(11-22-2022 09:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Could someone provide a logical and rational explanation why Donald Trump's (or any other individual's) tax returns would be relevant to the topic of drafting oversight legislation?

Yeah, for a political witch hunt.

I personally feel all elected officials should have to make their entire financial background public going back at least 10 years.

(11-22-2022 11:13 PM)RuckleSt Wrote:  I personally feel all elected officials should have to make their entire financial background public going back at least 10 years.

Perhaps, but as a 50-year tax practitioner, I can assure you that tax returns are a very poor source of useful information in that regard.

What I would like to see is full disclosure of the paper trail. If a candidate wrote a paper at university espousing communism or racism, that needs to be in the public view.

Quote:A free speech lawsuit against the University of Alabama in Huntsville by its Young Americans for Liberty chapter over a policy that required permission to speak on campus will proceed after the state’s highest court reversed a lower-court ruling.

The lawsuit challenged a UAH policy that “limits most student speech to small ‘speech zones’ and requires students to obtain a permit three business days in advance to speak on campus,” according to Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal nonprofit that represents the YAL club.

The group challenged the permit requirement and argued it violated the 2019 “Alabama Campus Free Speech Act.” University spokeswoman Elizabeth Gibisch has not responded to an email sent in the past week that asked for comment on the ruling.

Now that the Alabama Supreme Court has allowed the lawsuit to continue, “the case will proceed on the merits in circuit court,” according to attorney Mathew Hoffmann.

linky
linky2

Southwest Airlines Loses in Court Ruling To Ex-Employee Charlene Carter

CHARLENE CARTER, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., and TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 556, Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

A Federal Judge in Texas has ordered Southwest Airlines to reinstate Charlene Carter, the flight attendant who made headlines after a jury ruled that she was unlawfully fired for expressing pro-life views and for criticizing her union.

In a decision filed on Dec. 5, 2022 five months after a jury decided in Carter’s favor, Judge Brantley Starr remarked, “Bags fly free with Southwest. But free speech didn’t fly at all with Southwest in this case.”

Starr granted Carter $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages from Southwest; $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages from the flight attendants’ union, Transport Workers Union of America Local 556; $150,000 in back pay, and $60,180.82 in prejudgment interest.

Although the jury voted that Carter deserved more than $5 million, laws and rules limit the amount that can be awarded in such cases.

“The jury also awarded front [or future] pay, but Carter would rather have her job back,” the judge wrote. “The Court reinstates Carter to her former position … If the Court opted for front pay over reinstatement, the court would complete Southwest’s unlawful scheme. Reinstatement is appropriate.”

Further, the judge explicitly ordered Southwest and Local 556 to share the jury’s verdict and Starr’s decision with all members of the union via email and to post the documents in conspicuous places for a 60-day period.

Starr’s order also forbids both the company and the union “from discriminating against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs, including—but not limited to—those expressed on social media and those concerning abortion.”

Southwest and Local 556 are required to inform employees that federal law prohibits such discrimination.

Both entities also must “reasonably accommodate Southwest flight attendants’ sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, and observances,” Starr wrote.

In 2017, Carter sent private Facebook messages to Audrey Stone, then president of Local 556, railing against the union’s participation in the national Women’s March.

It was an event sponsored, in part, by Planned Parenthood, a pro-abortion group hostile to children and life.

Stone complained to Southwest about Carter’s messages. Soon thereafter, the airline fired Carter from the job she had held for two decades.

No can do.

Federal appeals court blocks controversial Biden Administration transgender mandate Eighth Circuit rules that the federal government cannot force religious doctors to perform gender transitions

The plaintiffs in the case were the state of North Dakota, the Catholic Charities of North Dakota, four groups in the Religious Sisters of Mercy, the Catholic Benefits Association, the Catholic Medical Association, and the Diocese of Fargo. Please take note of the oprganizations standing up for American Citizens' Constuitutional Rights.

Quote: A federal appeals court today permanently blocked the Biden Administration’s attempt to force religious doctors and hospitals to perform gender-transition procedures, concluding that the Administration’s plan would violate a key federal law protecting religious freedom. This is the second appeals court ruling blocking the Administration’s controversial transgender mandate.

“The federal government has no business forcing doctors to violate their consciences or perform controversial procedures that could permanently harm their patients,” said Luke Goodrich, VP and senior counsel at Becket. “This is a common-sense ruling that protects patients, aligns with best medical practice, and ensures doctors can follow their Hippocratic Oath to ‘do no harm.’”

In Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra, a coalition of Catholic hospitals, a Catholic university, and Catholic nuns who run health clinics for the poor challenged the Biden Administration’s attempt to invoke the Affordable Care Act to force doctors and hospitals to perform controversial gender-reassignment procedures—on pain of multimillion-dollar financial penalties—even when doing so would violate the doctor’s conscience and could harm the patient. A federal district court held that this transgender mandate was unlawful and blocked it from taking effect. The Biden Administration then appealed to the Eight Circuit, which today concluded that the “district court correctly held that ‘intrusion upon the Catholic Plaintiffs’ exercise of religion’” supported permanent protection.

“Today’s victory sets an important precedent that religious healthcare professionals are free to practice medicine in accordance with their consciences and experienced professional judgment,” said Goodrich. “The government’s attempt to force doctors to go against their consciences was bad for patients, bad for doctors, and bad for religious liberty.”

Court’s ruling striking down HHS transgender mandate stands

Quote: The case the 8th Circuit is due to rule on is called Sisters of Mercy v. Becerra.

The lawsuit was first filed in federal court in November 2016 by Becket on behalf of the Sisters of Mercy, the University of Mary and SMP Health System. The state of North Dakota also joined the suit....

On Jan. 21, 2021, a court struck down the Obama-era HHS mandate, and the Biden administration appealed to the 8th Circuit, which heard oral arguments in the case Dec. 15, 2021.

doubt these cowards have the spine to stand for much anymore, but...

Brunson v Adams

(12-14-2022 01:08 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  doubt these cowards have the spine to stand for much anymore, but...

Brunson v Adams

Do you really think that case will get past conference?

(12-06-2022 05:57 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Southwest Airlines Loses in Court Ruling To Ex-Employee Charlene Carter

CHARLENE CARTER, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., and TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 556, Defendants.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division.

A Federal Judge in Texas has ordered Southwest Airlines to reinstate Charlene Carter, the flight attendant who made headlines after a jury ruled that she was unlawfully fired for expressing pro-life views and for criticizing her union.

In a decision filed on Dec. 5, 2022 five months after a jury decided in Carter’s favor, Judge Brantley Starr remarked, “Bags fly free with Southwest. But free speech didn’t fly at all with Southwest in this case.”

Starr granted Carter $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages from Southwest; $300,000 in compensatory and punitive damages from the flight attendants’ union, Transport Workers Union of America Local 556; $150,000 in back pay, and $60,180.82 in prejudgment interest.

Although the jury voted that Carter deserved more than $5 million, laws and rules limit the amount that can be awarded in such cases.

“The jury also awarded front [or future] pay, but Carter would rather have her job back,” the judge wrote. “The Court reinstates Carter to her former position … If the Court opted for front pay over reinstatement, the court would complete Southwest’s unlawful scheme. Reinstatement is appropriate.”

Further, the judge explicitly ordered Southwest and Local 556 to share the jury’s verdict and Starr’s decision with all members of the union via email and to post the documents in conspicuous places for a 60-day period.

Starr’s order also forbids both the company and the union “from discriminating against Southwest flight attendants for their religious practices and beliefs, including—but not limited to—those expressed on social media and those concerning abortion.”

Southwest and Local 556 are required to inform employees that federal law prohibits such discrimination.

Both entities also must “reasonably accommodate Southwest flight attendants’ sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, and observances,” Starr wrote.

In 2017, Carter sent private Facebook messages to Audrey Stone, then president of Local 556, railing against the union’s participation in the national Women’s March.

It was an event sponsored, in part, by Planned Parenthood, a pro-abortion group hostile to children and life.

Stone complained to Southwest about Carter’s messages. Soon thereafter, the airline fired Carter from the job she had held for two decades.

No can do.

Southwest needs to fire the idiot who made that decision.

(12-14-2022 01:17 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(12-14-2022 01:08 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  doubt these cowards have the spine to stand for much anymore, but...

Brunson v Adams

Do you really think that case will get past conference?

They don't care. This is going nowhere...and when it does...they'll just glom on to the next nonsensical argument.

God Bless Justice Thomas.

Quote: Love how Justice Clarence Thomas quietly lays wreaths with all the other volunteers every year at Arlington National Cemetery for #wreathsacrossamerica to honor those who have the ultimate sacrifice. pic.twitter.com/xerCBt8ICM

— Emily Miller (@emilymiller) December 17, 2022

Quote:Shannon Bream @ShannonBream

BREAKING: group of states formally files emergency request w #SCOTUS to block lifting of Title 42 on Wednesday. pic.twitter.com/vrZeGtnMAB

— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) December 19, 2022

...and now Chief Justice John Roberts puts a Temporary Hold on the district judge’s order to end Trump-era policy Title 42.

Just temporary...perhaps just Roberts looking for more kickback money from Soros or something to the effect. Nevertheless here's the "offical" explanation:

Quote:Shannon Bream @ShannonBream

BREAKING: SCOTUS puts the Wednesday lifting of Title 42 on temporary hold. This is purely administrative at this point, not on the merits.

4:59 PM · Dec 19, 2022

Quote:Shannon Bream @ShannonBream

Chief Justice Roberts gives DOJ until Tuesday 5p to file a response to the states seeking to keep Title 42 in force. #SCOTUS

5:00 PM · Dec 19, 2022

(12-19-2022 05:36 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

Quote:Shannon Bream @ShannonBream

BREAKING: group of states formally files emergency request w #SCOTUS to block lifting of Title 42 on Wednesday. pic.twitter.com/vrZeGtnMAB

— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) December 19, 2022

...and now Chief Justice John Roberts puts a Temporary Hold on the district judge’s order to end Trump-era policy Title 42.

Just temporary...perhaps just Roberts looking for more kickback money from Soros or something to the effect. Nevertheless here's the "offical" explanation:

Quote:Shannon Bream @ShannonBream

BREAKING: SCOTUS puts the Wednesday lifting of Title 42 on temporary hold. This is purely administrative at this point, not on the merits.

4:59 PM · Dec 19, 2022

Quote:Shannon Bream @ShannonBream

Chief Justice Roberts gives DOJ until Tuesday 5p to file a response to the states seeking to keep Title 42 in force. #SCOTUS

5:00 PM · Dec 19, 2022

Gotta love how everyone who makes a decision you do not agree with is probably taking a kickback.

(12-19-2022 07:43 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Gotta love how everyone who makes a decision you do not agree with is probably taking a kickback.

Actually, they probably are. What makes you think they aren't?

Their honesty and integrity? No way.
The unavailability of under the table money? No way.

(12-19-2022 08:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 07:43 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Gotta love how everyone who makes a decision you do not agree with is probably taking a kickback.

Actually, they probably are. What makes you think they aren't?

Their honesty and integrity? No way.
The unavailability of under the table money? No way.

but only when they disagree right?

(12-19-2022 08:50 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 08:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-19-2022 07:43 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  Gotta love how everyone who makes a decision you do not agree with is probably taking a kickback.

Actually, they probably are. What makes you think they aren't?
Their honesty and integrity? No way.
The unavailability of under the table money? No way.

but only when they disagree right?

Whether they agree or disagree has nothing to do with it.

In one sense, I almost prefer that they be on the dole from somewhere. The bureaucrats who are not taking money have only one outlet for their jollies--screwing you and me.

How A Cat With A Gunshot Wound Is Bringing Property Rights Disputes Before The Supreme Court

Quote:Not many cases involving speeding and littering end up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Fewer still involve shooting a cat. Hardly any will set national policy for property rights disputes involving 620 million acres of federal lands.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in just such a case. At issue in Wilkins v. United States is a highly technical question with a simple upshot: whether property owners can take the United States to court when it encroaches on private land.

The case involves Robbins Gulch Road, a dirt lane that cuts across private property on the edge of the Bitterroot National Forest, two hours south of Missoula, Montana. The federal government owns an easement that allows for logging and grazing access, but several years ago, the Forest Service threw the road open to the public. Speeding, littering, poaching, and theft followed. With the help of the Pacific Legal Foundation, two property owners are fighting back; but first, they have to get into court.

Wil Wilkins is a veteran diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. He’s lived in the mountains all his life, including three years on horseback in the Idaho wilderness. Jane Stanton has lived across the road for 30 years. Wilkins and Stanton want the Forest Service to honor the terms of the easement: to limit traffic and patrol and maintain the road. The government claims the power to do as it pleases with the road — and that Wilkins and Stanton waited too long to sue.

The precise issue the Supreme Court will consider is whether the 12-year time limit for bringing claims under the Quiet Title Act is “jurisdictional.” In other words, if there is a dispute about when that time limit started to run, does the court have the power — the jurisdiction — to hold a hearing to consider disputed evidence? Does the government or the property owner bear the burden to show the time limit has passed? And can the government choose to waive the time limit?

Those nuanced questions matter a lot in settling property rights disputes, especially when they involve easements. Encroachment on private property can be subtle and slow, and a dispute might take years to ripen into a genuine conflict. This case shows how that can happen.

Forest Service Opens Road to Public
The prior owners granted the United States an easement for a logging road, and for many years the lazy dirt lane was used occasionally by loggers, ranchers, and others with special permits to use the National Forest. But all that began to change about 10 years ago; traffic from the public increased, and conflicts with property owners ensued. Wilkins’ cat was shot by a passing motorist (the cat survived). So Wilkins and his neighbors reached out to the district ranger. Not to worry, he said, the Forest Service knows it is unclear which roads are open to the public, and, in fact, Robbins Gulch Road is slated to be closed completely after a nationwide travel management planning process. With that good news in hand, Wilkins and his neighbors participated in the process. That took eight years.

At the end of that bureaucratic gauntlet, the promise to close Robbins Gulch Road disappeared. Instead, it was designated open to the public, and the Forest Service put up a sign declaring it open. By the time Wilkins realized he’d been duped, the Forest Service claimed he had waited too long to sue. Wilkins disputed that the time limit had passed, and he offered witnesses and evidence to back up his claim.

Time Limits for Claims
But the lower court never weighed the conflicting evidence about the time limit; the judge held that the time limit deprived the court of jurisdiction. It’s a chicken-and-egg problem: The court doesn’t have to weigh the facts of the case until it has jurisdiction, and it can’t know if it has jurisdiction until it hears the facts of the case.

Congress never intended for these types of cases to be thrown out. When the Quiet Title Act was enacted in 1972, the whole point was to make it easier for landowners to get into court when the government invades their property rights. The Senate committee that created the legislation recognized that “sovereign immunity or the infallibility of the Crown … is not appropriate where the courts are established … to serve the people.” The Department of Justice wasn’t quite so generous and urged Congress to include a time limit; but even then, DOJ recognized that the time limit could be waived and that the government would bear the burden to show it was too late to sue.

Since then, government lawyers have taken a less reasonable tack. The result is a hair-trigger time limit that keeps meritorious property rights disputes out of court, encourages landowners to sue first and cooperate later, and gives the federal government an ace in the hole when disputes do end up in court.

This is the third Pacific Legal Foundation case the Supreme Court has taken in as many years seeking to reopen the courthouse doors to property rights claims. In Knick v. Township of Scott, the court held that property owners could file “takings” claims directly in federal court without first suing in state court, and in Pakdel v. San Francisco, it clarified that a lawsuit can be filed as soon as a state or local government has made a final decision violating a property right. With Wilkins, the court can enforce Congress’s will and give property owners greater access to courts when the federal government encroaches on private land.

Quote: Short Thread:
1. In the coming months, among other serious problems (& there are many), we are going to learn the FISC has become a parallel Supreme Court but operates in almost total secrecy. In 1975, Church stated, “hiding evil is the trademark of a totalitarian government.”

— LTG ® Mike Flynn (@GenFlynn) January 9, 2023

Quote:LTG ® Mike Flynn @GenFlynn

2. “There is no more pernicious threat to a free society than a secret police…operating beyond the law…if these abuses had not been uncovered and had the agencies gone unchecked, we might well have seen a secret police develop in the United States. Once that begins…

7:54 AM · Jan 9, 2023

Quote:LTG ® Mike Flynn @GenFlynn

3. The Constitution itself is in very real danger.”

Church was right then and his words are exponentially more on point in 2023. Advances in technology, growth of a federal bureaucracy & deep seated corruption across the federal government has only expanded the government’s…

7:54 AM · Jan 9, 2023

Quote:LTG ® Mike Flynn @GenFlynn

4. Ability to destroy American’s 4th Amendment rights.

Now is the time to form another “Church-like” committee to enact serious reforms & either disband the agencies or demand full compliance & accountability from an increasingly rogue security state “shadow government.”

7:54 AM · Jan 9, 2023

Quote:LTG ® Mike Flynn @GenFlynn

5. Pray that our elected representatives have the moral fiber, integrity, & guts to call out & then do the right thing. Doing the right thing is really hard. America has sacrificed so much for so many, our fallen & our founders deserve the city on the hill to shine once again!

7:54 AM · Jan 9, 2023

Bet the Lefty/Commie/"Dems" be surprized....

Quote: 1/ BREAKING: Judge just granted our request for a preliminary injunction against AB 2098–the gag order on physicians in CA–in our Hoeg v. Newsom lawsuit. This effectively halts the implementation of this terrible law while our case is being tried.

— Aaron Kheriaty, MD (@akheriaty) January 26, 2023

Fox reported: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/califor...mation-law

Quote: A California judge issued a preliminary injunction against a state law that empowers the Medical Board of California to discipline physicians who support opinions about COVID-19 that are not in line with the “consensus,” according to reports.

The law, known as Assembly Bill 2098, was set to take effect on Jan. 1, 2023. Under the law, the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California could discipline physicians who “disseminate” information about COVID that is not in line with the “contemporary scientific consensus.”

But in November, a group of five California physicians filed a lawsuit against California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration, saying the law violates their First Amendment rights and constitutional right to due process.

The preliminary injunction temporarily halts the implementation of the law while the case is tried in court.

Lawsuit Filed – National Archives Joins Smithsonian in Kicking Out Pro-Life Kids – Where Next?

Quote:Now a second federal agency has been implicated, engaging in unconstitutional discriminatory action against Christian students and other pro-lifers for wearing pro-life attire on the day of the March for Life.

We just filed a lawsuit against the Smithsonian, representing 9 students and 3 parents, who were unceremoniously booted from the federal museum for having “Pro-Life” on their hats – a clear violation of the First Amendment.

But now we’ve been contacted by and represent 4 other individuals who experienced the exact same type of anti-Christian, anti-life targeting – this time at the National Archives Museum.

That’s right, the same National Archives that has been infamously in the headlines because it can’t keep track of classified documents from multiple Administrations had time to single out pro-lifers for invidious and unconstitutional discrimination.

Just like the pro-life kids at the Smithsonian, three separate and unrelated groups of individuals were stopped by security at the National Archives, including a pro-life grandmother and her granddaughter. They were told to either take off or cover up pro-life attire, or they would be removed from the building. These individuals simply had shirts, buttons, sweatshirts, and hats expressing their support for the unborn or being part of the pro-life generation.

The federal institution that houses the sacrosanct pages of the Constitution was violating the Constitution, unlawfully targeting Christian and pro-life messages to be covered up and silenced.

It’s absolutely outrageous, and we just sent a legal demand to the National Archives Museum, putting them on notice of their constitutional violations and that a lawsuit will be headed their way shortly.

But this goes far beyond two museums. The targeted focus on excluding pro-life attire, the use of phrases like “neutral zone” by security officials, and the occurrence of these infractions at multiple federal buildings on the same day, the March for Life – there is something more at play here. In both of our lawsuits (against the Smithsonian and the impending one against the National Archives), we will find out if there was, in fact, any kind of memo, Be-on-the-Lookout (BOLO) list, training, or other directives that could have led to this unconstitutional targeting behavior.

Remember, the IRS targeting of Tea Party groups and conservatives began with a BOLO list. We went to court and obtained a consent order preventing the IRS from ever engaging in that type of unconstitutional targeting of conservatives for their beliefs. Well, it’s happening again, across President Biden’s bureaucracy. And we’re going back to federal court.

We’ve seen how President Biden has weaponized the FBI and DOJ to target pro-lifers, how HHS is bearing down on pro-life Pregnancy Resource Centers, and now this. We expect there may be more.

If you have been targeted or harassed in a federal building for your pro-life attire or expressing your pro-life views, we’re here to help, just like we’re helping these individuals who were targeted at the Smithsonian and the National Archives. Contact us at ACLJ.org/HELP.

The radical pro-abortion Left knows that if the youth of the nation say, “No more abortion,” their days are numbered. So they seek to intimidate, harass, suppress, demonize, marginalize, and even kick them out. We won’t stand for it.

We’ve been defending free speech rights for decades, winning monumental cases at the Supreme Court. We won’t back down. Stay tuned.

UPDATE 02.08.2023: We have just filed a lawsuit in federal district court over the National Archives Museum’s actions in unconstitutionally threatening and stifling the free speech of our clients, 4 pro-life individuals – including a mom and her daughter – on the afternoon of the March for Life. Similar to our lawsuit against the Smithsonian, we allege violations of the First Amendment (free speech), Fifth Amendment (equal protection), and Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). We also similarly asked the court to declare the National Archives’ actions unlawful and unconstitutional and order that they be prohibited from ever taking such action again. We will get to the bottom of this and achieve justice for our clients. No one should be targeted by the federal government for their Christian and pro-life views.

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), announced the lawsuit ‘Kristi L. v. National Air & Space Museum’ late Tuesday, alleging that the Smithsonian “targeted, harassed” and “kicked out” a dozen Catholic high school students and their chaperones on Jan. 20 for wearing beanies inscribed with a pro-life message.

According to the ACLJ, museum personnel mocked the students, hurled expletives at them and claimed the museum was a “neutral zone” where political or religious messages were prohibited.

The lawsuit details an encounter between the personnel and students, some of whom are minors. As they were making their way toward an exhibit, two employees allegedly said, “The f—king pro-life. What a bunch of s—t.”

Reason explains why the “neutral zone” argument would not apply in this case:

Quote:Procedurally, that may affect who can be sued here and for what.

The substantive legal analysis, though, is simple. The inside of a government-run museum is a “nonpublic forum” in which the government as property owner can impose reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions. A rule banning “f**k,” “s**t,” etc. on clothing worn within the museum, for instance, might well be constitutional, since it appears viewpoint-neutral—even though content-based—and might be seen as reasonable.

But a rule, or an on-the-spot action by a government employee forbidding hats that supposedly “do not promote equality” is viewpoint-based, and thus can’t be applied to visitors even on nonpublic forum government property.