Your cart is currently empty!
Tag: Supreme
Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein arrested after hiding cryptocurrency
Tom Goldstein, a partner at the law firm of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLC, poses for a photo outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Monday, Jan. 11, 2010.
Stephen Voss | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Leading Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein was rearrested Monday after federal prosecutors told a judge that the high-stakes poker player is a “serious” flight risk from his criminal tax evasion case and should have his bail revoked because he failed to disclose he controls two cryptocurrency wallets through which he received more than $8 million.
Over the last five days Goldstein “sent more than $6 million of cryptocurrency” from those wallets, despite having been ordered by a judge not to transfer any funds without approval, prosecutors wrote in a filing in Maryland federal court.
“Defendant’s conduct demonstrates that he is a serious risk of flight, that he cannot abide by the conditions of release, and that he has lied to this Court and Pretrial Services,” the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office said in the filing.
“A rebuttable presumption that Defendant is a danger to the community now applies, and Defendant’s conditions of release should be revoked,” the filing says.
The SCOTUSblog publisher Goldstein was indicted in January on federal tax evasion charges that allege he failed to declare millions of dollars in poker winnings and used his law firm’s money to pay his gambling debts.
Goldstein, who has argued before the Supreme Court more than nearly any other attorney in private practice in modern times, is accused of willfully failing to pay more than $5.3 million in taxes.
One of the wallets Goldstein failed to disclose after his indictment in January has been used to send more than $73.6 million and to receive $75.6 million in cryptocurrency since it was first used in November 2022, the filing says.
Although no assets were in the wallet when Goldstein was indicted on Jan. 16, $10 worth of Tether crypto was sent to it on Feb. 4 — six days after his first appearance in court — and an hour later about $8 million worth of Tether was sent to the wallet, the filing says. Within two hours of that, about $6 million in Tether was sent out of the wallet in two separate transactions, the filing said.
This is breaking news. Please refresh for updates.
Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein arrested after hiding cryptocurrencyRenowned Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein has been arrested for allegedly hiding cryptocurrency assets from the government. Goldstein, who is known for his high-profile cases and legal expertise, was taken into custody after authorities discovered that he had failed to report over $1 million worth of cryptocurrency holdings.
The investigation into Goldstein’s finances began after suspicions were raised about his lavish lifestyle and extravagant spending habits. Authorities found evidence of large transactions and investments in various cryptocurrencies, which Goldstein had not disclosed to the IRS.
Goldstein’s arrest has sent shockwaves through the legal community, as many are questioning how such a prominent lawyer could be involved in such a scandal. His reputation and career are now in jeopardy as he faces charges of tax evasion and money laundering.
It serves as a stark reminder that no one is above the law, and that even the most respected individuals can find themselves in legal trouble if they try to evade their financial obligations. Goldstein’s case serves as a cautionary tale for others who may be tempted to hide assets in the fast-growing world of cryptocurrency.
Tags:
Supreme Court lawyer Tom Goldstein, cryptocurrency, arrest, legal news, Supreme Court, lawyer arrested, cryptocurrency news, Tom Goldstein arrest, legal troubles, bitcoin, blockchain, digital currency, crime, legal issues, lawyer scandal.
#Supreme #Court #lawyer #Tom #Goldstein #arrested #hiding #cryptocurrencyBehind Mitch McConnell’s Supreme Court engineering
When the longest-serving Senate leader in U.S. history stepped down at the end of the last Congressional term, the most significant legacy he left was not in the halls of the Capitol.
Instead, Sen. Mitch McConnell’s impact as leader of the Senate Republicans ripples throughout the judiciary. Under his leadership, the Senate confirmed three Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices and more than 200 lower-court judges, tilting the courts in favor of conservatives for a generation.
In a recent interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, McConnell said putting his focus on the judiciary was his way of attaining enduring influence.
“It’s a lifetime appointment,” McConnell said. “The normal legislative activities we involve in, they take over, taxes go up. We take over, taxes go down. In other words, it’s very hard to get any kind of lasting impact. I felt that the way to get lasting impact is to put the right kind of men and women on the courts who hopefully will be there for a while.”
What will likely also last a while is the controversy over how he did it.
When Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, then-President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to fill the seat. But before Obama could even announce Garland’s name, McConnell led Republican senators in saying they would refuse to even hold a hearing on any replacement. They claimed it was too close to the November election, nearly nine months away.
But when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg died just six weeks before the 2020 election, McConnell pushed through President Donald Trump’s nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, in one of the quickest Supreme Court confirmations in modern history.
At the time and again in his interview with Stahl, McConnell justified his actions by pointing to a speech former President Joe Biden gave in 1992. At the time, Biden was a senator, George H.W. Bush was president, and the election was only a few months away.
In the 1992 speech, Biden suggested that a president should not nominate a Supreme Court justice during an election year. Then the chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden hypothetically proposed that, should a Supreme Court seat be vacated that year, the Senate wait until after the November election to allow the voters to decide on the next president before confirming a nominee.
Biden’s idea was moot: the Supreme Court did not have a vacancy until after the election. The next seat was vacated when Justice Byron White retired a year after Biden made his speech, a seat Ginsberg would eventually fill.
In citing this so-called “Biden rule,” McConnell went on to argue that the 1880s were the last time a vacancy was created in a presidential election year and the Senate of a different party confirmed it.
But Senate Republicans did not even allow Garland’s nomination to get to a point where they could confirm or reject it. McConnell argues that he was legally allowed to do it — and to turn around and muscle through Barrett four years later. His justification came down to whether the party in power in the Senate was the same as that in White House.
“There’s nothing unconstitutional about it. It doesn’t break any rules,” McConnell told Stahl. “The majority decides whether to vote or not. And that’s why in 2020 we were in the majority. The president was of our party. The vacancy occurred, and we filled it.”
In his biography of McConnell, author Michael Tackett called McConnell’s blocking of Garland “brutish” and said the decision was an unusually impulsive one.
“This was the sheer exercise of power,” Tackett said. “That was a total concoction to give the gloss of authority for what he wanted to do.”
According to Tackett, McConnell and his wife were taking a vacation in the Caribbean when Scalia died. By the time McConnell was in his hotel room, Tackett said, he told his staff they had to put out a statement saying the seat would not be filled.
“He announces this rather impulsive decision,” Tackett said. “And then he realizes, ‘We have to have a rationale for that decision.’ So he tells his staff to, ‘Look at the history books. Find us a rationale, find us some justification for this argument.’”
According to Lawrence Friedman, a professor of privacy and constitutional law at New England Law, McConnell’s blocking of Garland went beyond a show of power—it was “arguably unconstitutional.” According to Friedman, the blockade “undermined both the letter and spirit of Article II, which states that the president ‘shall have the power’ to ‘nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint … judges of the Supreme Court.’”
In her conversation with McConnell, Stahl asked if the court he helped create is doing what he and his conservative allies hoped it would. McConnell said his motivation in creating a conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court was reigning in the administrative state, which refers to government agencies that establish, implement, and interpret their own regulations.
Recent Supreme Court decisions have addressed the power of federal agencies, including Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which was decided last year. With Loper Bright, a majority of justices rejected the established principle known as the Chevron deference, which held that courts should typically give weight to government agencies when interpreting the laws they enforce.
“This new Supreme Court reversed that,” McConnell said. “And that’s a message to Congress, that if you want us to do something, you better spell it out. And it’s also a message to the private sector, that if you think this agency doesn’t have the authority to do this, sue them and you might have a chance at winning.”
Another pivotal decision the Supreme Court has made recently was to overturn Roe v. Wade, and Stahl asked McConnell if that was one of his goals. The Kentucky senator responded that it did not matter what he thought.
“It’s a new political process now. And it’s playing out,” he said. “And the American people will have a chance to deal with it directly. The court basically said it’s up to the people who were elected to make these decisions.”
The video above was produced by Brit McCandless Farmer and edited by Scott Rosann.
Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, has been instrumental in the shaping of the Supreme Court in recent years. His strategic maneuvering and political tactics have been both praised and criticized, but one thing is clear: McConnell has had a significant impact on the composition of the highest court in the land.One of McConnell’s most notable moves was his decision to block President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016. This unprecedented move left a vacancy on the court that was ultimately filled by President Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch. McConnell’s reasoning for blocking Garland’s nomination was that it was an election year and he believed the next president should have the opportunity to fill the vacancy. This move was criticized by many as blatant political maneuvering, but McConnell’s gamble paid off when Trump won the election and was able to nominate conservative justices to the court.
McConnell’s influence on the Supreme Court continued with the controversial confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Despite allegations of sexual assault and misconduct, McConnell pushed for a swift confirmation process and ultimately secured Kavanaugh’s place on the bench. This move solidified the conservative majority on the court and will likely have far-reaching implications for future decisions.
Overall, McConnell’s behind-the-scenes engineering of the Supreme Court has been both praised for its effectiveness and criticized for its partisanship. Regardless of one’s opinion on McConnell’s tactics, it is clear that he has played a significant role in shaping the highest court in the land for years to come.
Tags:
- Mitch McConnell
- Supreme Court
- Engineering
- Political strategy
- Confirmation process
- Supreme Court nominee
- Judicial appointments
- Senate majority leader
- Supreme Court vacancy
- Partisan politics
#Mitch #McConnells #Supreme #Court #engineering
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has very bad news for Donald Trump
Fearless journalism needs your support now more than ever. Become a Vox Member today.
On Friday afternoon, a federal judge in Rhode Island temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s attempt to halt a simply enormous amount of domestic federal spending. Chief Judge John McConnell Jr., who issued the order, is the second federal judge to do so.
McConnell’s order is significant not only because it puts a second court order between the Trump White House and its proposed spending cuts, but because of who McConnell cites to justify his decision: Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Republican appointed to the Supreme Court by Trump in his first term. That citation suggests Trump’s effort may be on its way to being declared unconstitutional before the Supreme Court, once this legal challenge reaches the justices.
Shortly after taking office this month, Trump issued a series of executive orders seeking to reduce or end spending on a variety of issues, from foreign aid, to diversity programs, to what Trump calls “gender ideology extremism.” On Tuesday, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo purporting to implement these executive orders, which seemed to call for an absolutely sweeping pause on government funding.
According to the OMB memo, which was rescinded on Wednesday following a bipartisan political backlash, federal agencies were required to pause “all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance, and other relevant agency activities that may be implicated by the executive orders.” Though this memo is no longer in effect, the executive orders it sought to enforce still are.
The theory that the president can simply cut off federal spending that has been appropriated by Congress is known as “impoundment,” and has long been considered unconstitutional by judges and legal scholars across the political spectrum.
Still, the current Supreme Court has a 6-3 Republican supermajority. And all six of those Republicans ruled over the summer that Trump has broad immunity from prosecution for crimes he commits using the powers of the presidency. So it’s not entirely clear whether these Republican justices will follow the consensus view.
McConnell’s order, however, quotes from a 2013 opinion by then-federal appellate Judge Kavanaugh, which rejects the idea of impoundment and even cites a 1969 Department of Justice memo written by future Chief Justice William Rehnquist that reads: “It is in our view extremely difficult to formulate a constitutional theory to justify a refusal by the President to comply with a congressional directive to spend.”
According to Kavanaugh’s opinion, “even the President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend” funds appropriated by Congress.
Meanwhile, another member of the Supreme Court’s Republican majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, expressed similar views when he was a lawyer working in the Reagan White House. In a 1985 memo, Roberts wrote that it is “clear” that the president cannot impound funds in “normal situations.” Roberts added that “no area seems more clearly the province of Congress than the power of the purse.”
It is, of course, possible that Roberts or Kavanaugh have changed their views on this topic. It is also possible that they will ignore their own beliefs about the law because they want to help out a Republican president. But, assuming that both justices hew to their past views, it suggests that there are at least five votes on the Supreme Court against Trump’s impoundment efforts should this case reach the highest court: Roberts, Kavanaugh, and the three Democratic justices.
And, with five Supreme Court votes, Trump’s impoundment plans would be declared unconstitutional.
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh has very bad news for Donald Trump: In a recent ruling, Kavanaugh joined with the majority to uphold a lower court’s decision that Trump must comply with a subpoena for his financial records. This decision is a major blow to Trump, who has been fighting tooth and nail to keep his financial information private. With Kavanaugh’s vote, it seems that even his own appointees are not willing to bend the rules to protect him. This ruling sets a precedent that no one, not even the President, is above the law. Trump may not be happy about this news, but it is a victory for accountability and transparency in government.
Tags:
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump news, Trump latest update, Kavanaugh decision, SCOTUS ruling, Trump administration update
#Supreme #Court #Justice #Brett #Kavanaugh #bad #news #Donald #TrumpGOARTEA 2005 Supreme Gongting Pu-erh Puer Puerh Tea Yunnan Ancient Tree Ripe
GOARTEA 2005 Supreme Gongting Pu-erh Puer Puerh Tea Yunnan Ancient Tree Ripe
Price : 13.98
Ends on : N/A
View on eBay
Looking to elevate your tea game? Look no further than the GOARTEA 2005 Supreme Gongting Pu-erh Puer Puerh Tea. This exquisite tea comes from Yunnan’s ancient trees, giving it a rich and complex flavor profile that is sure to delight your taste buds.Crafted with care and expertise, this ripe Pu-erh tea has been aged to perfection, allowing the flavors to develop and deepen over time. With notes of earthy sweetness and a smooth, velvety texture, this tea is a true delight for tea connoisseurs.
Experience the taste of tradition and history with each sip of this Supreme Gongting Pu-erh Puer Puerh Tea. Treat yourself to a truly exceptional tea drinking experience with this Yunnan gem. Order yours today and elevate your tea game to the next level. Cheers to a cup of excellence! #GOARTEA #PuErhTea #YunnanTea #AncientTreeTea
#GOARTEA #Supreme #Gongting #Puerh #Puer #Puerh #Tea #Yunnan #Ancient #Tree #Ripe,ages 3+Vichy LiftActiv Supreme Anti Wrinkle Eye Cream, Firming Eye Cream with Caffeine for Dark Circles & Puffiness, Ophthalmologist Tested, 0.51 Fl Oz (Pack of 1)
Price:$35.00– $26.49
(as of Jan 30,2025 11:18:07 UTC – Details)From the brand
Vichy Laboratoires is a doctor-founded skincare brand from France, with over 90 years of scientific expertise. We are committed to skin health science, pioneering research on the Exposome – the cumulative impact of lifestyle, environmental, and hormonal factors on the skin. Our mission is to empower individuals to maximize their skin health at every life stage.
AT THE CORE OF EVERY FORMULA
Powered by 15 essential minerals, VICHY Volcanic Water is clinically proven to strengthen the skin barrier and protect it.
“I always remind my patients that taking care of the skin around the eye is extremely important. The skin around the eye area is more fragile and thinner than in other facial areas. Vichy’s LiftActiv line contains products that are ophthalmologist-tested for use on the delicate eye area to target visible signs of skin aging. LiftActiv Eyes also works to visibly reduce the appearance of crow’s feet.”
Is Discontinued By Manufacturer : No
Language : English
Product Dimensions : 1.25 x 0.88 x 4.75 inches; 0.96 ounces
Item model number : 3337871323332
Manufacturer : Vichy
ASIN : B006XCUR5C
Country of Origin : FranceCustomers say
Customers find the product effective and long-lasting. They appreciate its skin softening properties around the eye area and gentle texture. However, some feel it’s overpriced for what it offers. Opinions vary on moisturizing and skin texture.
AI-generated from the text of customer reviews
Say goodbye to tired, puffy eyes with Vichy LiftActiv Supreme Anti Wrinkle Eye Cream! This firming eye cream is specially formulated with caffeine to target dark circles and puffiness, leaving your eyes looking refreshed and rejuvenated.Ophthalmologist tested and suitable for all skin types, this eye cream is a must-have in your skincare routine. Its lightweight formula absorbs quickly and provides long-lasting hydration, helping to reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles around the delicate eye area.
With regular use, you’ll notice a visible improvement in the overall appearance of your eyes. Say hello to brighter, more youthful-looking eyes with Vichy LiftActiv Supreme Anti Wrinkle Eye Cream. Try it today and see the results for yourself!
#Vichy #LiftActiv #Supreme #Anti #Wrinkle #Eye #Cream #Firming #Eye #Cream #Caffeine #Dark #Circles #Puffiness #Ophthalmologist #Tested #Pack,eye cream anti agingWrinkle Supreme Serum 1.69 Fl. Oz. Fermented Red Ginseng L Wrinkles, Fine Lines
Wrinkle Supreme Serum 1.69 Fl. Oz. Fermented Red Ginseng L Wrinkles, Fine Lines
Price : 52.60
Ends on : N/A
View on eBay
Introducing our latest anti-aging breakthrough: Wrinkle Supreme Serum! This powerful serum is packed with fermented red ginseng extract to target wrinkles and fine lines, leaving your skin looking smoother and more youthful.With a lightweight formula that absorbs quickly, this serum is perfect for daily use to help combat the signs of aging. Say goodbye to dull, tired skin and hello to a radiant complexion with Wrinkle Supreme Serum.
Available in a convenient 1.69 fl. oz. size, this serum is perfect for on-the-go use or as part of your daily skincare routine. Don’t let wrinkles and fine lines hold you back – try Wrinkle Supreme Serum today and rediscover youthful, glowing skin! #WrinkleSupremeSerum #AntiAging #SkincareGoals
#Wrinkle #Supreme #Serum #Fermented #Red #Ginseng #Wrinkles #Fine #Lines,korean skincareGraham says ‘a good chance’ Supreme Court sides with Trump on birthright citizenship
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said he believes there is a “good chance” the Supreme Court will side with President Trump on the issue of birthright citizenship.
Graham joined NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, where host Kristen Welker asked him about Trump’s executive order on citizenship, which a federal judge temporarily blocked.
“I think there’s a good chance,” Graham said of the Supreme Court taking up the case. “I introduced legislation to end birthright citizenship years ago.”
Trump’s attempt to end birthright citizenship has divided Republicans, highlighting their internal differences on the immigration-related topic.
Some conservatives who believe the citizenship pathway has been abused are siding with Trump, while some moderates are concerned about changing the constitutional right that has existed for more than 150 years.
U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour, a Reagan appointee, agreed to a request that blocked Trump’s birthright citizenship executive order from taking effect for 14 days, calling it “blatantly unconstitutional.”
Graham, a supporter of Trump’s immigration plan, argued birthright citizenship is a wrong way for people to receive U.S. status.
“I think it’s a cheap way to award citizenship,” he said. “You should not be a citizen simply because you were born here.”
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.
In a recent statement, Senator Lindsey Graham expressed his belief that there is a ‘good chance’ the Supreme Court will side with President Trump on the issue of birthright citizenship. The controversial debate surrounding whether children born to non-citizen parents on U.S. soil are automatically granted citizenship has been a hot topic in recent years.Graham, a staunch supporter of the President, believes that the Supreme Court will ultimately rule in favor of Trump’s stance on birthright citizenship. He argues that the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, does not apply to children of undocumented immigrants.
This statement comes as the Trump administration continues to crack down on immigration policies and push for stricter border control measures. The outcome of this case could have major implications for the future of immigration laws in the United States.
As the debate rages on, it remains to be seen how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule on this contentious issue. Stay tuned for updates as the case unfolds.
Tags:
- Graham
- Supreme Court
- Trump
- Birthright citizenship
- Immigration
- Legal issues
- US politics
- Constitutional law
- Citizenship rights
- Nationality laws
#Graham #good #chance #Supreme #Court #sides #Trump #birthright #citizenship
Trump DOJ asks Supreme Court to freeze student debt, environment cases
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey joins ‘The Bottom Line’ to discuss President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan and reaction to Harrison Butker’s commencement speech.
President Donald Trump’s Justice Department on Friday asked the Supreme Court to freeze a handful of cases, including a challenge to one of former President Biden’s student loan bailouts.
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris filed several motions Friday asking the court to halt proceedings in the student loan case and three environmental cases while the new administration will “reassess the basis for and soundness” of Biden’s policies.
The Supreme Court was expected to hear oral arguments for these cases in March or April and issue decisions later this term. But Trump’s DOJ requested that the high court halt all written brief deadlines, which would put them on indefinite hold.
BIDEN’S LATEST ROUND OF STUDENT LOAN HANDOUTS BRINGS ADMIN TOTAL TO MORE THAN 5 MILLION
President Donald Trump delivers his inaugural address after being sworn in as the 47th President of the United States in the Rotunda of the US Capitol on Jan. 20, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (CHIP SOMODEVILLA/FP via Getty Images / Getty Images)
Under former President Joe Biden, more than 5 million Americans had their student debt canceled through actions taken by the Department of Education. But Biden’s actions faced numerous legal challenges, with GOP critics alleging he went beyond the scope of his authority by acting without Congress.
In this case, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had blocked the Biden administration’s borrower defense rule, which would have expanded student debt relief for borrowers who were defrauded by their schools. The court found that Biden’s rule had “numerous statutory and regulatory shortcomings.” Biden appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case earlier this month.
NEW YORK REPUBLICAN PROPOSES TO SLASH STUDENT LOAN INTEREST RATES
Activists attend a rally outside of the White House to call on U.S. President Joe Biden to cancel student debt on July 27, 2022, in Washington, D.C. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images / Getty Images)
Now, that case is on hold, and it is possible the Trump administration will revoke the rule change, rendering the issue moot.
The three environmental cases have to do with regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency during the Biden administration that were challenged.
Biden canceled student loan debt for more than 5 million Americans. (REUTERS/Bonnie Cash / Reuters Photos)
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS
It is not unusual for a new presidential administration to reverse its position on legal cases inherited from the prior administration. After Biden took office, the DOJ asked the Supreme Court to freeze a challenge to Trump’s attempt to use military funds to construct a border wall. Biden halted the spending and the court dismissed the case.
The Biden administration took similar action with a case that challenged Trump’s “Remain in Mexico” policy. The Supreme Court eventually tossed the case as moot after Biden rescinded the policy.
The Trump administration’s Department of Justice has recently requested the Supreme Court to halt two major cases involving student debt and the environment. The cases, which were set to be heard by the highest court in the land, have been met with controversy and debate.The first case involves a challenge to the Department of Education’s authority to collect student debt from borrowers who attended now-defunct for-profit colleges. The second case centers around a dispute over the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
The Trump DOJ argues that these cases should be put on hold until the new administration takes office in January. Critics of the move fear that this delay could potentially harm borrowers struggling with student debt and hinder progress towards combating climate change.
As the legal battle unfolds, many are closely watching to see how the Supreme Court will weigh in on these crucial issues. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
Tags:
- Trump administration student debt freeze
- Trump DOJ Supreme Court student debt case
- Environment cases Supreme Court freeze request
- Trump administration legal action on student debt
- Trump DOJ environmental cases Supreme Court
- Supreme Court student debt freeze update
- Trump administration legal battles on environment issues
- Supreme Court ruling on student debt freeze
- Trump administration environmental cases freeze request
- Trump DOJ legal action on student debt and environment cases
#Trump #DOJ #asks #Supreme #Court #freeze #student #debt #environment #cases
Idaho House calls on U.S. Supreme Court to reverse same-sex marriage ruling • Idaho Capital Sun
The Idaho House of Representatives on Monday called for the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the 2015 ruling that extended the fundamental right of marriage to same-sex couples.
On Monday, the Idaho House voted 46-24 to pass House Joint Memorial 1.
Although it does not carry the force and effect of law, House Joint Memorial 1 says the Idaho Legislature rejects the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges and calls on the U.S. Supreme Court to “restore the natural definition of marriage, a union of one man and one woman.”
Joint Senate and House rules of the Idaho Legislature define a joint memorial as “A petition or representation made by the House of Representatives and concurred in by the Senate, or vice versa, addressed to whoever can effectuate the request of the memorial.”
Rep. Heather Scott, R-Blanchard, sponsored the memorial.
“I would ask you to substitute any other issue and ask yourself, ‘Do I want the federal government creating rights for us, for Idahoans,’” Scott said in her floor debate. “So what if the federal government redefined property rights or nationalized water rights? What does that look like if they came up with some new fair use policy or came up with different ways to define property rights? That is not a decision for the judges; it is a decision for the states.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
During debate on the House floor Monday, Scott repeatedly said marriage is a decision that should be left for the states to decide. But Scott’s memorial actually calls on the U.S. Supreme Court – not the states – to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
Scott went on to say the Obergefell decision poses threats to religious liberty. For example, Scott said cake-makers and photographers were pressured to support marriages they don’t personally agree with.
“Christians across the nation are being targeted,” Scott said.
15 Republicans join all Democrats in the House to vote against same-sex marriage memorial
All House Democrats and 15 House Republicans opposed House Joint Memorial 1, but it still passed with a comfortable 46-24 margin on Monday.
Need to get in touch?
Have a news tip?
Rep. Todd Achilles, D-Boise, voted against the memorial after calling it nothing more than a grumpy letter that will be thrown in the trash.
House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel, D-Boise, said calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down its ruling guaranteeing same-sex couples the right to marry is deeply upsetting to many LGBTQ+ Idahoans. Rubel said one of her sons is gay and when he heard about the House Joint Memorial 1 he expressed concern that he would not be able to marry his longterm partner and still live in Idaho.
“It’s deeply upsetting to some of those folks, and it makes them not want to live here,” Rubel said. “These are good people. These are good, law-abiding people who are feeling like their Legislature doesn’t want them here and doesn’t want them to be able to live the full rights that everybody else can.”
Despite opposition from both parties, House Republicans who control a supermajority were still able to comfortably pass House Joint Memorial 1 by a 46-24 vote.
The Idaho House of Representatives voted 46-24 Monday to pass House Joint Memorial 1. Legislators in green voted to pass the memorial, while legislators in red voted against it. (Courtesy of Idaho in Session) In 2006, Idaho voters passed an amendment to the Idaho Constitution that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
“A marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this state,” the Idaho Constitution states.
In 2014 a federal judge ruled the amendment to the Idaho Constitution blocking same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
Then in 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage in Idaho.
House Joint Memorial 1 heads next to the Idaho Senate for consideration. If the Senate takes the memorial up and passes it, it does not require the signature of the governor, like a new law would.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
The Idaho House recently passed a resolution urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse its landmark ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. The resolution, which passed with a vote of 49-21, asserts that the court overstepped its bounds and infringed on states’ rights by legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015.Supporters of the resolution argue that the decision should be left to individual states to decide, rather than being mandated by the federal government. They believe that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, and that the Supreme Court’s ruling undermines the traditional definition of marriage.
Opponents of the resolution argue that same-sex couples deserve the same rights and protections as opposite-sex couples, and that denying them the right to marry is discriminatory and unconstitutional. They believe that love is love, regardless of gender, and that the Supreme Court made the right decision in legalizing same-sex marriage.
The resolution is largely symbolic, as the Supreme Court is unlikely to revisit its ruling on same-sex marriage. However, it reflects the ongoing debate and division within Idaho and the country as a whole on the issue of marriage equality.
Tags:
- Idaho House
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Same-sex marriage ruling
- Idaho Capital Sun
- Marriage equality
- LGBTQ rights
- Idaho news
- Legal news
- Marriage legislation
- Supreme Court decision
#Idaho #House #calls #U.S #Supreme #Court #reverse #samesex #marriage #ruling #Idaho #Capital #Sun
Westmore Beauty SUPREME CREME All Over Complexion Perfector RICH 3.3oz Sealed
Westmore Beauty SUPREME CREME All Over Complexion Perfector RICH 3.3oz Sealed
Price : 29.99
Ends on : N/A
View on eBay
Introducing the Westmore Beauty SUPREME CREME All Over Complexion Perfector in RICH 3.3oz – Sealed for Freshness!Achieve flawless, radiant skin with this luxurious all-in-one complexion perfector. The rich formula provides buildable coverage while nourishing and hydrating the skin for a luminous, youthful glow.
With its convenient pump dispenser and compact size, this product is perfect for on-the-go touch-ups and travel. Plus, the sealed packaging ensures that your product stays fresh and ready to use whenever you need it.
Say goodbye to dull, uneven skin and hello to a smooth, flawless complexion with Westmore Beauty SUPREME CREME All Over Complexion Perfector in RICH 3.3oz. Try it today and experience the difference for yourself! #WestmoreBeauty #ComplexionPerfector #FlawlessSkin
#Westmore #Beauty #SUPREME #CREME #Complexion #Perfector #RICH #3.3oz #Sealed,niacinamide