About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Courting the News
Author: BobR    Date: 10/23/2019 13:13:13

As the impeachment hearings for pResident tRump march on towards their inevitable conclusion, there are other orders of government business occurring that may not be getting the attention they deserve. These involve the courts, an area that doesn't get a lot of attention unless the Supreme Court changes something drastically. Let's take a look.

Still tRump-related, the ongoing fight in the NY-based investigation into tRump's dodgy tax returns keeps getting appealed up to higher courts. Now, it seems, tRump's lawyers are poised to push for a SCOTUS decision if they lose:
The fight over access to President Donald Trump’s tax returns could be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court in time for a decision before next fall’s election, under an agreement struck Monday between Trump’s attorneys and a local prosecutor in New York.

Trump’s lawyers agreed that if they lose a court battle scheduled for argument at the New York-based 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, they will take no more than 10 days to petition the Supreme Court to hear the case.

In exchange for Trump’s agreement to keep the legal fight moving at a brisk pace, lawyers from Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.'s office agreed to hold off trying to enforce a grand jury subpoena issued to one of Trump’s accounting firms in August.

This is the deal struck without the current 2nd Court of Appeals even having rendered a decision yet. One would hope the SCOTUS wouldn't bother with it. The fight isn't whether tRump committed a crime, but whether the DA has the right to see the evidence. This seems like a slam-dunk, but I'm not a lawyer, so we'll see.

In a bit of aggravating news, the SCOTUS decided that the federal courts have no jurisdiction to decide gerrymandering cases:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a challenge to Republican-drawn electoral districts in Michigan that Democrats said were illegally configured to dilute their voting power, an action taken in the aftermath of major rulings by the justices in June prohibiting federal courts from hearing such claims.

[...]

The justices had put the panel’s decision on hold before they issued their rulings in the two major gerrymandering cases from Maryland and North Carolina. In a blow to election reformers, the justices found that federal courts have no role to play in reining in electoral map manipulation by politicians aimed at entrenching one party in power.

The Supreme Court on Oct. 7 threw out a similar case from Ohio in which a lower court had invalidated 16 Republican-drawn U.S. House districts that Democrats had said were drawn to unlawfully diminish their political clout.

In essence - the state court is as far as a gerrymandering case can go. This seems like a dereliction of duty, but unless there's a constitutional mandate, re: voting, we are stuck.

Finally, in the "you've-got-to-be-fucking-kidding" category, Sheriff Joe Arpaio - who was pardoned by tRump - wants his conviction erased:
An appeals court in San Francisco will hear arguments Wednesday in former Sheriff Joe Arpaio's bid to erase his contempt of court conviction from his record after he was pardoned by President Donald Trump.

The former six-term sheriff of metro Phoenix had appealed a lower-court ruling that refused to expunge his conviction for disobeying a 2011 court order barring his traffic patrols that targeted immigrants.

The judge who made the ruling explained pardons don't erase convictions or the facts of cases and that Arpaio's clemency only mooted his possible punishments.

Arpaio's lawyers had previously told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the lawman was deprived of his opportunity to appeal his conviction because the pardon came before he was sentenced and final judgment was entered, so the conviction must be erased.

Special prosecutor Christopher Caldwell argues Arpaio gave up his right to appeal the conviction when he accepted the August 2017 pardon — and that if the former sheriff wanted to challenge the conviction, he should have rejected the clemency and taken his chances in the appeals court.

That a former judge - who should know how this works - is trying to do this is galling. Even laymen like me know that if you accept a pardon, you are tacitly admitting your guilt and accepting the court's decision as such. He should know better, but then he's also a child-molesting Republican hack, so there you go.

Anyway - back to your regularly scheduled impeachment watch.
 
 

20 comments (Latest Comment: 10/23/2019 19:17:50 by Scoopster)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by Scoopster on 10/23/2019 13:55:55
Goooood mornin' all!

Comment by Scoopster on 10/23/2019 13:56:43
Comment by wickedpam on 10/23/2019 14:29:09
Morning

Comment by Raine on 10/23/2019 14:38:37
Good morning!

These are just idiots in office.






Comment by Raine on 10/23/2019 14:39:32

OoO

I didn't know that was today.

Comment by Raine on 10/23/2019 14:41:12
What the hell?






Comment by Raine on 10/23/2019 14:44:20
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) released evidence on Tuesday that the Justice Department buried the whistleblower complaint about President Donald Trump’s call with the Ukrainian president by failing to refer the matter to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Klobuchar suggested the Justice Department violated a longstanding agreement between the agencies to share information about possible campaign finance violations for potential enforcement action.

To recap: The whistleblower complaint at the heart of the impeachment inquiry didn’t just contain evidence that the president pressured a foreign government to help him win reelection. It also contained evidence of a potential campaign finance violation. When President Trump asked for dirt on his political opponent, he likely illegally solicited a “thing of value” from a foreign national.

Via Mother Jones.

Comment by Raine on 10/23/2019 14:58:06




Comment by Raine on 10/23/2019 15:00:18
"Not even INVESTIGATED"






Comment by Scoopster on 10/23/2019 15:18:26



Comment by Scoopster on 10/23/2019 15:19:47



Comment by Scoopster on 10/23/2019 15:31:33




Comment by Scoopster on 10/23/2019 17:25:52


Comment by livingonli on 10/23/2019 17:59:25
Someone I know was calling this a new version of the Brooks Brothers riot. (See Florida 2000).

Comment by Scoopster on 10/23/2019 18:51:23


Comment by Raine on 10/23/2019 19:08:49
Quote by livingonli:
Someone I know was calling this a new version of the Brooks Brothers riot. (See Florida 2000).

Brooks Brothers riot -- Electric Boogaloo.

Comment by Raine on 10/23/2019 19:09:04
Quote by Scoopster:

WHA?!?!?!?!

Comment by Scoopster on 10/23/2019 19:17:00


Comment by Scoopster on 10/23/2019 19:17:50