Law | Boots & Sabers

Category: Law

“Absolute Immunity”

by Owen | 1819, 1 Jul 24 | Crime, Law, Politics | 2 Comments

SCOTUS made this ruling today. It gave me pause.

Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

Affirming that any person in our United States has “absolute immunity from criminal prosecution” is a very, very serious thing. In this case, however, I think the court got it right.

Go read the whole opinion and the dissents. It’s an informative read and fairly easy to follow.

Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754. Pp. 12–15.

(3) As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity.

In any system of government, the Executive is granted immense power and authority precisely to do things that regular citizens can’t do. We give the Executive the power to wage war, use violent power to strip people of their rights, enforce the collection of taxes, and so much more. Any of these powers, if exercised by an ordinary citizen, would be a crime. An ordinary citizen is not permitted by law to kill someone except in self defense. An ordinary citizen may not lock up their neighbor in prison. An ordinary citizen may not legally take their neighbor’s money to spend on other people.

Since the Executive is empowered and charged by the People to exercise these extraordinary powers on the People’s behalf, the Executive must be free of the threat of criminal prosecution for executing their charge within their official capacity. The People have ceded their right to exercise violent authority on their fellow citizens in exchange for an orderly society enforced by the government to which they ceded their power. It’s a trade.

In our system of government, the proper remedy for correcting an Executive who is using their extraordinary power inappropriately is found at the ballot box. In exceptional cases, an Executive can be removed from office via the Constitutional impeachment and removal process. Our Founders thought this out.

No, it’s not perfect, but no representative government is. It is merely the least objectional form of government necessitated by the pervasive evil imbued in our fallen race.

Once again, this court got it right. It is worth noting that no previous court has ever had to consider and opine on this issue because no previous DOJ had ever sought to prosecute a former president for acts done in office. But here we are…

SCOTUS Rejects Judicial Overreach on Homelessness

by Owen | 0642, 1 Jul 24 | Law, Politics | 0 Comments

Another great, if obvious, ruling.

The Supreme Court on Friday upheld ordinances in a southwest Oregon city that prohibit people who are homeless from using blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes for protection from the elements while sleeping within the city limits. By a vote of 6-3, the justices agreed with the city, Grants Pass, that the ordinances simply bar camping on public property by everyone and do not violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch contended that the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment, “serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges” to “dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.” Instead, he suggested, such a task should fall to the American people.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued that the majority’s ruling “focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local government and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”

If the activists were successful in using the 8th Amendment to negate simple loitering ordinances, then the reach of the 8th would have been almost limitless. It is good to see this court affirm the appropriate role of the court and have a strong deference to leaving public policy in the hands of elected officials – as it should be.

SCOTUS Pushes Back on Overreaching DOJ

by Owen | 0626, 1 Jul 24 | Crime, Law | 0 Comments

And another excellent ruling. The DOJ stretched the meaning and intent of this statute in an act of political retribution. This is not as much about Jan 6 as it is about a rogue law enforcement agency that is targeting political opponents wherever it can. I hope that every person prosecuted by the DOJ under this law sues and gets relief.

The Supreme Court on Friday threw out the charges against a former Pennsylvania police officer who entered the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that the law that Joseph Fischer was charged with violating, which bars obstruction of an official proceeding, applies only to evidence tampering, such as destruction of records or documents, in official proceedings.

Friday’s ruling could affect charges against more than 300 other Jan. 6 defendants. The same law is also at the center of two of the four charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith against former President Donald Trump in Washington, D.C.

[…]

The law at the center of Fischer’s case is 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2), which makes it a crime to “otherwise obstruct[], influence[], or impede[] any official proceeding.” U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols concluded that because the previous subsection, Section 1512(c)(1), bars tampering with evidence “with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding,” Section 1512(c)(2) only applies to cases involving evidence tampering that obstructs an official proceeding, and he dismissed the obstruction charge against Fischer.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed Nichols’ ruling, concluding that the “meaning of the statute is unambiguous,” so that it “applies to all forms of corrupt obstruction of an official proceeding, other than the conduct that is already covered by” the prior subsection.

On Friday, the Supreme Court vacated the D.C. Circuit’s decision, interpreting the law more narrowly to apply only to evidence tampering.

Perhaps the most stunning about this ruling was the breakdown of the Justices. Barrett sided with the leftists and Jackson sided with the conservatives. Jackson even said in her concurring opinion:

Jackson suggested that it “beggars belief that Congress would have inserted a breathtakingly broad, first-of-its kind criminal obstruction statute (accompanied by a substantial 20-year maximum penalty) in the midst of a significantly more granular series of obstruction prohibitions without clarifying its intent to do so.”

And, frankly, Barrett’s opinion is downright scary:

Although “events like January 6th” may not have been the target of subsection (c)(2), she acknowledged (noting in a parenthetical, “Who could blame Congress for that failure of imagination?”)… For Barrett, the text of subsection (c)(2) clearly supports the government’s broader interpretation. Subsection (c)(2), she asserted, “covers all sorts of actions that affect or interfere with official proceedings,” and the word “otherwise” does not limit its scope.

For Barrett, the DOJ should stretch statutes well beyond their intent or writing if something happens that Congress could not have anticipated. She is supporting a government in which the Executive Branch should act in response to events how they see fit even when they do not have Congressional authority to do so.

Nuts to that.

SCOTUS Ends Chevron

by Owen | 0619, 1 Jul 24 | Law, Politics | 0 Comments

I was blissfully in a wilderness area for a few days and came back to this fantastic news. Huzzah, huzzah.

In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on Friday cut back sharply on the power of federal agencies to interpret the laws they administer and ruled that courts should rely on their own interpretation of ambiguous laws. The decision will likely have far-reaching effects across the country, from environmental regulation to healthcare costs.

By a vote of 6-3, the justices overruled their landmark 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which gave rise to the doctrine known as the Chevron doctrine. Under that doctrine, if Congress has not directly addressed the question at the center of a dispute, a court was required to uphold the agency’s interpretation of the statute as long as it was reasonable. But in a 35-page ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices rejected that doctrine, calling it “fundamentally misguided.”

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Kagan predicted that Friday’s ruling “will cause a massive shock to the legal system.”

When the Supreme Court first issued its decision in the Chevron case more than 40 years ago, the decision was not necessarily regarded as a particularly consequential one. But in the years since then, it became one of the most important rulings on federal administrative law, cited by federal courts more than 18,000 times.

Yes, ELECTED officials should be debating and making decisions about our live. Unelected bureaucrats should never have been given this power. Does this mean that elected officials will have to work harder and write more detailed legislation without hiding their intent behind the bureaucracy? You bet. That’s good.

Now the hard work begins. Every regulation that is unauthorized by legislation must be challenged in court and thrown out. This will take years, but it must be done. In every case, the question must not be whether or not the regulation is good or not. The question must be whether or not the regulation was passed by our elected officials in Congress.

Justice Jackson Still Can’t Define What a Woman Is

by Owen | 1753, 27 Jun 24 | Culture, Law | 0 Comments

She still doesn’t know that only women get pregnant.

WASHINGTON — In a scathing dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson warned Thursday that the Supreme Court’s Idaho abortion decision is “not a victory for pregnant patients,” even though it allows emergency abortions for now.

“It is delay,” she wrote in her dissent, which she read from the bench. “While this court dawdles and the country waits, pregnant people experiencing emergency medical conditions remain in a precarious position, as their doctors are kept in the dark about what the law requires.”

SCOTUS Denies Standing for Social Media Litigants

by Owen | 1615, 26 Jun 24 | Law | 0 Comments

It seems that they took a pass on weighing in on perhaps one of the most important 1st Amendment debates of the modern era. On the one hand, I would have liked to see the court take a firm stance against the government dictating speech. On the other hand, a humble, constructionist court might be right to take a strict position on standing. Either way, this ruling is not good for our Republic and our state of freedom. And the liberals cheering today will come to rue the ruling.

Of immediate significance, the decision means that the Department of Homeland Security may continue to flag posts to social media companies such as Facebook and X that it believes may be the work of foreign agents seeking to disrupt this year’s presidential race.

Rather than delving into the weighty First Amendment questions raised by the case, the court ruled that the state and social media users who challenged the Biden administration did not have standing to sue.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority.

“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”

Federal Courts Attempt to Stem Biden’s Lawlessness

by Owen | 0655, 25 Jun 24 | Law, Politics | 0 Comments

It’s not much, but it’s something. The playbook that Biden learned from Democrats is to just do what you want a dozen different ways and let the chips fall. Sure, a court or two may push back on a couple of ways, but that will be years down the road. And the other 10 things you tried went through. We are living under a lawless regime.

TOPEKA, Kan. — Federal judges in Kansas and Missouri on Monday together blocked much of a Biden administration student loan repayment plan that provides a faster path to cancellation and lower monthly payments for millions of borrowers.

The judges’ rulings prevent the U.S. Department of Education from helping many of the intended borrowers ease their loan repayment burdens going forward under a rule set to go into effect July 1. The decisions do not cancel assistance already provided to borrowers.

In Kansas, U.S. District Judge Daniel Crabtree ruled in a lawsuit filed by the state’s attorney general, Kris Kobach, on behalf of his state and 10 others. In his ruling, Crabtree allowed parts of the program that allow students who borrowed $12,000 or less to have the rest of their loans forgiven if they make 10 years’ worth of payments, instead of the standard 25.

But Crabtree said that the Department of Education won’t be allowed to implement parts of the program meant to help students who had larger loans and could have their monthly payments lowered and their required payment period reduced from 25 years to 20 years.

In Missouri, U.S. District Judge John Ross’ order applies to different parts of the program than Crabtree’s. His order says that the U.S. Department of Education cannot forgive loan balances going forward. He said the department still could lower monthly payments.

Wisconsin Leftist Groups Sue for Electronic Voting for People with Disabilities

by Owen | 0708, 24 Jun 24 | Law, Politics - Wisconsin | 0 Comments

No.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A Wisconsin judge on Monday is expected to consider whether to allow people with disabilities to vote electronically from home in the swing state this fall.

Disability Rights Wisconsin, the League of Women Voters and four disabled people filed a lawsuit in April demanding disabled people be allowed to cast absentee ballots electronically from home.

They asked Dane County Circuit Judge Everett Mitchell to issue a temporary injunction before the lawsuit is resolved granting the accommodation in the state’s Aug. 13 primary and November presidential election. Mitchell scheduled a Monday hearing on the injunction.

[…]

They argue many people with disabilities can’t cast paper ballots without assistance, violating their right to protect the secrecy of their votes. They say allowing electronic accessibility devices in their homes would allow them to cast a ballot unassisted.

Is it a good idea to allow disabled people to vote electronically? Yeah, maybe. If it can be done in a way with strict, clear requirements in a secure fashion. But that’s not the law. In a functioning republican system of government, it is not within the power of any judge to just create new laws and new ways of voting because he or she thinks it’s a good idea. Laws are to be debated and passed in the legislature by the people’s representatives so that all viewpoints can be heard and considered. Will this judge exercise humility and judicial restraint?

Probably not.

DOJ Seeks to Muzzle Trump

by Owen | 0659, 24 Jun 24 | Law, Politics | 0 Comments

Give me a break.

FORT PIERCE, Fla. (AP) — The federal judge presiding over the classified documents prosecution of Donald Trump is hearing arguments Monday on whether to bar the former president from public comments that prosecutors say could endanger the lives of FBI agents working on the case.

Special counsel Jack Smith’s team says the restrictions are necessary in light of Trump’s false comments that the FBI agents who searched his Mar-a-Lago estate in August 2022 for classified documents were out to kill him and his family. Trump’s lawyers say any gag order would improperly silence Trump in the heat of a presidential campaign in which he is the presumptive Republican nominee.

[…]

Smith’s team objected last month after Trump claimed that the FBI was prepared to kill him while executing a court-authorized search warrant of Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8, 2022. He was referencing boilerplate language from FBI policy that prohibits the use of deadly force except when the officer conducting the search has a reasonable belief that the “subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.”

The America that we remember and say we support is an America where people are allowed to voice their opinions. perspectives, and thoughts – even if those thoughts are exaggerated, contrarian, or flat out wrong. The DOJ and FBI are rogue and have a history of unjustifiably killing Americans in standoffs. Is Trump right that they were looking for an excuse to open fire? In this climate… with this FBI… who knows? What I do know is that he certainly has a right to voice his opinion in public.

Court Karens Purge Name of Conservative Predecessor

by Owen | 0638, 20 Jun 24 | Culture, Law, Politics - Wisconsin | 0 Comments

It should worry us all that people who are this bitter and petty are making judgments about anything to do with us. These are the people you see berating the poor barista for putting too little oat milk in their latte.

The liberal partisans on the Wisconsin Supreme Court are erasing former conservative Justice David Prosser’s name from the state Law Library, a move that conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley labeled a “petty and vindictive maneuver.”

They are replacing his name with the name of Lavinia Goodell, “Wisconsin’s first female lawyer,” according to a press release from the Court.

[…]

In 2016, then Supreme Court Chief Justice Pat Roggensack, a conservative, announced that the law library would be named after Prosser “in light of Prosser’s upcoming retirement and many years of service.”

Prosser served on the court for 18 years. He was first appointed to the court by Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson in 1998 and was re-elected twice, according to his court bio.

A Supreme Court press release at the time the law library was named for Prosser says, “In all, Prosser spent more than 40 years in public service, including experience in all three branches of state government. He retired July 31, after 18 years on the Supreme Court. Earlier in his career, he served as a tax appeals commissioner, legislative leader, and a prosecutor.”

Wisconsin Supreme Court Takes Case of Evers’ 400-year Tax Increase

by Owen | 1946, 17 Jun 24 | Law, Politics - Wisconsin | 5 Comments

This will be interesting.

MADISON, Wis. — The Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear a challenge to Democratic Gov. Tony Evers’ partial veto that locked in a school funding increase for the next 400 years, the justices announced Monday.

The Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Litigation Center filed a lawsuit in April arguing the governor exceeded his authority. The group asked the high court to strike down the veto without waiting for the case to go through lower courts.

The court issued an order Monday afternoon saying it would take the case. The justices didn’t elaborate beyond setting a briefing schedule.

At issue is a partial veto Evers made in the state budget in July 2023 that increased revenue public schools can raise per student by $325 annually until 2425. Evers took language that originally applied the $325 increase for the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years and vetoed the “20” and the hyphen to make the end date 2425, more than four centuries from now.

By the law, it seems clearly unconstitutional. While the Wisconsin Constitution stupidly gives the Governor the power to veto individual letters, it is clear that the power to write laws and raise taxes lies exclusively within the power of the legislature.

Politically, the leftists control the court. One might instinctively think that they will rule in favor of Evers to support “their guy.” However, handing that kind of power to the governor in perpetuity is fraught with risk for the Liberals. Wisconsin is an evenly divided state and there is no certainty that the Democrats will control the governorship last Evers’ current term. If the court enhances the power of the governor’s veto, what will a Republican governor do with it?

Remember that the court just unconstitutionally redrew the legislative districts in the hopes of taking back one or both houses of the legislature. Will the shoot themselves in the foot by disempowering the legislature just when they are poised to take it back?

If I were a betting man, I’d bet that the court’s liberals will make the correct ruling that the governor exceeded his authority. It’s smarter politics to play the long game for legislative power. It also allows them to portray the court as balanced just before a pivotal court election next spring.

Federal Judge Rules Against Agency Overreach

by Owen | 1924, 17 Jun 24 | Law, Politics | 0 Comments

Again… it’s not about the rule. It’s about the fact that Biden does not have unilateral authority to change laws on a whim. We have a legislature in our nation that writes laws. The Executive Branch is just supposed to… you know… execute them.

FRANKFORT, Ky. — The Biden administration’s effort to expand protections for LGBTQ+ students hit another roadblock Monday, when a federal judge in Kentucky temporarily blocked the new Title IX rule in six additional states.

U.S. District Judge Danny C. Reeves referred to the regulation as “arbitrary in the truest sense of the word” in granting a preliminary injunction blocking it in Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. His ruling comes days after a different federal judge temporarily blocked the new rule from taking effect in Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi and Montana.

Attorneys general in more than 20 Republican-led states have filed at least seven legal challenges to President Joe Biden’s new policy. Republicans argue the policy is a ruse to allow transgender girls to play on girls athletic teams. The Biden administration said the rule does not apply to athletics.

SCOTUS’ Ruling On Bump Stocks is About Agency Overreach

by Owen | 0608, 17 Jun 24 | Firearms, Law, Politics | 2 Comments

Democrats are really trying to scare people with SCOTUS’ bump stock ruling by making it about guns because they want you to ignore that the ruling was really about reining in rogue agencies who are abusing their authority. For example:

“But now that they have got a Supreme Court that seems ready to unwind the entirety of the Second Amendment and take away from Congress or the executive branch the ability to keep our communities safe, they’re once again lining up behind the gun industry.”

Murphy’s comments echo the response of gun control advocacy groups, which argued Friday that the court’s ruling will have a dangerous impact in a country constantly reeling from gun violence.

But if you read the actual ruling, the court did not even mention the 2nd Amendment. The ruling rested on the fact that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority to define a bump stock as a “machinegun.”

Held: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b). Pp. 6–19.

(a) A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a “machinegun” as defined by §5845(b) because: (1) it cannot fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger” and (2) even if it could, it would not do so “automatically.” ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns. P. 6.

(b) A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” The phrase “function of the trigger” refers to the mode of action by which the trigger activates the firing mechanism. No one disputes that a semiautomatic rifle without a bump stock is not a machinegun because a shooter must release and reset the trigger between every shot. And, any subsequent shot fired after the trigger has been released and reset is the result of a separate and distinct “function of the trigger.” Nothing changes when a semiautomatic rifle is equipped with a bump stock. Between every shot, the shooter must release pressure from the trigger and allow it to reset before reengaging the trigger for another shot. A bump stock merely reduces the amount of time that elapses between separate “functions” of the trigger.

What Democrats really want to preserve is the ability of federal agencies to operate on their own without the authority of Congress. They WANT to empower the Executive Branch at the expense of the Legislative Branch because they know that their agenda is too unpopular to implement with the consent of the governed. That is why they are up in arms, so to speak, to usurp the court as a means to usurp the Congress.

SCOTUS ruled how all Americans should want them to rule. They simply said that a federal agency may not make up laws. Congress has the sole authority to make laws. If you wanted a different ruling, then you don’t really support democracy.

Wisconsin Lawfare

by Owen | 2106, 11 Jun 24 | Law, Politics - Wisconsin | 0 Comments

Realize where we are. The Democrats are willing to weaponize any office to punish their political opponents. In this case (setting aside the Scott Bauer’s comically rank bias by using the phrase “fake electors”), we had some honest people who were doing what they thought right, proper, and within the law in response to a tightly contested election riddled with issues. For their care for the rule of law and preservation of democratic rule, the state’s Attorney General is using every resource at his disposal to ruin their lives. Liberals are burning cities without consequence while dreary lawyers get prosecuted for having a legal opinion contrary to the ruling order.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Tuesday suspended former President Donald Trump’s Wisconsin lawyer from a state judicial ethics panel a week after he was charged with a felony for his role in a 2020 fake electors scheme.

Liberal advocates have been calling for Jim Troupis to step down from the Judicial Conduct Advisory Committee, saying he is unsuitable due to his role advising the Republicans who attempted to cast Wisconsin’s electoral votes for Trump after he lost the 2020 election in the state to Democrat Joe Biden.

Troupis, a former judge, Kenneth Chesebro, another Trump attorney, and former Trump aide Mike Roman were all charged by state Attorney General Josh Kaul last week for their role in the fake electors plot.

Trump Convicted

by Owen | 0740, 31 May 24 | Law, Politics | 12 Comments

We all knew it was inevitable because it was clear from the beginning that the trial was rigged. A biased partisan prosecutor fabricated charges in front of a hack judge and a jury of stupid rabid liberals with not enough integrity to see past their own hate to uphold the rule of law. All of this was done for political reasons to eliminate a presidential candidate for the benefit of the sitting incumbent. From the perspective of thinking of the general health of our Republic, this is a true turning point. We do not easily walk back from this.

From a political perspective, the verdict is still out. No doubt this will continue to polarize the electorate. I can say from personal observation that it has hardened my mind. It has moved me from being a grouchy and reluctant Trump voter to one who will vote for him for the sake of our Republic. If Biden and the Democrats are allowed to retain and extend their power after throwing their opponents in jail, they will repeat the tactic at all levels forevermore. Biden has become America’s Putin.

It is also noting how the Democrats are willing to mobilize the entire judicial system to prosecute and convict Trump for an alleged paperwork crime (it was not a crime) from a decade ago, but they let rapists, thieves, and violent criminals walk the streets with impunity. Were I a New Yorker, I would be beside myself that I can’t safely walk through Central Park while my politicians use the police and judicial system to further their political interests.

There will be brighter days, but our Republic is different now. Worse. More flawed. Less fair. Less free.

China Cracks Down in Hong Kong

by Owen | 0704, 30 May 24 | Foreign Affairs, Law | 1 Comment

Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, we see the full expression of the logic of using government force to “preserve Democracy.” They just convicted people in a political party for campaigning saying that they would use a constitutional power to veto budgets they didn’t support. In order to prevent a “constitutional crisis,” they silenced, arrested, and now convicted politicians. If you think that this would never happen in America, you haven’t been paying attention.

HONG KONG — Fourteen pro-democracy activists were convicted in Hong Kong’s biggest national security case on Thursday by a court that said their plan to effect change through an unofficial primary election would have undermined the government’s authority and created a constitutional crisis.

After a 2019 protest movement that filled the city’s streets with demonstrators, authorities have all but silenced dissent in Hong Kong through reduced public choice in elections, crackdowns on media and the Beijing-imposed security law under which the activists were convicted.

[…]

In a summary of the verdict distributed to media, the court said the election participants had declared they would use their legislative power to veto the budgets.

Pro-criminal groups try to invalidate election results

by Owen | 0715, 28 May 24 | Crime, Law, Politics - Wisconsin | 10 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here you go.

Confronted with increasing and pervasive crime being driven by our open-border and soft-on-crime district attorneys and judges, the voters of Wisconsin overwhelmingly passed two state constitutional amendments to empower judges. Now there are two pro-criminal groups trying to overturn the will of the people.

The cost of crime on individuals and communities is immeasurable. Roughly fifteen years ago, organized groups — many of which were funded by billionaire George Soros — began supporting soft-on-crime DAs and judges throughout America who have been exceedingly lenient to criminals to the detriment of victims. This problem was exacerbated by the leftist effort to defund the police after the death of George Floyd and the importation of legions of criminals through Biden’s open-border policy. The result of all of these policy choices has been an explosion in crime. Even though much of the crime goes unreported (if we don’t arrest and convict people for crimes, then the crime rate will look better than it really it), we, the people, feel it.

In Wisconsin, judges had strict restrictions about what they could consider when determining bail for criminal offenders. They could not consider the offender’s criminal record, history of violent crime, or risk to the general public when determining bail. While one might think that such considerations are paramount when setting a cash bail threshold that will determine how easy it is for an offender to roam the streets while awaiting trial, Wisconsin’s judges were not allowed to use such factors in their judgment.

In normal times, correcting this fault in the criminal justice code would have been a simple matter of the Legislature passing a law and the governor signing it. But in Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers is part of the pro-criminal ideology who would veto any suggestion that we be stricter with criminals. To get around this, the Republicans in the Legislature passed two constitutional amendments to allow judges to consider an offender’s criminal history and threat to the public when setting bail. Wisconsin’s process for amending the Constitution does not require the governor’s assent, but it does require the voters to approve amendments in a statewide vote.

Wisconsin’s voters overwhelmingly approved the two amendments last year by a two-to-one margin.

Despite the clear and undeniable support for the bail amendments, a couple of pro-criminal groups have sued to overturn the will of the voters and a Dane County judge appears open to the argument. The case they are making is that the Legislature violated procedure when sending the proposed amendments to be put on the ballots, so the results should be thrown out.

By law, ballot questions must be “filed with the official or agency responsible for preparing the ballots” no less than 70 days before the election. The Legislature sent the ballot questions to the Wisconsin Election Commission 76 days before the election, but the WEC didn’t send the questions to local county election officials until 69 days before the election. The plaintiffs are arguing that the will of the voters should be turned over based on interpreting “official or agency responsible for preparing the ballots” as local election officials instead of the state agency responsible for overseeing elections.

The lawsuit is a farce and should be thrown out, but Dane County Circuit Judge Rhonda Lanford has said that she will issue a written decision in the coming weeks. Lanford’s court has been a favorite destination for leftist plaintiffs. She was originally elected to the bench in 2013 with strong support from fellow leftists like Congressman Mark Pocan, AFSCME, SEIU, Madison Teachers Inc., and others. She said when running that, “I believe that the trial courts have inherent power to act in the interest of justice, and do not need permission from the Legislature.” Said another way, Lanford is exactly the kind of judge who thinks that her own judgment supersedes the judgment of the people as expressed through their elected representatives in the Legislature.

I strongly urge Judge Lanford to follow the law and allow the will of the people to be fulfilled. Not only is it the law, but it will help Wisconsin’s judges keep habitual criminals from victimizing more people while out on bail.

Uvalde Families Sue Gun Maker; Video Game Company

by Owen | 2035, 26 May 24 | Crime, Firearms, Law | 0 Comments

My sympathy for the people of Uvalde wanes when they begin to engage in frivolous lawsuits that look like they are meant more as a shakedown than as recompense for their suffering.

Families of the Uvalde victims have filed a lawsuit against Daniel Defense, the makers of the AR-15 assault rifle, and Activision, the publisher of the first-person shooter video game series “Call of Duty,” and Meta, the parent company of Instagram, over what they claim was their role in promoting the gun used in the shooting.

The suit alleges the companies partnered to market the weapon to underage boys in the games and on social media.

The lawsuit filed on Friday, marked two years since the shooting took place.

Federal Officials Condemn ICC

by Owen | 0731, 21 May 24 | Foreign Affairs, Law, Politics | 1 Comment

It’s good to see the entire federal government united and correct in their condemnation of the ICC.

The State Department was out with a longer statement that denounced the court for pairing Israel with Hamas.

‘We reject the Prosecutor’s equivalence of Israel with Hamas. It is shameful. Hamas is a brutal terrorist organization that carried out the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust and is still holding dozens of innocent people hostage, including Americans,’ Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement.

And White House spokesman John Kirby noted that ‘we don’t believe the ICC has any jurisdiction in the matter.’

House Speaker Mike Johnson blasted the ICC and threatened to hold sanctions against the court.

‘The ICC has no authority over Israel or the United States, and today’s baseless and illegitimate decision should face global condemnation,’ he said.

‘Congress is reviewing all options, including sanctions, to punish the ICC and ensure its leadership faces consequences if they proceed. If the ICC is allowed to threaten Israeli leaders, ours could be next,’ he added.

Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik was in Israel when the decision came down.

‘As Bibi leads @Israel through one of the darkest moments in its history, we must stand unequivocally with Israel against Iran and their proxies who seek to destroy the only democracy in the Middle East,’ she wrote on X.

Abbott Pardons Man Convicted of Killing Violent Protestor

by Owen | 2112, 17 May 24 | Crime, Law, Politics - Texas | 0 Comments

Excellent

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott issued a full pardon Thursday for a former U.S. Army sergeant convicted of murder for fatally shooting an armed demonstrator in 2020 during nationwide protests against police violence and racial injustice.

Abbott announced the pardon shortly after the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles announced a unanimous recommendation that Daniel Perry be pardoned and have his firearms rights restored.

Perry had been in state prison on a 25-year sentence since his 2023 conviction in the killing of Garrett Foster, and was released shortly after the pardon, a prison spokeswoman said.

Perry, who is white, was working as a ride-share driver when his car approached a demonstration in Austin. Prosecutors said he could have driven away from the confrontation with Foster, a white Air Force veteran who witnesses said never raised his gun.

A jury convicted Perry of murder, but Abbott called it a case of self-defense.

“Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury or a progressive district attorney,” Abbott said.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

Boots & Sabers