A bit of misinterpretation by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and the media on this one. The 4-4 Supreme Court Ruling neither supported or overturned the decision of the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals ruling last November (based upon an administrative provision in the law) nor did it even acknowledge "standing" for Texas in the lawsuit. None of the three issues before the US Supreme Court were resolved as no decision on any of them were reached. Because there was no decision by the Supreme Court the injunction imposed by the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals remains in effect but it was not confirmed or over-turned by the failure of the Supreme Court to reach any decision in the case. This creates a problem of course. The injunction by the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals only applies within the jurisdiction of the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals that's limited to: Eastern District of Louisiana Middle District of Louisiana Western District of Louisiana Northern District of Mississippi Southern District of Mississippi Eastern District of Texas Northern District of Texas Southern District of Texas Western District of Texas Effectively any qualifying person under the DACA provisions cannot be granted deferred prosecution by the federal government if they apply within that jurisdiction of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because of the injunction but any qualified person under the DACA provisions applies outside of the jurisdiction of the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals can be granted the deferred prosecution because the injunction doesn't apply. While I'm not in a position to advise President Obama if I was the president then I'd continue to provide DACA deferred prosecution to any qualified person applying outside of the jurisdiction of the Fifth U.S. Court of Appeals because there's no injunction to prevent that. That could, of course, lead to a challenge that would be addressed by another Federal Circuit Court that would be reviewed by another U.S. Court of Appeals that can reach the exact opposite decision related to DACA. For example another Federal Circuit Court could simply discharge the case citing a "Lack of Standing" by the plaintiff assuming it's another state that files the lawsuit. In fact, as the President, I'd work with a "friendly" state to bring the lawsuit just to create conflicting decisions by two different U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This is an extremely "Constitutional" manner of dealing with a rogue Circuit Court decision like the one in this case. It would force the US Supreme Court to resolve the controversy that it really wasn't forced to deal with in this one case because there wasn't a conflicting U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision because there wasn't any other U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision at all related to DACA.
What if Trump or Hillary sue over vote count an' SCOTUS can't decide?... 'Nightmare' - Supreme Court Tying 4-4 on Election Dispute November 3, 2016 | WASHINGTON (AP) What happens if America wakes up on Nov. 9 to another undecided, hotly disputed presidential election? What if the outcome turns on the razor-thin margin in one or two states, one candidate seeking a recount, the other going to court?
I meant to post this a month ago. The most interesting thing on the court this year will be to watch any decisions written by Samuel Alito. With the death of Scalia he becomes the natural heir to his position as the conservative ideologue on the court and is sure to be very busy. He's still sixth (of eight presently) in seniority, so he can't be the senior justice in the majority, however when he is paired with Chief Justice Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and 2 of the liberal justices in a 6-2 or 6-3 majority he will likely be given the decision to write in order to get a conservative interpretation of the cases into law. If he should somehow be paired with Kennedy, Thomas and 2 of the liberals against the Chief, he is most likely to be assigned the case in order to try to persuade the chief to switch, a huge achievement only he might pull off. While that combination seems unlikely it could happen because Roberts knows that it is to his advantage to join the liberal side on any case they are likely to win so as to soften the outcome. You will see that as soon as Merrick Garland joins the court. Knowing this, Kennedy might give Alito the case, reserving his option and the others to walk out if he writes it too radically. Will Alito give in and write moderate decisions in order to hold a majority? Of course when he is in the minority his dissents will be intense and spirited, but can they live up to the fervor Scalia made a trademark? Naturally should Roberts and Kennedy join the liberals for any occasion, Clarence Thomas will be in a rare position of assigning the minority position. Will he take the easy route and assign most such cases to Alito, or boldly write them himself in an effort at last to prove he's smarter than Forrest Gump, and will anyone be convinced?
Texas capital punishment standard up for review... High court to examine mental disability, death penalty issue November 28, 2016 The U.S. Supreme Court is set to examine whether the nation's busiest state for capital punishment is trying to put to death a convicted killer who's intellectually disabled, which would make him ineligible for execution under the court's current guidance.
Granny says, "Dat's right - dey shouldn't get bond - dey oughta be deported... Supreme Court weighs bond hearings for detained immigrants November 30, 2016 | WASHINGTON (AP) A seemingly divided Supreme Court tried to figure out Wednesday whether the government can detain immigrants indefinitely without providing hearings.
Judge can overrule jury recommending life sentence and impose the death penalty... The Latest: Alabama executes man who killed clerk in 1994 December 9, 2016 The Latest on the scheduled execution of an Alabama inmate (all times local):
CONVICTED OVER A BIBLE VERSE: I DONT LIKE THE TONE... First Liberty Appeals Historic Bible Verse Case Case to Supreme Court December 23, 2016 - First Liberty just asked the Supreme Court to hear what could be the biggest military religious freedom case in decades.
I hope she wins but what about the verses with "(*)(*)(*)(*)" in them or verses obviously chosen to offend like "If any man would be ignorant, let him be ignorant." When I posted "Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate" in my work area in 1991, someone removed it.
SCOTUS takes on a sticky wicket... U.S. Supreme Court to hear Missouri case on state money for religious institutions Jan 16, 2017 What could prove to be a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case over whether state money can be used to aid religious institutions began with recycled tires and a childrens playground in Missouri.
Actually, try amendment 11. And they do not have the last say, that is but an illusion purported by many based on Marbury v. Madison.
Fraud and misrepresentation are equitable actions not criminal. Profits have nothing to do with it, nothing at all. If there were no proximate damages caused by the action, there is no cause of action. To go forward would leave one exposed to a counter-claim for malicious prosecution. Rule 8 of the North Carolina rules of civil procedure, in part: "...and in all claims for punitive damages in any civil action, wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), the pleading shall not state the demand for monetary relief, but shall state that the relief demanded is for damages incurred or to be incurred in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)." This rule allows an equitable claim for damages but user beware as claim will be successfully dismissed by defendant for failure to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. The object of equity is just as it states, the equitable restoration of the parties as close to the position occupied before the controversy.
I would suggest that perhaps you spend time in the study of law as nothing you have stated here is in any way material to what you claim. To start your journey for knowledge, I would strongly suggest learning to use a good dictionary, the first word I would suggest you try and understand would be "inalienable". To sort of help get you started, let's look at the base word: "ALIENABLE. Proper to be the subject of alienation or transfer. (Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 196. So something alienable can be alienated or transferred away. So to use the prefix "in" denotes the negative, not subject to alienation or transfer. So... "INALIENABLE. Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e. g., liberty." (Black's Law Dictionary, Revised 4th Edition, 196. Well it would seem that Black's has stayed true to form but Black's has added nothing not in a common dictionary, albeit case law. Then it would be only clear logic, that if one is not capable of determining what a right actually encompasses, one has no rights. This is further illustrated by the whimper of asking another to protect what one does not know they even have. To have another assert a right is not really a right but just a privilege and a privilege given can likewise be a privilege removed.
SCOTUS passes on "Sister Wives" case... US Supreme Court declines to hear polygamy case January 23, 2017 | Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of a man and his four wives -- stars of a reality TV show -- challenging a ban on polygamy in their native state of Utah.
The two cases being referred to in the article are: 1) Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 - Supreme Court 2012, and 2) Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 - Supreme Court 2012. In looking at Missouri v. Frye, the issues at stake are far larger than those in the article. This case was for the conviction of Frye on the fourth instance of driving on a revoked license, a supposed 4th class felony which carried a maximum sentence of 4 years. Here you have a case of malum prohibitum, something prohibited by a master upon a slave. There was no harm, no injured party but still one can lose his freedom because another didn't like it. This is but a case of tyranny.
SCOTUS scuppers NC voter ID law... U.S. Supreme Court Effectively Kills N.C.’s Voter ID Law May 15, 2017 | Liberal activists are celebrating the end of North Carolina's 2013 election law, which required photo ID at the polls; eliminated same-day voter registration; and reduced the state’s early-voting period by one week.
Means ya can refill yer own inkjet cartridges... Opinion analysis: Federal Circuit loses again, as justices categorically reject enforcement of post-sale patent restrictions Tue, May 30th, 2017 » Looking for a landmark ruling on patent exhaustion, the patent community got just that in the Supreme Court’s decision this morning in Impression Products, Inc. v Lexmark International, Inc. Opinion analysis: Federal Circuit loses again, as justices categorically reject enforcement of post-sale patent restrictions Tue, May 30th, 2017 » Looking for a landmark ruling on patent exhaustion, the patent community got just that in the Supreme Court’s decision this morning in Impression Products, Inc. v Lexmark International, Inc.
Uncle Ferd says, "Yeah - but dey protect Muslims' faith like Hasan of Ft. Hood... Supreme Court Rejects Appeal From Marine Over Religious Liberty 5 Jun 2017 - At issue was the extent a federal law on religious freedom protects members of the armed forces.
No ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment... Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms: There is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment June 19, 2017 - From today’s opinion by Justice Samuel Alito (for four justices) in Matal v. Tam, the “Slants” case:
Hate speech doesn't violate the 1st amendment, but disparaging others does... Supreme Court: Rejecting trademarks that ‘disparage’ others violates the First Amendment June 19,`17 - The federal government has violated the First Amendment by refusing to register trademarks that officials consider disparaging, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday in a decision that provides a boost to the Washington Redskins’ efforts to hang on to the team’s controversial name. See also: Will Asian American band’s First Amendment argument resonate with Supreme Court? January 15,`17 — The government doesn’t know what to make of the Slants, the all Asian American, Chinatown dance-rock band at the center of this term’s most vexing Supreme Court free-speech case.
SCOTUS says No to sex offender social media ban... Supreme Court strikes down sex offender social media ban June 19,`17 | WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down a North Carolina law Monday that bars convicted sex offenders from Facebook, Twitter and other popular sites.
The Donald gets most of what he wanted on travel ban... U.S. Supreme Court breathes new life into Trump's travel ban Mon Jun 26, 2017 | The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory to President Donald Trump by reviving parts of a travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries that he said is needed for national security but that opponents decry as discriminatory. U.S. top court backs church in major religious rights case Mon Jun 26, 2017 | Churches and other religious entities cannot be flatly denied public money even in states where constitutions explicitly ban such funding, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a major religious rights case that narrows the separation of church and state.
The Supreme Court is nearing the end of its current term... Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Wedding Cake 'Discrimination' Case June 26, 2017 | The Supreme Court on Monday finally agreed to hear a case involving a small Colorado bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, that refused in 2012 to provide a custom wedding cake for a homosexual couple.
Supreme Court reverses ruling sparing killer who forgot the crime... Supreme Court reverses ruling sparing killer who forgot the crime November 6, 2017 - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday overturned a lower court ruling that an Alabama man convicted of killing a police officer in 1985 was no longer legally eligible to be executed because strokes wiped out his memory of committing the murder.
A test of just how far the government can go to pry personal data generated by cell phones and other digital devices... US Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Pivotal Case for Digital Privacy November 27, 2017 | WASHINGTON — On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case that is widely seen as a test of just how far the government can go to pry personal data generated by cell phones and other digital devices.
