Election Integrity Update

WITH NO ASSHOLES BARRED from pro-  persecuting Donald Trump, it takes time and attention to keep up with it all, but here’s a digest for the week on the broader topic of election integrity. First, Trump got a victory of sorts from the U.S. Supreme Court when on Monday, it denied a writ of certiorari from anti-Trump lawfare activist, John Castro, who has racked up cases in multiple states to get the 45th president off state ballots to be the 47th.

The Court relied on the good old standby, standing, in this case out of Arizona. And this happens to be a very good example of where it was, indeed, lacking, especially given the Court correctly believed Castro’s candidacy was a mere pretext to sue. The Court effectively affirmed U.S. District Court Judge Douglas L. Rayes’ refusal to hear Castro’s case in December. Not a surprise, but still welcomed.

Maine was one of those states that flirted with the notion of denying Trump ballot access there, but the Dems in the Pine Tree State haven’t ruled out throwing rocks at the 45th President. They have threatened to convert the state’s electoral votes to ‘winner-take-all’ if Nebraska goes through with a plan believed to benefit Trump. Specifically, Nebraska’s G.O.P. is seeking to amend its system to prevent Biden from obtaining an electoral college vote by winning the state’s Omaha-district, as occurred in 2020. 

In essence, Maine is attempting to ‘cancel’ a Trump advantage in blue-state Nebraska by ensuring an equal and opposite Democrat advantage for Biden in red-state Maine. It’s just talk at this point, and may not happen, given a special session would have to be called in Nebraska’s legislature and pass a Democrat-led filibuster. Recall Maine and Nebraska abandoned winner-take-all in the electoral college in favor of vote-splitting-by-district since 1972 and 1992, respectively, being the only two states to have done so. Maine claims it doesn’t want Nebraska ‘gaming the system,’ but hypocritically has no qualms about doing so itself. Fortunately, Maine courts reined in Dem activists when they tried to get Trump off the ballot earlier this year. 

Election integrity also took a hit on Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected G.O.P. Senate candidate Kari Lake and former Arizona Secretary of State candidate Mark Finchem’s lawsuit concerning voting machines being wrongly certified due to their optical scanners for use there. Again, the high court simply affirmed a lower court and appellate court rejection of the lawsuit from 2022 based on standing. Lake’s attorney issued a statement, here.  

The Supreme Court also issued a denial of cert. on Monday involving voters in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi. South Carolina, and Tennessee where older voters can obtain obtain absentee ballots for any reason at all, but younger voters cannot. Challengers maintained this violated the 26th Amendment, ratified in 1971 to lower the voting age to 18, barring age-based discrimination. 

Absentee ballots are one thing, but mail-in ballots, another, and they will be a subject of intense debate in the upcoming election. A three-judge panel at the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently ruled 2-1 in a mail-in ballot case out of Pennsylvania, overturning a lower court in favor of the Republican National Committee over the Materiality Provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sec. (a)(2)(B), regarding signature verification and dating on ballots. (Hopefully the R.N.C. will be a force to reckon with going forward after the recent appointments of Michael Whatley and Lara Trump as co-chairs.) An R.N.C. statement was issued, here. There are supposedly 81 ‘voter integrity’ legal actions launched by the R.N.C. in the current election cycle. 

The R.N.C. was targeted by the Biden Justice Department recently after unveiling a program to monitor the polls for fraud. R.N.C. Senior Counsel for Election Integrity Christina Bobb was indicted for an alleged scheme to use allegedly false claims to challenge Arizona’s alleged results in the 2020 presidential election. Bear in mind the timing of the charges, which suggests a clear intent to intimidate and chill any dissent in election matters going into November. Note Bobb is presumed to be not guilty until she either pleads guilty or her case is tried and she is found guilty.

Election interference by Dems continues with the weaponization of government and multiplicity of agencies. Among the latest are attempts to ‘de-bank’ MAGA Republicans, including (again) former Trump attorney John Eastman, who held accounts with Bank of America and USAA that were unceremoniously closed without notice by utilizing apparently very broad and vague Depositary Agreements that authorized the banks’ “right to no longer do banking business” with customers for any reason(s) or no reason(s) at all. Along with the use of lawfare, this is a Dem weapon of first choice to intimidate, harass, and chill the speech and actions of Republicans perceived to pose a credible threat to them. 

Every So Often, a Good Guy or Gal Wins…

ON WEDNESDAY, former Trump attorney and ally Sidney Powell received some good news.  A Dallas-based Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a trial court decision denying any form of discipline by her bar association for her having brought numerous lawsuits designed to prevent the certification of the presidential election in November of 2020 for Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. (She was sanctioned by a court in Detroit in 2021 for ‘abusing the judicial system,’ and pleaded guilty in Georgia to ‘election interference,’ sentenced to six years’ probation, and fined $8,700, along with having to testify if called in Trump’s ‘racketeering’ case.)

About a year ago, the case against Powell’s was dismissed on her motion due to the multiple fast-and-loose deficiencies of the state Bar’s case, including the mislabeling of evidence, among other things. On appeal, the three-judge panel found the deficiencies even worse than the trial court found. “By its own admission, the Bar misidentified or failed to include multiple exhibits it claims to have relied on in its Second Amended Response,” the court observed, “But the deficiencies go far beyond mislabeling exhibits.”

Either they mistakenly believed it was a slam-dunk case against Powell or the Bar was just lazy, but either way, even after it tried to amend its pleadings, it couldn’t get the case against her to survive her Motion for Summary Judgment and get the complaint to trial. In fact, it couldn’t even produce four distinct exhibits it had “generally referenced.” It had alleged Powell had had no basis to believe the lawsuits she filed were not frivolous and that her sources were “wholly unreliable.” It further accused Powell of making several false statements in her representation., but the appeals court stated the Bar didn’t “evince or raise a fact question about a lack of honesty or integrity” on Powell’s part. The court found the Bar to have been “scattershot,”  and failed to prove she engaged in “fraud, dishonesty, deceit, or misconduct.” 

It’s unclear what the Bar will do. The scathing 25-page opinion is here. The Bar is also attempting to discipline state Attorney General Ken Paxton and his top aide, First Assistant Brent Webster, for having appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to get the election in the states overturned. Neither case has been resolved and will likely have weighty consequences.

Also in Trump news this week is this: New York Attorney General Letitia James is now facing a new lawsuit over her conduct that a Trump-appointed judge, Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, will decide. This case involves a business fraud case from four years ago, brought by her office. The complaint comes from Ariel Schachter, the CFO of Northern Leasing Systems, which was barred from doing business in New York after a court ruled in the A.G.’s favor. Schachter now wants to open a similar business in Texas and wants the earlier judgment vacated on the rather obvious grounds the earlier decision was made under an ‘expedited’ process that denied him due process or even the opportunity to conduct discovery in the matter. New York needs to revisit its laws. 

The Judge Driving Old Dixie Down

THE INVASION AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER is unabated by the federal government, whose jurisdiction and responsibility it is to secure it. Without any exaggeration, it is an unmitigated existential crisis for this nation. It was therefore distressing to learn about the federal judge who is driving Old Dixie, or at least a big part of it down, albeit, temporarily, on a preliminarily basis. 

Seventy-seven-year-old U.S. District Court Judge David Ezra ruled on February 29th that Texas Senate Bill 4, scheduled to go into effect on March 5th, runs afoul the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court precedent that places the responsibility for immigration law squarely in the hands of the federal government. 

That may be (it, in fact, is), but since the Biden regime was installed, Texas and other border states have been plagued with deluges of unvetted illegal aliens—in the many millions—and left completely helpless to do anything about it. Still Texas Governor Greg Abbott declared an invasion that Washington refused and refuses to hear. 

And it’s literally breaking the state.

Texas’ Bill 4 would have allowed local law enforcement in Texas to arrest, and state judges to deport, illegal aliens since the federal government was either completely negligent in addressing the ongoing and worsening invasion, or otherwise involved in something far more sinister in allowing the invasion to occur and to continue unabated. Ezra wrote: 

“To allow Texas to permanently supersede federal directives on the basis of an invasion would amount to nullification of federal law and authority — a notion that is antithetical to the Constitution and has been unequivocally rejected by federal courts since the Civil War.”

Ezra added that to give credence to Texas’ argument, that the regime ‘abandoned’ its duties at the border, would be “to take hyperbolic criticism literally,” citing an ICE docket with 6.8 million cases. (Exactly! Exhibit A as to the massive burdens this regime has caused Americans, not to mention, the Treasury they fund with hard-earned tax dollars!)  Order in U.S. v. Texas  here.

Interestingly, this judge, a Ronald Reagan appointee, hails from liberal Hawaii, but now permanently sits in Texas, per Chief Justice John Roberts, to help with the workload. Ezra is reportedly unaffiliated. Why he, in particular, is really there permanently is anyone’s guess, and who knows? Getting a new judge confirmed may result in a worse situation, given this regime. 

But it seems a bit ballsy for a judge, with no real ties to Texas, from some island more than 2,500 miles away from the west coast, which itself, is another over 1,600 miles away from the southern border, to make such a ruling impacting a state that can only dream of an ocean being between it and—Mexico. (Oceans make far better neighbors than even fences!) Ezra may as well be ruling from Brussels. Or China. Or Mars. To many Texans, he’s driving their state to ruins in his order.

Undoubtedly, Erza realizes the Supreme Court will have the final bite at this very bitter apple. He may even be going out of his way, along with the Fifth Circuit, to ensure it does, so there can be judicial clarity on this issue once and for all. If so, it should make us all grateful, if not impatient.

Immigration is undoubtedly the province of the federal government, but just as Jan. 6th at the Capitol was ‘an illegal insurrection’ to some, so, too, is the recent past and present in Texas ‘an illegal invasion’ to others. If the Capitol gander takes the law into his own hands, then why ought not the Lone Star goose do the same? Obviously, Texas A.G. Ken Paxton will appeal to the Fifth Circuit. It will surely be a companion case to the ‘buoys case’ set for May. 

The buoys case arose when Abbott placed buoys in the Rio Grande to deter migrants. The regime sued and the District Court (with Judge Ezra) sided with the regime. Texas appealed to the Fifth Circuit which sided in part with the State. The case was appealed to SCOTUS, where it awaits. It is one of several ongoing legal maneuverings on this issue of epic consequence.

BTW, the southern border isn’t the only problem. Large numbers of Chinese illegal aliens are invading the nation at the northern border, through Maine, perhaps to tend to their cannabis crops—or worse. 

Trump Docket Update

TUESDAY WAS A BIG NEWS DAY concerning 45th President Donald Trump’s legal trials and tribulations. First, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel (as predicted by most) nixed his presidential immunity defense in Jack Smith’s four criminal counts against him. More on this later, but the Opinion is here.

Second, U.S. District Court Judge Aileen Cannon, who is overseeing the documents case against the president in the Southern District of Florida, ruled after an in camera review, that some of the unclassified discovery materials Smith wanted to keep under seal would have to be disclosed out “of the the strong presumption of public access in criminal proceedings.” She simply did not find a “sufficient factual or legal basis warranting deviation” from that presumption. 

Cannon also denied Smith’s request to keep the identity of certain persons sealed. Although she conceded “witness safety and intimidation” can be legitimate reason to keep identities under seal, she did not find Smith’s “sparse and undifferentiated response” compelling enough to warrant it. She also laid out rules for requesting such review as the case proceeds. She is a Trump appointee.

Third, far-left New York Judge Arthur Engoron was in a tizzy when he demanded information about possible perjury by the Trump Organization’s Chief Financial Officer, Allen Weisselberg, who testified in the civil fraud case against the 45th president which has yet to be decided. Engoron was referring to a report from the reliably unreliable rag known as The New York Times, which suggested a plea deal Weisselberg had reached with the Manhattan District Attorney’s office that would require him to admit he lied on the witness stand in Engoron’s court, as well as to Letitia James’ investigators. (Prosecutors have turned the heat up on Weisselberg so much, he’s practically radioactive.)  Engoron has ordered attorneys in the case to provide information that might show possible perjury before rendering his diktat in mid-February.

Then, on Wednesday, it was reported Jack Smith might seek to have Judge Cannon removed over her granting Trump’s defense team access to some of the unclassified discovery she reviewed in camera and found to be appropriately made available to them in unredacted form. It’s unlikely to succeed, but Smith’s probably paid hourly, so for him—why not try? There again, I’m not up to speed on the Classified Information Procedures Act these days…

And also on Wednesday, Judge Lewis Kaplan, a Clinton appointee, denied Trump’s motion for a mistrial in the E. Jean Carroll defamation scam, despite the fact she had deleted evidence that had been properly subpoenaed. Trump has a $83.3 million judgment at stake because he was found civilly liable for defending himself against her false rape accusations from decades ago. As for the deleted discovery, Kaplan seemed to think Trump should’ve proferred his own attempts to recover it. (Some of the testimony about it is here and here.) That’s new to me when a defendant is to be his own persecutor and executioner, but things have changed in recent years…

In Which Abbott Asserts Himself, DeSantis Redeems Himself, and Biden Makes an Ass of Himself (Again)

THERE HAS BEEN AN ONGOING figurative sniping between the feds and the Lone Star State for many months over the unnecessarily contentious issue of an invasion of illegal aliens over our southern border. It now seriously threatens to graduate to literal sniping. 

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) finally declared an invasion at the border and took steps to halt it pursuant to, inter alia, Art. 1, §10, Cl. 3 and Art. IV, §4, of the United States Constitution. He understandably claimed Texas has a right to self-defense given the federal government is failing to do so, and in fact, is endangering the state by failing to enforce the fed’s own laws as duly enacted. It should’ve happened many months ago, but whatever…

Illicit occupant of the White House, Joey Biden, and his wholly incompetent minion, Alejandro Mayorkas, tried to circumvent the State of Texas in its attempts at border restraints, including razor wire installation, meant to discourage aliens from entering illegally. Of particular concern was the razor wire at Shelby Park in an invasion hotspot known as Eagle Pass, Texas, which had been taken over by the state in a further attempt to control illegal immigration. Since Jan. 10th, Border Patrol was blocked from accessing the park in the tiny town.

There was a basis for the federal lawsuit, inasmuch as federal law preempts state law on matters of immigration. But the Biden regime just went in and cut the wire installed by the Texas National Guard, fueling the fire into what may become a raging inferno.The Biden regime ultimately won this round on Monday after the matter went to the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled, 5-4, without elaboration, that Border Patrol agents under Biden could cut through the razor wire and remove it ‘if necessary,’ while also remanding the case to the lower court for adjudication. (It isn’t a ‘Biden victory’ as some reporters have described it. The legal argument for a stay was probably deficient as drafted. The merits have yet to be heard.)

The ‘if necessary’ part of the deal is allegedly in response to three migrants drowning in the Rio Grande as they tried to enter the country illegally (as opposed to being a mere pretext for the invasion). In other words, it’s to allow the federal government to rush to give free emergency medical care to the illegals that American citizens wouldn’t be entitled to receive. The illegal aliens who drowned were later beatified by N.P.R., P.B.S. and other mainstream media complicit in the Biden regime’s propaganda efforts.(See any links herein, for example.)

 However, what was blatantly wrong with the outcome at the Supreme Court, as Abbott has made clear, is that the federal government isn’t enforcing it own federal immigration laws and, in fact, has refused to—to Texas’ indisputable detriment. 

Meanwhile, the p!ssing contest between the feds and Lone Star State has been somewhat successful in limiting migrants from Eagle Pass, but now, instead, they are entering the country at crossings north of the park and onto private ranches. Illegal aliens don’t distinguish, or care to, between public and private lands. Neither, it seems, does the illicit Biden regime. In response to outcries from affected ranchers, Texas offered to install free razor wire on their lands. It’s a very small concession, but some $10 billion in state money has been used since March of 2021 to try to curb the crisis affecting 1,200 miles of the border in Abbott’s Operation Lone Star. A lot!

Very few illegal aliens entering the country in this way are ever detained. Since Oct. 1st, there have been at least 96,000 ‘gotaways’ at the southern border, a Customs and Border Protection source told Fox News. The futility of the situation isn’t lost on some ranchers, who, despite razor- and concertina wire, have been unable to keep the illegals off their property. What can you really do when Border Patrol is relegated to making illegal aliens sandwiches for their northbound journeys? What can you do when the federal government only manages to post a bilingual sign reading, “No migrant processing at this location. Please proceed to nearest port of entry for processing with U.S. Border Patrol?”

Abbott isn’t done enforcing the laws the feds refuse to enforce. Late in 2023, the state legislature passed a bill scheduled to go into effect in March which will permit state police to arrest those they suspect are illegally crossing the border into Texas and charge them with state crimes. The A.C.L.U., inexplicably mute on the Biden regime’s many transgressions of Americans’ civil liberties, has suddenly mustered the cahones to challenge Abbott’s treatment of lawbreakers.

On Wednesday after the SCOTUS ruling, Abbott released his statement (here) declaring an invasion,Texas’ right to self defense, and “lawless [putative] president [Biden].” (Brackets added.). Abbott’s statement actually reads as a good start to articles of impeachment for both Biden and Mayorkas. On Thursday, the Biden regime issued a Friday deadline for Abbott to order the Texas National Guard to allow Border Patrol back to cut down the razor wire. (When similar demands were made to abandon illegal ‘sanctuary city or state’ statuses, though, nothing was done then, so why should anythings be done here and now?) Also on Thursday, after Abbott’s statement, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) immediately announced Florida’s support, in personnel and supplies, for Texas. It was a moment of fast thinking that he didn’t miss. Some 24 other governors nationwide added theirs, too, and issued a joint statement on X (here.)

Meanwhile, in Washington, which isn’t as impacted by the folly of their own failed policies, Congress continues stalling tactics at solving the crisis by extended recesses, demands for pay raises, and per diems. As if World War III isn’t a big enough challenge for the Big Guy, add a Civil War. However this all plays out, it will become a pretty compelling docudrama someday.

Some commentators like to point out the unprecedented nature of the state’s response, as if that, ipso facto, makes it unacceptable, but such people, when pressed, have to admit the scale, scope, and effects of the illegal alien invasion are also unprecedented. The Fifth Circuit will hear the merits in February.

SOX Act SUX for J6 Defendants, Including for 45.

POLITICO PUBLISHED an interesting article by Kimberly Wehle, who is a professor at the University of Baltimore School of Law and author of How to Read the Constitution—and Why. She thinks a scheduled case at the U.S. Supreme Court, styled Joseph W. Fischer v. United States, docketed for 3/04/24, may play a role in 45th President Donald Trump’s pending case relating to Jan. 6th that is being prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith. (Trump’s defense is essentially one of executive immunity.)

The issue in Fischer is whether prosecutors and the Dept. of Justice have been improperly using a 20⁺ year-old law, which had been originally enacted to curtail financial crimes, post-Enron. In Fischer, the law is being used against a J6 defendant. (So far, the D.O.J. has charged more than 300 J6 defendants under the law, where over 150 have been convicted of violating it or pleaded guilty.)

Trump was indicted on four counts. Two are obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to do so. Those crimes are claimed to fall under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX Act), with the long title, “An Act To protect investors by improving the accuracy and reliability of corporate disclosures made pursuant to the securities laws, and for other purposes,” a criminal statute governing financial disclosures. Fischer (and others) have argued that these charges are limited to the financial crimes that gave rise to the law in the first instance, which makes sense.

The Justice Dept. has obviously been using it much more broadly, however. Minimally, 14 judges in J6 cases have interpreted the law favorably to the D.O.J.; eight have not. Of those who have, at least two have stayed defendant’s sentencing pending review of Fischer by the Supreme Court. 

On one hand, the law states broadly, “Whoever corruptly…obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.” Its language does not limit applicability to only financial obstruction. ‘Corruptly’ in law means, knowing what you’re doing with an unlawful purpose. “Official proceeding” is defined by statute as including “a proceeding before the Congress.”

To the D.O.J., Trump took steps to impede counting of Electoral College votes in Congress and did so corruptly (the latter point, ‘corruptly,’ I would not concede, BTW, and the former, ‘impeding’ (as it applies to Trump), is, at best, iffy, IMO. But I digress…)

Wehle explains the wrinkle is another part of the SOX Act that specifically states that one who “corruptly — alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object … with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding,” also commits a crime. (Emphasis added in article.) This, Wehle explains, is how Fischer interprets the law: the above modifies the part of the statute referencing “or otherwise obstructs” and includes the opening word, “corruptly.” Is it dox and records? Or acts?

The D.C. Circuit reversed a lower court ruling on this interpretive issue in another case, which is likely why the high court agreed to hear Fischer.

Wehle surmises a Trump verdict can be reached before the election, regardless. (It shouldn’t be so rushed.)

A Lawsuit That’s Out of this World

I ADMITTEDLY HAVE a love-hate relationship with Elon Musk, but I share his disdain for the National Labor Relations Board for similar reasons. On Jan. 4th, he filed suit against it. While he did it for his beloved SpaceX, he also did it for me, though he doesn’t know it.

The gist of the lawsuit is that it is a rogue agency. It is rogue, Musk contends, because the U.S. Constitution requires the president have ‘sufficient control’ over the administrative law judges, and the NLRB ALJs are not ‘in control’ as required by Art. II of the Fifth Amendment and the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution. Art. II is violated because the ALJs have “[t]wo layers of for-cause protection.” More specifically, they are “only removable for cause by officials who themselves are only removable for cause.”

This means the ALJs are effectively insulated from the requisite oversight by the president. The Seventh Amendment, obviously, violates the fundamental right to a jury trial at common law. Of note is that SpaceX is scheduled to appear before such an unconstitutional ALJ on March 5th.

Read the Complaint here.

Some background is in order. The NLRB accused SpaceX of firing employees who publicly vocalized their complaints against the company’s practices, allegedly in violation of federal law proscribing “retaliatory discharge.”

While there is some irony to Musk’s self-proclaimed absolutist views about the First Amendment in light of this lawsuit, this is factually distinct in as these are employees who have a duty of loyalty to their private sector employer who, they claim, is a source of embarrassment. 

There is precedent for bringing such a lawsuit even if there is no resolute holding. In 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission is unconstitutionally shielded from executive oversight in Jarkesy v. S.E.C.  It has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court and will be heard and decided this year.

Musk’s SpaceX lawsuit will likely coattail this final ruling, and if successful, will likely give SpaceX the declaratory and injunctive relief it seeks, or alternatively, be well on its way to its own appellate process. SpaceX maintains, correctly IMO, that it needs equitable relief to prevent it from having to undergo “protracted administrative proceedings before an unconstitutionally structured agency—after which SpaceX is unlikely to have a chance to secure meaningful retrospective relief.”

This issue is vastly overdue to be reviewed. Think of all the unjust binding decisions made by such agencies with little or no recourse. Other agencies under the Biden regime have, coincidentally or not, sued Musk or his companies using similar administrative tactics.

Last year, SpaceX was sued by the Department of Justice for only hiring U.S. citizens and permanent residents, remarkably in violation of federal law. However, the company was dealing with ‘sensitive technology.’

Eventually, a judge in the case ruled in SpaceX’s favor, finding the structure deficient.

Musk is sick of all the bullsh!t from these agencies and so am I. On that, we agree.

The Heavy Weight of the Scales of Justice

ONE COULD MISTAKENLY BELIEVE 45th President Donald Trump was the only one facing persecution. He’s not. Former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows has his own problems with an alleged election interference case in the Peach Tree State’s now-infamous Fulton County. On Monday, a federal appeals court denied his request to move the case in Georgia to federal court. 

Meadows had argued that a removal statute allowed an “officer of the United States” facing charges in state court to have the case transferred to federal court if the alleged wrongdoing fell within the purview of their governmental duties. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled the law applied only to current officials, and there is clear precedent for this. . Further, it unanimously ruled Meadows’ acts did not relate to his official duties. (While it may require an expansive reading of his duties, it seems to me a cognizable argument could be made that it did, but once the legal conclusion was reached that the law applied only to current officials, there was no need to address this at all.)

The unanimous opinion was drafted by Judge Bill Pryor, who was a George W. Bush appointee and a former Alabama A.G., but the other two were Democrat appointees. The Opinion can be read here. It is expected it will be appealed to the Supreme Court for a hearing in the fall. Obviously, this has ramifications for the 45th President, who is also facing the wrath of MAGA-persecutor, Fani Willis. 

In other legal news on Friday, the Supreme Court declined to rule on whether 45th President Donald Trump has immunity for actions as president when he challenged the integrity of the 2020 presidential election integrity for the time being. Special Counsel Jack Smith had asked the Court to bypass other avenues of appeal for the sake of expediency in getting Trump to trial over alleged election interference. (In an odd twist, Smith had ‘won’ under U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, but he took the appeal to attempt to preempt Trump’s defense. It appears to have backfired, however, since Chutkan’s orders were stayed and SCOTUS won’t be hearing the case any time soon.)  It’s properly off to the Circuit Court of Appeals.

The presumably unanimous Supreme Court declined to intervene without comment. None is needed. The case simply has no business at the Court because of the doctrine of ripeness which clearly directs federal courts to refrain “from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements” by adjudicating issues too soon.

Smith Has ‘No Unfettered Right’ to Try a Political Question in Court.

THE INEFFECTUALNESS of the G.O.P. cannot be overstated, but at last, a few brave ones did something noble: 18 Republican state attorneys general filed an objection to 45th President Donald Trump being ‘gagged’ by courts in advance of the 2024 election. 

The states, led by Iowa and West Virginia, include Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, and Utah. (Notably absent are reddish states New Hampshire and Florida.) It’s not clear why it took these A.G.s so long, but if I was in one of the states, I’d be happy they finally did it.

The state A.G.s argued in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Tuesday night that the gag order on Trump violates their citizens’ interest in “hearing from major political candidates.” In other words, the gag order not only violates Trump’s rights, but those of voters, as well. From a standing perspective, it makes sense to argue from that perspective, though it was filed as an amicus curiae brief, anyway.

The gist of the argument is that District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan “overstepped” her authority when she imposed the gag order in the election case. “As administrators of free and fair elections, we have an interest in ensuring no illegal prior restraint is entered against any major political candidate,” the A.G.s argued. “Indeed, our citizens have an interest in hearing from major political candidates in that election. The Order threatens the States’ interests by infringing on President Trump’s free speech rights.”

Notable is the fact that even today’s very taciturn ACLU supports Trump on this issue despite being vehemently in political opposition to him and the MAGA movement. It’s a political case with a political question usurping political speech of a politician.

Chutkan’s Order is here. It was stayed on Nov. 3rd pending Trump’s appeal. A three-judge panel will hear that appeal on Nov. 20th. Trump’s brief is here. Special Counsel Jack Smith’s reply brief is here, and argues Trump doesn’t have an “unfettered right to try his case in the media.” The amicus brief is here. 

Resident, May I?

EARLIER THIS MONTH, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas received some bad news from federal court Judge David Ezra, a Ronald Reagan appointee, concerning his efforts to try to deter the invasion of illegal aliens at the Southern border. On 9/6, he was ordered, pursuant to a preliminary injunction, to remove the barriers from the Rio Grande he had installed that made it more difficult for migrants to enter the country. The barrier was essentially a series of buoys that floated, making it hard to walk or swim around them. The barrier in the main waters of the Rio Grande had to be removed by 9/15. Read Order here.

Who complained? Who, indeed! Of course it was the Resident himself, Joey Biden. He filed suit against Abbott in July saying the Republican governor hadn’t obtained his permission to place the buoys on the U.S./Mexico border. Well, not his, exactly; the federal government’s border and “navigable waterway.”

It’s true that the border is that of the United States’ as well as Texas’, and it’s also true that international relations, such as with Mexico, is the province of the federal government’s policy. However, Texas obviously has a vital, indeed, an existential interest, in what happens there. Other states do, too, but would likely not have standing to sue the federal government.  

If it were reversed, and the U.S. wanted to do this but Texas didn’t, the U.S. would almost surely win because of our federalist system, but in actuality, in ordinary times, there would be a back and forth between federal and state authorities to work out a mutually agreeable solution. Here, that cannot be done, because the Resident’s regime is so autocratic and fascistic. “Today’s court decision merely prolongs President Biden’s willful refusal to acknowledge that Texas is rightfully stepping up to do the job that he should have been doing all along,” a statement from Abbott aptly read. 

Abbott vowed to appeal the matter all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. He should. He’s right. He plans to continue to deploy the Texas National Guard and state troopers in his battle against the invaders and erect more barriers in his Operation Lone Star. What do you expect him to do? (Even so-called progressives like NYC Mayor Eric Adams promoting open borders now recognize the overwhelming danger and cost of this utterly irresponsible policy, but want to give them jobs!) As it was, on 9/7, Abbott asked for a stay at the Fifth Circuit and got it.