Archive for the ‘Circuit Courts’ Category

…up front. I’m easily amused.

…we have this little gem from a NY judge. This is the end of America. This is institutionalized racism.

Morons.

From Kickin’ and Screamin’:

LIVE IN NEW YORK CITY? YOUR FIREMEN JUST BECAME MORE STUPID AND INCAPABLE OF DOING THEIR JOBS

by Vilmar

Why? Political correctness from a black robed tyrant mandating stupid, less qualified blacks and Hispanics be allowed on the force at the expense of more qualified whites.

If any black or Hispanic got a score of 25 out of 100 they are eligible for back pay on a job they never got.

25 OUT OF 100!!!!!

A federal judge is ordering the New York City Fire Department to implement racial quotas to address grievances from minorities who failed entrance exams.

More

This is a step in the right direction.
More needs to be done.

Temporary Victory: Aaron Walker’s First Amendment Rights Restored; Judge Stays Brett Kimberlin’s “Peace Order” Against Him

The “peace order” issued by an incompetent judge had stripped Aaron Walker of his First Amendment rights, ordering him to not mention Brett Kimberlin publicly.

That order has been stayed, with a full hearing to decide if the order should stand or fall on July 5th. Note, however, that emergency relief (as here) is usually given only when there is a “substantial” likelihood of prevailing on the ultimate merits, so, at the moment, it seems likely the peace order will be struck down on July 5th, too.

More

Another chink in the armor of the anti-gun assholes in Chicago just got handed to them.

What part of “shall not be infringed” do they not get?

Federal judge kicks out part of Chicago’s gun law

Ban on permits for those convicted of unlawful use of weapon is called unconstitutional

By Dahleen Glanton and Liam Ford, Chicago Tribune reporters

Chicago’s firearm ordinance took another blow Tuesday when a federal judge ruled that the section banning permits for people convicted of unlawful use of a weapon is vague and unconstitutional.

The city must now decide whether to appeal the ruling or rewrite the part of its gun ordinance that bars individuals convicted of even misdemeanor offenses from possessing a firearm in their home for self-defense.

The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by Shawn Gowder, who claimed his constitutional right to bear arms was violated when he was denied a firearm permit two years ago because of a misdemeanor conviction for possessing a gun on a public street.

The lawsuit, backed by the National Rifle Association, is one of at least five cases pending against the city’s gun ordinance, which was passed in 2010 just days after theU.S. Supreme Court struck down the city’s 28-year ban on handguns. The Illinois State Rifle Association also filed a brief in support of Gowder.

via Federal judge kicks out part of Chicago’s gun law – chicagotribune.com.

Just wow. I never thought I’d see the day where a judge on the Ninth Circuit actually had some sense. He’s a Bush appointee, which probably says a lot in and of itself.

This comes from Ace of Spades

Judge Milan Smith Has Had It With the Ninth Circuit’s Environmental Cases

“Here we go again,” Judge Milan Smith starts in his epic broadside (PDF) against the Ninth Circuit’s anti-prosperity, bureaucracy-boosting environmental decisions. The Bush 43 appointee has had enough:

I cannot conclude my dissent without considering the impact of the majority’s decision in this case, and others like it, which, in my view, flout our precedents and undermine the rule of law. . . .

By rendering the Forest Service impotent to meaningfully address low impact mining, the majority effectively shuts down the entire suction dredge mining industry in the states within our jurisdiction. . . . As a result, a number of people will lose their jobs and the businesses that have invested in the equipment used in the relevant mining activities will lose much of their value. In 2008, California issued about 3,500 permits for such mining, and 18 percent of those miners received “a significant portion of income” from the dredging. See Justin Scheck, California Sifts Gold Claims, The Wall Street Journal, April 29, 2012. The gold mining operation in this case, the New 49ers, organizes recreational weekend gold-mining excursions. The majority’s opinion effectively forces these people to await the lengthy and costly ESA consultation process if they wish to pursue their mining activities, or simply ignore the process, at their peril.

Unfortunately, this is not the first time our court has broken from decades of precedent and created burdensome, entangling environmental regulations out of the vapors. In one of the most extreme recent examples, our court held that timber companies must obtain Environmental Protection Agency permits for stormwater runoff that flows from primary logging roads into systems of ditches, culverts, and channels. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. Brown, 640 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2011). In the nearly four decades since the Clean Water Act was enacted, no court or government agency had ever imposed such a requirement. Indeed, the EPA promulgated regulations that explicitly exempted logging from this arduous permitting requirement. Yet our court decided to disregard the regulation and require the permits.

The result? The imminent decimation of what remains of the Northwest timber industry.

via Judge Milan Smith Has Had It With the Ninth Circuit’s Environmental Cases.

More good news on the 2A front. It looks like the case in San Franfreako is starting to head in the right direction.
California gun owners need a win at this level so that other cases can move forward and maybe, just maybe some of the draconian anti-gun laws can get overturned here.

Here’s hoping for the best!

California: The NRA Files Legal Brief in Second Amendment Challenge to San Francisco Gun Control Laws

On May 17, 2012, attorneys for the National Rifle Association, the San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association, and several San Francisco gun owners filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in their legal challenge to San Francisco’s “locked-storage” law, as well as the City’s prohibition on the sale of “hollow-point” ammunition and all ammunition that does not “serve a sporting purpose.”

The lawsuit, Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, was filed as a test case in May of 2009, before the McDonald v. Chicago decision in 2010, and in the wake of the 9th Circuit’s May 2, 2011 confirmation in Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment is “incorporated”, i.e., that it protects against infringements by state and local governments.

The motion [available here] asserts that the City has not raised a viable defense, and asks the Court to issue an injunction preventing enforcement and to declare the ordinances unconstitutional. At minimum, the motion will serve to narrow the issues, and to prevent the City from misdirecting the litigation with irrelevant distractions.

The Jackson case was strategically designed to, potentially, be the first case to address the “standard of review” applicable to Second Amendment challenges. The case is legally “cleaner” than many of the Second Amendment cases currently being litigated, as it does not raise issues about public carry, “sensitive places” where a firearm may or may not be possessed, or other issues that might make it easier for a court to water down Second Amendment protections.

via NRA-ILA | California: The NRA Files Legal Brief in Second Amendment Challenge to San Francisco Gun Control Laws.

This is welcome news. Let’s hope that this law is permanently blocked.

Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge

Opponents of a U.S. law they claim may subject them to indefinite military detention for activities including news reporting and political activism persuaded a federal judge to temporarily block the measure.

U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan yesterday ruled in favor of a group of writers and activists who sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and the Defense Department, claiming a provision of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law Dec. 31, puts them in fear that they could be arrested and held by U.S. armed forces.

The complaint was filed Jan. 13 by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges. The plaintiffs contend a section of the law allows for detention of citizens and permanent residents taken into custody in the U.S. on “suspicion of providing substantial support” to people engaged in hostilities against the U.S., such as al-Qaeda.

“The statute at issue places the public at undue risk of having their speech chilled for the purported protection from al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and ‘associated forces’ – i.e., ‘foreign terrorist organizations,’” Forrest said in an opinion yesterday. “The vagueness of Section 1021 does not allow the average citizen, or even the government itself, to understand with the type of definiteness to which our citizens are entitled, or what conduct comes within its scope.”

via Military Detention Law Blocked by New York Judge – Bloomberg.

The lawlessness of this administration is rampant. Obama has no respect for the law of the land. He violates the Constitution at every turn, and completely ignores the judicial branch of government. He thinks he is above the law.

And the media enables this by not reporting on it.

Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case

By Cindy Simpson

Last week, I noted that Obama turned his back not just on Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer, but also on the laws of the State of Georgia. I closed my column, “Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks on By,” with the observation: “And most of the media has followed along right behind him.”

At the time, I had just witnessed an historic hearing that actually discussed the eligibility of the sitting president of the United States to run for a second term. The president had been subpoenaed to appear, and instead of his attorney respectfully following protocol to have that subpoena recalled, both Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski, simply failed to show up at all or offer any defense whatsoever.

Isn’t there a headline in there somewhere?

The hearing proceeded as planned, even though the table for the defense was empty. Attorneys Van Irion and J. Mark Hatfield presented their cases first and offered compelling arguments — not regarding Obama’s birthplace, but rather that the non-U.S. citizenship of Obama’s father precluded Obama’s “natural born” eligibility under the Constitution and existing Supreme Court precedent. Attorney Orly Taitz, however, did present interesting evidence that questioned the validity of Obama’s birth certificate and questions surrounding his Social Security number.

via Articles: Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case.

This is so prevalent in the MFM that it needs to be posted and rebutted.

It is NOT illegal to film cops! Never has been.

Now the First Circuit has ruled that to be the case. It is NOT illegal to film cops.

Cops have been know to harass people that are filming them and trying to convince them that it is illegal to film them. That is either willful ignorance, or just a straight out lie. I tend to lean towards the latter.

Read the story:

Appeals Court Rules It Is Not Illegal To Film Police

Paul Joseph Watson

Americans still being arrested for recording cops as a consequence of mass hoax

Despite the mass hoax still being promulgated by both the mainstream media and local authorities across America, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that it is not illegal for citizens to videotape police officers when they are on public duty.

“The filming of government officials while on duty is protected by the First Amendment, said the Court,” reports Daily Tech.

“The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles [of protected First Amendment activity].,” said the Court. “Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs,” stated the ruling, adding that this has been the case all along, and that the right to film police officers is not just restricted to the press.

More