Skip to content

Tag: Court

Mike Lindell Says Stolen Election Supreme Court Case to Happen Before Thanksgiving

Mike Lindell is a super hero in real life. I don’t care if the corruption is so big it’s hard to overcome, God will bless him either way.

DISCLAIMER: Views and opinions expressed on The Ben Armstrong Show are solely those of the host and do not necessarily represent those of The New American. TNA is not responsible for, and does not verify the accuracy of any information presented.

Source link

Cotton Predicts Supreme Court Will Overturn Roe v. Wade

Senator criticized ‘pressure from social elites’ in remarks obtained by the Free Beacon

Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) / Getty Images

Kevin Daley • September 22, 2021 1:10 pm

Sen. Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) told attendees at a Federalist Society conference this week that he expects the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade, given that a majority of its members profess to be textualists and originalists.

The senator this week delivered remarks at the University Club of Washington, D.C. The speech covered a range of legal topics, including a case the justices will hear in December that asks whether Roe should be overturned. The event was closed to the press, but a source in the room conveyed portions of Cotton’s remarks to the Washington Free Beacon.

Cotton’s comments come amid a budding influence campaign around the December case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center. Judicial liberals have divided over strategies for protecting abortion rights before the conservative Court. Some pro-abortion activists, such as the 50-odd demonstrators who picketed Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s home on Sept. 15, favor direct political action against the justices themselves. Others recommend a conciliatory approach.

“The only thing standing in the way of justices doing the right thing is the intense social pressure of liberal elites,” Cotton told conference attendees.

“Now is the time for true friends of the Constitution to speak up,” he added.

The Court’s abortion precedents, Cotton said, reflect a tendency of past courts to cater to the values of an in-group of professors, advocacy organizations, and well-paid lawyers who can influence judicial business. Today, he added, a majority of justices purport to be committed textualists and originalists, and he expects that a straightforward application of those methods will lead the Court to overturn Roe.

The kind of peer pressure Cotton decried is manifesting in the Dobbs case. The American Bar Association, a premier lawyers group, on Monday filed an amicus (or “friend of the Court”) brief that urged the justices to retain Roe. The brief warned that a contrary decision would severely damage the rule of law and the public’s perception of the Court as a non-political institution. The American Bar Association represents approximately 60,000 lawyers and is influential in judicial selection, particularly under Democratic presidents.

A number of prominent law professors, among them current and former deans of top law schools, continued in a similar vein in a second amicus brief filed Monday. They predicted a victory for Mississippi will erode “the bedrock of [the Court’s] legitimacy.”

Warnings like Cotton’s usually factor in the Court’s abortion opinions, albeit obliquely. Justice Neil Gorsuch in a 2020 dissent raised doubts about the Court’s “willingness to follow the traditional constraints of the judicial process when a case touching on abortion enters the courtroom.”

The question in the Mississippi case is whether a state law that bans abortion after 15 weeks is constitutional. After the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, lawyers for Mississippi urged the justices to overturn Roe outright. A clinic in Jackson, Miss., that is challenging the law filed its response on Sept. 14 and urged the Court to maintain the legal framework for abortion regulations without any changes.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in Dobbs on Dec. 1.

Source link

Court Documents Show Trump Campaign Knew Kraken Was Lackin’

Last winter, we were all treated to an unprecedented drama as a lame-duck president fought to overturn election results to stay in office. Now there is a smoking gun that indicates that the Trump campaign had debunked its own claims long before attorneys like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell made them in court. In other words, the Trump campaign knew that Donald Trump had lost the election and tried to get courts to throw out the election anyway.

Court documents filed last week as part of a defamation suit filed by a former Dominion employee against the Trump campaign and obtained by the New York Times indicate that Trump’s lawyers knew that the conspiracy theories that they advanced about voting machines from Dominion and Smartmatic were not true when they advanced them at a press conference two weeks after the election. The documents include emails between Trump campaign staffers and a resulting memo that debunked the campaign’s own claims.

Ten days after the 2020 election, on November 13, Zach Parkinson, then the Trump campaign’s deputy director of communications, emailed lower-level staffers to ask them to “substantiate or debunk” claims being made about Dominion. The next day, Parkinson received a response in the form of a memo that stated in part that Dominion did not use software from Smartmatic in the 2020 election, Dominion had no connections to George Soros or Venezuela, and there was no evidence that Dominion’s management had ties to Antifa or leftwing activists. All of these points debunked claims being made by Trump supporters and the campaign’s own lawyers.

In the following days, a conservative activist, Joe Oltmann, accused Eric Croomer, the Dominion employee who filed suit, of hacking the voting systems to ensure that Trump lost. Trump campaign lawyers Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell repeated these claims in a press conference on November 19 at the Republican National Committee offices. The pair also linked the plot to Soros, Venezuela, and Smartmatic, all of which had been debunked by the Trump campaign memo several days earlier.

In a deposition, Giuliani said that he and Powell were “active supervisors” of the Trump campaign’s legal strategy even though there was some doubt about who Powell worked for. Giuliani claimed not to have seen the memo but claimed its authors “wanted Trump to lose because they could raise more money.”

So far, it is uncertain whether Donald Trump saw the memo or was briefed on its contents. That is certain to be a question that lawyers will be asking in the future, but if the president was not informed of the memo, he definitely should have been.

What is indisputable, however, is that members of the Trump campaign who had seen the memo stayed silent. In fact, they stayed silent for the next couple of months as Trump’s lawyers, led by Giuliani and Powell, challenged the election results around the country. Donald Trump allegedly even went so far as to consider appointing Powell as some sort of special counsel to investigate the claims of voter fraud.

The documents are more evidence that the Trump campaign knew that the voter fraud claims were false and made them anyway. Afraid to challenge Donald Trump, Republicans looked the other way and let the crisis fester and grow. These claims ultimately led to the insurrection on January 6 and brought America to the brink of civil war.

New documents also shed light on the endgame for the infamous “Stop the Steal” rally. A newly revealed memo by Trump lawyer, John Eastman, outlined a six-step plan for having Vice President Mike Pence set aside the electoral votes of the seven contested states. Under the undated proposal, Pence would cite multiple slates of electors as a reason for not counting the votes of these states. The new total number of electoral votes would be 454, which means that 228 would be required to win. Coincidentally, Donald Trump would have had 232 electoral votes under that scenario.

Ladies and gentlemen, what is emerging here is a blatant attempt to steal the presidency. The Trump campaign knew that the voter fraud claims were false. If Donald Trump did not know, he should have. There is no excuse for withholding this information as the president made the rounds claiming – as he still does – that he rightfully won the election.

Other Trump lawyers built upon this deceit to plan to throw out the votes of millions of Americans. Seven whole states! The purpose of this plot, which Donald Trump apparently was aware of since he publicly pressured Mike Pence to help him, was to hold on to power even though he lost the election.

These facts cannot be credibly understood in any other way than that Donald Trump, aided by a cadre of crooked lawyers and supporters, tried to engage in a coup that would have toppled the rightful president-elect and usurped the constitutional order. Republicans wonder why people won’t move on from the insurrection, but this – Donald Trump’s attempted coup – is the story of the century. The insurrection is only the cherry on top.

If Pence had played ball, the matter would not have ended there. It is a fantasy to suggest that the country would have stood idly by as the incumbent president ignored the wishes of 14 percent of the states. The matter would have undoubtedly moved to the courts, but it would have likely ended up in the streets.

Americans – even Trump voters who are truthful and honest – would have never accepted such a blatant (and incompetent) attempt to steal power. The country would have risen up and it would have been right to do so, even if doing so would have amounted to a national tragedy.

What have we learned from Donald Trump’s coup attempt? We have learned that Mr. Trump’s incompetence is surpassed only by his dishonesty and corruption. He was willing to lead the country to widespread political violence to hang onto a job that he wasn’t very good at and frankly seemed to care little about beyond standing in front of crowds.

We have learned that a great many Republicans were too spineless to stand up to Trump when it counted. Whether for ideological reasons or to protect their own jobs, these people were willing to sell out their country and shred the Constitution. That should not be rewarded.

We have learned that Trump should have been impeached and disqualified from holding future office. Even in the absence of the guilty verdict last January, every American who loves the Constitution and the rule of law should make it their mission to ensure that Donald Trump and his enablers are never trusted with power again. As Herman Cain used to say, “They think you’re stupid.” We need to prove them wrong.

Finally, we have learned that America owes Mike Pence a debt of gratitude. Where other Republicans stayed silent and fell in line, Pence, almost singlehandedly, saved the day and defused the situation. Without Pence, Trump and the rioters could do nothing except scream futilely into the cold January winds.

Follow David Thornton on Twitter (@captainkudzu) and Facebook

The First TV contributor network is a place for vibrant thought and ideas. Opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of The First or The First TV. We want to foster dialogue, create conversation, and debate ideas. See something you like or don’t like? Reach out to the author or to us at

Source link

Supreme Court Will Stick with Some Seriatim Argument This Fall –

From the Supreme Court’s Guide for Counsel, which has apparently just been updated (emphasis added):

Your argument time is normally limited to 30 minutes ….

The Court generally will not question lead counsel for [a party] during the first two minutes of argument. The white light on the lectern will illuminate briefly at the end of this period to signal the start of questioning….

When the Marshal activates the white light and leaves it illuminated, there are five minutes of argument time remaining. When the red light comes on, counsel may finish responding to a question that is pending, but should not present a summation.

Once an attorney’s time has expired, each Justice will have the opportunity to question that attorney individually. Questioning will proceed in order of seniority, beginning with the Chief Justice. During this round of questioning, counsel should respond directly to the questions posed, and should not make additional arguments not responsive to the question.

So it appears that each argument will be:

  1. two minutes of head start,
  2. 28 minutes of free-for-all (if the “activates the white light and leaves it illuminated” happens five minutes before the 30 minutes are up), and
  3. seriatim questioning by the Justices.

UPDATE: I originally somehow missed the free-for-all minutes, and thought it was going to be all seriatim, after the two-minute opening statement; but it now seems to me that the result is this sort of hybrid (which would make arguments rather longer than they were). I welcome further correction, if I’ve misunderstood this.

Source link

Mike Lindell will bring election fraud case to Supreme Court to overturn 2020 election

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell revealed plans to take his election fraud case to the Supreme Court before Thanksgiving which will mark roughly one year since the 2020 presidential election.

Lindell announced during Steve Bannon’s War Room on Tuesday that he will ensure the nation’s highest court reviews his election fraud case which seeks to challenge Joe Biden’s tenure in office.

Lindell reportedly filed the lawsuit alleging widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election this summer after he released documentaries including “Absolute Proof” and held a “Cyber Symposium” to substantiate his claims.

The MyPillow CEO believes that based on the evidence he presents, the Supreme Court will rule 9-0 that the election was stolen from President Trump.

Source link

Biden’s DOJ urges Supreme Court not to overturn Roe v. Wade

The Biden administration on Monday urged the Supreme Court not to overrule its nearly 50-year precedent granting a woman a right to an abortion in a legal battle over Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban.

In its filing to the high court, the Department of Justice said overruling the 1973 landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which granted a woman a right to an abortion before the fetus is viable, would cause “grave harm to women.” The court later reaffirmed that right decades later in Planned Parenthood v Casey.

“Overruling Roe and Casey at this late date would be a profound disruption. Such a holding would harm women (and their partners) who have ‘organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail,’” the DOJ argued.

The federal government’s brief said changing the court’s precedent could undermine women’s autonomy, especially younger women, women of color, and “those with lesser means.”

Siding with a Mississippi abortion clinic challenging the state law, the administration also requested time during oral arguments on Dec. 1 before the justices to make its points. It’s not unusual for the justices to hear from the federal government in cases throughout the court‘s term. 

The Mississippi legal battle will test the court‘s roughly 50-year precedent and it’s potentially the year’s most highly watched case — especially after the justices declined to block a Texas law earlier this month that bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around six weeks of pregnancy.

Mississippi officials argue that Roe v. Wade should be overturned because it’s outdated. The state contends the viability standard set out in Roe is unclear, and the state has an interest in banning abortions after 15 weeks to protect women’s health — and the health of the unborn child.

The lawsuit was brought by Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the state’s only abortion clinic, and a doctor who provides abortions. According to court papers, the clinic provides abortions up to 16 weeks gestation.

They challenged the state’s Gestational Age Act enacted in 2018. The law bans abortions after 15 weeks unless there was a medical emergency or severe abnormality within the fetus.

The abortion providers told the court in its filing that the state’s interest in the woman’s health and child doesn’t begin until viability, which is “months” after the 15-week marker set in the law.

The Justice Department made similar arguments in its brief to the Supreme Court, noting that the district court judge found that viability begins around 23 to 24 weeks, beyond Mississippi’s limit of 15 weeks.

The case will be argued before the high court Dec. 1, and a decision is expected by the end of June next year. 

Sign up for Daily Newsletters


Source link

“We Believe We Can Prove They Made False Statements in Court”

MUST SEE: VoterGA’s Garland Favorito Following Monday’s Hearing: “We Believe We Can Prove They Made False Statements in Court”

Tap here to add The Western Journal to your home screen.

Source link

South Africa court resumes ex-leader Zuma’s protracted arms deal trial

Article content

JOHANNESBURG — A South African court on Tuesday resumed a trial that has dragged out for years over a $2 billion arms deal involving ex-president Jacob Zuma, whose legal team was expected to make a plea to remove the prosecutor.

The trial over the 1990s deal was meant to start in May, after being been repeatedly stalled by legal arguments, but was delayed again by Zuma’s request to replace lead prosecutor Billy Downer, whom he accuses of bias.

On July 7, Zuma was jailed for failing to cooperate with a separate corruption probe, precipitating some of the worst riots and looting the country has witnessed since the end of white minority rule in 1994. More than 300 people were killed and thousands of businesses pillaged and razed.

Article content

His jailing was nonetheless seen as a victory for South Africa’s ability to enforce the rule of law, even against powerful politicians. The top court on Friday dismissed a bid by Zuma to overturn that 15-month jail sentence.

Zuma, 79, has been convalescing from an undisclosed illness, and has been allowed to see out the rest of his sentence at home on health grounds. He regards the criminal trial against him as a politically motivated witch hunt.

“I wear the badge of being a political prisoner … (of) the struggle for the freedom of the African,” Zuma said in a statement late on Monday. “Injustice will be defeated.”

Zuma, who was absent on Tuesday at the trial proceedings at the Pietermartizburg High Court, has pleaded not guilty to corruption, money laundering and racketeering related to the acquisition of military hardware that has been mired in accusations of graft. French arms group Thales has also denied wrongdoing.

Zuma is accused of accepting a 500,000 rand ($33,900) annual bribe from Thales from 1999 in exchange for protecting the company from investigation. ($1 = 14.7510 rand) (Reporting by Wendell Roelf Editing by Tim Cocks and Nick Macfie)

Source link

European rights court rules Russia was behind Litvinenko killing

FILE PHOTO: The grave of murdered ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko is seen at Highgate Cemetery in London, Britain, January 21, 2016. REUTERS/Toby Melville

September 21, 2021

LONDON (Reuters) – The European Court of Human Rights ruled on Tuesday that Russia was responsible for the 2006 killing of Alexander Litvinenko who died an agonising death after he was poisoned in London with Polonium 210, a rare radioactive isotope.

“Russia was responsible for assassination of Aleksandr Litvinenko in the UK,” the court said in a statement on its ruling.

After moving to Britain, Litvinenko, a former FSB officer and whistleblower, become a vocal critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

(Reporting by Guy Faulconbridge; editing by Michael Holden)

Source link

Supreme Court Makes Massive Roe v. Wade Announcement

The Supreme Court has scheduled arguments for Dec. 1 regarding a Mississippi case that seeks to overturn the long-standing Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States.

The Mississippi case will serve as the first major abortion-related case to be heard in the Supreme Court under the new conservative 6-3 majority following the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in October 2020.

The case will address Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act passed in 2018. The act, blocked by two federal courts, generally prohibits abortion after 15 weeks, allowing exceptions only in the case of “medical emergencies or for severe fetal abnormality.” As ABC noted, it has no exceptions for rape or incest.


Boeing Investigating After Discovery on New Air Force One Jet

The brief in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization argued that Roe v. Wade and another landmark abortion decision, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, were erroneously decided.

“Under the Constitution, may a State prohibit elective abortions before viability? Yes. Why? Because nothing in constitutional text, structure, history, or tradition supports a right to abortion,” read the introduction to the brief, filed by Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch.

After some technical discussion, it reiterates the point.

“Roe and Casey are egregiously wrong. The conclusion that abortion is a constitutional right has no basis in text, structure, history, or tradition …

Do you think the Supreme Court will overturn Roe v. Wade with this case?

Roe broke from prior cases, Casey failed to rehabilitate it, and both recognize a right that has no basis in the Constitution.”

It dealt with the complications the court’s previous rulings have imposed.

“Abortion jurisprudence has placed this Court at the center of a controversy that it can never resolve,” the brief added. “And Roe and Casey have produced a jurisprudence that is at war with the demand that this Court act based on neutral principles.”

The Wall Street Journal noted in July, when Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court, that the state had originally argued the law did not violate court precedents, “suggesting that Roe be overruled only if the court found no other way to uphold the state law.”

In its actual argument to the court, however, it was much more direct. And abortion activists were


The Biden Administration’s Attempt to Immediately Shut Down Texas Abortion Law Just Crashed and Burned

“​​Mississippi just said the quiet part out loud,” a statement from Planned Parenthood Action read, according to a July 23 report in The Washington Free Beacon. “This was always their end game: to have the Court overrule 50 years of precedent and allow states to ban abortion.”

“If Roe falls, half the states in the country are poised to ban abortion entirely,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, the pro-abortion group representing Jackson Women’s Health Organization, The Wall Street Journal reported in July.

“Women of childbearing age in the U.S. have never known a world in which they don’t have this basic right, and we will keep fighting to make sure they never will.”

Pro-life groups, meanwhile, see the case holding the potential for a major victory.

In August, the Supreme Court rejected a request to stop an anti-abortion law in Texas from going into effect Sept. 1. The controversial law bans most abortions after the detection of a fetal heartbeat, generally at around six weeks of pregnancy.

The court’s decided 5-4 not to intervene.

Several pro-abortion groups have appealed to President Joe Biden and lawmakers to intervene. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said she will push for a vote on a new federal-level pro-choice bill later this month.

Source link