On the eve of the first day of the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearings, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Biden with a wide lead over Trump.
The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a large swath of Oklahoma belongs to Native American tribes in a huge win for a reservation that challenged the state’s authority to prosecute crimes on its
President Donald Trump lashed out at the Supreme Court on Thursday after the high court ruled in a 5-4 decision that his administration cannot carry out its plan to shut down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. “Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?” Trump tweeted Thursday. Neal Katyal says those comments are ‘abhorrent’ and ‘corrosive to the rule of law.’
The Trump administration on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to shield redacted grand jury materials related to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe from the Democratic-led House.
The Trump administration is heading to court this week in two lawsuits charging that the president is violating the Constitution by profiting off of his hotels and other businesses while in office.
President Trump on Friday filed an emergency request to the Supreme Court to block a subpoena from House Democrats for his financial documents, the second time Trump asked the justices to shield his
Dr Sarah Ingham is a member of Kensington, Chelsea and Fulham Conservative Association.
“We’re not at court to ask the court to jail Boris Johnson.”
Another day, another legal action by Joanna Cherry – this time to require the Prime Minister to comply with the so-called Benn Act and seek an extension to avoid leaving the EU without a deal. Despite her denial, the prospect of the Downing Street One being banged up is probably the only part of the process that most of the electorate can relate to.
‘Justiciable.’ Less than a month ago many voters are likely to have googled or reached for the dictionary to check the exact definition. Thanks to Cherry and more than 70 other MPs dragging judges into the toxic swamp that is politics today, the electorate is now aware it means ‘subject to trial in a court of law’.
Remainers have been pushing to not leave the EU since David Cameron came up with the Referendum and maybe for many years before.
When the Referendum result was announced, not leaving the EU should have been off the table, with only leaving with a deal or no deal the options.
To then, for remainers to campaign for no deal to b e off the table, was and still is illogical, except to ensure a deal is put forward which while saying it is a deal to leave when in reality it is not, in fact a deal in name only, such as the May deal. But then the remainers would not vote for that because it was adeal to leave.
Say I was the EU and looked at thr turmoil in Westminster where remainers are blocking leavers every move, would I offer a good deal to leave, yes, the answer would be NO.
For the EU can see that, if the remainers win, there will be no deal option, in effect the best card to play for leavers. In fact, they would see that the worst option for the EU would be a deal and the best to remain, which as I stated before should not be an option after the 2016 Referendum.
Leavers are arguing about democracy, but by their own actions they are showing democracy does not work, well only within their own terms.
Remainers should in fact withdraw and leave all decisions to leavers.
If the referendum in 2016 had gone the other way then the above would have been in reverse.
David Starkey insisted the speech Lady Hale gave before the ruling appeared closer to one given at a ”hustings” rather than a judicial debate. The language was verging on the political – it was political.
GW: The Cabal on both sides of the pond are becoming increasingly desperate. They are now pulling any sort of trick & pressing any button they can find. A good example of this is Jesse Philips’ irrational explosion in HofC. She needs anger management classes & perhaps she should not even be there if she can’t control her emotions. These people are thinkings with their feelings rather than with cold hard intellect. Any way you look at it (((they))) are thwarting the democratic process & I guess deep down it is getting to them. Their shadowy masters are jaagging their strings pretty tightly now & (((they))) are choking.
View original post 24 more words
Less than two weeks after he was inaugurated, Donald Trump did something that, at the time, seemed decent: On Jan. 31, 2017, the White House put out a press release promising to safeguard LGBTQ rights. Specifically, the memo claimed the new president would not overturn a 2014 Obama administration executive order protecting LGBTQ employees of federal contractors from workplace discrimination.
“President Donald J. Trump is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the LGBTQ community,” the memo stated.
Trump’s been gaslighting America on the subject of LGBTQ rights ever since. Through executive orders, agency rule-making and tweets, the Trump administration has been blasting away at the LGBTQ community from the start.
Now, the administration is ratcheting up the stakes, filing a series of briefs ― one late last week and one expected this Friday ― in a critical LGBTQ rights case scheduled to come before the Supreme Court this fall.
On Oct. 4, the court will hear oral arguments in a trio of cases considering whether the protections of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion and sex, extends to sexual orientation and gender identity.
To put it simply, the question before the court is: Can you be fired for being gay or lesbian or bisexual or transgender?
Thirty years ago, in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the Supreme Court held that “sex stereotyping” is forbidden by a federal law banning employment discrimination. “We are beyond the day,” Justice William Brennan wrote in the court’s plurality opinion, “when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group.”
Nevertheless, the Trump administration filed a brief last week asking the Supreme Court to bring back the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group.
The Trump Justice Department’s position in R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC wouldn’t nuke Price Waterhouse entirely. But it would severely weaken protections against sex discrimination, and give employers broad new authority to fire employees who do not comply with stereotypes about how people of a particular gender should appear.
It would do so, moreover, in service of the broader goal of denying civil rights protections to transgender workers. The thrust of the Trump administration’s position in Harris Funeral Homes is that, if existing law is broad enough to protect trans workers from discrimination, then that law must be rolled back — even if doing so will legalize a fair amount of discrimination against cis women in the process.