Supreme Court of the United States

[Foxx]

BREAKING REPORT: First Two January 6th Appeals Reach Supreme Court..

 

The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled a conference for December 1 to decide whether to hear two significant appeals related to the events of January 6.

 

The first case involves a federal agent who brought his firearm to the U.S. Capitol, and the second concerns the Department of Justice's use of an evidence-tampering law in prosecuting January 6 defendants for felony obstruction of Congress.

 

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear either or both of these appeals, it would mark the first time it reviews a case connected to January 6.

 

On November 14, the court noted that both cases are set for discussion in the December 1 conference.

 

Defense lawyer Marina Medvin, who represents clients in both cases, indicated that by December 4, it should be apparent whether the Supreme Court will agree to review the cases, reject the petitions, or postpone them for further discussion at a later conference.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

NEXT SUPREME COURT TERM: It could be a very difficult one for supporters of the Administrative State

 two cases that will be argued in January 2024 are especially important.

 

“The two most-watched cases, Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce (court file 22-1219) and Loper Bright Enterprises Inc. v. Raimondo (court file 22-451), will be heard back-to-back on Jan. 17.

 

“In Relentless and Loper Bright, the court may narrow the application of the so-called Chevron deference doctrine that the Supreme Court articulated in the 1984 landmark ruling, Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

 

“In Chevron, the court held that while courts ‘must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress,’ where courts find ‘Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue’ and ‘the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.’

 

“In other words, Chevron stands for the proposition that when the meaning of a statute is unclear, an executive agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers is entitled to deference unless Congress has said otherwise.”

 

 

 

Well maybe not much longer.

 

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-schedules-oral-argument-in-challenge-to-bureaucrats-power-5531659?ea_src=frontpage&ea_med=lead-special-judiciary-medium-0

[Foxx]

Won't Review

 

[Ann]

3 hours ago, Foxx said:

Won't Review

 

That is terrible.

[Foxx]

12 minutes ago, Ann said:

That is terrible.

Really, what's terrible is that it had to be sent to the Supreme Court. Justice such as this should be settled in lower courts.

[Joe Miner]

20 hours ago, Foxx said:

Won't Review

 

 

Most all of the new evidence I've seen that's being reported now was actually in front of the jurors in the original trial.  Autopsy report, examiner notes, examiner testimony about no asphyxiation, etc..

 

Hard to justify a new trial because the new evidence is only new to the public because the media wouldn't cover it at the time.

 

If the reason is that the jury was unable to return a fair verdict because of fear, I'm guessing they would need evidence directly showing that.

 

 

 

 

[Ann]

15 minutes ago, Joe Miner said:

 

Most all of the new evidence I've seen that's being reported now was actually in front of the jurors in the original trial.  Autopsy report, examiner notes, examiner testimony about no asphyxiation, etc..

 

Hard to justify a new trial because the new evidence is only new to the public because the media wouldn't cover it at the time.

 

If the reason is that the jury was unable to return a fair verdict because of fear, I'm guessing they would need evidence directly showing that.

They barricaded the court but didn't sequester the jury forcing them to walk through the gauntlet of "protestors" daily. I'm sure that was fine, not intimidating at all. 

[Joe Miner]

3 minutes ago, Ann said:

They barricaded the court but didn't sequester the jury forcing them to walk through the gauntlet daily. I'm sure that was fine, not intimidating at all. 

 

I get it.

 

But that's different from evidence or proof of jury tampering or intimidation.

 

And then further that it is evidence that the intimidation caused the verdict.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure there was much of a chance of success here.

 

[Ann]

1 minute ago, Joe Miner said:

 

I get it.

 

But that's different from evidence or proof of jury tampering or intimidation.

 

And then further that it is evidence that the intimidation caused the verdict.

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure there was much of a chance of success here.

 

That wasn't jury intimidation!?

[Joe Miner]

1 minute ago, Ann said:

That wasn't jury intimidation!?

 

There's common sense definition of terms, and there's legal definition of terms.

 

The two don't always match.

 

Maybe one of our residents lawyers can chime in for clarity?

[Ann]

Over at Legal Insurrection:

 

</snip>

The trial court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals should have presumed that this potent threat of harm to the jurors and the community prejudiced the jury pool. But in considering the motion to transfer, the district court focused on the publicity surrounding Mr. Floyd’s death and the trial. Repeatedly noting the district court’s “wide discretion” in this regard, the Minnesota Court of Appeals remarkably added that other cases “involved circumstances more extreme than those in [Petitioner’s] trial.” This is not only absurd, but the lower courts wholly failed to consider the palpable threat of harm to the jurors, their families, and their community from a “not guilty” verdict. It is now an unfortunate given that every police-involved critical incident is immediately criticized by significant segments of American society—regardless of the facts. Under these extreme circumstances, the failure to transfer the trial to less dangerous venue denied Petitioner his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial.

 

</snip>

[Ann]

8th Circuit Court Decision Ends Leftist Election Lawfare
This could put Marc Elias and leftist election lawsuits out of business.

 

Election rigging comes in a whole bunch of flavors. Beyond actual fraud, there’s lawfare.

 

Vote for politicians who back voter ID and cleaning up voter rolls? Great. They’re elected and they even do it. And then even if the Justice Department doesn’t step in, some leftist group or groups will sue leading to a “settlement” that terminates election reform. Sometimes state and local authorities even secretly collaborate to be sued and then they immediately agree to a “settlement” that ends election reform. Or friendly judges give them exactly what they want.

 

Take this insane case out of Georgia.

 

A federal judge in Georgia on Monday ordered two counties to reverse a decision removing more than 4,000 voters from the rolls ahead of the Jan. 5 runoff elections that will decide control of the U.S. Senate.

 

The judge, Leslie Abrams Gardner — the sister of former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, a prominent ally of President-elect Joe Biden who has led voter registration efforts across the state — concluded that the counties appeared to have improperly relied on unverified change-of-address data to invalidate registrations in the two counties.

 

The suit, brought by Majority Forward, represented by National Democratic Party attorney Marc Elias, followed an effort to challenge the lengthy roster of voters simply because their registrations appeared to match U.S. Postal Service change-of address records.

 

Abrams Gardner, whose husband was just busted for human trafficking, refused to recuse.

 

</snip>

[Foxx]

Thread

 

3 and 4

 

5 and 6

7 and 8

 

 

[Cinga]

Really sounds like the SCOTUS hearing over Colorado removing Trump is not going well in Trump favor. The prevailing argument so far is it is up to a state to enforce the the 14th or to simply decide they can remove someone from the ballot

[Deranged Rhino]

16 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Really sounds like the SCOTUS hearing over Colorado removing Trump is not going well in Trump favor. The prevailing argument so far is it is up to a state to enforce the the 14th or to simply decide they can remove someone from the ballot

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Even the devil himself knows... 

 

[Cinga]

@Deranged Rhino... interesting, questioning seemed to me as if they might give it to CO as a state right even though the 14th is in the Constitution

[Deranged Rhino]