Federal Judge Blocks Texas Ban on Sanctuary Cities

WETBACK PROTESTERS AT SAN ANTONIO’S FEDERAL COURT HOUSE.

A Mexican judge with the good fortune to be born on this side of the border has ruled that reining in sanctuary cities is not allowed. Judge Orlando Garcia has issued a temporary restraining order blocking the enforcement of Texas new law banning sanctuary cities within the state.

In all honesty, how can a Mexican judge be independent and unbiased in a case like this? He should have recused himself.

He was the judge assigned to my lawsuit, but offered to recuse himself because he teaches part-time at the university. I took him up on his offer and got a 85 year old white man assigned to my lawsuit, not that it did any good.

All of these judges rely heavily on their law clerks to research the law and write up their rulings for them. In South Texas, the law clerks are almost all Hispanic.

New York Times

HOUSTON — A federal judge in San Antonio on Wednesday blocked Texas from enforcing its ban on so-called sanctuary cities, questioning the constitutionality of a law that has pitted Republican state leaders against several Democratic-leaning cities.

The judge’s ruling was only temporary, and prevents the law from taking effect on Friday while a suit against it goes forward. But the decision, which Texas said it would appeal, served as a legal blow to one of the toughest state-issued immigration laws in the country and puts the brakes on a measure backed by the Trump administration that critics had called anti-Latino. The law has become so divisive that it served as the backdrop of a shoving match at the Texas Capitol between Hispanic Democratic lawmakers and their white Republican colleagues.

The law, known as Senate Bill 4 or S.B. 4, prohibits cities and counties from adopting policies that limit immigration enforcement, allows police officers to question the immigration status of anyone they detain or arrest and threatens officials who violate the law with fines, jail time and removal from office. It also directs local officials to cooperate with so-called immigration detainer requests, which allow foreign-born detainees to be transferred to federal custody after they are released from state or local custody.

A number of the state’s biggest cities, including Houston, Austin, San Antonio and Dallas, all of which are run by Democrats, joined a lawsuit against Texas seeking to strike down the law, which was passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature and signed by the Republican governor, Greg Abbott, in May.

JUDGE ORLANDO GARCIA AND HIS COURTHOUSE. IT’S ROUND.

Continue reading

Police Fitness Test Discriminated Against Women, Federal Judge Rules

A federal judge has ruled that fitness tests that women cannot pass at the same rate as men are a violation of federal law.

Judge Richard Matsch was born in 1930! He presided over the Oklahama City bombing case that saw Timothy McVeigh convicted in a trial that covered up a great deal of the truth.

At age 87, Matsch is still ruling from the bench. He’s now found that fitness tests that women can’t pass are discriminatory.

The test isn’t described in the story, but I probably couldn’t pass it either, but I’m not selfish enough to demand that standards be lowered for my benefit.

Putting unqualified women cops on the street is going to kill people. Matsch needs to retire and let someone with a stronger sense of logic rule from the bench.

The Gazette

A fitness test given to Colorado Springs police officers discriminated against women and violated civil rights laws, a federal judge ruled Wednesday in a two-year lawsuit.

The test “shamed and ostracized” the 12 plaintiffs – many of them decorated officers with decades of service – while providing “meaningless” results, ruled U.S. District Judge Richard Matsch.

Performing poorly on the test left officers at risk of losing their jobs, despite the benchmark scores being “arbitrary” and the evaluation having little to do with the officers’ everyday work, Matsch said. Significantly more women than men failed it.

“To retroactively impose that requirement on women who have invested their lives as career police officers is fundamentally unfair,” Matsch wrote.

The ruling that Colorado Springs violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 leaves the city on the hook for a possible payout to the plaintiffs for wage loss and emotional distress. A hearing on damages is expected to be set in the coming week.

A California civil rights advocate said it also sends a message to municipalities across the nation to avoid such fitness tests for potential hires and veteran employees.

“If municipalities are going to use tests like this, they have to make sure there’s a scientific basis behind them,” said Jocelyn Larkin, executive director of the Impact Fund. The organization helps bankroll civil-rights lawsuits, and it contributed $30,000 to this case.

Donna Dell’Olio, an attorney representing the women, praised the ruling as a victory for women seeking to join the force.

“The women are wonderful professionals, and all they wanted was to be able to serve crime victims and the citizens of Colorado Springs,” Dell’Olio said. “And now they’re going to be allowed to do that.”

Ten of the dozen plaintiffs remain on the force, Dell’Olio said. One has since moved to Wyoming, and another left the department amid fears she’d lose her job for failing the test.

“They did this at great peril to their careers,” Dell’Olio said. “And they did it for the younger women who are coming up behind them.”

A statement from the Police Department said “the city has received the ruling, is reviewing it, and evaluating the city’s options.”

The issue dates to 2009, when former Chief Richard Myers mandated all officers undergo fitness tests, and the department hired Human Performance Systems of Beltsville, Md., to create the evaluations. They included one-minute sit-up and push-up tests, as well as two running tests, one of which focused on agility.

Practice tests in 2013 showed deep disparities in women’s and men’s success rates, the lawsuit said.

Forty percent of women failed the test, compared with 9 percent of men. Women police recruits tested that year fared slightly worse, while men did slightly better.

Still, a 2014 order by Myers’ successor, Chief Pete Carey, mandated each officer pass the test annually. Officers who failed the first test were relegated to desk duty, while those who failed after six months of trying could be fired.

All 12 plaintiffs failed on the first try, including Maggie Santos, a lieutenant at the time overseeing the department’s Internal Affairs division.

She retired after 24 years in the department, taking a job as director of campus safety at a college. In leaving early, Santos said Wednesday that she left “significant” pension benefits on the table.

The risk of being fired without a place to go was too great, she said, especially as her kids neared college.

“It was horrible,” Santos said. “I didn’t want to leave. That isn’t when I had planned to retire. I still had more career in front of me, and it was taken.”

In issuing his ruling, Matsch relied on complex statistical analyses highlighting the disparities women faced.

He said some of the evaluations – such as the push-up test – favored men while “not being designed to evaluate an officer’s overall suitability for duty.”

The Police Department also erred in making the test a sole criterion for an officer’s firing, rather than as “one component,” he said.

In the process, Matsch noted that the Police Department’s use of a fitness test for current employees – not applicants – was unprecedented.

Santos said Matsch’s ruling was bittersweet.

“The reason why we did it was for the younger women,” Santos said. “They won’t appreciate it now when they’re in their 20s, but in 20 to 25 years, they’ll appreciate what we did, and we’re doing it for them.”

EVEN AUNT JEMIMA HAS A RIGHT TO BE A COP NOW.

City Kicks Farmer Out of Farmer’s Market for Belief that Marriage is Between a Man and Woman

STEVE AND BRIDGET TENNES ARE PRACTICING CATHOLICS.

Farmer Steve Tennes performs wedding ceremonies on his beautiful farm. He won’t “marry” sodomites. For that, the city has refused him a license to sell his produce at the local farmer’s market.

This is an outrageous abuse of government power. Steve has filed a lawsuit in federal court to force the city to allow him to sell his goods alongside other farmers.

Lansing State Journal

LANSING – When the East Lansing Farmers Market resumes Sunday, produce from Country Mill Farms will be missing for the first time since 2010.

Steve Tennes, owner of Country Mill Farms in Charlotte, said he’s been excluded from the 2017 season because of views he expressed on Facebook regarding marriage.

The city’s decision to exclude Tennes from the farmers market prompted Tennes and a religious freedom advocacy group, Alliance Defending Freedom, to file a federal lawsuit Wednesday.

Tennes, who sold organic apples and produce at the farmers market, said his Catholic faith has made him a target of government discrimination.

“Our faith and beliefs on marriage and hosting weddings at our home and in our backyard of our farm have nothing to do with the city of East Lansing,” Tennes said at a press conference Wednesday. “Nor does it have anything to do with the produce that we sell to the people that attend the farmers markets who are from all backgrounds and all beliefs.”

The suit asks the court to restore Country Mill Farms’ freedoms, stop East Lansing’s “discriminatory policy,” and award damages to Tennes.

The city argues its policy is in line with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling eliminating a ban on same-sex marriage.

The tiff between Tennes and the city revolves around Tennes’ decision to refer same-sex couples looking for a wedding venue to neighboring farms.

Tennes announced in August he would not schedule any more wedding ceremonies at the orchard because of push-back that followed a social media post where he explained his refusal to host same-sex ceremonies.

After the August post, East Lansing urged Tennes not to attend the next farmers market for fear of protests, according to the lawsuit. Tennes continued to sell at the market, and no disruptions ensued.

In December, Tennes announced via Facebook that he would resume scheduling weddings at the orchard, while reserving the right to deny a request that would violate his Catholic beliefs.

“It remains our deeply held religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and Country Mill has the First Amendment Right to express and act upon its beliefs,” the post said.

Tennes said he employs and serves members of the LGBT community and would continue to do so at the farmers market.

But when Tennes applied to be part of the 2017 farmers market, he said he was denied and his December social media post was referenced as an example of his violation of city ordinance.

“Ultimately, the city developed a new policy to target and block our farm from further participation in their city-run farmers market,” Tennes said.

City Manager George Lahanas said East Lansing has a long-standing civil rights ordinance addressing discrimination. He said that was clarified to include discrimination at “all business practices” in the 2017 policies for the city’s farmers market.

“When they applied, we decided to exclude them from the market based on that,” Lahanas said.

Watch the farm participate to help feed the hungry.

Steve and his family are clearly good folks. Let the sodomites not defile his farm with their ungodly demand that he “marry” them. They can get married elsewhere, so decency requires us to ask the LGBT group to leave him alone.

American Muslims Claim Genital Mutilation a Religious Right in Landmark Case

Barbaric practices not seen in the West for hundreds of years are reappearing because those who are in charge claim to know what’s best for us and they say that multiculturalism will make us better human beings.

Oh yeah, bringing in dumb, violent savages and then increasing the government budget to support them for life is so “culturally enriching.”

Excerpt from Freep

Lawyers plan to claim genital cutting is allowed as a religious right. But legal experts say the First Amendment doesn’t bend that far.

On paper, the law seems clear: Cutting any part of a young girl’s genitalia is illegal — and no custom or ritual can be used to justify it.

The law has been on the books for 21 years, unchallenged.

But in a federal courtroom in Detroit, a landmark case involving the centuries-old taboo ritual is about to put that law to the test for the first time.

And perhaps more historic, a question will be raised in the American legal system that has never been raised before: Does the U.S. Constitution allow for genital cutting, even if it’s just a minor nick or scraping, in the name of religion?

Defense lawyers plan to argue that religious freedom is at the core of the case in which two physicians and one of their wives are charged with subjecting young girls to genital cutting. All three are members of the Dawoodi Bohra, a small Indian-Muslim sect that has a mosque in Farmington Hills.

The defense maintains that the doctors weren’t engaged in any actual cutting — just a scraping of the genitalia — and that the three defendants are being persecuted for practicing their religion by a culture and society that doesn’t understand their beliefs and is misinterpreting what they did.

First Amendment scholars across the country — liberal and conservative alike — are closely following the case, noting that the fate of the accused will largely rest with scientific evidence.

The key question for jurors to answer will be: Were children harmed physically? If they were, experts say, the religious freedom defense doesn’t stand a chance.

But if the defense can show that it was just a nick and caused no harm, some experts believe, the defendants could be acquitted on religious grounds.

‘This is new territory’

The Detroit case involves the genital cuttings of two 7-year-old Minnesota girls whose mothers brought them to a Livonia clinic for the procedure in February.

Defense lawyers have argued that the defendants are good, hardworking people with deeply held religious convictions who were involved in only mild procedures that are part of their faith.

But the government says the harm was much more severe than the defense is claiming and that there are multiple other victims. According to court documents, the two Minnesota girls had scarring and abnormalities on their clitorises and labia minora.

“It is hard for me to imagine any court accepting the religious freedom defense given the harm that’s being dealt in this case,” said First Amendment expert Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation’s leading constitutional law scholars who called the religious claim in the Detroit case a “losing argument.”

“You don’t have the right to impose harm on others in practicing your religion,” said Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California at Irvine who in January was named the country’s most influential person in legal education by National Jurist magazine.

Chemerinsky, who has written a leading textbook on constitutional law, said there is “no absolute right” to religion in the U.S., noting many parents over the years have fought for the right to refuse their children medical care because of religious beliefs. But those parents, many of them Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Scientists, have consistently lost those cases, he said.

Jehovah’s Witnesses and Christian Scientists are white Americans. As we’ve seen too often, brown turds have special privileges in America, granted by liberal judges. I hope I’m wrong, but it’s a real possibility that the Muzzies will win this one.

Breaking! Judge Blocks Trump’s Sanctuary Cities Funding Order

There’s clearly a lot of foot-dragging going on by the USA government’s lawyers who are supposed to be arguing for President Trump’s policies. Holdovers from the Obama era are sabotaging the rule of law.

Mercury News

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge Tuesday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order stripping sanctuary jurisdictions of federal funding, dealing a blow to the Trump Administration’s efforts to punish so-called sanctuary cities and counties.

With Santa Clara County and San Francisco’s landmark motion for a preliminary injunction approved, the section of the executive order applying to sanctuary jurisdictions will not go into effect until the court rules on the county’s Feb. 3 lawsuit against the administration.

District Judge William Orrick issued a ruling less than two weeks after a hearing on the case. Santa Clara County Supervisor Cindy Chavez called it a victory for immigrant rights.

“We’re fighting for the United States Constitution and we succeeded after the Trump Administration tried to do an end run around it,” Chavez said in a statement. “The court’s decision is a win for the neediest people in our nation. Seniors in need of food, foster youth in need of shelter and children who need medical care. We’ll continue being a welcoming, safe and diverse community.”

The case has placed Santa Clara and San Francisco at the center of a contentious debate about sanctuary cities and counties. Hundreds of jurisdictions around the country have declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, proclaiming they will not turn those immigrants over to federal agents, despite repeated threats from the Trump Administration.

But an April 14 hearing at the Phillip Burton Federal Building revealed those threats were largely symbolic–federal attorneys confessed they had no idea how President Trump’s executive order stripping sanctuary jurisdictions of federal funding would actually work.

They said the government at this point hasn’t identified any “sanctuary jurisdictions,” must less defined what the term means.

The admissions suggested that the Trump administration has done little so far to translate months of threatening words from the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions into a real anti-sanctuary policy.

Orrick appeared to sense the ambiguity of the policy, at one point asking, “What would the purpose of the executive order be?”

The bolded statement above is an admission that the goal of the left is to import the entire world while making white taxpayers pay every expense for the alien populations.

If that doesn’t scare you, nothing will. To add insult to injury the left, represented by the words of Cindy Chavez, is claiming that the Constitution requires open borders and taxpayer support of illegals.

The time for talk is rapidly drawing to a close. The time for action, real action, draws ever nearer.

Woman Judge Rules in Favor of 11 Year Old Girl Suing President Trump Over Global Warming

AVERY MCRAE. SHE’S SUING TRUMP. LOL.

The anti-Trump lawsuit brought by an 11 year old environmentalist against President Trump is a psy op.

Lawsuits like this one cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

That’s a lot of bake sales.

Clearly, there are adults who have indoctrinated children into a politically correct belief system. The 11 year old in this story is probably also a transgender rights activist.

This story is disgusting.

CBS News

EUGENE, Ore. — Avery McRae has been passionate about the environment for half a lifetime, and she’s been worried about climate change since kindergarten.

Now, at 11, she is really getting serious. She recently signed on to sue President Trump and the U.S. government.

“Trump is not doing anything to help stop climate change,” she says. “He’s a climate change denier, and we’re gonna prove that to the world!”

McRae is one of 21 students suing the government claiming it is violating their constitutional right to a healthy planet by not doing enough to limit the use fossil fuels.

The case, originally filed in Oregon in 2015, bears the name of lead plaintiff, Kelsey Juliana.

“It’s a disgrace that the government has put its citizens and its younger generation into a position where we have to go to court,” McRae says.

The Justice Department tried to get it thrown out but instead, in November, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken agreed to hear it.

“My mom’s like ‘your case won, and you’re gonna move forward,’ and I screamed so loud,” McRae says. “I was getting ready to cry, but i was like ‘no, no, I’ve got to get back to class!’”

The trial could start later this year, and 16-year-old Aji Piper says, “bring it on.” He says he’s not intimidated to take on the federal government along with major oil companies and lobbyists.

“You have the biggest oil and gas companies against you, it’s like, good — let them be defeated in court.”

And though their lawsuit may seem like a long shot, who better to fight for the future than those who will be here to see it.

I like this comment from a farm woman:

PATRICIAGUENTHER 1 hour ago

Climate change is a hoax. Just ask anybody that has lived in the same area for 50 years or more. If climate change were real, they would have noticed. Farmers can tell you it’s all a lie. They pay attention to the weather. They have too. Their very livelihood depends on it. In the nearly 100 years our family has been in the Columbia Basin, the climate has NOT changed. We receive between 7 and 11 inches of total moisture a year when averaged over a 10 year period. Even with the addition of thousands of miles of canals for irrigation back in the 50’s and 60’s, it has not changed. These students need to be taught real science not pseudo-sciences that tell them climate change is real and that there are more than 2 different genders.

When you look behind Door #1, Door #2, and Door #3 in ridiculous pys ops like this one, you either find a Jew or a lesbian. This one is a lesbian, methinks, no matter that her Wikipedia entry indicates otherwise. She was appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton.

The judge was also responsible for the Malheur wildlife preserve occupation by the Bundy family.

Wikipedia

On October 7, 2015, Judge Aiken resentenced Dwight L. Hammond and his son Steven D. Hammond to five years in prison with credit for time served for federal arson, the mandatory minimum for that crime. The Hammonds had illegally set fires on their ranch which burned 140 acres of federal land. U.S. District Judge Michael R. Hogan had sentenced the Hammonds to 3 months and 1 year in prison respectively, but Judge Aiken ruled that the minimum sentences must be followed.[5] Armed militiamen led by Ammon Bundy occupied the Malheur Wildlife Refuge near the Hammonds’ ranch in protest of the ruling, demanding that the Hammonds be released and that the hundred-year-old wildlife refuge be given over to local control.[6]

Bad judges make bad law.

Breaking: Trump Immigration Order Blocked by Federal Judge

CELEBRATING. WASHINGTON STATE’S ATTORNEY BOB FERGUSON AND ADMIRERS.

The word “chaos” is the word of choice that liberals have used to smear the presidency of Donald J. Trump. That word appears in this story and most others. With all the chaos that Trump is allegedly creating, how come the country is still running?

Regarding Trump’s travel ban, which the press often calls a “Muslim ban,” whatever chaos there was, was created by anti-Trump agitators and striking cab drivers.

Politico

President Donald Trump’s travel ban executive order suffered its most severe legal blow to date Friday, as a federal judge in Seattle blocked the impact of the directive nationwide.

U.S. District Court Judge James Robart ruled in favor of the attorneys general of Washington state and Minnesota on a lawsuit they brought seeking to overturn the order limiting travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries.

“The state has met its burden in demonstrating immediate and irreparable injury,” Robart said, according to local press reports.

The temporary ruling from Robart, an appointee of President George W. Bush, appeared to be the most sweeping legal rebuke to the order since Trump issued it a week ago.

“Judge Robart’s decision, effective immediately, effective now, puts a halt to President Trump’s unconstitutional and unlawful executive order. It puts a stop to it immediately, nationwide,” Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson told reporters. “What the judge announced today was nationwide; the president’s executive order does not apply.”

Ferguson said the also nullifies the impact of the order on people seeking to travel to the U.S.

“That relief is significant, to put it mildly,” Ferguson said.

The judge ruled from the bench and said he’ll follow up with a written opinion. Asked for comment, a Justice Department spokeswoman said, “The department looks forward to reviewing the court’s written order and will determine next steps.”

Apparently, foreigners now have Constitutional rights. Luckily for us, Judge Robart wasn’t around in 1942 to order the country to open its borders to the same Japs who bombed Pearl Harbor.

Next stop for Trump: The Supreme Court.

We’ll see if the Trump travel ban, which mirrored travel bans by previous presidents, including Obama and Clinton, will be declared illegal.

I wonder how effectively the liberal lawyers in the Justice Department who argued this case presented Trump’s case. It wouldn’t surprise me to find that he was stabbed in the back. Jeff Sessions, once he takes over, needs to drain that swamp. You may remember that Trump fired the acting Attorney General earlier this week.

Continue reading