9th CIRCUS COURT OF APPEALS AT IT AGAIN WITH THEIR LIBERAL BS …
UNBELIEVABLE … Make no mistake about it folks, the liberals want to take away your guns. the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled Thursday that people do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public. The Second Amendment clearly states, A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Seems rather straight-forward, unless you are a liberal activist judge with an agenda.
A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that people do not have a Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons in public, in a sweeping decision likely to be challenged by gun-rights advocates.
An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the 7-4 ruling, upholding a state law requiring applicants to show “good cause,” such as a fear of personal safety, to carry a concealed firearm.
The judges, further, definitively dismissed the argument that a right to carry a concealed weapon was contained in the Second Amendment.
“We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public,” Judge William Fletcher wrote in the majority opinion.
If challenged, it could set up a Supreme Court battle.
This should be more than enough to never vote for Hillary Clinton.
It is hard to believe that the IRS is still stonewalling previous court orders, but they are. As the Vodka Conspiracy opines, the Sixth Circuit court is losing its patience with the IRS. Where is the liberal MSM discussing this scandal that intimately was responsible in one of the greatest voter frauds that has ever been perpetrated in the United States?
Today, nearly 1,050 days since the start of the IRS scandal triggered by allegations that the IRS unlawfully and unethically targeted tea party and other conservative organizations for special scrutiny, the litigation continues. One allegedly targeted group brought suit against the IRS for its conduct, and the IRS has resisted the litigation with the same dilatory tactics that infuriated members of Congress.
In the latest development, a federal district court ordered the IRS to turn over information concerning groups that were subject to the mistreatment identified by the agency’s inspector general. The IRS didn’t like this and is now seeking a writ of mandamus in order to avoid having to disclose more information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit is not amused.
United States v. NorCal Tea Party Patriots denying the IRS petition … The 6th Circuit opinion concludes:
In closing, we echo the district court’s observations about this case. The lawyers in the Department of Justice have a long and storied tradition of defending the nation’s interests and enforcing its laws—all of them, not just selective ones—in a manner worthy of the Department’s name. The conduct of the IRS’s attorneys in the district court falls outside that tradition. We expect that the IRS will do better going forward. And we order that the IRS comply with the district court’s discovery orders of April 1 and June 16, 2015—without redactions, and without further delay.
BIG BLOW TO BARACK OBAMA’S CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVE …
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court abruptly halted President Obama’s controversial new power plant regulations that is part of his global warming climate change initiative. 27 states and industry opponents that call the regulations “an unprecedented power grab” and that the regulations would greatly increase energy costs and put some of their industries out of business. Appellate arguments are set to begin June 2, 2016. Thankfully, the SCOTUS put a hold on anything going forward as Powerline opines, “Obama’s EPA was betting that the slow legal process would mean that they’d have a lot of things in place, and many utilities would have complied with the EPA’s dictates, before the law was settled at the Supreme Court.”
A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday abruptly halted President Obama’s controversial new power plant regulations, dealing a blow to the administration’s sweeping plan to address global warming.
In a 5-4 decision, the court halted enforcement of the plan until after legal challenges are resolved.
The surprising move is a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations “an unprecedented power grab.”
By temporarily freezing the rule the high court’s order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.
The court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.
The plan aims to stave off the worst predicted impacts of climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants by about one-third by 2030.
“We disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Clean Power Plan while litigation proceeds,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement.Earnest said the administration’s plan is based on a strong legal and technical foundation, and gives the states time to develop cost-effective plans to reduce emissions. He also said the administration will continue to “take aggressive steps to make forward progress to reduce carbon emissions.”
STRIKE 2: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals today told Barack Obama where he can stick his pen …
Today, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States has dealt Barack Obama’s Executive order on Amnesty a tremendous blow. Two of three judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans sided on the rule of law and the US Constitution. Judges Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Elrod both ruled and refused to lift an injunction against President Obama’s deportation amnesty and said the president’s new program, known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA), is a binding policy that should have gone through the usual public notice and comment period instead of being announced unilaterally by Mr. Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson late last year
A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied the Obama administration’s request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on immigration, which would have granted protection from deportation as well as work permits to millions of immigrants in the country illegally.
Two of three judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, left in place an injunction by a Federal District Court judge in Brownsville, Tex. The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states against actions President Obama took in November. Many of the initiatives were scheduled to take effect this month.
The appeals court found that the states had sufficient legal grounds to bring the lawsuit and that the administration had not shown that it would be harmed if the injunction remained in place and the programs were further delayed.
Also denied was a request by the administration to limit the injunction to the states bringing the lawsuit. The ruling is a second setback for programs the president hoped would be a major piece of his legacy, raising new uncertainty about whether they will take effect before the end of his term and casting doubts on the confidence of administration lawyers that their case was very strong.
Remember when Obama said he didn’t have the power to pass such amnesty and then did it anyhow?
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco clears Barry “Balco” Bonds obstruction conviction …
Please, even if the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned your obstruction of justice conviction, before you start talking about justice being served, every one in America, even homers in San Francisco, know you did roids. Sorry Barry, but no one will ever consider you the MLB home run champion.
What, it was Flax seed oil
Barry Bonds was cleared of his only criminal conviction in a government investigation of steroids in sports Wednesday when a federal appeals court ruled that the former San Francisco Giants star’s “rambling, nonresponsive answer” in grand jury testimony did not amount to obstruction of justice.
In a 10-1 decision, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco overturned a jury’s felony conviction of baseball’s all-time home run leader and said there was not enough evidence to support the charge. The ruling, if it stands, means Bonds cannot be retried.
“An enormous weight has been lifted from his body and soul,” said Bonds’ lawyer Dennis Riordan. He said the prosecution “ruined (Bonds’) career.”
Bonds, 50, said in a statement, “Today’s news is something that I have long hoped for. I am humbled and truly thankful for the outcome as well as the opportunity our judicial system affords to all individuals to seek justice.”