This is a very brief update on what is occurring with the Justices.
Yesterday Chief Justice Robert’s spoke at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference meeting in Atlanta.
On the subject of the recent leaked draft opinion, he said;
“A leak of this sort — let’s assume that’s what it is — is absolutely appalling, and if the people behind it, or person behind it, thinks that it’s going to have an effect on our decision process, that’s absolutely foolish. We will go about doing our work as we would in any event, regardless of the leak.”
He further stated;
“The thing that upsets me quite a bit, though, is that it might give the wrong impression about our workforce,” he said. “The people who work at the Supreme Court are extremely dedicated to the institution, and in fact to the rule of law, adding that extends from “from the guy who empties the wastebasket at night to the most tenured justice on the court.”
“They share a common commitment to the mission of the court,” And this episode, this absolutely appalling episode, shouldn’t detract from that.”
On another note, Justice Alito cancelled his appearance for the 5th Circuit Conference due to threats made against him.
One of the leftist peaceful protests groups has doxed the “conservative” Justices and is calling for protests at their homes.
One can assume the U.S. Marshalls Service made a serious recommendation that Justice Alito cancel his appearance. Second, they are very likely implementing a security plan in anticipation of the ’peaceful’🙄🙄🙄 protests scheduled to occur at their homes.
With the egregious actions of a SCOTUS employee, the news is full of the Court and possible overturning of Roe v. Wade. The ’Daily Malarkey’ has issued a ‘special edition’.
Special Edition: Death Roe
Norms! Erielle Davidson: “The only motivation for leaking this opinion was to pressure members of the Court to change their votes. Mob rule, in other words. Despicable.”
John Cooper: “The leak of this draft opinion is a disgusting attempt to threaten the integrity of the court and intimidate the justices. But I doubt we’ll hear much from ‘but our norms!’ crowd.”
Matt Wolking: “They only care about norms and institutions and democracy when it suits them”
Insurrection! Julia: “Who’s ready for the ‘fiery, but mostly peaceful protests’ that are about to ensue? 🙄🔥”
Alex Bruesewitz: “Whoever leaked this is attempting to obstruct a government proceeding through intimidation tactics. In other words, they are insurrectionists.”
Democracy! LOL: “When our side doesn’t get its way the court is overtly political so it must be packed with leftists who will vote 99% of the time with activists to save democracy. Democracy is one party control.”
My Body! Sailing Mom: “So now we’re back to my body, my choice? Where was all this outrage when the government was trying to force a vaccine in your arm???”
Birthing Persons! Dan Isett: “The cohort who brought you a SCOTUS nominee who couldn’t tell you what a woman is will spend the next few months bellowing about women’s rights.”
As a warning, the following personal comment, on this matter, is one you will see me repeat repetitively.
Chief Justice Roberts lacks control of his Court employees. His failure to publicly state he has directed the ’Marshall of the Court’ to polygraph all Court employees is a failure to show a serious effort to find the perpetrator of the leak.
After the leak of the SCOTUS draft opinion concerning Roe v. Wade came out Monday night, there was some speculation as to whether it was real, although the weight of the evidence was there that it was.
We wrote after it happened on Monday night about how Chief Justice John Roberts was going to respond to this and how reportedly he would be calling for an investigation.
Now, the Court has just confirmed it is indeed a draft opinion. But they cautioned — as we have been saying — that it’s not a final opinion and that things can change between this draft and the final decision. Chief Justice Roberts is also up in arms about the leak and says they are going to do all they can to go after the leaker, noting that the purpose of this was to upset the work of the Court, and “it will not succeed.”
“To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way,” Roberts said.
“We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce – permanent employees and law clerks alike – intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court,” he said. “This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.”
Roberts said he had directed the Marshal of the Court — its chief operations and security officer — to investigate.
Unless there was a hack or other unauthorized access to the email, there are only a limited number of people who would have been given the opinion so they should be able to track down the person involved. This needs to be dealt with, with all due speed, as this threatens the very integrity of the Court.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court has stayed enforcement of the OSHA rule that mandated vaccines for workplaces with 100 or more employees. Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett all signed the per-curiam order to stay the mandate, and Gorsuch wrote a concurrence that was also signed by Thomas and Alito.
Based on a quick reading, it seems to me that the conservative bloc is willing to take a hard look at what is known as the major questions doctrine if this or a similar case makes its way to the Court. If that occurs, it will be a major blow to the administrative state.
In a 6-3 decision, authored by Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court upheld an Arizona elections law that banned ballot harvesting and out of precinct voting. In 2016, the Arizona legislature passed a law that criminalized the collection and delivery of another person’s ballot. Additionally, Arizona law requires voters to cast their ballots in the precinct they are registered to vote. If a ballot is cast in the wrong precinct, the ballot is invalidated.
The DNC challenged both of these laws believing they violated the Voting Rights Act. Other opponents of these laws cast them as having a disparate impact on minority voters.
The full 9th Circuit reversed both the initial trial judge and a three judge panel from the 9th that held the Arizona laws did not violate the VRA or have a disparate impact on minority voters.
In his majority opinion, joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, Alito wrote “The regulations at issue in this suit govern precinct based election-day voting and early mail-in voting. Voters who choose to vote in person on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote in their assigned precincts. If a voter goes to the wrong polling place, poll workers are trained to direct the voter to the right location…In light of the principles set out above, neither Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule nor its ballot-collection law violates [section 2] of the VRA. Arizona’s out-of-precinct rule enforces the requirement that voters who choose to vote in person on election day must do so in their assigned precincts. Having to identify one’s own polling place and then travel there to vote does not exceed the ‘usual burdens of voting.”
The Supreme court issued a 5-3 ruling in Pereida v. Wilkinson, a case about whether an immigrant living in the country without authorization can seek relief from deportation for a minor crime. The court ruled that the noncitizen bears the burden to prove he is eligible for relief.
Clemente Pereida entered the United States without authorization nearly 25 years ago. In order to obtain employment at a cleaning company, Pereida allegedly presented a false Social Security card. He was subsequently convicted of a misdemeanor for attempting to commit the Nebraska crime labeled “criminal impersonation.” Pereida was sentenced to a fine of $100 and no jail time.
Illegal aliens who have a long history in the United States and close U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident family members are eligible to apply for a benefit that would cancel their deportation based on hardship to these relatives. This benefit, however, is not available to individuals without immigration status who have been convicted of a “crime of moral turpitude” under section 240A(b)(1)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Nebraska’s criminal impersonation law includes several distinct offenses. Those versions that require intent to deceive are considered crimes involving moral turpitude under federal law and trigger immigration consequences. The other versions do not. Pereida’s criminal record, however, does not make clear which version of the offense he was convicted of.
The government argued that the statutory burden of proof placed on the immigrant seeking relief applies to the provision covering disqualifying crimes, and because Pereida could not prove that he was not convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, he was ineligible for relief. Consequently, an immigration judge could not consider the hardship that his deportation would have on his U.S. citizen child. Pereida argued that this rule breaks with the court’s precedent on how to determine whether state criminal convictions trigger immigration consequences under federal law.
Neil Gorsuch, authoring the majority opinion, wrote, “The Immigration and Nationality Act expressly requires individuals seeking relief from lawful removal orders to prove all aspects of their eligibility. That includes proving they do not stand convicted of a disqualifying criminal offense.”
It has been part of American jurisprudence for many years that non-citizens do not enjoy all the same benefits as citizens. This ruling reaffirms that postiton.
Sidney Powell: ‘More than Enough Evidence’ to ‘Reverse Election in at Least 5 States’
Former prosecution attorney Sidney Powell claimed there is “more than enough” evidence in the public to more to reverse the election in at least five states.
Sidney Powell
Sidney Powell said:
“There’s all kind of precedent for fixing what happened in this election from Bush vs. Gore to other cases as well… Fractionalized votes.”
“That’s exactly what we have here from a computer algorithm that we can prove in multiple counties, and it could prove across the country if anybody would issue an order allowing inspection of the machines,” Powell said.
“The very fact that Dominion and other companies are not allowing inspection of the voting machines ought to tell everybody all they need to know.”
‘The very fact that Dominion and other companies are not allowing inspection of the voting machines ought to tell everybody all they need to know’
“Federal law calls for election records to be kept for 22 months.”
“In this case, it requires forensic evaluations of the machines and looking at all of the paper ballots,” she added.
“There were counterfeit ballots. People were saying, ‘Oh, well they did a full audit in Georgia.’”
“Well, if you just keep running the same counterfeit bill through the same counting machine, you’re going to get the same result.”
Powell ended by saying:
“There is enough evidence in the cases before them or enough evidence in the public now to more than reverse the election in at least five states.”
‘There is enough evidence in the cases before them or enough evidence in the public now to more than reverse the election in at least five states’
In January, Dominion Voting Systems filed a lawsuit against Powell for $1.3 billion, accusing her of defaming the company with claims of massive voter fraud in the 2020 election.
Dominion CEO, John Poulos, said Powell’s allegation that Dominion was created in Venezuela was false.
Powell alleged that Dominion had ties to former Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.
Sidney Powell served in the Department of Justice for 10 years and for the last 20 years has devoted her private practice to federal appeals.
She was the youngest Assistant U.S Attorney and later became Chief of the Appellate Section for the Western and Northern Districts of Texas.
Her peers recognized Sidney Powell as a “Super Lawyer” and named as one of the “Best Lawyers in America.”
Comment: I suppose that we could act surprised regarding the SCOTUS ruling today, relevant the final filing (below) to be given consideration in the 2020 election irregularities – however, Mandamus Denied and no explanation provided. Punctuated with – REHEARINGS DENIED. I believe that concludes the denial of hearing 5000 affidavits filed by witnesses to election irregularities.
Currently, Dominion Voting System have filed lawsuits against attorneys Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, & Rudy Guilani and CEO Mike Lindell. That could make for a very interesting discovery process.
(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) MONDAY, MARCH 1, 2021 ORDERS IN PENDING CASES 20M59 BILLIE, ROBERT L. V. BROWN, SHERIFF 20M60 LIGGINS, ELLA N. V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. The motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time are denied. 20-315 SANCHEZ, JOSE S., ET AL. V. MAYORKAS, SEC. OF HOMELAND 20-472 HOLLYFRONTIER CHEYENNE, ET AL. V. RENEWABLE FUELS ASSN., ET AL. The motions of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendices are granted. 20-603 TORRES, LEROY V. TX DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY The Acting Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States. 20-6719 JACKSON, LUCILLE V. WILLIAMS, JOHN E. The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until March 22, 2021, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a). CERTIORARI GRANTED 20-303 UNITED STATES V. VAELLO-MADERO, JOSE L. 20-480 BABCOCK, DAVID B. V. SAUL, ANDREW M. The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. CERTIORARI DENIED 20-249 OMMEN, DOUG, ET AL. V. MILLIMAN, INC., ET AL. 20-283 BASS, AUSTIN J. V. GREVE, PATRICK M., ET AL. 20-374 CONTINENTAL RESOURCES, INC. V. BUCKLES, ZACHARY, ET AL. 1
20-535 BATES, DREW S. V. UNITED STATES 20-546 MICHIGAN V. MATHEWS, LARICCA S. 20-708 JAMES, JOE N. V. RAYBON, WARDEN, ET AL. 20-717 CITIZENS FOR NUCLEAR SAFETY V. EPA, ET AL. 20-762 FERRIER, ERIC V. CASCADE FALLS CONDO, ET AL. 20-844 MURRAY, BARBARA V. FRY, ELIZABETH A., ET AL. 20-849 P. F. V. J. S., ET AL. 20-851 HAWES, ROGER V. LUMPKIN, DIR., TX DCJ, ET AL. 20-856 PISNER, GARY V. McCARTHY, ROBERT M. 20-857 MIESEN, DALE L. V. MUNDING, JOHN D., ET AL. 20-909 RANDHAWA, IQBAL S. V. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON 20-920 COLLINS, JEREMY V. PUTT, REBECCA, ET AL. 20-931 HILLIER, WYNSHIP W. V. CIA, ET AL. 20-932 FRANKLIN, BOBBY L. V. LAUGHLIN, D. J., ET AL. 20-956 DZIEDZIACH, ROBERT V. WILKINSON, ACTING ATT’Y GEN. 20-971 HURTADO, GEOVANNY E. V. WILKINSON, ACTING ATT’Y GEN. 20-995 VETRI, ANTHONY V. UNITED STATES 20-1005 DEES, SARA V. SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA 20-1038 BROWN, DARRELL W. V. COMSTOCK, KEVIN M. 20-1041 SORIA, CYNTHIA, ET VIR V. NYC DEPT. OF EDUCATION 20-1059 MURRY, ROY H. V. WASHINGTON 20-6200 WEBB, RANDALL G. V. UNITED STATES 20-6210 STATEN, DEONDRE A. V. DAVIS, WARDEN 20-6211 ROBBINS, MICHAEL A. V. CALIFORNIA 20-6234 MOYNIHAN, KAREN V. WEST CHESTER AREA SCHOOL DIST. 20-6414 RAY, DANIEL V. UNITED STATES 20-6425 MEECE, SCOTT V. UNITED STATES 20-6466 JACKSON, LOUIS A. V. UNITED STATES 2
20-6696 KOENIG, LA VERNE V. WHEELER, ADM’R, EPA, ET AL. 20-6705 CORMIER, IAN L. V. COMEY, JAMES, ET AL. 20-6711 LEATHERMAN, PAT D. V. LUMPKIN, DIR., TX DCJ 20-6717 KRAVITZ, JAY S. V. LEIS, KENNETH, ET AL. 20-6718 JOHNSON, JASON J. V. CALIFORNIA 20-6729 BULLOCK, MICHAEL A. V. HOOKS, SEC., NC DPS 20-6746 LOYD, JONATHAN V. FLORIDA 20-6749 MORALES, RICARDO V. MISSOURI, ET AL. 20-6751 WALDREP, ROGER D. V. SHINN, DIR., AZ DOC, ET AL. 20-6762 KNIPFER, JAMES W. V. RICHARDSON, WARDEN 20-6815 MUNOZ, ROBERT V. LUMPKIN, DIR., TX DCJ 20-6959 SOMERS, MASON V. FORSHEY, WARDEN 20-6964 MORALES, DALLAS R. V. UNITED STATES 20-6974 WILSON, FREDDIE L. V. UNITED STATES 20-6985 CHANG, ZONGLI V. UNITED STATES 20-6992 MAYES, BOBBIE L. V. UNITED STATES 20-6995 CLARK, FLOYD V. UNITED STATES 20-7002 LANDER, RYAN C. V. UNITED STATES 20-7006 DORAN, JACQUERE V. UNITED STATES 20-7007 COLLINS, VERNON A. V. UNITED STATES 20-7012 RECZKO, STANLEY D. V. UNITED STATES 20-7021 VALENCIA-CORTEZ, MARTEL V. UNITED STATES 20-7026 BERRY, JEROME V. LAWSON, SUPT., FARMINGTON 20-7029 KINARD, ODELL V. UNITED STATES 20-7031 DIAZ, JOSE V. UNITED STATES 20-7042 HOENIG, RONALD M. V. UNITED STATES The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. 3
20-299 MILLIMAN, INC. V. DONELON, JAMES J. The motion of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. 20-641 LSP TRANSMISSION HOLDINGS, LLC V. SIEBEN, KATIE, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Alito took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. 20-976 PENNY, DAVID H. V. LINCOLN’S CHALLENGE ACADEMY 20-977 PULERA, ZACHARY V. SARZANT, VICTORIA, ET AL. The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of these petitions. 20-6993 JACKSON, CLARENCE V. DC OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, ET AL. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. 20-7008 DEARBORN, BRADLEY V. UNITED STATES The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. MANDAMUS DENIED 20-858 IN RE TYLER BOWYER, ET AL. 20-859 IN RE WILLIAM FEEHAN The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied. 20-871 IN RE BRYANT MOORE The petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition is denied. 4
REHEARINGS DENIED 20-5990 MORENO-RUIZ, MARTIN V. BARR, ATT’Y GEN., ET AL. 20-6286 ARAGON, RUBEN V. WILLIAMS, DIR., CO DOC, ET AL. 20-6476 ALLEN, DERRICK M. V. UNITED STATES The petitions for rehearing are denied. 5 https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030121zor_m6hn.pdf
SCOTUS to Hear Election Fraud Cases for Pennsylvania, Michigan & Georgia
Supreme Court schedules cases from Sidney Powell, Rep. Mike Kelly & Lin Wood
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is set to hear a number of high-profile election fraud cases.
The SCOTUS is now scheduled to consider the voter fraud cases for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia on February 19, 2021.
Justices will hear the cases that allege widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
Among those to be heard are Republican Rep. Mike Kelly’s Pennsylvania election case, pro-Trump lawyer Sidney Powell’s Michigan election case, and attorney Lin Wood’s Georgia election case.
BREAKING: The United States Supreme Court has scheduled the Pennsylvania election case, Sidney Powell’s Michigan election case, and Lin Wood’s Georgia election case for its February 19 conference— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) February 5, 2021
The cases include challenges to the 2020 election results.
The cases challenge the 2020 election results and take issue with mail-in ballots
Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states, according to The Washington Examiner.
The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January.
In nearly every plea for expedition, lawyers backing President Donald Trump told the court that if the cases were not heard before Joe Biden’s inauguration, their success would be unlikely.
But after the court pushed them off, many lawyers said that the challenges were still important and could have long-term implications for election fairness.
Trump lawyer John Eastman told the Washington Examiner that even with Trump out of office, it was important to settle the issues raised by expanded mail-in voting.
“Our legal issue,” he said, referring to the way in which Pennsylvania conducted the 2020 election, “remains important and in need of the court’s review.”
Attorney Lin Wood’s Georgia election fraud case will also be heard
Similarly, Kelly’s lawyer Greg Teufel warned that the 10-year congressman and major Trump ally had no intention of dropping the suit.
As election litigation continues to play out in the courts, many Republican state legislators have begun introducing bills to curb mail-in voting through law.
Speaking about her case recently, Powell shared her thoughts on the 2020 election during Joe Biden’s Inauguration on Skyline News.
“He [Trump] had about 80 million votes, and Biden had much less than that, aside from the fact that hundreds of thousands of Biden votes were fraudulent from the get-go,” Powell said.
“There were hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots,” she added.
The Supreme Court has issued a pair of rulings striking down California’s ban on in-person church attendance. Both decisions were 6-3, with terminal squish John Roberts joining the consevative majority in the rulings. The rulings allow churches to re-open while the cases are on appeal, but leave in place capacity restrictions and the ban on singing and chanting.
The opinons as in these cases are interesting as they give us a glimpse into the thinking of the Justices. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch wrote concurrence stating they would have given the appelants everything they wanted. They suggested that it is not difficult to determine in this case whether California has singled out religion for special, and more stringent, treatment. The Justices acknowledged that the state “has a compelling interest in reducing” the risk of transmitting COVID-19, but they expressed skepticism that the state’s justifications for placing restrictions on worship services. Justice Alito signed that concurrence with a note that he would give california more time to justify their capacity limits. The justices concluded by noting that the state may argue on remand that the restrictions are only temporary “because vaccinations are underway.” But it “is too late for the State” to make that argument as “this crisis enters its second year,” they stress, and “if Hollywood may host a studio audience or film a singing competition while not a single soul may enter California’s churches, synagogues, and mosques, something has gone seriously awry.”
A separate concurrence, written by Justice Barrett and signed by Justice Kavanaugh said they thought the churches had not proved theur case vis the singing and chanting ban. She explained that it was the churches’ responsibility to show that they were entitled to relief from the ban on singing, and that – at least in her view – they had not done so. As a result, she wrote, it was not clear whether the ban on singing and chanting applies only to religious services, or whether it applies more broadly – for example, to Hollywood productions.
Chief Justice John Roberts, in his own concurrence, reiterated a view that he expressed in an earlier challenge by South Bay United Pentecostal Church: the idea that “federal courts owe significant deference to politically accountable officials with the ‘background, competence, and expertise to assess public health.’” Roberts explained, he saw no reason to overturn the state’s determination that singing indoors creates a greater risk of COVID-19 transmission. However, he continued, the ban on indoor worship services “appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation of the interests at stake.” “Deference, though broad,” he concluded, “has its limits.”
JUstice Kagan penned the dissent which was joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor. In it she complained that although the justices “are not scientists” and do not “know much about public health policy,” the majority had nonetheless opted to displace “the judgments of experts about how to respond to a raging pandemic.”
“Under the Court’s injunction,” Kagan lamented, California is required to “treat worship services like secular activities that pose a much lesser danger. That mandate defies our caselaw, exceeds our judicial role, and risks worsening the pandemic.”
“No one can know, from the Court’s 19-line order, exactly why” the court reaches that conclusion, Kagan observed: “Is it that the Court does not believe the science, or does it think even the best science must give way?”
The United States Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction in the case of High Plains Harvest Church v. Colorado. The case is similar to the one in New York that challenged the arbitrary attendance limits imposed on churches and synagogues.
In addition to the injunction, which prevents the state from imposing attendance limitations, the order also remands the case back to the appeals court for reconsideration in light of Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. New York.
The unsigned order had a dissent signed by Justice Sotomayor and joined by the two other liberals on the court. Sotomayor suggested the case was moot, as Colorado had lifted the restrictions previously.
