***** Official Trump 47 Admin Court Battles *****

326,810 Views | 3110 Replies | Last: 4 hrs ago by techno-ag
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

The Justice Department issued a final rule updating its regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964. This rule ensures that our nation's federal civil rights laws are firmly grounded in the principle of equal treatment under the law by eliminating disparate-impact liability from its Title VI regulations.

"For decades, the Justice Department has used disparate-impact liability to undermine the constitutional principle that all Americans must be treated equally under the law," said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. "No longer. This Department of Justice is eliminating its regulations that for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race."

"The prior 'disparate impact' regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination," said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. "Our rejection of this theory will restore true equality under the law by requiring proof of actual discrimination, rather than enforcing race- or sex-based quotas or assumptions."

Quote:

"For over 50 years, the prior disparate-impact rule fostered the very thing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. But with today's rule," said Chief of Staff and Supervisory Official for the Office of Legal Policy Nicholas Schilling. "The Department reaffirms Congress' commitment to measure all Americans by merit."

Buh-bye disparate impact.

LINK
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

The Justice Department issued a final rule updating its regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964. This rule ensures that our nation's federal civil rights laws are firmly grounded in the principle of equal treatment under the law by eliminating disparate-impact liability from its Title VI regulations.

"For decades, the Justice Department has used disparate-impact liability to undermine the constitutional principle that all Americans must be treated equally under the law," said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. "No longer. This Department of Justice is eliminating its regulations that for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race."

"The prior 'disparate impact' regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination," said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. "Our rejection of this theory will restore true equality under the law by requiring proof of actual discrimination, rather than enforcing race- or sex-based quotas or assumptions."

Quote:

"For over 50 years, the prior disparate-impact rule fostered the very thing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. But with today's rule," said Chief of Staff and Supervisory Official for the Office of Legal Policy Nicholas Schilling. "The Department reaffirms Congress' commitment to measure all Americans by merit."

Buh-bye disparate impact.

LINK

Yes! From your keyboard to God's ears.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
txags92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
techno-ag said:

aggiehawg said:

Quote:

The Justice Department issued a final rule updating its regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964. This rule ensures that our nation's federal civil rights laws are firmly grounded in the principle of equal treatment under the law by eliminating disparate-impact liability from its Title VI regulations.

"For decades, the Justice Department has used disparate-impact liability to undermine the constitutional principle that all Americans must be treated equally under the law," said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. "No longer. This Department of Justice is eliminating its regulations that for far too long required recipients of federal funding to make decisions based on race."

"The prior 'disparate impact' regulations encouraged people to file lawsuits challenging racially neutral policies, without evidence of intentional discrimination," said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division. "Our rejection of this theory will restore true equality under the law by requiring proof of actual discrimination, rather than enforcing race- or sex-based quotas or assumptions."

Quote:

"For over 50 years, the prior disparate-impact rule fostered the very thing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. But with today's rule," said Chief of Staff and Supervisory Official for the Office of Legal Policy Nicholas Schilling. "The Department reaffirms Congress' commitment to measure all Americans by merit."

Buh-bye disparate impact.

LINK

Yes! From your keyboard to God's ears.

Injunction claiming exclusive authority to execute the CRA belongs to the Seattle District court judges in 3...2...
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

- Abraham Lincoln
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Surround the federal judge's house and let him deal with the noise.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?

will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Blue slips claim another.

This is ridiculous.

Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Thune clearly wants democrat presidents to fill all appointments.
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

A federal appeals court on Friday afternoon temporarily halted Judge Boasberg's contempt hearings in the Alien Enemies Act deportations case scheduled for next week.

Earlier Friday, Judge James Boasberg made it clear that he was not backing off from his planned contempt hearings and threatened to pierce through attorney-client privilege in his order denying the government's motion to reconsider.

Later Friday, a three-judge panel on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily halted Boasberg's contempt hearings.

Judges Rao (Trump), Walker (Trump) granted an administrative stay pending further order of the court.

Judge Childs (Biden) would have denied the motion for an administrative stay.

Boasberg recently took the next step toward 'contempt prosecution' after he revived his criminal contempt inquiry against President Trump over Alien Enemies Act deportations.

will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another win in the cases of defunding planned parenthood.

will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
will25u said:



Awesome. Let's go.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Indira Talwani really should be impeached even before Boasberg, imho. Not that I expect it to happen. Good news, even if predictable. It turns out, even Biden-judges in Boston recognized the massive misjudgment she demonstrated so far in this case. I am not sure how she could plausibly reverse this with a final judgment now, but I expect her to try.
Quote:

The three-judge panel (again, all Biden appointees...sitting in Boston, Massachusetts, mind you) issued a 41-page decision Friday afternoon vacating the two preliminary injunction orders issued by Talwani in July.
There have been a number of procedural twists and turns in this one, and for those interested in diving into them, the decision does a really nice job of laying out the chronology and the issues. But in a nutshell, the appellate court found that the district court got it wrong in concluding that the plaintiff organizations are likely to succeed on their claims that the provision is a "bill of attainder" (prohibited by the Constitution), that it infringed on their First Amendment rights, and that it violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Some key points made by the 1st Circuit in its decision:
Quote:

For all these reasons, Section 71113 does not impose punishment on Appellees. It instead uses Congress's taxing and spending power to put Appellees to a difficult choice: give up federal Medicaid funds and continue to provide abortion services or continue receiving such funds by abandoning the provision of abortion services. That the law imposes a difficult choice on the recipient of federal funds does not demonstrate that Congress is punishing the recipient for past action -- an intrinsic element of a bill of attainder. Appellees therefore likely will not prevail on the merits of their bill of attainder claim.
...
The "Constitution presumes that, absent some reason to infer antipathy, even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic process and that judicial intervention is generally unwarranted no matter how unwisely we may think the apolitical branch has acted." Beach Commc'ns, 508 U.S. at 314 (quoting Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (1979)). Guided by this presumption and given the highly deferential nature of our review, Section 71113 likely survives rational basis review. There are plausible reasons for treating "prohibited entit[ies]"differently from other abortion providers, particularly where Congress viewed these entities as the most significant recipients of Medicaid funds. Preventing these entities from receiving funds if they continue providing abortion services furthers Congress's interest in reducing abortions. Plaintiffs, therefore, are unlikely to succeed in showing that Section 71113 violates equal protection.

Now, is this the final word in this case? No. The plaintiff organizations could seek en banc rehearing and/or appeal this decision. And it's not the final decision on the merits just as to whether the preliminary injunctive relief granted by the district court was appropriate. But it's a solid win for the administration and really for Congress and a solid example of the judicial branch remembering how the Constitution and separation of powers are actually supposed to work.

nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't see this noted here;

I'd put the odds of getting this re-assigned from Boasberg at around 70:30 in favor.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Boasberg needs to be reassigned to the Ukrainian front.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ellis Wyatt said:

Boasberg needs to be reassigned to the Ukrainian front.

While family members political opinions themselves are not a proper cause for recusal, his family's financial ties to abortion (planned parenthood-related clinic his wife founded), illegal alien legal representation, and USAID etc all do combine to provide a real basis imho, when viewed in light of his words and actions from the bench.
Quote:

Elizabeth 'Liddy' Manson,…founder of the Meadow Reproductive abortion clinic in Virginia, has donated over $10,000 to Democratic campaigns, including $3,000 to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Manson's clinic was established in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Boasberg's daughter, Katharine Boasberg, works for Partners For Justice, a nonprofit that provides legal advice to criminal illegal aliens and gang members. This connection has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest, particularly in light of Judge Boasberg's decision to block the deportation of members of the Tren de Aragua gang. The nonprofit has ties to George and Alexander Soros's network of left-wing organizations.

The judge's family's political stance is further highlighted by his wife's comments on Trump's 2016 election as a 'ghastly week' and his daughter's participation in the Women's March against Trump's inauguration. Additionally, Manson gave a tour of her abortion clinic to then Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff and HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. These revelations have sparked discussions about judicial impartiality and the influence of family ties on legal decisions, with some citing the Laken Riley Act in relation to the judge's rulings.

The illegal alien-backing daughter even had her bio taken down after daddy got assigned (no doubt by himself) the alien enemies act case. I vaguely recall that her twin sister works for another abortion mill but I can't find the link at the moment.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I was struggling with what "law" the Trump admin was breaking this time.

Quote:

Typically, an employer filing an initial H-1B petition would expect to pay between $960 to $7,595 in regulatory and statutory fees. The Trump Administration's $100,000 fee far exceeds the actual cost of processing H-1B petitions. By imposing this fee, the Administration is exceeding the fee-setting authority granted by Congress, which requires that fees be set based on the agency's costs, rather than arbitrarily. Additionally, the Trump Administration issued the fee without going through the notice-and-comment process required by the APA and without considering the full range of impacts especially on the provision of the critical services by government and nonprofit entities.


Seems like a pretty weak position for the lawsuit obsessed Oregon AG. Trump can argue additional background / vetting costs and plenty of other reasons for higher fee. They can also up the standards of justification required of the visa sponsors.

And the notice part. I would think the time period between Trump tweet and effective date more than covers any notice. Maybe he thinks he should bet a pre-notice to an actual notice or that it has to be posted in the break room to be a valid notice.

Libs are telling you that they need H-1B workers or their programs will shutdown for lack of people then also telling you the economy sucks and no one can find jobs.

Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
will25u said:



So, now states are in charge of visa details?

That's showing a good amount of hubris, there....
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oregon has no say in national immigration policy beyond congressional representation.
flown-the-coop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ellis Wyatt said:

Oregon has no say in national immigration policy beyond congressional representation.

Correct. But lib judge will first side with them. Trump team will justify, appeals, more appeals, and likely another SCOTUS ruling.

I am not agreeing with their merits, just more frustration on the Executive trying to do Executive things.
techno-ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
flown-the-coop said:

Ellis Wyatt said:

Oregon has no say in national immigration policy beyond congressional representation.

Correct. But lib judge will first side with them. Trump team will justify, appeals, more appeals, and likely another SCOTUS ruling.

I am not agreeing with their merits, just more frustration on the Executive trying to do Executive things.
I don't know how frustrating it is. Each new ruling solidifies Trump's position and the Executive Branch.
The left cannot kill the Spirit of Charlie Kirk.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

This one's pretty frustrating.
TRM
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Blame Senate leadership for their judicial nomination deal in late Nov 2024
FTAG 2000
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
nortex97 said:


This one's pretty frustrating.


Fine. Give them a reprieve. Just withhold all funds.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That's exactly what the TRO prevents. This is a sitting federal judge who wrote a law review article claiming most sexual relations involve rape.

And now this moslem jurist is considered judge pronouns, requiring litigators to first state preferred pronouns before the court in oral arguments. He employs a 'different mode of understanding truth than most judges are used to.' Which is to say, the rules of evidence. He cited Ibram Kendi's book (calling him an 'amazing historian' but said Ibram didn't go far enough) about how America is fundamentally racist in his cultural Marxism DEI book, seeking the fundamental destruction of American institutions.

This is who democrats are, both within and without the legal system. Never, ever vote for a democrat.
Ellis Wyatt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Impeach his ass.
MagnumLoad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So, when is scotus finally going to rule on Trump's tariffs? As they drag thus out, uncertainty continues in the markets.
I hate tu. It's in my blood.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Rapier108
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MagnumLoad said:

So, when is scotus finally going to rule on Trump's tariffs? As they drag thus out, uncertainty continues in the markets.

When all of the opinions, concurrences and dissents are completed.

Given the importance of the case, it will take longer than some simple issue that needs only 10-20 pages total to resolve.
CatD11Ag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1182/vote_118_2_00284.htm#state

Confirmed (via cloture vote) 51-43.
6 R's did not note, but would not have mattered as 49 would not have stopped confirmation.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rapier108 said:

MagnumLoad said:

So, when is scotus finally going to rule on Trump's tariffs? As they drag thus out, uncertainty continues in the markets.

When all of the opinions, concurrences and dissents are completed.

Given the importance of the case, it will take longer than some simple issue that needs only 10-20 pages total to resolve.

And Roberts can control that. When the majority opinion is done, final opinions from concurrences and dissents have three working days after to finish their own.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.