• Home
  • The Judiciary/Courts

Video: Tucker Carlson Calls For Roger Stone Judge’s Impeachment: ‘Democratic Activist Wearing Robes’


Fox News host Tucker Carlson called for the impeachment of U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson during a Thursday night “Tucker Carlson Tonight” monologue in which he called her a “Democratic activist wearing robes.”

Discussing Jackson’s treatment of Trump confidant Roger Stone during his federal trial that culminated in the imposition of a 40-month prison sentence for witness tampering and obstruction, Carlson called his real crime “spending 40 years giving political advice to Donald Trump and then gleefully mocking the people in charge.”
 

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Supreme Court Justices Signal Potential Crackdown On Nationwide Injunctions


Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion about the threat nationwide injunctions present to separation of powers and the role of the courts under the Constitution.

 

By Shawn Fleetwood
TheFederalist.com
 

On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling that the Trump administration may deny green cards to foreign nationals who use taxpayer-funded social services. The ruling freezes several nationwide injunctions issued by lower federal courts late last year. Monday’s vote also fell along ideological lines, as the five Republican-appointed justices voted in favor, while the four Democrat-appointed justices dissented.

According to the Immigration and Nationality Act (NIA), foreign nationals are prohibited from acquiring a green card if they are “likely at any time to become a public charge.” The issue at hand on Monday was what fit the criteria of a “public charge.” In recent years, the phrase was characterized as an individual who was reliant on a cash assistance program.

Back in August 2019, the Trump administration implemented this new rule to take into account immigrants’ use of government benefits, such as Medicaid and food stamps, when determining whether to provide individuals with permanent status. The policy exempts refugees and asylum seekers.

In Monday’s ruling, Justice Neil Gorsuch issued a concurring opinion about the threat nationwide injunctions present to separation of powers and the role of the courts under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. “The real problem here is the increasingly common practice of trial courts ordering relief that transcends the cases before them,” Gorsuch wrote. “Whether framed as injunctions of ‘nationwide,’ ‘universal,’ or ‘cosmic’ scope, these orders share the same basic flaw—they direct how the defendant must act toward persons who are not parties to the case.”

Gorsuch continued, “But when a court goes further than that, ordering the government to take (or not take) some action with respect to those who are strangers to the suit, it is hard to see how the court could still be acting in the judicial role of resolving cases and controversies.” Gorsuch was joined in his concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas.

This isn’t the first-time SCOTUS justices have discussed nationwide injunctions. Back in 2018, in the case Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Thomas noted that nationwide injunctions “are legally and historically dubious,” and warned that “If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so.”

Rather than interpret the law as written, leftist judges have become activists in the courtroom, ruling out of political opinions rather than the legal text before them. Such behavior rejects the ideals of the Founders, who believed in an impartial judiciary that rules based on the law as written.

Nationwide injunctions by lower federal courts have become a recurring problem for the Trump administration. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal in September 2019, Attorney General Bill Barr revealed that “During the eight years of the Obama administration, 20 nationwide injunctions were issued while the Trump administration has already faced nearly 40,” with the vast majority of these injunctions coming from Democrat-appointed judges. Barr stated “the federal judiciary wasn’t made to produce instant legal uniformity. To the contrary, the system—in which local district courts are supervised by regional courts of appeal—was constructed to allow a diversity of initial rulings until a single, national rule could be decided by the Supreme Court.”

This continuous abuse of judicial power by leftists on the bench erodes our Constitution, piece by piece. President Thomas Jefferson even warned of the judiciary’s potential corruption in 1819, when in a letter to Judge Spencer Roane he wrote, “Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

This was one of many times Jefferson wrote about potential judicial tyranny, and it seems that his worst fears have come true.

If the Supreme Court doesn’t limit nationwide injunctions, the lower federal courts will continue to run roughshod over our Constitution, deeply damaging the separation of powers that prevents judicial tyranny. The longer this problem persists, activist judges will continue to become emboldened to dictate national policy, while seizing power for the judiciary. It’s time the Supreme Court take a stand and defend the Constitution, and that starts with ending nationwide injunctions.

Shawn Fleetwood is a college student attending Germanna Community College in Virginia. After he gets his associate’s degree, he plans to transfer to a four-year institution to major in either journalism or political science.

 

 

 

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Over 2 Million Voters Approved North Carolina’s Voter ID Amendment — One Unelected Democratic Judge Just Threw it Out


By Dan Forest 
The Daily Signal

It’s a cornerstone of our democracy: Government is to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, deriving its authority from the consent of the governed.

These fundamental principles are at stake in North Carolina, due to a ruling from an activist federal judge on voter ID.

It’s amazing that we’re still having this debate today.

Presidents from Jimmy Carter to Donald Trump have advocated for the use of IDs to protect the integrity of the vote, and the Supreme Court has confirmed that states have the right to safeguard their elections. Thirty-five states have done so already, passing laws requiring voters to show identification before casting their ballots.

Against that backdrop, voters in North Carolina overwhelmingly approved adding an ID requirement to the state constitution in 2018. The General Assembly quickly took up the task of drafting a law to put that mandate into place.

The result was a voter ID law that is a model for the nation—making it easy to vote, but tough to cheat.

We got the system in place just in time for the 2020 election cycle. When North Carolinians stepped into the voting booth, they were to have confidence that their vote was protected.

But just a few weeks ago, an unelected federal judge tossed it aside. In a 60-page ruling, Obama appointee Loretta Biggs struck down our voter ID law, calling it “discriminatory” and comparing it to the dark American legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

More than 2 million voters approved North Carolina’s voter ID amendment. One unelected Democratic judge threw it out.

Never mind that our voter ID law was co-sponsored by an African American Democrat and passed with bipartisan support.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Tucker Carlson Blasts Obama Judge Amy Berman Jackson for Blatant Bias in Roger Stone Case

The Russia Collusion Hoax is Still Claming Victims


Two things are patently obvious in the federal government’s case against long-time GOP operative Roger Stone: 1) He’s going to be convicted of “lying to Congress,” and 2) he’ll spend the rest of his life in jail without a pardon from President Trump.

Tucker Carlson make that very clear without really saying those words during his Wednesday evening program, as he ticked off one example after another about how the system is so stacked against Stone there’s no way he’s going to get a fair trial.

The biggest reason why is the federal judge overseeing the case: Obama appointee Amy Berman Jackson, who is blatantly biased against Stone and against President Trump to the point where she doesn’t even try to hide it.

Because she doesn’t have to. After all, she’s got a lifetime appointment to the federal bench — and when was the last time Congress impeached a federal judge for misconduct and bias?

Never.

From eye-rolling at Stone to approving jurors who have massive conflicts of interest and who have vocalized in her court how much they despise the president, it’s clear that Stone — a long-time political adviser to the president — will never get a fair trial.

Not in the deep blue haven of D.C., where the Garbage Party rules with an iron fist and no approval of the president is either permissible or tolerated.

So he’s going to be convicted of lying to Congress, Carlson noted with sarcasm, adding that lawmakers face no such legal jeopardy when they lie their tails off to the American people.

“What ought to be automatically disqualifying is Amy Berman Jackson’s behavior from the bench,” Carlson noted.

“No fair-minded person could condone it. If there were still honest liberals left in this country, they would be protesting outside the courtroom,” he added.

 

Watch:

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Obama Judges Kill Americans’ Privacy to Help Democratic House Harass Trump


 

Two Obama appointees just greenlit two of the most invasive Congressional subpoenas for private financial information in American history. Their orders eviscerate and endanger privacy for all Americans

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

No Judge Has Jurisdiction To Erase Our Border


By Daniel Horowitz
ConservativeReview.com

No court can ever force the president to allow any alien to enter the country. No such lawsuit could ever have legitimate standing, and no such decision could have any constitutional moorings. If we don’t understand that, we are no longer a sovereign Republic.

Monday night, Jon Tigar, an Obama-appointed judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, a forum chosen by the ACLU, penned what is essentially an op-ed expressing his desire that Trump’s order on asylum be temporarily enjoined. His desire is just as binding as my desire to place an injunction on all liberals from running for office. He has no jurisdiction over immigration, has no jurisdiction over national security, has no jurisdiction over the border, violated endless settled law, violated Article II powers, violated.

Article I delegated authority, and broke every sane ruling on Article III standing that differentiates a court from a legislature.
 

This is not a legitimate court ruling or even court case.

President Trump issued a commonsense and quite modest order to direct all asylum claims to the points of entry rather than empowering the cartels to smuggle them in between the points of entry. Given that none of these people are legitimate asylees, he should have suspended all asylum claims at the border and required them to instead make claims in U.S. consulates in Mexico, the first safe third-party country, as designated by the U.N. Nonetheless, even this order was out of bounds, according to Tigar, who believes that asylum statute requires the president to afford everyone in the world, evidently even a belligerent mass migration, a chance to file an application.

Moreover, in what has become a favorite stalking horse of the judicial fascists, Tigar claimed that Trump didn’t properly promulgate this “regulation” under the rules of the Administrative Procedure Act. Yup, evidently, sensitive foreign affairs negotiations with Mexico and Central America and repelling an invasion are now classed with promulgating a new regulation on American farms. Will we subject a North Korean missile attack to the APA?

Let’s put aside the fact that asylum law was written clearly for individuals, not groups of tens and hundreds of thousands of people invading our country. It was written for people like Asia Bibi, the Christian who is being threatened with execution in Pakistan because of her faith. These people in the caravan are prima facie not eligible for asylum, and much like an invading army doesn’t need to be given papers and catch-and-release, these people don’t need to be let in.

Let’s also put aside the fact that asylum statute explicitly bars judicial review and private causes of action to sue for asylum status.
Let’s also put aside the fact that the ACLU cannot qualify as a legitimate party with standing to meet the standards of Article III cases and controversies. I kid you not, the ACLU actually said it has a personalized, cognizable harm because Trump’s policy causes the group “to divert significant resources to, among other things, understanding the new policy,” and “educating and advising its staff, clients, and prospective clients” on the order. I guess I can sue Pelosi’s House for any legislation I don’t like because it forces me to spread my resources thin in educating the public through my various platforms about the consequences.

Indeed, we have already established that this ruling is null and void from day one. But there is something more fundamental here.
The president has both delegated authority and inherent Article II powers over foreign commerce to prevent people from landing on our shores to begin with, and that is something that even Congress cannot take away. Thus, even if asylum statute in a vacuum forced the president to entertain any bogus claim, the president has inherent authority to exclude applicants from entering, and that power was reaffirmed by Congress in 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, which serves as a circuit breaker to all immigration categories, including asylum or any form of legal immigration. And for good reason.

As the Supreme Court said in Lichter v. United States (1948):

It is not necessary that Congress supply administrative officials with a specific formula for their guidance in a field where flexibility and the adaptation of the congressional policy to infinitely variable conditions constitute the essence of the program. . . . Standards prescribed by Congress are to be read in the light of the conditions to which they are to be applied. “They derive much meaningful content from the purpose of the Act, its factual background and the statutory context in which they appear.”

There are no greater infinitely variable conditions than dealing with the emergency of the drug cartels and mass migration mixing together at our border. In fact, there are fewer groups in the world more brutal than the drug cartels. That alone would meet the definition of the president’s solemn requirement to repel an invasion under Art. IV Sec.4. There is no way anyone can read asylum law as negating the explicit and unambiguous powers to exclude aliens.
 

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: Grassley Goes After Democrats On Senate Floor — Gives Full Picture


Chuck Grassley, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, went before the Senate Floor this morning to explain exactly what happened with Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by Democrats who were set out to destroy him, even calling what they did to him ‘monstrous’.

 

 
 
 
  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)