The Front Page Cover
2016 The truth will set you free
Featuring:
Merrick Garland's record on
religious freedom cases
Adrian Higgins
~~~
.
Hacking group releases Trump’s private info -
WashEx: “International hacking group Anonymous has followed through on repeated threats against Republican presidential candidate Donald slump-Trump, and announced Thursday it has released personal information for slump-Trump and top executives within his company…In a video posted Thursday, a spokesperson for Anonymous encouraged viewers to use the information to stop slump-Trump from winning the Republican nomination. ‘We have attached a gift, of sorts. slump-Trump’s Social Security Number, cellphone number and other details that might be able to assist you all in independently investigating this would-be dictator. These are provided for informational purposes only, do with it what you will,’ the spokesman said.” -Fox News
.
nObama Dives in For Dems and Legacy
WaPo: “President nObama is plunging into the campaign fray, not only to help Democrats retain the White House, but also in defense of his own legacy in a political climate dominated by slump-Trump…nObama and his top aides have been strategizing for weeks about how they can reprise his successful 2008 and 2012 approaches to help elect a Democrat to replace him. And out of concern that a Republican president in 2017 — either slump-Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) — would weaken or reverse some of his landmark policies, nObama and his surrogates have started making the case that it is essential for the GOP to be defeated in November. As a result, nObama is poised to be the most active sitting president on the campaign trail in decades.” -Fox News
WaPo: “President nObama is plunging into the campaign fray, not only to help Democrats retain the White House, but also in defense of his own legacy in a political climate dominated by slump-Trump…nObama and his top aides have been strategizing for weeks about how they can reprise his successful 2008 and 2012 approaches to help elect a Democrat to replace him. And out of concern that a Republican president in 2017 — either slump-Trump or Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) — would weaken or reverse some of his landmark policies, nObama and his surrogates have started making the case that it is essential for the GOP to be defeated in November. As a result, nObama is poised to be the most active sitting president on the campaign trail in decades.” -Fox News
.
The slump-Trump Divide
At a time in the election cycle when party unity becomes the order of the day, Republican powerbrokers are instead dividing into distinct groups as the reality of Donald slump-Trump as nominee becomes more probable.
At a time in the election cycle when party unity becomes the order of the day, Republican powerbrokers are instead dividing into distinct groups as the reality of Donald slump-Trump as nominee becomes more probable.
One alliance is the among the GOP establishment, several of whom are reluctantly coalescing around Texas Sen. Ted Cruz as the best bet to prevent slump-Trump from leading the ticket. Fellow Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who in the past said picking between Cruz and slump-Trump was like choosing between drinking poison or getting shot, signified this side of the party most clearly when he announced he’d fundraise for Cruz next week.
Former presidential rival Florida Sen. Marco Rubio also indicated that he would endorse Cruz when the time came. Rubio said Thursday he didn’t have an announcement planned but added, “There’s time to prevent a slump-Trump nomination, which I think would fracture the party and be damaging to the conservative movement.”
Another group – conservatives also focused on blocking slump-Trump – met in Washington Thursday to discuss strategy, including reaching out to candidates who’ve since suspended their campaigns to try and prevent their delegates from jumping to slump-Trump if they become unbound in a brokered convention. Following that meeting, conservative pundit Erik Erickson told the WashEx, “If slump-Trump’s the Republican nominee, then I’m not Republican anymore.” -Fox News
.
.
Where Are The Environmentalists? Giant Solar Panels Incinerating Birds Mid-Flight
Tiffany Gabbay
.
.
Gates: nObama Went Against ‘Entire National
Security Team’ on Egypt Coup
Pamela Geller
.
.
{pamelageller.com} ~ “Literally the entire national security team recommended unanimously handling Mubarak differently than we did,” Gates said... “And the president took the advice of three junior backbenchers in terms of how to treat Mubarak.” nObama was so avid to support the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, he went against the advice of his national security team. The Egyptian people complained that he was supporting terrorism. And they were right. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Fox News that President Barack nObama ignored the advice of his “entire national security team” during the Egyptian coup in 2011 that ousted Hosni Mubarak, the country’s former president. Gates made his comments to Fox News’ Bret Baier during an interview for the network’s upcoming special, “Rising Threats – Shrinking Military,”... http://pamelageller.com/2016/03/gates-obama-went-against-entire-national-security-team-on-egypt-coup.html/.
Judge Orders White House To Stop Hiding
Its Bogus Global Warming ‘Proof’
Hans Bader
.
.
Fox News blasts slump-Trump for ‘sick obsession’ with Megyn Kelly; network’s stars join in
Tom Tillison
.
.
Why Washington’s Political Class
Is Losing Control
Sen. David Perdue
.
.
Senate Will Not Vote on nObama's
Justice Nomination
Natalie Myers
.
.
Proof It Is Rigged: “Fed Moved 93% Of
Entire Stock Market Since 2008”
Mac Slavo
.
.
WikiLeaks To Facebook: “Stop Censoring Our Hilly
Clinton Email Release” Searchable Database
Baran Hines
.
.
nObama claims he can force
nuns to pay for abortion
BOB UNRUH
.
.
Commie Bernie Upset After Sheriff Arpaio
Is Hospitable To Wife
Rick Wells
.
.
.
Merrick Garland's record on
religious freedom cases
Adrian Higgins
.
.
In Merrick Garland's 19 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, cases related to religious freedom have come across his docket several times. Garland's rulings do not reveal a pattern that would indicate what guiding principle he might bring to the Supreme Court, if he manages to make it through the Senate. But they do invite curiosity.
In Merrick Garland's 19 years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, cases related to religious freedom have come across his docket several times. Garland's rulings do not reveal a pattern that would indicate what guiding principle he might bring to the Supreme Court, if he manages to make it through the Senate. But they do invite curiosity.
.
In four cases that The Washington Post identified Wednesday, Garland sided twice against people who said they were victims of religious discrimination, and twice in favor.
In four cases that The Washington Post identified Wednesday, Garland sided twice against people who said they were victims of religious discrimination, and twice in favor.
.
• Case 1: Are prisoners entitled to Communion wine?
• Case 1: Are prisoners entitled to Communion wine?
.
In the earliest case, in 2002, Garland sided with two federal prisoners who claimed their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion was being violated in prison. Prison rules forbade the men from consuming wine, though their supervising chaplain could have wine during Communion. The prisoners said they had a right to consume the wine for religious purposes.
In the earliest case, in 2002, Garland sided with two federal prisoners who claimed their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion was being violated in prison. Prison rules forbade the men from consuming wine, though their supervising chaplain could have wine during Communion. The prisoners said they had a right to consume the wine for religious purposes.
.
The lower court had turned down the prisoners' complaint, saying consuming the Communion wine is not an essential aspect of Catholic religious practice. But the three-judge panel that heard the case on appeal, including Garland, said a religious practice does not need to be mandated by the religion to qualify for First Amendment protection. It said the lower court was wrong and sent the case back to that court to hear it again.
The lower court had turned down the prisoners' complaint, saying consuming the Communion wine is not an essential aspect of Catholic religious practice. But the three-judge panel that heard the case on appeal, including Garland, said a religious practice does not need to be mandated by the religion to qualify for First Amendment protection. It said the lower court was wrong and sent the case back to that court to hear it again.
.
The Post asked Jay Wexler, an expert on church-state law at Boston University, to review the four rulings. Wexler called the Communion case the most interesting of Garland's judgments on the topic of religious freedom. But he also said it should have been an easy call.
The Post asked Jay Wexler, an expert on church-state law at Boston University, to review the four rulings. Wexler called the Communion case the most interesting of Garland's judgments on the topic of religious freedom. But he also said it should have been an easy call.
.
"That case is mildly pro-religious freedom, although the lower court was so clearly wrong that I don't know if much can be made out of the D.C. Circuit's reversal," he wrote in an email.
"That case is mildly pro-religious freedom, although the lower court was so clearly wrong that I don't know if much can be made out of the D.C. Circuit's reversal," he wrote in an email.
.
• Case 2: Does an employer have to let a worker avoid shifts on Sunday?
• Case 2: Does an employer have to let a worker avoid shifts on Sunday?
.
Garland wrote the court's opinion in 2010 siding with another person who claimed she was a victim of religious discrimination.
Garland wrote the court's opinion in 2010 siding with another person who claimed she was a victim of religious discrimination.
.
He ruled in favor of Cassandra Payne, an Interior Department employee who drove a tractor at Rock Creek Park from 1984 to 2000, until she suffered a nearly fatal allergic reaction to a bee sting. Her supervisors reassigned her to a different job so that she could work indoors - but they changed her old Monday-to-Friday schedule to Wednesday to Sunday.
He ruled in favor of Cassandra Payne, an Interior Department employee who drove a tractor at Rock Creek Park from 1984 to 2000, until she suffered a nearly fatal allergic reaction to a bee sting. Her supervisors reassigned her to a different job so that she could work indoors - but they changed her old Monday-to-Friday schedule to Wednesday to Sunday.
.
For four years, Payne asked to work weekdays so that she could attend church and Bible study, Garland wrote. Then she filed a complaint alleging religious discrimination. An administrative judge found that the Interior Department had indeed discriminated against Payne based on her faith.
For four years, Payne asked to work weekdays so that she could attend church and Bible study, Garland wrote. Then she filed a complaint alleging religious discrimination. An administrative judge found that the Interior Department had indeed discriminated against Payne based on her faith.
.
But the fight continued, all the way up to Garland's court, where he interpreted the law in Payne's favor.
But the fight continued, all the way up to Garland's court, where he interpreted the law in Payne's favor.
.
• Case 3: Did the Navy discriminate against chaplains from some Christian denominations?
• Case 3: Did the Navy discriminate against chaplains from some Christian denominations?
.
Garland came down on the opposite side in 2004, voting against Navy chaplains who felt that they were being discriminated against on the basis of their denominations.
Garland came down on the opposite side in 2004, voting against Navy chaplains who felt that they were being discriminated against on the basis of their denominations.
.
The Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, an organization that endorses Christian chaplains, said its chaplains were being passed over for promotions. It sued the Navy, asking for the release of confidential information about the selection process.
The Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches, an organization that endorses Christian chaplains, said its chaplains were being passed over for promotions. It sued the Navy, asking for the release of confidential information about the selection process.
.
Garland voted not to compel the Navy selection board members to talk about the process.
Garland voted not to compel the Navy selection board members to talk about the process.
.
Wexler said Garland's differing choices on the Interior Department worker and the Navy chaplains weren't inconsistent and didn't say much about how Garland feels about religious freedom. "They involve claims of religious discrimination, but they are really about procedural issues," Wexler wrote.
Wexler said Garland's differing choices on the Interior Department worker and the Navy chaplains weren't inconsistent and didn't say much about how Garland feels about religious freedom. "They involve claims of religious discrimination, but they are really about procedural issues," Wexler wrote.
.
• Case 4: Is the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate unfair to religious nonprofits?
• Case 4: Is the Affordable Care Act's contraception mandate unfair to religious nonprofits?
.
By far the most closely watched of these cases, Priests for Life v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, is now set for a Supreme Court argument next week. Bundled with six other cases that all address the question of contraception coverage, it is one of the most highly anticipated Supreme Court cases of the term. And on its way to the high court, it passed through Garland's courtroom.
By far the most closely watched of these cases, Priests for Life v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, is now set for a Supreme Court argument next week. Bundled with six other cases that all address the question of contraception coverage, it is one of the most highly anticipated Supreme Court cases of the term. And on its way to the high court, it passed through Garland's courtroom.
.
The case focuses on the mandate under the Affordable Care Act that employers provide contraception to employees. Religious employers can opt out of providing contraception directly, but Priests for Life argued that even opting out is too burdensome, because the government ensures that the employees still have access to contraceptives.
The case focuses on the mandate under the Affordable Care Act that employers provide contraception to employees. Religious employers can opt out of providing contraception directly, but Priests for Life argued that even opting out is too burdensome, because the government ensures that the employees still have access to contraceptives.
.
That mandate, Priests for Life argued, violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act - the same law often discussed nationwide when wedding photographers or cake bakers say it would violate their religion to cater to a gay wedding.
That mandate, Priests for Life argued, violates the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act - the same law often discussed nationwide when wedding photographers or cake bakers say it would violate their religion to cater to a gay wedding.
.
In May, Garland voted in the majority in the 6-to-3 Court of Appeals decision to deny an en banc hearing, which would have been heard by the whole court. That denial meant that the earlier decision, against Priests for Life, stood - for now. The Supreme Court will have its say soon.
In May, Garland voted in the majority in the 6-to-3 Court of Appeals decision to deny an en banc hearing, which would have been heard by the whole court. That denial meant that the earlier decision, against Priests for Life, stood - for now. The Supreme Court will have its say soon.
.
"Priests for Life is of course an incredibly important case," Wexler emailed, "but Garland didn't write anything separately on it. He simply voted to deny rehearing en banc, which doesn't say much of anything about his views on the case, other than that he didn't think the panel opinion denying the Priests' religious freedom claim was clearly wrong."
"Priests for Life is of course an incredibly important case," Wexler emailed, "but Garland didn't write anything separately on it. He simply voted to deny rehearing en banc, which doesn't say much of anything about his views on the case, other than that he didn't think the panel opinion denying the Priests' religious freedom claim was clearly wrong."
.
Comments