Casselberry DUI Attorney
Casselberry DUI Attorney – Supreme Court Freakout at the New York Times
Source : Powerline Blog News
By : JOHN HINDERAKER
Category : Casselberry DUI Attorney , Attorney Matthews R Bark
The New York Times was once known as The Grey Lady. Today, a more apt moniker would be The Hysterical Bag Lady. The Times editorial board is home to the most immoderate, shrieking Leftism you will find this side of the Nation. On Christmas Eve, the Times editorialized on The Stolen Supreme Court Seat. It is a classic of the post-Trump-election freakout genre: Soon after his inauguration next month, President-elect Donald Trump will nominate someone to the Supreme Court, which has been hamstrung by a vacancy since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. This is wrong. The Supreme Court has been working away, deciding cases. Where the vote is 4-4, as has occasionally happened, the decision of the Court of Appeals stands. Temporarily having an even number of Supreme Court justices (the Constitution does not specify a number) is not optimal, but it isn’t “hamstrung,” either.
No matter how it plays out, Americans must remember one thing above all: The person who gets confirmed will sit in a stolen seat. Seriously? A “stolen seat”? The next Supreme Court justice may be on the Court for decades, but the Times implies that all decisions in which he or she participates will be of questionable legitimacy, since the seat was “stolen.” What the editorialists mean, of course, is that the justice will be a Trump appointee rather than an Obama appointee: It was stolen from Barack Obama, a twice-elected president….
It was stolen by top Senate Republicans, who broke with longstanding tradition and refused to consider any nominee Mr. Obama might send them, because they wanted to preserve the court’s conservative majority. This is the substance of the Times’s complaint: that Senate Republicans “broke with longstanding tradition” by deferring the next Supreme Court selection until after the November 2016 election. How do the editorialists support their claim? By citing their own paper. The Republican party line — that it was an election year, so the American people should have a “voice” in the selection of the next justice — was a patent lie. The Times editorial board, like so many liberals, has been unhinged by Trump’s victory. The entire board seems to be off its meds.
The people spoke when they re-elected Mr. Obama in 2012, entrusting [Ed.: sic] him to choose new members for the court. And the Senate has had no problem considering, and usually confirming, election-year nominees in the past. The link goes to an op-ed in the Times by Timothy Huebner. Huebner writes: On 13 occasions, a vacancy on the nation’s highest court has occurred — through death, retirement or resignation — during a presidential election year. … In 11 of these instances, the Senate took action on the president’s nomination. In all five cases in which a vacancy occurred during the first quarter of the year the president successfully nominated a replacement. But those events occurred long ago, and instances where the president’s party also controlled the Senate are inapposite. Mr. Huebner admits: Of course, none of these represents an exact parallel to today’s situation. In all but one of these instances, the president and Senate majority were of the same political party, unlike today.
The fact is that there is no exact, or nearly exact, precedent for the situation the Senate found itself in when Justice Scalia died earlier this year. A distinguished appellate lawyer wrote to Power Line: If Grassley has any sense, the nomination never makes it out of committee. The last time a justice was confirmed for a vacancy that occurred during an election year was 1932, and Cardozo was more than acceptable to the Democrats. The closest parallel in more recent history occurred in 1968: Chief Justice Earl Warren announced that he would retire upon confirmation of a successor. President Johnson then nominated Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice, and Homer Thornberry to replace Fortas as an associate justice. The Republicans filibustered Fortas, with the vote being taken in October, near the end of Johnson’s term. As a result, Warren did not retire until 1969, when Nixon was president. It’s not an exact parallel, since there was no vacancy on the court during the election year of 1968. But then, as now, the Senate refused to vote on the president’s nominee, and the decision was deferred until after the election, when a new president nominated a new chief justice. Nuances of this sort are, of course, beyond the capacities of the Times’s dim-witted editorial board. For them, it is sufficient to spew venom against “[t]he shameful, infuriating actions of the Senate Republicans.” It is fair, however, to ask: if a Supreme Court vacancy had occurred during the last year of George W. Bush’s presidency, when the Democrats controlled the Senate, is there a snowball’s chance in Hell that Harry Reid would have allowed a vote on Bush’s nominee? Of course not. And the Times editorial board undoubtedly would have found excuses to cheer Reid on. The Times editorialists denounce the “infuriating actions” of Senate Republicans, but what is actually infuriating the Times, one suspects, is that Hillary Clinton lost the election.
Read more : powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/12/supreme-court-freakout-at-the-new-york-times.php
Casselberry DUI Attorney – Massachussetts transgender bathroom law faces legal challenge
Source : Catholic Herald News
By : Associated Press
Category : Casselberry DUI Attorney , Attorney Matthews R Bark
A religious liberty organisation is taking legal action to protect Massachussetts churches from having to open transgender bathrooms. The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has filed a federal lawsuit against a new state law which they say is “punishing” the protected religious speech of churches and pastors.
It comes as states are suing the Obama administration over its efforts to make hospitals, schools and other institutions change their policies towards transgender issues. Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) said it sued on behalf of four Massachusetts churches to protect their right to operate their facilities “in a manner that doesn’t violate their core religious beliefs.” The lawsuit names Democratic state Attorney General Maura Healey and members of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination as defendants.
The law, which was signed by Republican Governor Charlie Baker in July and went into effect in October, bars “discrimination” against transgender people in public accommodations – which, according to Attorney General Healey, includes churches. The law mandates that people must be able to use the bathroom corresponding to the gender they say they identify with. ADF contends in the lawsuit that churches would be forced to open changing rooms, shower facilities and restrooms based on perceived gender identity and not on biological sex. The group says because the law also prohibits covered entities from making statements intended to discriminate or to incite others to do so, Healey and the commission “also intend to force churches and pastors to refrain from religious expression regarding sexuality that conflicts with the government’s views.”
Steve O’Ban, senior counsel for ADF, said: “Neither the commission nor the attorney general has the constitutional authority to dictate how any church uses its facility or what public statements a church can make concerning a deeply held religious belief, such as human sexuality.” A spokeswoman for Healey said her office is reviewing the lawsuit. “We are pleased that we finally have a law in place that protects transgender people from discrimination in public places. This law is about civil rights and is critical for people who were without full protection and equality under the law for too long,” spokeswoman Jillian Fennimore said. An assistant to the commission did not immediately return a call seeking comment.
Read more: catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/10/13/massachussetts-transgender-bathroom-law-faces-legal-challenge/
Attorney Matthews R Bark – Appeals court strikes down North Carolina’s voter-ID law
Source : Washington Post
By : Robert Barnes and Ann E. Marimow
Category : Casselberry DUI Attorney , Attorney Matthews R Bark
Voting rights activists scored legal victories in key presidential election states Friday, the most important being a federal appeals court ruling that North Carolina’s Republican-led legislature enacted new voting restrictions in 2013 to intentionally blunt the growing clout of African American voters. The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit was an overwhelming victory for the Justice Department and civil rights groups. Election law experts consider North Carolina’s voter law one of the nation’s most far-reaching. In Wisconsin, where one federal judge already had eased restrictions on voter-ID requirements, a second judge found that additional elements of the law passed by the legislature and signed by Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) were unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge James D. Peterson suggested he would strike the entire law if he were not bound by the Supreme Court’s decision that states may use properly written voter-ID laws to guard against voter fraud. “The evidence in this case casts doubt on the notion that voter ID laws foster integrity and confidence,” Peterson wrote. “The Wisconsin experience demonstrates that a preoccupation with mostly phantom election fraud leads to real incidents of disenfranchisement, which undermine rather than enhance confidence in elections, particularly in minority communities. To put it bluntly, Wisconsin’s strict version of voter ID law is a cure worse than the disease.” The state will appeal both rulings. In the North Carolina case, the 4th Circuit panel agreed with allegations that North Carolina’s omnibus bill selectively chose voter-ID requirements, reduced the number of early-voting days and changed registration procedures in ways meant to harm blacks, who overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic Party.
“The new provisions target African Americans with almost surgical precision” and “impose cures for problems that did not exist,” Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote for the panel. “Thus the asserted justifications cannot and do not conceal the State’s true motivation.” The rulings — along with that of a state court that halted an attempt in Kansas to require proof of citizenship to register — marked important wins for opponents of restrictive voting laws that are being challenged throughout the country ahead of November’s presidential election. Put together, the decisions suggest a growing judicial suspicion of the wave of voting-restriction legislation passed in recent years by Republican-led legislatures that said it was necessary to combat voter fraud. The decisions are likely to prompt the states to ask the Supreme Court for emergency action. But it is far from clear whether the eight justices, evenly divided between conservative and liberal, would get involved. The proximity of an election is often reason for justices to let an appeals court ruling stand. Federal courts have been examining what are popular and, to some, seemingly common-sense laws — requiring photo ID, for instance — to see whether they favor one group over another.
Read more at: washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law/2016/07/29/810b5844-4f72-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html
Casselberry DUI Attorney – Supreme Court rules against Named Person scheme
Source : BBC News
By : Press Release
Category : Casselberry DUI Attorney , Attorney Matthews R Bark
Opponents of the scheme appealed to the Supreme Court in London after their case was dismissed by the Court of Session in Edinburgh last year. The system would appoint a named person – usually a teacher or health visitor – to ensure the wellbeing of every child. Judges say some proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights. The court said the aim of the Act, which is intended to promote and safeguard the rights and wellbeing of children and young people, was “unquestionably legitimate and benign”. However, judges said specific proposals about information-sharing “are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament”. And they said the legislation made it “perfectly possible” that confidential information about a young person could be disclosed to a “wide range of public authorities without either the child or young person or her parents being aware”.
‘Greater clarity’
The Scottish government has said it will not commence the legislation until the problems are fixed – meaning it will be delayed until after its intended implementation date of 31 August. It is understood the government still hopes to roll out the system before the end of the year. Education Secretary John Swinney said the government would move to “provide greater clarity” about information-sharing and would start work immediately on the necessary legislative amendments.The Scottish government has also indicated that proposed changes to the named person legislation would be scrutinised by MSPs at Holyrood, which is in recess until the start of September. A spokesman for the group that launched the challenge said the “state snooper” scheme had been “blocked” and the government must go back to the “drawing board”. He called for “intrusive data-sharing powers” to be scrapped. Analysis by BBC Scotland home affairs correspondent Reevel Alderson The ruling by Supreme Court judges – two of whom are Scottish – does not mean the controversial Named Person legislation cannot ever be implemented. It simply means the Scottish government must make some changes to the law to ensure it complies fully with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The charities opposed to the scheme had already seen judges at the Court of Session in Edinburgh rule on two occasions that it could go ahead.
The appeal to the UK Supreme Court was on a claim that it breached ECHR. The judges said in general terms the law – part of the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act 2014 – did comply. But they ruled some changes are required to the scheme. In particular the way in which information could be shared by named persons and others was ruled non-compliant.The court has said the Scottish government must provide greater clarity about how health visitors, teachers and other professionals who will be Named Persons will share and receive information in their role. Ministers said they will start work on this immediately. lthough the provisions of the legislation were due to be implemented at the end of August 2016, it will now be delayed until changes can be made. The Scottish government contend that the system would help to protect young people and has accused opponents of misrepresenting the legislation, which was approved by 103 votes to nil by MSPs when it formed part of the Children and Young People Act in 2014. The Supreme Court heard two days of evidence in March on the case. The appeal was brought by the No to Named Persons (NO2NP) coalition, which includes the Christian Institute, Care (Christian Action Research and Education), Tyme Trust and the Family Education Trust.
They tried to convince the panel of five Supreme Court judges that the named person legislation authorised “unjustified and unjustifiable state interference with family rights”. Their arguments had previously been dismissed as “hyperbole” by the Court of Session, which said named person did not diminish the role of parents and had “no effect whatsoever on the legal, moral or social relationships within the family”. And while the Supreme Court did not oppose the legislation in principle, it said information-sharing proposals interfered with privacy and family life. NO2NP spokesman Simon Calvert said he was “delighted” with the court’s decision, saying it “proves our concerns were properly founded”. He added: “This proposed scheme was intrusive, incomprehensible and illegal. “This ruling means the Scottish government has been blocked from implementing this scheme on 31 August. It must scrap its plan for state snoopers with intrusive data sharing powers. It has to go back to the legislative drawing board.
Read more at: bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-36903513
Matthews Bark Attorney, Criminal Defense, Family Law Attorney 