Brazil: Hypothesis is the house arrest for Lula in HC of office

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE BRAZIL 247 NEWS)

 

Hypothesis is the house arrest for Lula in HC of office

In the internal war of the Federal Supreme Court, where ministers Gilmar Mendes and Carmen Lúcia duel to keep or not the case of former president Lula in the court agenda, one possibility is the granting of house arrest even without analysis of the suspicion of Sergio Moro

Gilmar says that Lula's conviction will be annulled and that Moro and Dallagnol are criminals

247 – The internal war in the Federal Supreme Court between the ministers Gilmar Mendes and Carmen Lúcia created an unusual situation around the Lula case – and it is not known if his habeas corpus petition will be tried on Tuesday, due to the suspicion of the ex – Judge Sergio Moro.

But an alternative hypothesis was published in a report in the Estado de S. Paulo newspaper on Tuesday. “It is not ruled out the possibility of the ministers discussing to grant house arrest to the Petista through a habeas corpus ex officio, that is, without there being a specific request.” Lawyers heard by the report affirm that the measure is possible, but that would be unusual , since the matter is no longer on the agenda officially.The Second Panel, however, has already granted habeas corpus ex officio to suspend the execution of the sentence of former minister José Dirceu in August of last year.

Supreme Court leaves intact block on Indiana abortion restriction, but allows fetal burial to go into effect

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF CNN)

 

Supreme Court leaves intact block on Indiana abortion restriction, but allows fetal burial to go into effect

Washington (CNN)The Supreme Court said Tuesday that a provision of an Indiana law which said the state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by race, sex or disability should remain blocked.

The court, however, did say it would allow part of the law that requires clinics to bury or cremate fetal remains to take effect.
The fact that the court decided not to take up the more controversial provision of the Indiana law suggests that there is not a current appetite on the court to move aggressively to question the court’s core abortion precedents of Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Still, supporters of abortion rights will be disappointed and worried that the justices allowed the fetal tissue provision to go into effect.
The law was signed in March 2016 by then-Indiana Gov. Mike Pence. It was blocked last yearfrom going into effect by the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
In his decision last year, Judge William Bauer wrote that provisions in the law that bar women from seeking abortions in certain cases “clearly violate” what he described as “well-established Supreme Court precedent, and are therefore, unconstitutional.”
Justice Clarence Thomas agreed that the court was right not to take up the provision at this time, but said justices “soon need to confront” the issue.
“Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever,” Thomas wrote. “Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this court is duty bound to address its scope. In that regard, it is easy to understand why the District Court and the Seventh Circuit looked to Casey to resolve a question it did not address. Where else could they turn? The Constitution itself is silent on abortion.”
But Thomas’s writing doesn’t mean the court will immediately take up the large issue, said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
“Although Justice Thomas argues that the court will soon have to take up the issue it ducked today, I think it’s telling that none of the other conservative justices — John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh — joined his separate opinion,” Vladeck said.
“It’s quite possible that Thomas’s opinion is therefore less a prediction of where the court is likely to go than an aspiration,” Vladeck added. “At least for now, the rest of the conservatives don’t seem eager to jump into this sensitive political thicket.”

Fetal remains

Thomas also wrote to express his support for the provision of the law that requires fetal remains be buried or cremated.
“I would have thought it could go without saying that nothing in the Constitution or any decision of this Court prevents a State from requiring abortion facilities to provide for the respectful treatment of human remains,” he wrote.
Indiana’s law requires that fetal remains be disposed of the same way as other human remains (i.e. burial and cremation). A separate provision says that the state can prohibit abortion that is solely motivated by the race, sex, or disability of the fetus.
The law has been blocked from going into effect by lower courts.
In court papers, Curtis Hill Jr., Indiana’s attorney general, said the language “expands on long-established legal and cultural traditions of recognizing the dignity and humanity of the fetus.”
This story is breaking and will be updated.

No One Has THE RIGHT TO COMMIT MURDER

(No One Has The RIGHT TO COMMIT MURDER)

 

Because of some southern states and because of Republicans abortion is once again in the national news. I am going to put two thoughts out to you on this issue. One view will be from a ‘religion’ viewpoint and the other from a person who is chastising the Supreme Court. As a person of faith I believe that once a heartbeat starts, it is murder to stop it. No one has the ‘right’ to kill little babies, no one! If a person gets into an auto accident and kills a pregnant lady they get charged with killing two people. This is an issue that must only be one way, if a fetus has no rights then you are considering the baby to be nothing, if it does have rights then it is a living child.

 

The Supreme Court of the United States has only one main job and that is to honor the Nation’s Constitution. When a case comes before that Court the only thing their job is is to decide if the law before them is Constitutional, or not. I personally disagree with several decisions handed down by the Supreme Court yet when a decision is made by the Court as to if something is Constitutional or not it should never be overturned by a later Court. When you are having to count how many Republicans or how many Democrats are sitting on that Bench then our whole Constitution and our Democracy are at a grave risk. If a Supreme Court has done their Constitutional duty to the people of our country then the laws they say yes or no too should be final and never be overturned by a later set of Justices. Political viewpoints have no place among any of the Chief Justices. Do I personally agree with or like the Roe versus Wade decision in 1973, no, I don’t but if it was Constitutional in 1973, it is still Constitutional today and tomorrow.

STJ PUBLISHES RULING OF THE CASE LULA, WHO CAN ALREADY ASK TO GO HOME

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF BRAZIL 24/7 NEWS)

 

The Senate shouldn’t be sleeping on Whitaker’s unconstitutional appointment

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER NEWS)

 

The Senate shouldn’t be sleeping on Whitaker’s unconstitutional appointment

The resignation of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his replacement with “acting Attorney General” Matthew Whitaker has proven quite controversial since it was announced. Big-name, right-of-center constitutional experts — including, it appears, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas by a backdoor route — have opined that it is straight-up unconstitutional.

It is a conclusion that’s hard to disregard on its merits. But the failure of the administration to respect the “advice and consent” clause of the Constitution is not the only reason why the Senate should be pushing back, and hard, on the acting attorney general situation.

There’s a far more straightforward reason: The appointment of Whitaker is a blatant power grab, and no senator worth his salt should be willing to give up his power over the staffing of the administration.

[Read more: Maryland challenges Whitaker’s appointment as acting AG]

That is especially so if the politician in question is named Mitch McConnell.

The Republican Senate majority leader from Kentucky regards himself as being “in the personnel business.” What McConnell means by that is that the most important impact he and his colleagues can have in government is getting people they like confirmed to high office, where they can make legally bulletproof decisions that will shape the future of this country for decades to come.

The area where this is most evident, pertinent, and with the longest-term consequence is in the judiciary. But Senate-confirmable administration posts count as well — not only those confirmed or blocked, but also those thwarted or prevented behind the scenes.

Why, then, would McConnell — let alone his other 99 colleagues — allow their power to be grabbed in such an overt and easily stopped manner by any president? Why not demand that if President Trump wants Whitaker, he put him forward as a nominee for attorney general? And if he does not want Whitaker, why not demand he name his preferred successor to Sessions right now, so the Senate can get on with the constitutionally mandated confirmation process?

The reality is, Trump should have had a nominee’s name ready to announce the second news broke of Sessions’ resignation. It’s not like he hasn’t had time to think about it. Rumors that Sessions would exit after the midterm elections have been swirling D.C. for months now. Trump has wanted him gone for much longer than that.

But it is simply unacceptable that the Senate would not be forcing the president to get on with it now. Every day he delays is an erosion of the Senate’s power and reason for existence.

Under former President Barack Obama, we saw a consistent erosion of the notion that administrations need to adhere to constitutional law.

That was actually the problem at issue in the case that George Conway, Kellyanne Conway’s husband, and former Solicitor General Neal Katyal cited in their op-ed last week dubbing the “acting attorney general” situation unconstitutional.

And Thomas, Trump’s “favorite justice,” considered what the Obama administration did with National Labor Relations Board appointments to be not merely unlawful but unconstitutional — and he was right.

Trump can and should do better than Obama did in this regard. But so should McConnell, if he really is in the personnel business. The majority leader should not tolerate this unconstitutional power grab, which overtly and directly hurts him and his caucus.

Liz Mair is president of Mair Strategies and strategist to the Swamp Accountability Project.

Republican Politicians Honor White Male Rapists?

(THIS ARTICLE CAME TO ME FROM A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE IN ILLINOIS, HE SENT IT TO ME THROUGH FB)

 

18 hrs

Image may contain: text

Folks: How Do We Personally Believe In The Independence Of OUR OWN: Supreme Court?

Folks: How Do We Personally Believe In The Independence Of OUR OWN: Supreme Court?

 

Well Folks, do We? This is a case where 1/3 of Our National Government is in the hands and minds of just 9 of Our own People. I personally would not want to have to be a judge, at any level. Not with all the sins that I know that I have  committed. I don’t want to have to have a job of being a Judge where what the 9 of you say, is final. Folks, that’s just like being one step away, or below, God! I am not saying that this Job can’t be done, but to be Truly Independent of the Other 2 Branches of Our Government, at every level is necessary. To me, and I know that I could be wrong, but I believe that in Our Country’s Supreme Court Job Description, that Job Description is to make sure that all Laws are Constitutional! Now again, do the Nine Folks we now have on The Nations Top Court realize the weight upon each of them to be in charge of 1/3 of Our Government? Personally, there is no way, no amount of money that could get me to want that Job. Think of the pressure on all 9 of these folks to be, Honest. Has Our Nations Supreme Court become nothing but pawns of Big Politics, and Big Money? Do you have the Intelligence, and the Morals, do you Mr. Kavanaugh? What are you walking into Mr. Kavanaugh, do you really know? Well folks, as a very dear friend of mine used to say once in a while, “we shall see what we shall see.” Fore without an independent Supreme Court, there is no Democracy and as little as 9 people holds in their hands the weight of 1/3 of the Constitutional Government. Their sort of like those “Super Delegates” the Democrats been hosting, aren’t they? Except if you can totally control one of these 3 Branches of our Government, 9 people could control our Country. How much weight is on Mr. Kavanaugh? How much weight is on all 9 of these people? As I said earlier, I wouldn’t want this job no matter what the pay. When we add in the reality that another 1/3 of Our Government is in the hands of just One Person. Folks this means that 2/3 of Our whole Government is the Hands of 10 people. That is too much power if those positions aren’t filled with quality persons, now who decides what “Quality” is. Now Folks, does this help you see why I would not want to ever have to be in the place of one of these nine Folks.

Roe V Wade Gets Struck Down In 2019: Now Where Do We Go As A Country?

Roe V Wade Gets Struck Down In 2019: Now Where Do We Go As A Country?

 

If, big if, but if the Republicans can hold onto the Congress and the Senate, then Roe V Wade will be over turned in 2019. I believe that this is the only way that the Republicans could get their votes on the Supreme Court. Thus their goal is to rule via the Supreme Court over the next 20-30 years of life in America. But my question is a simple one. When all abortions in the U.S. are ruled to be murder, how is our society going to respond? I believe that the biggest single reason that the Democrats lost the so-called Christian Right, is the abortion issue. This has got to be the only reason that the “Christian Right” would stay hooked to an habitual liar, fraud and thief like Donald Trump, his Family and fellow soon to be felons. Folks if this scenario I mentioned did happen, (with or without the help of Nannie Vlad), then the other will soon follow. But no, I do no expect the Fake News Fraud-in-Chief to ever spend a real day in a prison or ever be a felon, step #3 is good ole dependable hypocrite Mikie to give out full pardons to all the good -ole-boys.

 

Democrats like Nancy Pelosi in their ego actually believe that we the Sheep want them back in Office, no, no, no, you angry old lady, we just want the Hell rid of Donald Trump and his group of habitual lying kiss-asses that surround him. If the Democrats do win the Congress back in November and they then are stupid enough to vote this hateful Relic to lead them again, they deserve their own dirt. Personally, I believe that every single person who is in any level of Politics reaches the age of 70, they must retire. If you can Constitutionally mandate age discrimination as is done in the minimum age of a President, why should we not have a maximum age. If your 70th birthday would occur while you are still in Office, then you can not be a candidate for that Office. There has to be a limit somewhere in order to try to put a cap on some of this madness.

Honestly: Is There Anyone Who Didn’t Know What The Outcome Would Be?

Honestly: Is Their Anyone Who Didn’t Know What The Outcome Would Be?

 

Folks, please don’t even say to your self, that you didn’t know for sure or not, that Judge Brett Kavanaugh would end up on the SC.  Am I being cynical? I don’t mean to be, that is not my intent. I very seldom seem to be surprised by how politicians end up voting. I pretty much believe that the vast majority of people, are not at all surprised either. The votes tend to always be lined up with their Initial.

Lindsey Graham, Brett Kavanaugh, and the unleashing of white male backlash

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF VOX NEWS)

 

Lindsey Graham, Brett Kavanaugh, and the unleashing of white male backlash

“I’m a single white male from South Carolina, and I’m told I should just shut up, but I will not shut up.”

Friday morning, during a meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said probably the most honest thing about this hearing that a Republican has said during the entire process.

“I’m a single white male from South Carolina, and I’m told I should just shut up, but I will not shut up,” Graham said.

Graham is elevating the stakes of the Kavanaugh hearing. No longer is this about Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, or what he may have done to her in suburban Maryland in 1982. It’s about beating back the challenge from feminists and people of color demanding a seat at the table; it is about showing that white men in power are not going anywhere — that they will not listen, will not budge, and will not give ground to #MeToo or the Black Lives Matter movement.

This was always the subtext of the Republican approach to the sexual assault allegations. But now Graham has officially made it the text: Voting “yes” on Kavanaugh is the battle cry of the reactionary man.

Lindsey Graham, Donald Trump, and backlash politics

Donald Trump’s 2016 election is now widely understood among social scientists to be a kind of backlash to social progress. The backlash against a black president gets the bulk of the attention, but there’s also good evidence that a sexist backlash to the prospect of a woman president played a major role.

Research by three political scientists — Brian Schaffner, Matthew MacWilliams, and Tatishe Nteta — found extremely strong correlations between an individual’s scores on measures designed to estimate racist and sexist sentiments and their likelihood of supporting Trump:

Brian Schaffner/Matthew MacWilliams/Tatishe Nteta

There is not a single, discrete backlash in the United States in the Trump era. There’s a more wholesale one, directed not just against racial minorities but decades of social progress for all sorts of different marginalized groups. Trump is a living, breathing avatar of this kind of politics. But at the outset of his presidency, it was an open question as to how far Republican members of Congress would be willing to buttress the president on these points.

Graham just showed that he’s pretty willing indeed.

The specific language that he used — “I’m a single white male from South Carolina, and I’m told I’m just supposed to shut up” — is a direct reference to one of the core arguments used by feminists and social justice activists: that white men in positions of privilege don’t have direct experiences with hostile sexism or racism, and should listen to the people who have.

Graham is saying he cannot, and will not, listen: He will vote for Kavanaugh regardless of what Ford said, and will defend him in the face of any criticism about the gender and power dynamics at work.

“I will not shut up” is a perfect mantra for Trumpian backlash politics. There is no risk that white men are, in mass, going to be silenced: They occupy the commanding heights of power in every walk of American life. The demands that they be quiet at times are a response to the over representation of their voices, that they understand what life is like for more vulnerable people and then change the way they act accordingly.

But Graham is not willing to give even that little ground. His rage on this point, one shared by Trump’s base, has been palpable throughout this process. During Thursday’s hearing, he interrupted Rachel Mitchell, the sex crimes prosecutor that Republicans had deputized to ask questions during the hearing, to deliver a furious rant in defense of Kavanaugh.

“To my Republican colleagues, if you vote no, you’re legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics,” Graham said during Thursday’s hearing.

After Graham spoke, Mitchell was denied a single additional question. The Republicans on the committee, all white men, took turns apologizing to Kavanaugh for what he had gone through.

The literal silencing of Mitchell, and the stolid refusal to credit Ford’s account of Kavanaugh’s behavior, shows just how much contempt the modern Republican Party has for the idea of taking women’s equality serious seriously. The Kavanaugh confirmation has been a defiant attempt to show that #MeToo does not speak for the country, and a declaration that the white men the movement has targeted will not back down.

There is no better epitaph for this whole sorry episode than a white man from South Carolina saying he will not shut up.