Suspect reportedly indicted in burning death of Mississippi teen Jessica Chambers

Now imagine the guy was white. The girl black. Right now ten top DOJ lawyers would be descending on Mississippi. Their briefcases bursting at the seams packed with hate crime documents only too eager to give to the judge. Already hard at work, Black Lives Matter wasted no time parading the streets shouting...

Jessica burned.. burn Quinton   

Jessica burned.. burn Quinton  

Jessica burned.. burn Quinton 

But alas she was white. And frankly, when you're white the DOJ just doesn't give a shit. 

Quinton Tellis was reportedly indicted in the burning death of a 19-year-old Jessica Chambers. (Ouachita Parish Sheriff/Family Handout)

A Mississippi man already suspected in a murder reportedly has been indicted in the December 2014 burning death of a 19-year-old woman. 

Quinton Tellis, 27, was indicted on capital murder charges Tuesday by a special grand jury in the death of Jessica Chambers, The Clarion-Ledger reported.

Tellis is currently being held in the Ouachita Parish Jail in Monroe, La. on charges connected to the August 2015 death of a University of Louisiana-Monroe exchange student, the newspaper reported. 

Authorities in Panola County, Miss. have scheduled a press conference about the case for 10:30 a.m. Wednesday. 

Chambers was found on a back road shortly after 8 p.m. on Dec. 6, 2014, with burns covering more than 98 percent of her body.

When emergency responders arrived at the scene, Chambers was walking away from her burning vehicle and able to utter a few words to them about the attack -- though authorities have not said what, if anything, the young woman was able to communicate. She later died from her injuries at a hospital in Memphis.

Tellis is believed to have been the last person to have been with Chambers the night she was killed. The two allegedly had a relationship in the weeks leading up to her death, officials told The Clarion-Ledger.

Tellis is already facing charge three counts of unauthorized use of an access card and one count of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. The Clarion-Ledger reported that he has admitted to using a debit card belonging to ULM student Meing-Chen Hsiao, 34, of Taiwan. Hsiao was found stabbed to death in her apartment on Aug. 8 of last year, more than a week after she was reported missing.

Tellis has not been formally charged in connection with Hsiao's murder.

The Clarion-Ledger also reported that Tellis has served jail time on multiple charges of residential burglary and fleeing law enforcement. He had been released on probation twice, most recently in October 2014, two months before Chambers was killed. 

Tellis also had simple assault and domestic violence charges against him dismissed in May 2011 after the complainants failed to show up to court.

Suspect reportedly indicted in burning death of Mississippi teen Jessica Chambers

Apple to argue First Amendment rights in FBI decryption battle

Do you think the FBI is going after Killary with the same exhilaration they have Apple? 

--------------------------------------

As expected, Apple intends to argue its First Amendment rights as part of a multi-pronged legal strategy designed to flout a court order compelling the company unlock an iPhone linked to last year's San Bernardino shootings.

Theodore Boutrous, Jr., one of two high-profile attorneys Apple hired to handle its case, said a federal judge overstepped her bounds in granting an FBI motion that would force the company to create a software workaround capable of breaking iOS encryption, reports the Los Angeles Times. 

Specifically, U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym last week ordered Apple to help FBI efforts in unlocking an iPhone 5c used by San Bernardino shooting suspect Syed Rizwan Farook, a directive that entails architecting a bypass to an iOS passcode counter. Government lawyers cited the All Writs Act of 1789 as a legal foundation for its request, a statute leveraged by the FBI in at least nine other cases involving iOS devices.

While the act itself is 227 years old, lawmakers have updated the document to cover a variety of modern concerns, most recently as applied to anti-terrorism operations. In essence, All Writs is a purposely open-ended edict designed to imbue federal courts with the power to issue orders when other judicial tools are unavailable.

A 1977 Supreme Court reading of the All Writs Act is often cited by law enforcement agencies to compel cooperation, as the decision authorized an order that forced a phone company's assistance in a surveillance operation. In Apple's case, however, there is no existing technology or forensics tool that can fulfill the FBI's ask, meaning Apple would have to write such code from scratch.

"The government here is trying to use this statute from 1789 in a way that it has never been used before. They are seeking a court order to compel Apple to write new software, to compel speech," Boutrous told The Times. "It is not appropriate for the government to obtain through the courts what they couldn't get through the legislative process."

Boutrous intimated that the federal court system has already ruled in favor of treating computer code as speech. In 1999, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California, ruled that source code relating to an encryption system was indeed protected under the umbrella of free speech. That opinion was later rendered moot, however, meaning there is no direct legal precedent to support Apple's arguments. 

The comments expressed by Boutrous echo those of Apple CEO Tim Cook, who earlier this week called for the government to drop its demands and instead form a commission or panel of experts "to discuss the implications for law enforcement, national security, privacy and personal freedoms." 

Apple is scheduled to file its response to last week's order on Friday.

Apple to argue First Amendment rights in FBI decryption battle

The scumbag cracks a joke about Scalia's death

On a tip from Ed Kilbane

Video 222

The scumbag cracks a joke about Scalia's death

Joe Biden, 1992: No Supreme Court Pick Until After Election

On a tip from Ed Kilbane

Joe Biden, 1992: No Supreme Court Pick Until After Election

Vice President Joe Biden spoke out forcefully against appointing a new Supreme Court justice in an election year–in 1992 when he was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and George H.W. Bush was running for re-election.

Footage of Biden delivering an emphatic floor speech on the subject on June 25, 1992, was unearthed by C-SPAN on Monday.

Video 221

Biden argued, in part:

…it is my view that if a Supreme Court justice resigns tomorrow or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed.

The Senate, too, Mr. President must consider how it would respond to a Supreme Court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. It is my view that if the President goes the way of Presidents [Millard] Fillmore and [Andrew] Johnson, and presses an election year nomination, the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.

Biden also argued that it would be possible for the Supreme Court to operate without one of its members.

As the United Press International agency reported that day: “Biden conceded that the court might have to operate with a member short this fall, but added, ‘This may be the only course of action that historical practice and practical realism can sustain.'”

Biden added that while it was the president’s “right” to nominate justices to the Supreme Court, it was equally his “right” to oppose and to block them.

The New York Times reported that Biden, evading any responsibility for the nastiness of the confirmation fights over Robert H. Bork (who was rejected) and Clarence Thomas (who was eventually approved), explained that it was necessary to postpone any new potential appointments to the Court because of the danger of the “radical right”:

Mr. Biden said it was inevitable that the Supreme Court would become slightly more conservative, given that Republicans control the White House and moderate Southern Democrats are a force in the Senate.

But he added that President Bush and his predecessor, Ronald Reagan, had sought to move the Court sharply to the right, naming justices who would adopt a conservative agenda. He said both Presidents had “ceded power in the nominating process to the radical right”

“It is this power grab that has unleashed the powerful and divisive forces that have ravaged the confirmation process,” he said. “Either we must have a compromise in the selection of future justices or I must oppose those who are the product of this ideological nominating process.”

USA Today reported further that Biden said: “‘Can your Supreme Court nomination and confirmation processes, so racked by discord and bitterness, be repaired in a presidential election year? History teaches us that this is extremely unlikely.”

Interestingly, some influential Republicans agreed with Biden that Supreme Court appointments should not be made in an election year — taking the same position they have adopted today against President Barack Obama nominating a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia, who died earlier this month before a new president takes office in 2017.

Biden told the New York Times “that he believed members of the Supreme Court are aware that a confirmation battle in an election year would be so divisive that anyone contemplating retirement would probably delay doing so until after the election.”

However, Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY), the Minority Whip, was quoted by National Public Radio disagreeing with Biden: “It’s not for the chairman of the judiciary committee to decide who the president of the United States submits as a nominee to the United States Supreme Court.”

Attorney General William Barr told Larry King in an interview on CNN that the president should nominate a new justice:

KING: Let’s touch some other bases. Senator Biden, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said today if a vacancy occurs the President should not name a new member of the United States Supreme Court. He should wait till after the election. Do you agree?

MR. BARR: Well, that’s his advice. I think the President’s responsibility under the Constitution is to nominate people to fill vacancies, and the President will make up his own mind as to-

KING: I mean, but if he asked your advice, what would you say?

MR. BARR: I’d say we should go ahead and nominate somebody for a vacancy. I think it’s important that, when the Court meets in the fall, it have a full complement of nine justices.

The Bush White House itself also disagreed with Biden. Spokesperson Judy Smith was quoted by USA Today: “The president alone has the responsibility to nominate justices. … In the event of a vacancy, he will discharge his duties under the Constitution as he sees fit.”

Joe Biden, 1992: No Supreme Court Pick Until After Election

As it turns out Rubio is an anchor baby

Rubio is Cuban. But if he's elected president this sends a clear message to the millions of illegal Mexicans who live in this country dropping anchor babies.

[YOUR CHILD CAN BECOME POTUS]

And 20 years from now when the floodgates are open and our country is no longer recognizable under the José Garcia administration you can thank the Democrats. They would sell their own mother to a brothel if they thought they could garner votes.

-----------------------------------

Donald Trump muses about Marco Rubio's eligibility to run for president

Donald Trump, left, speaks with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., during a Republican presidential debate in South Carolina. (AP)

Marco Rubio has joined Ted Cruz in Donald Trump’s crosshairs.

Fresh off his Saturday win in the South Carolina Republican primary, Trump said Sunday he didn’t know whether Rubio, a Florida senator who finished second, was eligible to run for president and that “the lawyers have to determine that.”

“I don’t know,” Trump told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.” “I really – I’ve never looked at it, George. I honestly have never looked at it. As somebody said, he’s not. And I retweeted it. I have 14 million people between Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and I retweet things, and we start dialogue and it’s very interesting.”

Rubio brushed aside Trump’s assertions later on “This Week.”

“This is a pattern,” Rubio said. “This is a game he plays. He says something that’s edgy and outrageous and then the media flocks and covers that. And then no one else can get any coverage on anything else.

“And that worked where there were 15 people running for president. It’s not going to work anymore. I’m going to spend zero time on his interpretation of the Constitution with regards to eligibility.”

Trump was questioned on the issue after he retweeted a supporter Saturday who made the allegation and linked to a video from the Powdered Wig Society, a conservative news and commentary website. That video features an unidentified woman claiming someone can only be a “natural-born citizen” if the person’s father was a U.S. citizen.

The Constitution states only a “natural-born citizen” can be president, though it does not explicitly define that phrase.

Rubio, whose parents came to the U.S. from Cuba in the 1950s, was born in Florida in 1971. His parents were not U.S. citizens at the time.

Trump’s musings about Rubio’s eligibility is comparable to how his similar feud began with Cruz, a Texas senator, though that argument has since intensified.

Trump has argued that Cruz, who finished third in South Carolina, may not be a “natural-born citizen” because he was born in Canada, even though his mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of Cruz’s birth.

Numerous legal scholars have said both Cruz and Rubio are considered “natural-born citizens,” though Trump has said other experts disagree.

“I mean, let people make their own determination,” Trump said Sunday.

Similar questions of eligibility dogged previous Republican contenders such as John McCain in 2008, George Romney in 1968 and Barry Goldwater in 1964. McCain was born in Panama, Romney was born in Mexico and Goldwater was born in Arizona before it became an official U.S. state.

As it turns out Rubio is an anchor baby