was consistent with rule of law and so was Garland's.  This is a good thing.