#Judge Richard A. Paez | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thelastuniverse · 3 years

Text

GRAMMYs Awards 2021

GENERAL FIELD

Record Of The Year: ‘EVERYTHING I WANTED’ — Billie Eilish Finneas O’Connell, producer; Rob Kinelski & Finneas O’Connell, engineers/mixers; John Greenham, mastering engineer

Album Of The Year: ‘FOLKLORE’ — Taylor Swift Jack Antonoff, Aaron Dessner & Taylor Swift, producers; Jack Antonoff, Aaron Dessner, Serban Ghenea, John Hanes, Jonathan Low & Laura Sisk, engineers/mixers; Aaron Dessner & Taylor Swift, songwriters; Randy Merrill, mastering engineer

Song Of The Year: ‘I CAN’T BREATHE’ — Dernst Emile II, H.E.R. & Tiara Thomas, songwriters (H.E.R.)

Best New Artist: Megan Thee Stallion

POP

Best Pop Solo Performance: ‘WATERMELON SUGAR’ — Harry Styles

Best Pop Duo/Group Performance: ‘RAIN ON ME’ — Lady Gaga with Ariana Grande

Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album: ‘AMERICAN STANDARD’ — James Taylor

Best Pop Vocal Album: ‘FUTURE NOSTALGIA’ — Dua Lipa

DANCE/ELECTRONIC MUSIC

Best Dance Recording: ‘10%’ — Kaytranada Featuring Kali Uchis Kaytranada, producer; Neal H. Pogue, mixer

Best Dance/Electronic Album: ‘BUBBA’ — Kaytranada

CONTEMPORARY INSTRUMENTAL MUSIC

Best Contemporary Instrumental Album: ‘LIVE AT THE ROYAL ALBERT HALL’ — Snarky Puppy

ROCK

Best Rock Performance: ‘SHAMEIKA’ — Fiona Apple

Best Metal Performance: ‘BUM-RUSH’ — Body Count

Best Rock Song: ‘STAY HIGH’ — Brittany Howard, songwriter (Brittany Howard)

Best Rock Album: ‘THE NEW ABNORMAL’ — The Strokes

ALTERNATIVE

Best Alternative Music Album: ‘FETCH THE BOLT CUTTERS’ — Fiona Apple

R&B

Best R&B Performance: ‘BLACK PARADE’ — Beyoncé

Best Traditional R&B Performance: ‘ANYTHING FOR YOU’ — Ledisi

Best R&B Song: ‘BETTER THAN I IMAGINED’ — Robert Glasper, Meshell Ndegeocello & Gabriella Wilson, songwriters (Robert Glasper Featuring H.E.R. & Meshell Ndegeocello)

Best Progressive R&B Album: ‘IT IS WHAT IT IS’ — Thundercat

Best R&B Album: ‘BIGGER LOVE’ — John Legend

RAP

Best Rap Performance: ‘SAVAGE ‘— Megan Thee Stallion Featuring Beyoncé

Best Melodic Rap Performance: ‘LOCKDOWN’ — Anderson .Paak

Best Rap Song: ‘SAVAGE’ — Beyoncé, Shawn Carter, Brittany Hazzard, Derrick Milano, Terius Nash, Megan Pete, Bobby Session Jr., Jordan Kyle Lanier Thorpe & Anthony White, songwriters (Megan Thee Stallion Featuring Beyoncé)

Best Rap Album: ‘KING’S DISEASE’ — Nas

COUNTRY

Best Country Solo Performance: ‘WHEN MY AMY PRAYS’ — Vince Gill

Best Country Duo/Group Performance: ‘10,000 HOURS’ — Dan + Shay & Justin Bieber

Best Country Song: ‘CROWDED TABLE’ — Brandi Carlile, Natalie Hemby & Lori McKenna, songwriters (The Highwomen)

Best Country Album: ‘WILDCARD’ — Miranda Lambert

NEW AGE

Best New Age Album: ‘MORE GUITAR STORIES’ — Jim “Kimo” West

JAZZ

Best Improvised Jazz Solo: ‘ALL BLUES’ — Chick Corea, soloist Track from: Trilogy 2 (Chick Corea, Christian McBride & Brian Blade)

Best Jazz Vocal Album: ‘SECRETS ARE THE BEST STORIES’ — Kurt Elling Featuring Danilo Pérez

Best Jazz Instrumental Album: ‘TRILOGY 2’ — Chick Corea, Christian McBride & Brian Blade

Best Large Jazz Ensemble Album: ‘DATA LORDS’ — Maria Schneider Orchestra

Best Latin Jazz Album: ‘FOUR QUESTIONS’ — Arturo O’Farrill & The Afro Latin Jazz Orchestra

GOSPEL/CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN MUSIC

Best Gospel Performance/Song: ‘MOVIN’ ON’ — Jonathan McReynolds & Mali Music; Darryl L. Howell, Jonathan Caleb McReynolds, Kortney Jamaal Pollard & Terrell Demetrius Wilson, songwriters

Best Contemporary Christian Music Performance/Song: ‘THERE WAS JESUS’ — Zach Williams & Dolly Parton; Casey Beathard, Jonathan Smith & Zach Williams, songwriters

Best Gospel Album: ‘GOSPEL ACCORDING TO PJ’ — PJ Morton

Best Contemporary Christian Music Album: ‘JESUS IS KING’ — Kanye West

Best Roots Gospel Album: ‘CELEBRATING FISK! (THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY ALBUM)’ — Fisk Jubilee Singers

LATIN

Best Latin Pop or Urban Album: ‘YHLQMDLG’ — Bad Bunny

Best Latin Rock or Alternative Album: ‘LA CONQUISTA DEL ESPACIO’ —Fito Paez

Best Regional Mexican Music Album (Including Tejano): ‘UN CANTO POR MÉXICO, VOL. 1’ — Natalia Lafourcade

Best Tropical Latin Album: ‘40’ — Grupo Niche

AMERICAN ROOTS MUSIC

Best American Roots Performance: ‘I REMEMBER EVERYTHING’ — John Prine

Best American Roots Song: ‘I REMEMBER EVERYTHING’ — Pat McLaughlin & John Prine, songwriters (John Prine)

Best Americana Album: ‘WORLD ON THE GROUND’ — Sarah Jarosz

Best Bluegrass Album: ‘HOME’ — Billy Strings

Best Traditional Blues Album: ‘RAWER THAN RAW’ — Bobby Rush

Best Contemporary Blues Album: ‘HAVE YOU LOST YOUR MIND YET?’ —Fantastic Negrito

Best Folk Album: ‘ALL THE GOOD TIMES’ — Gillian Welch & David Rawlings

Best Regional Roots Music Album: ‘ATMOSPHERE’ — New Orleans Nightcrawlers

REGGAE

Best Reggae Album: ‘GOT TO BE TOUGH’ — Toots & The Maytals

GLOBAL MUSIC

Best Global Music Album: ‘TWICE AS TALL’ — Burna Boy

CHILDREN’S

Best Children’s Music Album: ‘ALL THE LADIES’ — Joanie Leeds

SPOKEN WORD

Best Spoken Word Album (Includes Poetry, Audio Books & Storytelling): ‘BLOWOUT: CORRUPTED DEMOCRACY, ROGUE STATE RUSSIA, AND THE RICHEST, MOST DESTRUCTIVE INDUSTRY ON EARTH’ — Rachel Maddow

COMEDY

Best Comedy Album: ‘BLACK MITZVAH’ — Tiffany Haddish

MUSICAL THEATER

Best Musical Theater Album: ‘JAGGED LITTLE PILL’ — Kathryn Gallagher, Celia Rose Gooding, Lauren Patten & Elizabeth Stanley, principal soloists; Neal Avron, Pete Ganbarg, Tom Kitt, Michael Parker, Craig Rosen & Vivek J. Tiwary, producers (Glen Ballard, composer; Alanis Morissette, composer & lyricist) (Original Broadway Cast)

MUSIC FOR VISUAL MEDIA

Best Compilation Soundtrack For Visual Media: ‘JOJO RABBIT’ — (Various Artists) Taika Waititi, compilation producer

Best Score Soundtrack For Visual Media: ‘JOKER’ — Hildur Guðnadóttir, composer

Best Song Written For Visual Media: ‘NO TIME TO DIE [FROM NO TIME TO DIE]’ — Billie Eilish O’Connell & Finneas Baird O’Connell, songwriters (Billie Eilish)

COMPOSING/ARRANGING

Best Instrumental Composition: ‘SPUTNIK’ — Maria Schneider, composer (Maria Schneider)

Best Arrangement, Instrumental or A Cappella: ‘DONNA LEE’ — John Beasley, arranger (John Beasley)

Best Arrangement, Instruments and Vocals: ‘HE WON’T HOLD YOU’ —Jacob Collier, arranger (Jacob Collier Featuring Rapsody)

PACKAGE

Best Recording Package: ‘VOLS. 11 & 12’ — Doug Cunningham & Jason Noto, art directors (Desert Sessions)

Best Boxed Or Special Limited Edition Package: ‘ODE TO JOY’ — Lawrence Azerrad & Jeff Tweedy, art directors (Wilco)

NOTES

Best Album Notes: ‘DEAD MAN’S POP’ — Bob Mehr, album notes writer (The Replacements)

HISTORICAL

Best Historical Album: ‘IT’S SUCH A GOOD FEELING: THE BEST OF MISTER ROGERS’ — Lee Lodyga & Cheryl Pawelski, compilation producers; Michael Graves, mastering engineer (Mister Rogers)

PRODUCTION, NON-CLASSICAL

Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical: ‘HYPERSPACE’ — Drew Brown, Julian Burg, Andrew Coleman, Paul Epworth, Shawn Everett, Serban Ghenea, David Greenbaum, John Hanes, Beck Hansen, Jaycen Joshua, Greg Kurstin, Mike Larson, Cole M.G.N., Alex Pasco & Matt Wiggins, engineers; Randy Merrill, mastering engineer (Beck)

Producer Of The Year, Non-Classical: ANDREW WATT

• Break My Heart (Dua Lipa) (T) • Me And My Guitar (A Boogie Wit Da Hoodie) (T) • Midnight Sky (Miley Cyrus) (S) • Old Me (5 Seconds Of Summer) (T) • Ordinary Man (Ozzy Osbourne Featuring Elton John) (T) • Take What You Want (Post Malone Featuring Ozzy Osbourne & Travis Scott) (T) • Under The Graveyard (Ozzy Osbourne) (T)

Best Remixed Recording: ‘ROSES (IMANBEK REMIX)’ — Imanbek Zeikenov, remixer (SAINt JHN)

PRODUCTION, IMMERSIVE AUDIO

Best Immersive Audio Album: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Best Immersive Audio Album Craft Committee was unable to meet. The judging of the entries in this category has been postponed until such time that we are able to meet in a way that is appropriate to judge the many formats and configurations of the entries and is safe for the committee members. The nominations for the 63rd GRAMMYs will be announced next year in addition to (and separately from) the 64th GRAMMY nominations in the category

PRODUCTION, CLASSICAL

Best Engineered Album, Classical: ‘SHOSTAKOVICH: SYMPHONY NO. 13, ‘BABI YAR’ — David Frost & Charlie Post, engineers; Silas Brown, mastering engineer (Riccardo Muti & Chicago Symphony Orchestra)

Producer Of The Year, Classical: DAVID FROST

Beethoven: Piano Sonatas, Vol. 9 (Jonathan Biss) • Gershwin: Porgy And Bess (David Robertson, Frederick Ballentine, Angel Blue, Denyce Graves, Latonia Moore, Eric Owens, Metropolitan Opera Orchestra & Chorus) • Gluck: Orphée & Eurydice (Harry Bicket, Dmitry Korchak, Andriana Chuchman, Lauren Snouffer, Lyric Opera Of Chicago Orchestra & Chorus) • Holst: The Planets; The Perfect Fool (Michael Stern & Kansas City Symphony) • Muhly: Marnie (Robert Spano, Isabel Leonard, Christopher Maltman, Denyce Graves, Iestyn Davies, Janis Kelly, Metropolitan Opera Orchestra & Chorus) • Schubert: Piano Sonatas, D. 845, D. 894, D. 958, D. 960 (Shai Wosner) • Shostakovich: Symphony №13, ‘Babi Yar’ (Riccardo Muti, Alexey Tikhomirov, Chicago Symphony Orchestra & Chorus)

CLASSICAL

Best Orchestral Performance: ‘IVES: COMPLETE SYMPHONIES’ — Gustavo Dudamel, conductor (Los Angeles Philharmonic)

Best Opera Recording: ‘GERSHWIN: PORGY AND BESS’ — David Robertson, conductor; Frederick Ballentine, Angel Blue, Denyce Graves, Latonia Moore & Eric Owens; David Frost, producer (The Metropolitan Opera Orchestra; The Metropolitan Opera Chorus)

Best Choral Performance: ‘DANIELPOUR: THE PASSION OF YESHUAH’ — JoAnn Falletta, conductor; James K. Bass & Adam Luebke, chorus masters (James K. Bass, J’Nai Bridges, Timothy Fallon, Kenneth Overton, Hila Plitmann & Matthew Worth; Buffalo Philharmonic Orchestra; Buffalo Philharmonic Chorus & UCLA Chamber Singers)

Best Chamber Music/Small Ensemble Performance: ‘CONTEMPORARY VOICES’ — Pacifica Quartet

Best Classical Instrumental Solo: ‘THEOFANIDIS: CONCERTO FOR VIOLA AND CHAMBER ORCHESTRA’ — Richard O’Neill; David Alan Miller, conductor (Albany Symphony)

Best Classical Solo Vocal Album: ‘SMYTH: THE PRISON’ — Sarah Brailey & Dashon Burton; James Blachly, conductor (Experiential Chorus; Experiential Orchestra)

Best Classical Compendium: ‘THOMAS, M.T.: FROM THE DIARY OF ANNE FRANK & MEDITATIONS ON RILKE’— Isabel Leonard; Michael Tilson Thomas, conductor; Jack Vad, producer

Best Contemporary Classical Composition: ‘ROUSE: SYMPHONY NO. 5’ — Christopher Rouse, composer (Giancarlo Guerrero & Nashville Symphony)

MUSIC VIDEO/FILM

Best Music Video: ‘BROWN SKIN GIRL’ — Beyoncé, Blue Ivy & WizKid , Beyoncé Knowles-Carter & Jenn Nkiru, video directors; Astrid Edwards, Aya Kaida, Jean Mougin, Nathan Scherrer & Erinn Williams, video producers

Best Music Film: ‘LINDA RONSTADT: THE SOUND OF MY VOICE’ — Linda Ronstadt, Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman, video directors; Michele Farinola & James Keach, video producers

#grammys #grammys awards #Awards #2021

7 notes · View notes

paulbenedictblog · 4 years

Text

%news%

New Post has been published on %http://paulbenedictsgeneralstore.com%

News Appeals court upholds Trump ban on abortion referrals by family planning clinics - The Washington Post

News

A federal appeals court ruled on Monday in prefer of a polarizing Trump administration policy that bans federally funded family planning centers from referring girls folks for abortions.

The 7-to-4 willpower by the California-based mostly U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the ninth Circuit happy social conservatives who are central to President Trump’s political execrable. It infuriated civil libertarians, Planned Parenthood and other reproductive rights groups and more than 20 states that had filed complaints to take a scrutinize at to block the rule of thumb.

The 82-page thought brushed off the concerns of three decrease courts on the West Scurry that did no longer rule on the merits of the alternate within the family planning program, identified as Title X, nonetheless which were leery adequate of it that every issued an injunction perfect spring combating it from taking dwell.

Preferrred summer, the ninth Circuit lifted these injunctions in California, Oregon and Washington remark, allowing federal health officials to proceed with the policy.

Monday’s ruling is the fundamental substantive court willpower on a pass by the Department of Health and Human Providers that heightened a protracted-brewing antagonism between social conservatives on one aspect and Planned Parenthood Federation of The USA and other family planning groups on the opposite.

Below federal legislation, health-care groups were already barred from the usage of federal funds for abortion products and services. The rule issued by HHS a 300 and sixty five days ago went additional, forbidding health centers that provide abortions or refer sufferers for abortions in diversified areas from receiving any money thru the half of-century-traditional family planning program — a alternate critics lambasted as a “gag rule.” The guideline furthermore requires health centers to erect “sure physical and financial separation” between products and services funded by this device and other activities.

Health centers aloof are allowed to produce “nondirective being pregnant counseling, in conjunction with nondirective counseling on abortion” nonetheless dwell no longer must dwell so.

HHS officials remark an August closing date for clinics to document their plans to comply. Days before the closing date, Planned Parenthood withdrew from Title X, leaving more than 1 million low-earnings girls folks with out their traditional source of care.

Monday’s majority thought notorious that since Title X started in 1970, its ideas referring to abortion referrals salvage seesawed attend and forth, reckoning on the political occasion of the administration in energy.

The thought, written by Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, appointed to the court by frail president George W. Bush, talked about the Trump administration’s rule is slightly less restrictive than a 1988 version upheld by the Supreme Court docket. The willpower furthermore says the rule of thumb’s separation requirement will not be any longer arbitrary or capricious, rejecting opponents’ argument that HHS did no longer possess about attainable difficulty to clinics and sufferers.

In a 28-page dissent, Circuit Judge Richard Paez, an appointee of frail president Bill Clinton, wrote: “In vacating the district courts’ preliminary injunctions, the majority sanctions the agency’s snide overreach and puts its maintain policy preferences before the legislation. Women folks and their households will suffer for it.”

Paez was joined by three fellow judges.

A Justice Department spokeswoman, Mollie Timmons, talked about in a bid: “We're happy by the … willpower upholding HHS’s rule forbidding the usage of taxpayer money to subsidize abortion thru Title X grants. Congress has long prohibited the usage of Title X funds in programs where abortion is one plot of family planning and HHS’s fresh rule makes that longstanding prohibition a actuality. We preserve up for continuing to protect this crucial rule against all challenges.”

HHS spokeswoman Katie McKeogh, disputed critics’ assertion that the policy is a gag rule. “HHS targets to salvage sure the integrity of this device so as that more girls folks and males are supplied products and services that abet them possess about and enact both their brief and long-term family planning needs,” she talked about in a bid.

Critics blasted the ruling. Ruth Harlow, senior crew attorney on the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, talked about in an interview that the willpower “is terribly devastating to the Title X program and sufferers.” The ACLU was fragment of the lawsuit in Washington remark.

Harlow talked just a few willpower had no longer been made about whether to allure the ninth Circuit ruling, nonetheless she added, “Right here's something we desire to war to the pause.” An allure would possibly perchance per chance demand that the full ninth Circuit overview the ruling of the 11-possess panel or that the Supreme Court docket take the case.

Alexis McGill Johnson, Planned Parenthood’s performing president, reiterated the team’s competitors that it had been “compelled out” of Title X since it wouldn't follow the administration’s ideas. She talked about in a bid that the organization’s sufferers had accounted for 40 p.c of every person served thru Title X grants.

She talked about 15 states salvage lost Planned Parenthood clinics or other health centers to which the team gave grants thru its Title X allotment, and a half of-dozen states no longer salvage any products and services funded thru the federal program. They embrace Washington remark and Oregon — where suits were lodged — moreover as Hawaii, Maine, Utah and Vermont.

0 notes

plusorminuscongress · 4 years

Text

New story in Politics from Time: Federal Appeals Court Temporarily Halts Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ Policy for Asylum Seekers

(SAN DIEGO) — A federal appeals court on Friday temporarily halted a Trump administration policy to make asylum seekers wait in Mexico while their cases wind through U.S. immigration courts.

The same court decided to keep another major change on hold, one that denies asylum to anyone who enters the U.S. illegally from Mexico.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on the two policies that are central to President Donald Trump’s asylum crackdown, dealing the administration a major setback, even if it proves temporary.

The question before the judges was whether to let the policies take effect during legal challenges.

The Trump administration has made asylum an increasingly remote possibility at a time when claims have soared. By 2017, the United States had become the world’s top destination for people seeking asylum.

The “Remain in Mexico” measure took effect in January 2019 and nearly 60,000 people have been sent back to wait for hearings. The court declared the policy invalid, but acknowledged the ruling only applied to California and Arizona, the only border states in their jurisdiction.

The other measure with far-reaching consequences denies asylum to anyone who passes through another country on the way to the U.S. border with Mexico without seeking protection there first. That policy took effect in September and is being challenged in a separate lawsuit.

Justice Department lawyers asserted that Trump was within his rights to impose the policies without Congress’ approval and that they would help deter asylum claims that lack merit.

Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the administration violated U.S. law and obligations to international treaties by turning back people who will likely be persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality or political beliefs.

Judges William Fletcher and Richard Paez, who were both appointed by President Bill Clinton, sharply questioned government attorneys on “Remain in Mexico” during arguments Oct. 1. They voted to block it.

Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, dissented.

Supporters of the “Remain in Mexico” policy note it has prevented asylum seekers from being released in the United States with notices to appear in court, which they consider a major incentive for people to come.

Its expansion coincided with a sharp drop in Border Patrol arrests from a 13-year high in May, suggesting it may have had its intended effect. The Homeland Security Department called it “an indispensable tool” in an Oct. 28 report.

Opponents say it has exposed asylum seekers to extreme danger in violent Mexican border cities while they wait for U.S. court hearings. Human Rights First, an advocacy group that has criticized the policy, said in January that there were more than 800 public reports of rape, kidnapping, torture, and other violent crimes against asylum seekers who have been sent back to Mexico.

The policy was introduced at the border crossing in San Diego in January and initially focused on asylum seekers from Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

It expanded to crossings in Calexico, California, and the Texas cities of El Paso, Eagle Pass, Laredo, Brownsville, and included more people from Spanish-speaking countries.

The administration on Nov. 22 began busing asylum seekers who crossed the border in Arizona from Tucson to El Paso, Texas, to be returned from Mexico from there, extending the policy across every major corridor for illegal border crossings.

In Laredo and Brownsville, asylum seekers appear for hearings in tents on U.S. Customs and Border Protection property, connected by video to judges in other locations.

Mexicans are exempt, as are unaccompanied children.

The asylum ban on anyone who crosses the border illegally from Mexico also drew pointed questions from the judges during arguments. They asked whether the policy violated U.S. law that says it doesn’t matter how people enter the country.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to lift a ruling blocking the ban following an extraordinary spat last year between Trump and Chief Justice John Roberts.

The president denounced the judge who ruled against the ban as an “Obama judge.” Roberts said there was no such thing in a strongly worded statement defending judicial independence. Trump stood behind his comments.

By Elliot Spagat / AP on February 28, 2020 at 01:40PM

#Time #politics #PlusOrMinusCongress #±Congress #Indega±#IndegaPlusOrMinus #TimeMag #TimeMagazine

0 notes

nothingman · 7 years

Link

(Credit: (AP Photo/Craig Ruttle))

The latest battle in the legal war over President Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban was broadcast live on cable news stations on Monday. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals expressed skepticism about some arguments against the ban, but also pressed the lawyer defending Trump’s suspended policy about whether it discriminates against Muslims.

The Ninth Circuit originally blocked Trump’s first travel ban on due process grounds, while the revised version of the ban is currently before a different panel. On Monday the court reviewed the president’s appeal of a March decision that put a nationwide hold on his executive order barring entry or visas into the U.S. for nationals of Iran, Syria, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen for 90 days and blocking all refugees for 120 days. (The revised order removed Iraq from the list of banned nations, makes no mention of religion, exempts green-card holders and allows for exceptions in certain cases.)

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii blocked the revised ban in March, citing Trump’s campaign statements calling for a complete and total shutdown of all travel into the U.S. by Muslims. Watson found that the travel ban likely violated the constitution’s Establishment Clause by discriminating against Muslims.

“We shouldn’t start down the road of psychoanalyzing what people meant on the campaign trail,” Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall argued in a Seattle court on Monday. Wall told the judges that they need only determine whether there was a “rational basis” for the president’s travel ban, a lower bar of scrutiny than for an executive order impacting constitutionally protected rights such as freedom of religion.

“This order is aimed at aliens abroad, who themselves don’t have constitutional rights,” Wall argued. He said the judges should focus on official, unequivocal statements from the White House, not the campaign trail, when evaluating its intent.

But Judge Richard Paez noted that the order that interned Japanese-Americans during World War II was neutrally worded. “There was no reference to Japanese in that executive order,” he said, “and look what happened.”

The Trump administration’s lawyer then shockingly admitted he had never read the order that resulted in the landmark Korematsu case. But if Trump’s executive order was anything like Korematsu, Wall said: “I wouldn’t be standing here, and the U.S. would not be defending it.”

During more than an hour of arguments, supporters of immigrants and refugees rallied outside the Seattle courthouse, chanting and carrying “No Ban, No Wall” signs, the Associated Press reported.

Neal Katyal, former acting solicitor general under President Obama, represented the challengers — the state of Hawaii and a local imam. After a court blocked the revised order, Katyal said, Trump declared the new measure a “watered-down” version of the first.

The three judges — all appointed by former President Bill Clinton — peppered Wall and Katyal with pointed questions.

Judge Michael Daly Hawkins asked if Trump had ever said he was wrong about calling for a Muslim ban on the campaign trail.

“Has he ever said anything approaching that?” Hawkins asked skeptically.

Wall argued that the president had said “several things approaching” a repudiation of his campaign trail comments.

But “he could not actually point to any disavowal,” Katyal later pointed out, “because the truth is there is no such statement.”

Katyal went on to argue that even the revised order would hurt the fight against terrorism. By focusing on nationality, Trump’s Muslim ban would bar a Syrian national who had lived in Switzerland for decades but not a Swiss national who had immigrated to Syria during the civil war, the challengers argued.

Hawaii also cited a draft report from the Department of Homeland Security that said citizenship was an “unlikely indicator” of future terrorism and that few individuals from the targeted countries have been involved in terrorism in the U.S.

Fourteen states, including Alabama, Arizona, Montana and Mississippi, have urged the Ninth Circuit to permit enforcement of Trump’s directive.

Last week, judges on the Virginia-based Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments over whether to affirm a Maryland judge’s similar ruling to put the ban on ice.

The dispute over the travel ban is expected to eventually come before the U.S. Supreme Court, unless the Trump administration wins in both the Fourth and Ninth circuits.

Sean Spicer on the revised travel ban: “The executive order is fully lawful and will be upheld” https://t.co/ZNI387uhWK

— CNN Politics (@CNNPolitics) May 15, 2017

via Salon: in-depth news, politics, business, technology & culture Salon

#IFTTT #Feedly #Nothingman uses feedly

4 notes · View notes

ericfruits · 7 years

Text

Donald Trump’s travel ban has another day in court

IN APRIL, after two of his executive orders were blocked in court, Donald Trump described the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as “outrageous”. The court has a “terrible record of being overturned” by the Supreme Court, he said, and should be broken up into smaller jurisdictions. On May 15th, a three-judge panel of the president’s least-favourite federal court heard Mr Trump’s plea to reinstate his revised ban on travel from six Muslim-majority countries. None of the judges, all Bill Clinton appointees, appeared to harbour a grudge against the president for insulting their institution. Judges Michael Hawkins, Ronald Gould and Richard Paez were thorough and even-handed in questioning two exceptional lawyers: Neal Katyal, arguing against the ban, and Jeffrey Wall, the acting solicitor-general, who urged the court to undo a Hawaii judge’s order blocking the executive order.

After an uneven and messy hearing on May 8th at the Fourth Circuit in Richmond—a two-hour-plus inquiry into the travel ban led by a baker’s dozen of judges—the hour-long affair in Seattle seemed disciplined by comparison. But the outcome of Hawaii v Trump also seems harder to predict than its east-coast analogue, International Refugee Assistance Project v Trump. Whereas only a few of the 13 Fourth Circuit judges seemed inclined to come to the rescue of Mr Trump’s second travel ban, none of the three judges at the Ninth Circuit tipped his hand one way or the other.

Mr Wall opened with his central point: “Both the constitution and acts of Congress give the president of the United States broad authority to prevent aliens abroad from entering this country when he deems it in the nation’s interest.” The main hook for that authority, Mr Wall said, is Kleindienst v. Mandel, a 1972 Supreme Court ruling permitting presidents to stop foreigners from entering the country as long as they have a bona fide reason to do so. According to Mandel, when the reason for stopping someone at the border appears to be legitimate, courts may “neither look behind the exercise of that discretion”—by investigating the motive fuelling it—nor balance it against constitutional values.

But there is a countervailing principle in Kerry v Din, a 2015 case permitting courts to explore an official’s motive when he or she seems to be acting in “bad faith”, a point Judge Hawkins quickly aired. Mr Wall made a case that only “unequivocal” statements by “the president and members of the cabinet” made in their “official capacity”—rather than on the campaign trail—qualify as evidence that Mr Trump was acting in bad faith and in violation of the First Amendment's bar on establishing religion. That kind of “remarkable showing” isn’t possible, he said, with the thin evidence available to the ban’s challengers.

In Mr Katyal’s eyes, the evidence is far from thin. During his time before the panel, Mr Katyal cited a litany of presidential statements purporting to show that hostility toward Muslims was the true impulse behind the executive order. In December 2015, Mr Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown” on Muslims entering the country; shortly thereafter, he said “Islam hates us” . But “we wouldn’t be standing here”, Mr Katyal said, if these comments were the only indication of what spurred the president to sign the travel ban. Mr Trump “rekindled” his campaign rhetoric, the lawyer noted, when he said “we all know what that means” directly after issuing his first attempt at a travel ban in January. And when his second try was halted in March, Mr Trump said, at a campaign-style event, “moments ago, I learned that a district judge in Hawaii...just blocked our executive order. This is a watered down version of the first one. I think we ought to go back to the first one and go all the way, which is what I wanted”.

Mr Wall pleaded with the court to interpret Mr Trump’s words as charitably as possible, not to try to “psychoanalyse” him and to defer to his power to control immigration. But the lawyer had little to say when Judge Hawkins, echoing a query in last week’s hearing at the Fourth Circuit, asked whether the president has “ever disavowed” his Islamophobic campaign rhetoric. Well, Mr Wall said, he did say some things “approaching that”—which was a fancy way of saying no, he hasn’t. Mr Katyal jumped on this hedge: in contrast to the government, which could not point to a single time Mr Trump backtracked on his feelings about Muslims, “we give you chapter and verse” on instances in which he denigrated them—and then recited a few more. You “don’t have to be Sigmund Freud”, he said, to see Mr Trump’s true colours.

Both lawyers closed by describing the stakes of the case and telling the judges that their decision would be historic. Mr Katyal warned that upholding the travel ban would mean “defer[ring] to the president in a way that history teaches us is very dangerous. You open the door to so much.” Quoting James Madison, he said, “our founders wanted America to be a beacon on our coast”; Mr Trump’s order, by contrast, is “unconstitutional and un-American”. For his part, Mr Wall noted that America’s beacon is “the rule of law”. The contest over Mr Trump’s policy judgments should be fought in the political arena, he said, not the courts. But no matter which way this case and the appeal pending before the Fourth Circuit pan out, Mr Trump’s travel ban seems bound for a trip to one more array of judges: the nine justices of the Supreme Court.

http://ift.tt/2pREvTW

#IFTTT #Feedly

0 notes

marymosley · 4 years

Text

Supreme Court Rules 7-2 In Favor Of The Trump Administration On Immigration

The Supreme Court delivered a big win for the Trump Administration on immigration today with a 7-2 ruling that it may deport asylum seekers without allowing them to present their cases to a federal judge. It is a major component of the Administration’s effort to expedite deportations and discourage the use of asylum claims as a way of extending stays in the United States. The case is Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam.

The case is a stringing reversal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which ruled that, as applied here, §1252(e)(2) violates the Suspension Clause and the Due Process Clause. That was the unanimous decision of Judges A. Wallace Tashima, M. Margaret McKeown, and Richard A. Paez.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion allowing expedited deportation once individuals fail their initial asylum screenings under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). The law bars judicial review of the credible fear determination and the Court held that it does not violate the Constitution’s Suspension Clause.

The case involves a Sri Lankan national who crossed the southern U.S. border without documentation in January 2017. He was apprehended within 25 yards of the border and asked for asylum on the grounds that he was once been abducted and beaten by a group of men. He did not however know their identity or why they attacked him. He did not fear persecution over political fears.

The case is important because many Democrats have argued that asylum could be based on the flight from high crime or poor economic conditions. The Court however notes that most asylum seekers are not subject to expedited removal: “Over the last five years, nearly 77% of screenings have resulted in a finding of credible fear.6 And nearly half the remainder (11% of the total number of screenings) were closed for administrative reasons, including the alien’s withdrawal of the claim.”

The opinion however has language that could lay the foundation for later rulings in favor of the government in this area. The Court clearly ruled against arguments of due process rights beyond the screening process:

While aliens who have established connections in this country have due process rights in deportation proceedings, the Court long ago held that Congress is entitled to set the conditions for an alien’s lawful entry into this country and that, as a result, an alien at the threshold of initial entry cannot claim any greater rights under the Due Process Clause. See Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U. S. 651, 660 (1892). Respondent attempted to enter the country illegally and was apprehended just 25 yards from the border. He therefore has no entitlement to procedural rights other than those afforded by statute. In short, under our precedents, neither the Suspension Clause nor the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires any further review of respondent’s claims, and IIRIRA’s limitations on habeas review are constitutional as applied.

Only Justice Sotomayor and Kagan dissented.

Here is the opinion: Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam

Supreme Court Rules 7-2 In Favor Of The Trump Administration On Immigration published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

0 notes

teeky185 · 4 years

Link

(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration is blocked from making thousands of Central American migrants wait out the result of their asylum applications to the U.S. in Mexico.The San Francisco-based appeals court on Friday upheld a judge’s order barring the Homeland Security Department’s policy, which prevents migrants from countries like Guatemala and Honduras from living in the U.S. during the yearslong review process.The administration was allowed in May by a three-judge panel to implement the Migrant Protections Protocols policy -- one of its major initiatives to stem immigration across the U.S. southern border -- but Friday’s ruling halts it while the legal fight continues. The administration is expected to appeal again, possibly asking the Supreme Court to intervene.Read More: Trump Barred From Forcing Asylum Seekers to Wait in Mexico”Uncontested evidence” shows that non-Mexicans returned to Mexico under Trump’s policy “risk substantial harm, even death, while they await adjudication of their applications for asylum,” U.S. Circuit Judge William Fletcher wrote for the majority in the 2-1 ruling.As of January, more than 57,000 asylum seekers and migrants had been returned to Mexico to wait for their court dates, according to Human Rights First, a New York-based international nonprofit. The organization said Friday it has collected more than 1,000 public reports of kidnappings, torture, rape and assaults against asylum seekers, including at least 228 kidnapping incidents involving children.The Justice Department said the administration has “acted faithfully to implement a statutory authority provided by Congress over two decades ago and signed into law by President Clinton.”The court’s decision “not only ignores the constitutional authority of Congress and the administration for a policy in effect for over a year, but also extends relief beyond the parties before the court,” a department spokesman said in an emailed statement.An attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union called on the administration to stop “putting asylum seekers in harm’s way.”“The court forcefully rejected the Trump administration’s assertion that it could strand asylum seekers in Mexico and subject them to grave danger,” Judy Rabinovitz said in a statement.Fletcher, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, was joined in his opinion by Richard Paez, another Clinton appointee.In a dissent, Circuit Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, an appointee of George H.W. Bush, said the lower-court order should have been struck down because the migrants challenging the policy weren’t likely to prevail on their claims.In a separate ruling Friday, the same three-judge panel upheld a San Francisco judge’s 2018 order blocking the Trump administration’s policy of automatically denying asylum applications of migrants who cross the U.S. border outside official ports of entry.The case is Innovation Law Lab v. McAleenan, 19-15716, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco).(Updates with Justice Department comment in sixth paragraph.)\--With assistance from Malathi Nayak and Jordan Fabian.To contact the reporter on this story: Edvard Pettersson in Los Angeles at [email protected] contact the editors responsible for this story: Peter Blumberg at [email protected], Joe SchneiderFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

from Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines https://ift.tt/2I1MY1x

#latest news #Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines

0 notes

paulbenedictblog · 4 years

Text

%news%

New Post has been published on %http://paulbenedictsgeneralstore.com%

News President Trump’s ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy blocked in federal court - The Washington Post

News

A federal appeals court in California halted the Trump administration’s “Stay in Mexico” asylum coverage on Friday, casting off indubitably one of many principle tools the president has historical to curb mass migration across the southern U.S. border.

The ruling was in fetch for finest about a hours, on the opposite hand, as the judges later granted a Trump administration inquire for an emergency finish “pending additional explain of this court.” Justice Division attorneys said in court filings that 25,000 migrants possess been waiting in Mexico and argued that they feared the ruling would lead to an inflow on the southern border.

This method — officially identified as the Migrant Safety Protocols, or MPP — has required tens of thousands of migrants to crude support into Mexico to anticipate their U.S. asylum hearings, section of an effort to limit rep admission to to U.S. soil and to discourage other folk from attempting the wander north to the US. After bigger than 470,000 other folk and teenagers crossed into the US last fiscal year, with most hasty freed into the US amid a huge immigration court backlog, the administration implemented MPP to stop that follow.

The MPP program stranded migrants in Mexican border cities with out the promise of entry into the US, and it evolved into indubitably one of many administration’s most closely historical insurance policies. It played a central feature in stemming the document sail with the trudge of border crossings, and Trump administration officials warned Friday that blocking off this method risked one other inflow, citing concerns that smugglers and Central American migrants would proceed to advantage from appropriate loopholes to fetch entry.

In its initial ruling Friday, the panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ninth Circuit ruled 2 to 1 to reinstate a district court come to a choice’s preliminary injunction that stopped MPP, announcing that the coverage violates federal law and “needs to be enjoined in its entirety.” The 2 judges within the majority agreed with immigration advocates who argued that pushing Central People support into Mexico may well well put asylum seekers in grave hazard, as they had been compelled to support in Mexican cities where they would maybe well proceed to face persecution, in contravention of the long-held American ideal of providing sanctuary to the oppressed.

Chad Wolf, the acting secretary of the Division of Place of beginning Safety, known as the injunction “grave and reckless” and said the DHS is working with the Justice Division to enchantment the ruling. He said border officials would put together “a big selection of other effective tools” to stop migrants from crossing the border and being released into the US. Officials said in court filings that they deliberate to file a petition within the case with the Supreme Court.

“MPP has been a sport-changer within the U.S. govt’s efforts to tackle the continuing crisis on the southwest border,” he said in a assertion unhurried Friday. “By implementing MPP now we possess moreover effectively diminished the inducement for smugglers and traffickers to make employ of childhood in their illicit crude-border exercise. Must composed this ruling stand, the protection and security of our border communities, global relationships and regional balance is at threat.”

Judges Richard A. Paez and William A. Fletcher, both appointed by President Invoice Clinton, agreed with a lower-court come to a choice in California that MPP potentially violated federal immigration law by ousting undocumented asylum seekers who needs to be allowed to put together for protection within the US. The judges moreover said this method potentially violated the administration’s “non-refoulement” responsibilities under global and domestic law, which prohibit the govt.from sending other folk to countries where they face hazard. The 57-page ruling cited asylum seekers who feared kidnapping, threats and violence in Mexico.

“There may be a main probability that the actual particular person plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the MPP is now not enjoined,” Fletcher wrote within the thought. “Uncontested evidence within the document establishes that non-Mexicans returned to Mexico under the MPP threat extensive harm, even death, whereas they anticipate adjudication of their functions for asylum.”

Think Ferdinand F. Fernandez, a President George H.W. Bush appointee, dissented, arguing that the panel will deserve to possess adhered to a prior appeals court choice that allowed MPP to use fetch.

The Trump administration had been declaring conclude to-victory in stemming irregular migration factual weeks ago, in section because of MPP’s success, and the ninth Circuit’s choice stops the coverage along the southern border.

The Justice Division issued a assertion Friday announcing that the selection “once extra highlights the implications and impropriety of nationwide injunctions.”

“The Trump administration has acted faithfully to put into effect a statutory authority equipped by Congress over two many years ago and signed into law by President Clinton,” the assertion said. “The Ninth Circuit’s choice now not finest ignores the constitutional authority of Congress and the administration for a coverage in fetch for over a year, but moreover extends relief beyond the occasions sooner than the Court.”

The Division of Place of beginning Safety urged asylum officers to “correct now finish all MPP processing,” in step with a federal respectable with enlighten knowledge of an e mail message despatched to the officers. The asylum officers’ labor union had filed a transient within the MPP case arguing that the coverage threatened migrants’ lives and is “basically opposite to the lawful cloth of our Nation.”

Judy Rabinovitz, special counsel within the American Civil Liberties Union’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the case in court, hailed the initial choice and known as the court’s finish later Friday “a transient-term step” that “doesn't change the indisputable truth that courts possess ruled extra than one cases in opposition to this unlawful coverage.”

“We're going to have the chance to proceed working to completely finish this unspeakably merciless coverage,” she said in a assertion.

Brand Morgan, the acting commissioner of Customs and Border Safety, said in a tweet after the court stayed its ruling Friday night that the agency correct now reinstated the MPP.

Along the Mexican side of the merely about 2,000-mile border, where tens of thousands of migrants are hunkered down in shelters, apartments and tent camps, migrants scrolled by social media as attorneys waited for the Trump administration to assert whether or now not it may perchance maybe maybe allow them support into the US.

“I’ve been studying about the suspension on-line and attempting to attain, but what does it mean for my case?” said Daniel, an HIV-mosey 20-year-dilapidated political activist from Venezuela who says he fled threats under the govt.of Nicolás Maduro. He has lived in a exiguous house in Piedras Negras since October whereas looking ahead to a hearing in his asylum case. “What occurs to other folk already under MPP?”

Immigration attorneys said they anxiousness that the Justice Division will hasty enchantment to the U.S. Supreme Court, because it did to take a identical injunction in January and to put into effect a “public charge” rule that bars low-income foreigners from immigrating to the US.

In Ciudad Juárez, Ana Rojas, along with her son Ricardo Rojas, appears to be like to be like on the border wall and El Paso on the opposite side in June. Mom and son had been among migrants despatched support to Mexico to anticipate U.S. asylum hearings. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

Attorneys train they're monitoring border checkpoints to fetch mosey that that the U.S. govt doesn't return migrants to Mexico, and some willing to escort migrants to the border with the hope that the Division of Place of beginning Safety will let their possibilities in.

Karla Vargas, a authorized professional with the Texas Civil Rights Project, said that for now the group is advising migrants to “finish aloof whereas we decide out the finest formulation to proceed.”

Vargas said the ruling clearly establishes that MPP is illegitimate and that those despatched to Mexico under this method possess a factual to enter the US to pursue their asylum complaints. However she said it is unclear when the ruling will use fetch and what window migrants will must exercise the rights she says they've.

The Trump administration has been working to minimize its reliance on MPP in most novel months by speedily-tracking deportation hearings and sending about 700 migrants from Central The United States by airplane to Guatemala as section of an agreement that permits them to survey asylum there as a alternative. The alternative of other folk waiting in Mexican border cities for U.S. immigration court dates has dwindled, in section on legend of would-be migrants in Central The United States said they weren't making the hump to the U.S. border within the principle online page online, given how unlikely it may perchance maybe well be that they'd fetch entry.

It's unclear whether or now not the court’s choice may well well spur one other surge in U.S.-certain migration by Central People. It's probably that many individuals waiting in Mexico for U.S. court hearings may well well strive to reenter the US in coming days.

“I wouldn’t train that rep admission to to the asylum system within the US is assured which means injunction, on legend of they’ve already put all these other functions in online page online to limit that,” said Erika Pinheiro, the litigation and coverage director at Al Otro Lado, a nonprofit group and indubitably one of many plaintiffs within the MPP lawsuit. “All that said, MPP is a fright conceal of human rights violations. The much less other folk field to it the upper.”

The ruling came on the identical day Mexico launched its first coronavirus case — a traveler getting back from Italy — raising doable fears about what a high-tail on the U.S. border may well well mean. Sanitary stipulations are abysmal within the squalid border camps where thousands of would-be asylum seekers are waiting. Human Rights First, an advocacy group, said it has documented bigger than 1,000 reports of waste, rape and kidnapping, along with of childhood, among those compelled into Mexico under MPP.

One broken-down DHS respectable said the court choice may well well urged the White Residence to invoke emergency govt powers to impose even tighter restrictions on asylum seekers on the border by citing a public well being emergency nice looking the coronavirus. One appropriate provision, identified as “Return to Territory,” affords U.S. border officials mountainous powers to compel a foreign nationwide to return to Mexico or Canada if that particular person is deemed inadmissible to the US.

The halting of the “Stay in Mexico” program may well well spur a resurgence of migration in direction of the U.S. border by Mexican border cities corresponding to Calexico, shown right here. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

The identical three-come to a choice panel issued a separate 3-to-0 ruling Friday blocking off Trump’s first asylum restriction, which aimed to bar migrants who crossed the border illegally from looking out out for asylum. The coverage was hasty halted in 2018. Trump blasted the lower-court jurist within the case as an “Obama come to a choice,” prompting a public rebuke from U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who voted with the Supreme Court’s four liberal justices months later to let the injunction stand.

Roberts and other conservative justices possess since allowed other Trump insurance policies to unfold no matter pending court cases in opposition to them.

After MPP officially started in January 2019, it became a central side of the Trump administration’s bulwark in opposition to irregular migration. A federal come to a choice in California at the beginning halted this method, but in Would possibly maybe perchance also, a three-come to a choice panel on the ninth Circuit allowed it to resume till one other space of judges may well well hear arguments on its legality.

The MPP program was expanded in June when Mexico agreed to host thousands of migrants and to crack down on smugglers after Trump threatened to impose tariffs on Mexico’s exports to the US.

Roughly 60,000 migrants from countries along with Cuba, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador and Venezuela possess been despatched support to Mexico to support till their asylum cases may well be heard within the US. Mexican officials said many of those despatched support within the waste gave up and went house.

Place of beginning Safety officials possess credited MPP and other insurance policies with a a lot bigger than 70 p.c fall within the choice of migrants taken into custody on the border since the peak of 144,000 in Would possibly maybe perchance also.

Advocates reported after the ruling that migrants had been starting to line up at border checkpoints to envision out to reenter the US.

0 notes

sambsaf · 4 years

Text

Reaction to a Media Share

An article shared by @mds-wgs

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/22/health/title-x-final-rule/index.html

In relation to my timeline project topic, reproductive justice, the CNN article “Federal appeals court allows abortion-referral restriction to go into effect” by Caroline Kelly explains what happens next in the defunding of Planned Parenthood by the Trump administration. This is a catastrophic event for many low-income women and their families. Lower courts have always blocked the proposal due to its unethical conditions. Circuit Judge Richard Paez wrote “In vacating the district courts’ preliminary injunctions, the majority sanctions the agency’s gross overreach and puts its own policy preferences before the law. Women and their families will suffer for it. I strongly dissent”. Many of those in support of this act are pro-life and believe all of what Planned Parenthood does is “kill babies”. The defunding of planned parenthood affects STI testing, access to contraceptives and birth control, and other reproductive health care services. That is essentially why they are named Planned Parenthood, to be there to help plan parenthood. Spokespeople of the Department of Health and Human Services refused to comment fully on this decision and simply said “we are pleased”. The Department of Health and Human Services is taking away the right to choose on one’s own terms. The justice departments plans to sue anyone who tries to evade Title X. This ruling is essentially a war on women, and women will not be silenced by those who are just fearful of the power women truly have.

My Response:

Thank you Mia for sharing this really interesting article about a very important topic, especially in today’s society. Women’s reproductive rights are extremely crucial to the lives of billions and their access to medical attention and assistance is not a privilege but a fundamental human right. Something you had expressed that I agree with is that the defunding of Planned Parenthood does have a very critical effect on low-income women and their families. Women without access to Planned Parenthood, an organization that does more than just conduct abortion for unplanned pregnancies, can suffer greatly since they would not have the financial ability to visit these centers and receive operations and necessary medical attention. Another point you bring up that was mentioned in the article that had caught my attention was that the defunding of Planned Parenthood affects STI testing; this is extremely important to not because STIs can be extremely harmful and life threatening to not only women, but their families and significant others as well, and without proper testing, women can face consequences that they do not deserve or are responsible for.

0 notes

totalconservative · 4 years

Text

New Post has been published on Total Conservative News

New Post has been published on http://totalconservative.com/ninth-circuit-allows-trump-to-withhold-money-from-abortion-facilities/

Ninth Circuit Allows Trump to Withhold Money From Abortion Facilities

President Donald Trump, in conjunction with Mitch McConnell, has managed to finally flip the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals into conservative hands, and this mission is already paying dividends.

On Monday, the Ninth Circuit upheld new administration rules that prevent medical facilities from obtaining Title X funding if they perform abortions. While the new rules were blocked by the lower courts, the Ninth Circuit reversed those decisions this week, giving the Trump administration the green light to move forward.

“In light of Supreme Court approval of the 1988 regulations and our broad deference to agencies’ interpretations of the statutes they are charged with implementing, plaintiffs’ legal challenges to the 2019 rule fail,” Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote for the court. “Accordingly, we vacate the injunctions entered by the district courts and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

In a statement, the Justice Department praised the court’s ruling.

“We are pleased by the en banc Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding HHS’s rule forbidding the use of taxpayer money to subsidize abortion through Title X grants,” said DOJ spokesperson Mollie Timmons. “Congress has long prohibited the use of Title X funds in programs where abortion is a method of family planning and HHS’s recent rule makes that longstanding prohibition a reality. We look forward to continuing to defend this vital rule against all challenges.”

Last August, when the rule was introduced, Planned Parenthood decided to withdraw from Title X consideration instead of abandoning their lucrative abortion business. In a conference call with reporters at the time, Planned Parenthood acting president Alexis McGill Johnson said the Trump administration’s rule was “unnecessary and dangerous.”

“We believe that the Trump administration is doing this as an attack on reproductive health care and to keep providers like Planned Parenthood from serving our patients,” Johnson said. “For nearly half a century, Title X has ensured that those struggling to make ends meet or who don’t have health insurance can access services like birth control, cancer screenings, and STD testing and treatment in their communities.”

In response, pro-life advocates said that Planned Parenthood had proven where its priorities were.

“Planned Parenthood, our nation’s largest abortion provider, today made a choice not to separate its abortion operation from Title X services, and in doing declined Title X funding, which makes up approximately four percent of their annual budget,” Jeanne Mancini, President of the March for Life, said in a statement. “Abortion is neither healthcare nor family planning and taxpayer dollars should not support abortion. Leana Wen’s recent firing and Planned Parenthood’s decision today doubles down on their ultimate goal, which is political abortion advocacy, not healthcare.”

Exactly.

Oh, on a side note about Trump’s excellent work turning the Ninth Circuit into something we can be proud of: In his dissent to this ruling, Judge Richard Paez felt it was necessary to not only cast doubt on the validity of the majority opinion but also to point out that “people of all genders can become pregnant.” You know, just in case you needed Reason #4,545 why we need to retain the Senate and the White House this November.

0 notes

fullspectrum-cbd-oil · 4 years

Text

Trump ‘Gag Rule’ on Abortion Referral Can Be Enforced, U.S. Appeals Court Rules

A sharply divided federal appeals court on Monday said the Trump administration may enforce a rule labeled by critics as a “gag rule” that could deprive abortion providers of federal funding for family planning.

In a 7-4 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling last June by a unanimous three-judge panel to lift injunctions won by California, Oregon and Washington against the rule, which deprives clinics that provide abortion referrals of Title X family planning funds.

The rule was meant to help President Donald Trump fulfill a 2016 campaign pledge to end federal support for Planned Parenthood, which received about $60 million annually, or one-fifth, of Title X funds.

Planned Parenthood left the program last August rather than comply with the rule, which is enforced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In a statement, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the “troubling” decision helps Trump “roll back women’s access to reproductive healthcare.”

Planned Parenthood’s acting president Alexis McGill Johnson called on Congress to overturn the rule, which she said created “egregious barriers” to healthcare for low-income people.

A U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman said the decision properly upholds HHS’ prohibition on using taxpayer money to “subsidize abortion” through Title X.

Writing for Monday’s majority, Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said HHS was owed “broad deference” and acted reasonably, not arbitrarily or capriciously, in adopting a “less restrictive” rule than the one blessed by the Supreme Court in 1988.

“There is no ‘gag’ on abortion counseling,” Ikuta wrote, saying the rule allows healthcare providers to discuss, though not to encourage, abortion.

The appeals court returned the cases to federal district courts for further proceedings. A federal judge in Baltimore on Feb. 14 blocked the rule’s enforcement in Maryland.

Circuit Judge Richard Paez dissented, saying the rule would deprive people of cancer screening, HIV testing and other needed healthcare, and undermine Congress’ intent that patients be able to communicate openly with healthcare providers.

“The consequences will be borne by the millions of women who turn to Title X-funded clinics for lifesaving care and the very contraceptive services that have caused rates of unintended pregnancy – and abortion – to plummet,” he wrote. “I strongly dissent.”

All seven judges in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents, including two by Trump. The dissenters were appointed by Democratic presidents.

The cases in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals include California v Azar et al, No. 19-15974; Oregon et al v Azar et al, No. 19-35386; and Washington et al v Azar et al, No. 19-35394.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York and Nate Raymond in Boston; Editing by Steve Orlofsky and Sonya Hepinstall)

from IJR https://ift.tt/2VkSxzV via IFTTT

#IFTTT #IJR

0 notes

vsplusonline · 4 years

Text

U.S. appeals court upholds Trump administration’s abortion rules

New Post has been published on https://apzweb.com/u-s-appeals-court-upholds-trump-administrations-abortion-rules/

U.S. appeals court upholds Trump administration’s abortion rules

SEATTLE — A U.S. appeals court on Monday upheld Trump administration changes that include additional hurdles for those seeking abortions through a federal program that helps low-income women.

The 7-4 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned decisions issued by judges in Washington, Oregon and California. The court had already allowed the administration’s changes to begin taking effect while the government appealed those rulings.

READ MORE: U.S. moves forward on plan to ban women from receiving abortion referrals

The rules ban taxpayer-funded clinics in the Title X program from making abortion referrals and prohibit clinics that receive federal money from sharing office space with abortion providers — a rule critics said would force many to find new locations, undergo expensive remodels or shut down.

More than 20 states and several civil rights and health organizations challenged the rules in cases filed in Oregon, Washington and California. Judges in all three states blocked the rules from taking effect, with Oregon and Washington courts issuing nationwide injunctions. One called the new policy “madness” and said it was motivated by “an arrogant assumption that the government is better suited to direct women’s health care than their providers.”

Story continues below advertisement

Planned Parenthood has already left the Title X program over the new rules, giving up about $60 million a year in federal funding.

2:05 Trump speaks about defending pro-life supporters at ‘March for Life’ rally as first president to attend

Trump speaks about defending pro-life supporters at ‘March for Life’ rally as first president to attend

The 9th Circuit’s majority opinion, by Judge Sandra Ikuta, found that the U.S. Supreme Court had already approved nearly identical regulations in a 1991 decision.

The dissent, by Judge Richard Paez, found that since the high court’s decision, Congress had barred the Department of Health and Human Services from imposing rules “that frustrate patients’ ability to access health care.”

The American Medical Association criticized the ruling.

READ MORE: Trump administration’s abortion rules can take effect, appeals court says

“This government overreach and interference demands that physicians violate their ethical obligations – prohibiting open, frank conversations with patients about all their health care options – if they want to continue treating patients under the Title X program,” it said in a written statement. “It is unconscionable that the government is telling physicians that they can treat this underserved population only if they promise not to discuss or make referrals for all treatment options.”

Abortion is a legal medical procedure, but federal laws prohibit the use of Title X or other taxpayer funds to pay for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the woman. Abortion opponents and religious conservatives say Title X has long been used to indirectly subsidize abortion providers.

Story continues below advertisement

JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS

REPORT AN ERROR

Source link

#Health

0 notes

suitedgladiators · 5 years

Text

ABAJournal

"The privacy threat posed by robocalls relates to the methods or effects of robocalls—the fact that they tie up phone lines and fill answering machines—rather than their content,” the 9th Circuit said in an opinion by Judge Richard A. Paez. https://t.co/rwoN4gExke #FirstAmendment pic.twitter.com/qwydVIWUjs

— ABA Journal (@ABAJournal) September 12, 2019

via Blogger https://ift.tt/31fAZ8D https://ift.tt/20qd6Z0

0 notes

copblaster · 5 years

Text

Ninth Circuit: Building Barriers to Avoid Addressing the Merits

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seems more interested in building barriers to justify failing to address the merits of cases before them than they do in upholding the law. I found that out many years ago. I've had three cases before them so far and almost all of them were decided based on procedural barriers that they claim prevented them from addressing the issues before them. This can be really frustrating for inmates that do not realize that their attorney failed to take advantage of a legal loophole until procedure prevents them from raising the issue. Most recently, I had a habeas corpus claim before them that I filed under 28 U.S.C. 2255 for ineffective assistance of counsel. It was argued orally before justices Richard Paez, Carlos Bea, and Michael Anello. I filed the petition myself in the district court, but Judge Marco Hernandez dismissed it. Fortunately Hernandez did issue a certificate of appealability (COA) that gave the Ninth Circuit the legal ability to review his decision. COAs are extremely rare and it was a moment of pride for me because many lawyer have argued cases and failed to get as far as I had gotten on my own. COAs can be issued by district courts or courts of appeals, so I still hoped that issued Hernandez did not certify would be heard. Unfortunately for me the Court limited their review to "whether Sullivan’s trial counsel was ineffective in advising Sullivan to plead guilty to a Superseding Information, which omitted the specific intent element of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)...First, Sullivan argues he suffered prejudice because after pleading guilty, counsel did not file a motion to arrest judgment pursuant to the then-existing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 34. Sullivan did not raise this argument in his section 2255 motion, but rather raised it for the first time in his post-judgment motions. The district court declined to issue a COA regarding Sullivan’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Because Sullivan’s Rule 34 argument does not fall within the narrow issue certified by the district court for appeal, this argument is not properly before the Court." My attorney at the time, Per Olson, failed to move the district court to arrest judgement after I pled, but because I was an inmate with no right to counsel during the initial stages of my habeas proceeding, I did not know of the Rule 34 loophole when I filed my petition. They didn't even address whether or not the information properly charged a crime. This is an unfortunate example of the state of the American court system. When you are charged with a crime they hold you without bail, take away your ability to earn an income, force you to rely on court appointed counsel, and take away your ability to consult with counsel after the your appeals are exhausted. They say that when an inmate files a hebeas corpus motion that it is technically a civil, so there is no right to counsel. That could not be more unconstitutional. For criminal defendants life and limb are potentially at stake during habeas corpus proceedings. I think that if counsel had been appointed to help me file my petition that I would not have been barred from raising the argument. The Ninth Circuit also errd on the standard for prejudice. They took the position that if a defendant would have still pled guilty then they were not prejudiced. They fail to recognize cases such as Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (2012) in which post plea counsel was ruled ineffective because effective counsel would have produced a better outcome. I should not have this charge on my record. I do however believe that the lawyer that were eventually appointed to my cases argued them well before the court.#ninthcircuit #richardpaez #carlosbea #michaelanello #perolson http://dlvr.it/R82nnz

#Judges #Appellate

0 notes