Visit Counter

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Guess this is no surprise




Sanctuary cities fight: Judge who blocked Trump order a Democrat activist



Judge William Orrick is a longtime Democratic activist. 
(US District Court for the District of Northern California)



Appointed by Barry



Orrick's claim of impartiality:

 "I have never let my political beliefs affect my legal judgment, and believe that politics have no place in the courtroom.”

...and if you believe him then surely Clinton and lard ass really did talk about golf and grandchildren!


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




The judge who struck down a Trump administration crack down on sanctuary cities is a hard-core Democrat activist whose life has been steeped in liberal politics since childhood.

Judge William Orrick III, 63, who on Tuesday blocked the administration from withholding federal funds from cities that don't cooperate with federal immigration officials, attended the landmark 1968 Democratic National Convention as a teen and more recently raised money for 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry.

“I will not let my personal views interfere with the administration of justice," Orrick assured lawmakers in 2013 when he was confirmed as a federal judge on the District of Northern California. "I have never let my political beliefs affect my legal judgment, and believe that politics have no place in the courtroom.”

On Tuesday, in a suit brought by San Francisco and Santa Clara, Calif., Orrick blocked President Trump's executive order withholding funding from sanctuary cities, saying the president lacked the authority to attach new conditions to federal spending.


“He’s definitely one of the more openly liberal-leaning judges on the bench based on several rulings he’s made over the years."

- Attorney who has argued cases before Orrick



Liberal-Leaning? More like set in concrete with additional rebar.





But Orrick's latest ruling, which Trump blasted as a case of "judge shopping" in a Wednesday tweet, and a prior ruling granting Planned Parenthood an injunction barring the Center for Medical Progress from releasing damning undercover videotapes of the abortion provider's employees and contractors, have raised questions about his impartiality.

“He’s definitely one of the more openly liberal-leaning judges on the bench based on several rulings he’s made over the years," said one California lawyer who has argued cases before Orrick and requested anonymity. "Many of our [9th Circuit] judges are Democratic appointees, and with most of them you feel like you would get a fair shake.

"Judge Orrick is one of the ones I feel uncomfortable having a politically charged case in front of,” he added.

Orrick got one of his first tastes of hard-knuckle politics when he was just 15 years old. He went with his father, a delegate for Robert Kennedy, who had been assassinated two months before, to the riotous 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago.

“There was fighting going on inside” the convention, as well as outside, Orrick told the Recorder in a story about prominent left-wing bundlers in August 2004.

Orrick would go on to attend Yale and Boston College Law School.

At the time of the Recorder report, Orrick was a lawyer for a San Francisco firm with deep ties to Democratic politics. He had helped organize a nationwide effort dubbed "Lawyers for Kerry” and was credited with raising more than $1 million for Kerry in the San Francisco area alone.

When Kerry announced he would not seek his party’s nomination in January 2007, a core group of a dozen or so attorneys met at Orrick’s firm, San Francisco-based Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, and “effectively became 'Lawyers for Obama,'” according to the Recorder. The group “became this kind of built-in network of fundraisers,” attorney Thomas McInerney told the Recorder. Obama wasn’t even officially in the race yet.

As a bundler for Obama, Orrick raised at least $200,000 according to records obtained by the watchdog group Public Citizen. A bundler, according to Public Citizen, “plays an enormous role in determining the success of political campaigns and are apt to receive preferential treatment if their candidate wins.”

A few months after President Obama moved into the White House, Orrick told a reporter that he wanted a job in the new administration. “I contacted anybody I could think of to say: Let me serve.”

McInerney was quoted as saying, "He's not in it for glory. He's doing it because he really believes in Obama."

Orrick's first position was in the Civil Division of President Obama’s Department of Justice. Near the end of Obama's second term, he was appointed to his current post.

Other attorneys, also anonymously, have complained publicly about Orrick. One commenter on the blog The Robing Room called Orrick a “social justice activist for whom the rule of law is a quaint, malleable notion of no import.”

The Robing Room is a nationwide database of judges that contains 100,000 state and federal reviews of judges. “Posters are attorneys, litigants, and court personnel,” said Robing Room Vice President Nicholas Kaizer, an attorney in New York.

“The comments reflect the judge’s bias,” said Kaizer, who acknowledged he has no professional experience with Orrick, but analyzed the comments for Fox News. “The general flavor reflects a judge that values form over substance, is results-oriented, and somebody that directs litigation to a preordained, predetermined outcome. And that reflects a judge that is not well regarded by counsel.”

Kaizer believes comments on his site paint an accurate picture of Orrick.

“If there’s one or two critical comments it’s anomalous, but we’re seeing 4 or 5 or more," he said. "I think you can draw conclusions that what each individual reviewer is saying is accurate and it’s buttressed by the other reviewers.”

While Orrick's latest decision may earn him more detractors, it will likely also prompt others to agree with an earlier assessment by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

“William Orrick will be an outstanding addition to the Northern District bench," Boxer said after recommending him for his current post. "He brings a depth of legal experience in both the public and private sectors.”






Share/Bookmark

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

What an asshole





Every time she opens her mouth her IQ drops 20 points.

How is it immoral to have a border wall? When she goes home, after another hard day of lying, isn't she protected by walls which surround her own home? If it's right for her why is it NOT right for America to defend itself from foreign invaders? 



Video 338



She was indispensable... when it came to Trump taking over the WH.
Thanks, Nancy and keep up the good work.








Share/Bookmark

Liberals...





On a tip from Ed Kilbane









Share/Bookmark

Friday, April 21, 2017

The irony










But in did get a parting gift of $25 million.






Share/Bookmark

Russia Bans Jehovah’s Witnesses, Calling It an Extremist Group




The pinnacle of cowardly stupidity. Why didn't they ban Islam?  How many Jehovah’s Witnesses killed their comrades compared to Muslims the last two decades? If you had a choice between a Jehovah’s Witness or a Muslim for a neighbor...guess I didn't have to ask. 



By ANDREW HIGGINSAPRIL 20, 2017


Jehovahs Witnesses gathered last month in a house in the village of Vorokhobino, north of Moscow, where they meet for services. 



MOSCOW — Russia’s Supreme Court on Thursday declared Jehovah’s Witnesses, a Christian denomination that rejects violence, an extremist organization, banning the group from operating on Russian territory and putting its more than 170,000 Russian worshipers in the same category as Islamic State militants.

The ruling, which confirmed an order last month by the Justice Ministry that the denomination be “liquidated” — essentially eliminated or disbanded — had been widely expected. Russian courts rarely challenge government decisions, no matter what the evidence.

Viktor Zhenkov, a lawyer for the denomination, said Jehovah’s Witnesses would appeal the ruling. He said it had focused on the activities of the organization’s so-called administrative center, a complex of offices outside St. Petersburg, but also branded all of its nearly 400 regional branches as extremist.

“We consider this decision an act of political repression that is impermissible in contemporary Russia,” Mr. Zhenkov said in a telephone interview. “We will, of course, appeal.”

An initial appeal will be made to the Supreme Court’s appellate division, Mr. Zhenkov said, and if that fails, Jehovah’s Witnesses will take the case to the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, France.

Hard-line followers of Russia’s dominant faith, the Orthodox Church, have lobbied for years to have Jehovah’s Witnesses outlawed or at least curbed as a heretical sect, but the main impetus for the current campaign to crush a Christian group active in Russia for more than a century seems to have come from the country’s increasingly assertive security apparatus.

Founded in the United States in the 19th century, Jehovah’s Witnesses has its worldwide headquarters in the United States and, along with all foreign-led groups outside the control of the state, is viewed with deep suspicion by Russia’s post-Soviet version of the KGB: the Federal Security Service, or F.S.B.

Summing up the Justice Ministry’s case against the denomination, the ministry’s representative, Svetlana Borisova, told the Supreme Court on Thursday that Jehovah’s Witnesses had shown “signs of extremist activity that represent a threat to the rights of citizens, social order and the security of society.”

During six days of hearings over two weeks, lawyers and witnesses for the religious group repeatedly dismissed the extremist allegation as absurd, arguing that reading the Bible and promoting its nonviolent message could in no way be construed as extremist.

Human Rights Watch, in a statement issued in Moscow, condemned the court ruling as “a serious breach of Russia’s obligations to respect and protect religious freedom.”

Rachel Denber, the human rights group’s deputy director for Europe and Central Asia, said the decision delivered “a terrible blow to freedom of religion and association in Russia.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses shuns political activity and has no record of even peaceful — never mind violent — hostility to the Russian authorities. But it has faced growing hostility from the state since President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia began his third term in 2012 and put the Orthodox Church at the center of his push to assert Russia as a great military and moral power.

The denomination suffered relentless persecution by the KGB during the Soviet era, and after more than a decade of relative peace following the collapse of Communism in 1991, it again became a target for official harassment under a 2002 anti-extremism law. That law makes it illegal for any group, other than the Orthodox Church and other traditional religious institutions, to proclaim itself as offering a true path to religious or political salvation.







Share/Bookmark