The Jeff Sessions Justice Department looking for way to take authority away from Federal Courts.

Courtesy of Mother Jones: 

Last April, when a federal judge in Hawaii blocked the Trump administration’s effort to ban entry to people from six Muslim-majority nations, Attorney General Jeff Sessions took to conservative talk radio to vent his frustration. “I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power,” he told host Mark Levin. 

Residents of Hawaii pointed out that it was every bit as much a state as the other 49, but Sessions was making a broader legal point, one that the Supreme Court will now consider. The Justice Department wants to permanently remove the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions—orders that stop a policy from taking effect until the court has officially ruled on its legality. Instead, a Hawaiian judge overseeing a travel ban case brought by the state of Hawaii would be able to block the ban only in that state. The implications, if the Supreme Court agrees with the Justice Department, will be enormous for the future of judicial review and the federal government’s balance of power. 

Federal courts have repeatedly blocked the administration’s efforts to implement a hardline immigration agenda. More than a year into Donald Trump’s presidency, attempts to crack down on sanctuary cities, end Obama-era deportation protections for Dreamers, and block nationals from Muslim-majority countries have been stopped by federal judges enacting nationwide injunctions.

Okay this might actually be the MOST troubling thing we have learned about this administration.

The Founders wanted there to be three co-equal branches of government, executive, legislative, and judicial.

And the Judicial is the one that is tasked with protecting the constitutional rights of American citizens.

If the Trump Administration were actually successful in pulling this off, that would mean that each state's court system would determine what was a constitutionally protected right in their jurisdiction ONLY.

That means that some states could block gay marriage, women's rights, civil rights, equal pay, essentially EVERYTHING.

That would overwhelm the Supreme Court almost overnight, and if Trump gets one more judge on the panel they would be loathe to do anything to challenge a state's right to remain in the dark ages.

Trump inaccurately blames the Ninth Circuit for shooting down his order to withhold funds from sanctuary cities, calls for it to be broken up.

Courtesy of the Washington Examiner:  

President Trump said Wednesday that he has "absolutely" considered proposals that would split up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges have blocked two of his executive actions. 

"Absolutely, I have," Trump said of considering 9th Circuit breakup proposals during a far-ranging interview with the Washington Examiner at the White House. "There are many people that want to break up the 9th Circuit. It's outrageous." 

"Everybody immediately runs to the 9th Circuit. And we have a big country. We have lots of other locations. But they immediately run to the 9th Circuit. Because they know that's like, semi-automatic," Trump said.

Of course as I pointed out yesterday the sanctuary city order was NOT shot down by the Ninth Circuit but rather by a District Court judge in San Francisco.

So not only is Trump's anger misplaced, but he is calling for a complete reorganization of a the largest circuit court in the country simply because they do not agree with his often unconstitutional policy decisions.

Apparently Trump believes they simply do not understand what he is trying to do: 

"The language could not be any clearer. I mean, the language on the ban, it reads so easy that a reasonably good student in the first grade will fully understand it. And they don't even mention the words in their rejection on the ban," Trump said. "And the same thing with this [sanctuary city decision]. I mean, when you have people that are being enabled to commit crime. And in San Francisco, when you look at Kate Steinle being shot and here is the court, you know, right in that same general area. And when you look at a Kate Steinle, when you look at so many other things."

Yes clearly it is an issue of reading comprehension which is causing these judges to reject Trump's admittedly elementary school arguments for why he should be allowed to crap all over the Constitution.

And that Kate Steinle argument is especially weak.

That was one fatal shooting among the thousands of fatal shootings each year, and statistically undocumented immigrants are far LESS likely to engage in violent crime than actual citizens.

But the problem is that these are facts, and in Trumpland facts are the enemy.

So instead of accepting the fact that the policies that he wants to put in place are illegal, unwanted, or just plain wrong, he instead attempts to bully those who will not let him have his way into submission.

Washington Supreme Court rules that charter schools are unconstitutional.

Courtesy of The Seattle Times:  

After nearly a year of deliberation, the state Supreme Court ruled 6-3 late Friday afternoon that charter schools are unconstitutional. 

The ruling — believed to be one of the first of its kind in the country — overturns the law voters narrowly approved in 2012 allowing publicly funded, but privately operated, schools.

In the ruling, Chief Justice Barbara Madsen wrote that charter schools aren’t “common schools” because they’re governed by appointed rather than elected boards. 

Therefore, “money that is dedicated to common schools is unconstitutionally diverted to charter schools,” Madsen wrote.

Education policy analyst and public school advocate Diane Ravitch had this to say about the ruling:  

This is a big win for parents and public schools.

I would agree and further state that I hope this is the first of many such decisions that put a stop to charter school programs that drain money and resources from the public schools while resisting any oversight from the same public whose tax money they are taking.

Listen I understand that there are some poorly run public schools in this country, and that parents really want alternatives.

But I also understand that there is a very determined anti-public education movement that uses charter schools and homeschooling as a way to undermine public schools, and their motives have far more to do with their religious faiths and ideology than they do with improving educational opportunities.

Make no mistake, public education and public school teachers are under constant fire in America and charter schools are the Trojan horse the opponents are using to get past our defenses.

(H/T Common Dreams)

Federal judge throws out challenge from Joe Arpaio calling the President's immigration reforms unconstitutional.

Courtesy of Reuters: 

A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit brought against Barack Obama by an Arizona police chief who called the U.S. president's sweeping immigration reforms unconstitutional, saying the plaintiff lacked legal standing in the case. 

Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the demand by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a preliminary injunction to halt the policies. 

Arpaio, who calls himself "America's Toughest Sheriff," filed the case last month, saying Obama had overstepped his powers by bypassing Congress and ordering the changes himself.

No the President did not overstep his powers, but you sure did you pink underwear pimping piece of shit.

Federal judge rules Alaska's ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional.

Courtesy of the Alaska Dispatch:  

A federal judge ruled Sunday that Alaska’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, paving the way for gay couples to begin marrying in the state for the first time. 

“The court finds that Alaska’s ban on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize same sex marriages lawfully entered in other states is unconstitutional as a deprivation of basic due process and equal protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Burgess wrote in a order in the case Hamby v. Parnell, released Sunday.

Holy crap, this is big news for Alaska!

To be honest I thought it would be quite some time before we would see this issue addressed up here after the Supreme Court essentially gave their stamp of approval to marriage equality last week.

You know this place is more and more starting to remind me of the Alaska of my youth. Before all of those southern conservatives came up here with the oil boom and ruined the state for everybody.

My only regret is that I didn't get to see Jerry Prevo's face when he heard this news. Since he has worked so very hard to keep the LGBT community from having equal rights I have little doubt that this pissed him off to no end.

Mike Huckabee wants judge impeached who struck down Arkansas ban on same sex marriage.

Courtesy of The Washington Times:  

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee says lawmakers in his home state should impeach a judge who struck down the state’s gay marriage ban, saying the judge ignored the will of voters. 

In a blog post on his political action committee website, Huckabee on Sunday criticized Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza for finding unconstitutional a 2004 amendment and 1997 state law banning same-sex marriage. Huckabee wrote that the governor should call a special session to impeach Piazza. A spokesman for the PAC confirmed that Huckabee wrote the post. 

Huckabee wrote that if Arkansans want to legalize gay marriage, they should put it on the ballot and vote for it. 

The judge struck down the ban because it is unconstitutional, which means it does not make one bit of difference whether the Arkansas rednecks want it or not.

Mike Huckabee is a fucking joke these days.

Using his logic women would still have no right to vote and black people would be working the plantation fields picking cotton for their southern masters.

Judge strikes down Arkansas ban on same sex marriage.

Courtesy of Buzzfeed:

A state judge in Arkansas declared his state’s ban on marriages between same-sex couples to be unconstitutional, the latest of several judges to have done so since the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act last June. 

Circuit Court Judge Christopher Piazza issued the decision — finding both a state statute and constitutional amendment to violate the U.S. Constitution — following a hearing in the case last month. 

Under the U.S. Constitution, Piazza ruled, “the Arkansas marriage laws implicate both a fundamental right and the rights of a suspect or quasi-suspect class.” The fundamental right at issue is the right to marry and the class at issue is same-sex couples, per Piazza’s ruling. 

Although he believed such heightened or strict scrutiny could be applied to the challenge — making it more likely the ban would be struck down — he did not believe the level of scrutiny ultimately mattered: 

You know I am sort of waiting for the conservatives to finally recognize the futility of their attempts to deny gays the right to marry.

At this point discriminating against the LGBT community in any way is right up their with using the "N" word. In other words everybody knows it is terrible, and yet people in the South will still try to get away with it. 

West Virginia Governor vetoes 20 week abortion ban. Rightfully labels it unconstitutional.

Courtesy of Think Progress:  

Late on Friday, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin (D) vetoed House Bill 4588, a measure that would have outlawed abortions after 20 weeks in West Virginia. In a statement regarding his decision, the governor explained that the abortion ban would be a “detriment of the health and safety of expectant mothers,” and noted that it violates the constitution. 

“I believe there is no greater gift of love than the gift of life,” Gov. Tomblin said. “However, I have vetoed HB 4588 because I am advised, by not only attorneys from the legislature, but through my own legal team that this bill is unconstitutional.” 

Under Roe v. Wade, abortion is legal up until the point of viability, which typically occurs around 24 weeks of pregnancy. Twenty-week bans — also often called “fetal pain bans,” since they’re based on the scientifically disputed theory that fetuses can feel pain after that point — seek to narrow that window. It’s an effective method of gradually chipping away at women’s reproductive rights. 

Abortion opponents have furthered this incremental strategy in states across the country, capitalizing on the emotional outrage about later abortion procedures to enact 20-week bans in nine states. West Virginia would have represented a particularly significant milestone in this push to limit abortion access. If Tomblin hadn’t vetoed HB 4588, it would have been the first 20-week ban to become law in a Democratic-controlled state — ultimately, allowing the anti-choice community to construe this policy as moderate by pointing to bipartisan support for fetal pain restrictions.

Whew! Really dodged a bullet with that one!

 In 2013 twenty two states enacted a total of seventy abortion restrictions, and there are no indications that these attacks on Roe vs Wade are going to stop anytime soon.

This is yet ANOTHER reason why Democrats in local elections need to get out the vote and work to elect politicians who respect a woman's right to choose.

If the demographic predictions are accurate than time is on our side, however until then we have to fight to preserve the rights that so many fought so hard to attain.

And now for a little positive news about women's reproductive rights.

Courtesy of Reuters:  

A federal judge on Friday struck down an Arkansas law that would ban most abortions starting at 12 weeks of pregnancy, one of the most restrictive such statutes enacted in the United States, declaring the measure unconstitutional. 

U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright ruled that the law "impermissibly infringes a woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to elect to terminate a pregnancy before viability" of the fetus, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Webber had previously barred enforcement of the measure while she reviewed a legal challenge to it brought by two Arkansas abortion providers. 

As enacted, the Arkansas Human Heartbeat Protection Act would have banned most abortions at or after 12 weeks of pregnancy, if a fetal heartbeat could be detected by standard ultrasound. 

Doctors who were found to violate the statute risked having their licenses revoked by the state medical board.

No abortions after twelve weeks! That is absolutely punitive and would allow women only a small window of time to 1) Learn for sure that they were pregnant. 2) Determine if they were in a position to keep raise a child. 3) Get the money needed to have the procedure.

Remember some of the women seeking abortions might be quite young and without means to handle something like this in a timely manner.

But hey apparently the law did at least have provisions for rape, incest, and fetal abnormalities.

How thoughtful of them.

And before we hold a parade it should be noted that the judge did leave in place the law's requirement that a woman seeking an abortion first undergo an ultrasound to determine whether a fetal heartbeat is present.

So while these women in Arkansas might still have the ability to terminate a pregnancy, first they must be subjected to a medically unnecessary ultrasound.

And let's face it these people are not finished yet, not by a long shot.

They may not have been successful this time but they will not stop until they find away to repeal Roe vs Wade permanently and turn women back into the breeding stock that good Christian men want them to remain. 

Federal judge calls Texas ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional.

Courtesy of Yahoo News:  

A federal judge has struck down Texas' ban on gay marriage, but is leaving it in place pending a ruling by an appeals court later this year. 

Judge Orlando Garcia issued a preliminary injunction on the ban Wednesday, then suspended his ruling. Two gay couples had challenged the state's constitutional amendment and a longstanding law banning gay marriage. 

Under federal court rules, a judge may suspend a law if he or she believes the plaintiffs have a strong case and will suffer if the law is enforced. 

Garcia said his injunction against Texas enforcing its ban will take effect once an appeals court has a chance to rule on the issue.

I think the tea leaves are indicating that the issue of gay marriage is headed to the Supreme Court.

I am not sure if we should view that as a good thing, or a terrible thing.

In my mind the Court would have no choice but to strike down a ban on gay marriage as unconstitutional, but then again my mind is not cluttered with the likes of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or Samuel Alito.

US District judge rules ban on same sex marriage in Oklahoma unconstitutional.

Courtesy of Tulsa World:  

U.S. Senior District Judge Terence Kern ruled Tuesday that Oklahoma’s ban on marriage equality is unconstitutional. 

The ruling is stayed pending appeal, meaning marriages will not occur immediately in Oklahoma. 

In striking down Oklahoma's ban on same-sex marriage, U.S. District Judge Terrence Kern described it as "an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a governmental benefit." 

"Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed," Kern's 68-page decision says. "It is not a scarce commodity to be meted out begrudgingly or in short portions. Therefore, the majority view in Oklahoma must give way to individual constitutional rights.”

Proponents of the ban have argued that it passed with 74% support in 2004. 

Of course it should also be noted that Oklahoma also forbid the marriage of "any person of African descent...to any person not of African descent" until the 1967 case of Loving V Virginia overturned all anti-miscegenation laws.

So sometimes the will of a certain group of people is less important than the rights of all American citizens.

Federal District Court declares at least one religious income tax exemption unconstitutional.

Courtesy of The New Civil Rights Movement:  

A federal district court judge has declared “unconstitutional” a portion of U.S. law that allows “a minister of the gospel” to not pay income tax on a specific portion of their compensation. 

U.S. District Court Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the Western District of Wisconsin ruled that the so-called “parish exemption,” which allows religious ministers to avoid paying taxes on the value of their housing granted to them by their religious employers, “violates the establishment clause” of the U.S. Constitution and must be discontinued. 

The law, 26 U.S. C. § 107(2), has been on the books since 1954. 

The tax exemption was estimated to cost U.S. taxpayers $2.3 billion from 2002-2007 alone, likely more in the years since. 

Heralding it as a “major federal court victory,” the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which brought the lawsuit along with their co-presidents, Annie Laurie Gaylor and Dan Barker, offered an explanation of yesterday’s ruling. 

Ministers may, for instance, use the untaxed income to purchase a home, and, in a practice known as “double dipping,” may then deduct interest paid on the mortgage and property taxes. 

“The Court’s decision does not evince hostility to religion — nor should it even seem controversial,” commented Richard L. Bolton, FFRF’s attorney in the case. “The Court has simply recognized the reality that a tax free housing allowance available only to ministers is a significant benefit from the government unconstitutionally provided on the basis of religion.” 

Crabb wrote: “Some might view a rule against preferential treatment as exhibiting hostility toward religion, but equality should never be mistaken for hostility. It is important to remember that the establishment clause protects the religious and nonreligious alike.” 

The 1954 bill’s sponsor, Rep. Peter Mack, argued ministers should be rewarded for “carrying on such a courageous fight against this [godless and anti-religious world movement].” 

“I agree with plaintiffs that §107(2) does not have a secular purpose or effect,” wrote Crabb, adding that a reasonable observer would view it “as an endorsement of religion.” 

Crabb wrote that “the exemption provides a benefit to religious persons and no one else, even though doing so is not necessary to alleviate a special burden on religious exercise.” 

All taxpayers are burdened by taxes, Crabb noted. “Defendants do not identify any reason why a requirement on ministers to pay taxes on a housing allowance is more burdensome for them than for the many millions of others who must pay taxes on income used for housing expenses.” 

One study has estimated that in total, combined religious tax exemptions cost American taxpayers $71 billion each year.

And now with this one declared unconstitutional I am not sure what the argument would be to protect the rest of the exemptions. Does that mean that we will soon see the day when churches are taxed just like ever other big profit making, politically connected, corporation? Because THAT would be awesome!

Gee I wonder how Sarah Palin will work THIS into her book tour?

Federal judge rules that soon to be implemented Texas abortion restrictions are unconstitutional.

Courtesy of the ABC News:

 A federal judge has ruled that new abortion restrictions passed by the Texas Legislature are unconstitutional and should not take effect as planned on Tuesday. 

District Judge Lee Yeakel issued his decision Monday following a three-day trial over whether the state can restrict when, where and how women obtain abortions in Texas. 

Lawyers for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers argued that the regulations did not protect women and would shut down a third of the abortion clinics in Texas. 

The Texas attorney general's office argued that the law protects women and the life of the fetus. State officials are expected to file an emergency appeal of Yeakel's order to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. 

The proposed restrictions were among the toughest in the nation.

These, of course, are the same restrictions, that Wendy Davis courageously filibustered 11 hours to stop. 

Not at all surprising to have them found unconstitutional.

But if women of Texas really want to protect their reproductive rights, they know what they need to do.

Alaska Senator Mark Begich forced to put out conspiracy fires that the well known pyromaniac Sarah Palin helped set.

God these people are idiots.

Courtesy of Alaska Dispatch:  

While calling Alaska legislative action on guns "unconstitutional" and questions asked by a legislator "blogosphere rumor," Sen. Mark Begich staked out his own pro-gun credentials before a joint session of the Alaska Legislature. 

Following his address, Rep. Lora Reinbold, R-Eagle River, questioned Begich about allegations that the federal government had a secret plan to control guns through ammunition purchases. 

"Do you know of any excessive purchase of ammunition by the feds as a backdoor way to control the use of certain firearms?" she asked. 

Another variation of that notion was recently repeated by former Gov. Sarah Palin, who suggested that there was stockpiling of bullets by the federal government in anticipation of civil unrest. 

"That doesn't exist," Begich told Reinbold, and said it was part of the "blogosphere rumor mill." 

"There's no stockpiling," he said.

But was THAT explanation good enough to convince Rep. Reinhold, that she was mistaken, and to stop getting her information from Right Wing blogs and morons like Sarah Palin. Apparently not quite.  

After Begich's address to the Legislature, Reinbold approached Begich to further discuss the topic. 

She later declined, through her staff, to to talk to a reporter about the origin of her questions.

Yeah well WE know the origin of her questions, don't we?

They are from the morons over in the Right Wing blogosphere and their symbolic queen Sarah Palin. who posted this on her Facebook page back in February:  

If we are going to wet our proverbial pants over 0.3% in annual spending cuts when we’re running up trillion dollar annual deficits, then we’re done. Put a fork in us. We’re finished. We’re going to default eventually and that’s why the feds are stockpiling bullets in case of civil unrest.

Leave it to our crazy ass ex-half term Governor to take a half bakes conspiray theory and run with it.

And as if our poor beleaguered sole Democratic Senator had not yet had enough of dealing with  simple minded conservative morons he also had to deal with this:

Begich also responded to a question by Reinbold about House Joint Resolution 7, which calls upon President Obama to rescind 23 executive orders he's issued on gun regulation by denouncing a different bill, House Bill 69, sponsored by Speaker Mike Chenault, R-Nikiski, on the dais behind him. 

Chenault's bill, co-sponsored by Reinbold, would allow the arrest by Alaska law enforcement officers of federal officials attempting to enforce some national gun control laws Alaska. 

The bill was passed easily in the House of Representatives despite constitutionality concerns from the Legislature's own legal advisers, and without getting an opinion from the state's attorney general about its constitutionality or enforceability. 

"You've got to make your statement, and that's OK," Begich said, but even if it becomes law it wouldn't mean anything. 

"It's irrelevant, frankly, because it is not constitutional," he said.

You know there have been times that I have been a little lukewarm about Mark, but I have to tell you the man deserves the support of ALL  rational thinking Alaskans who would like to have at least SOMEBODY representing them who is not an addle brained, oil drenched, 2nd Amendment masturbating, moron.

(Okay, okay I know Murkowski is not nearly as batshit crazy as the rest of the Republicans up here, but let's face it if she were REALLY smart she would jump parties. Oh God, wouldn't THAT be great?)

Louisiana judge finds Bobby Jindal's school voucher program unconstitutional.

"I'm sorry what's unconstitutional?"

Courtesy of the Washington Post:  

One of Gov. Bobby Jindal’s signature accomplishments, a private school tuition voucher program, was ruled unconstitutional by a Louisiana judge Friday, the Associated Press reports: 

State Judge Tim Kelley said Friday that the program improperly diverts money allocated through Louisiana’s public school funding formula to private schools. He also said it unconstitutionally diverts local tax dollars to private schools. 

Kelley ruled in a lawsuit backed by teacher unions and school boards seeking to shut down the voucher program and other changes that would funnel more money away from traditional public schools.

Well this is good news for the children of Louisiana at least, though of course Jindal is planning to  appeal the ruling, which in my opinion makes this statement of his about the rebranding that Republicans need to do going forward ridiculous:

Stop being the stupid party. It's time for a new Republican party that talks like adults. It's time for us to articulate our plans and visions for America in real terms. We had a number of Republicans damage the brand this year with offensive and bizarre comments. Enough of that.

Well I've got news for Jindal, if he wants his party to STOP being the "stupid party" than supporting the teaching of superstitious drivel to schoolchildren in lieu of actual science is certainly NOT the way to accomplish that feat.

Remember THIS was the type of "science" textbooks being offered in some of the schools that would be supported by this voucher system.

Go ahead Governor Jindal, tell me that funny story about how you don't want the Republican party to be the "stupid party" anymore.

That one always cracks me up.

P.S. Just on a personal note I am one of those people who has NO freaking idea why people think that Bobby Jindal is a good politician or even how he got elected Governor in the first place. He ALWAYS seems seems strangely uncomfortable and not terribly bright.

I have heard him give speeches, listened as he answered questions, and watched as others tossed accolades in his direction.  But I simply don't see it.