Greene County Democrat

Tag: Chief Justice John Roberts

  • Newswire : U.S. Supreme Court gives immunity to Trump’s alleged criminal acts

    By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent

    On Monday, July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that former President Donald Trump has immunity for some of his conduct during his presidency in his federal election interference case. However, other actions may not be protected. This decision adds another layer of complexity to the potential trial proceedings.

    In a closely watched case exploring the boundaries of presidential power, the justices voted 6-3 along ideological lines to reject Trump’s sweeping immunity claim. The ruling means that charges related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results will not be dismissed outright. However, the court indicated that actions closely tied to his presidential duties are off-limits to prosecutors.

    Trump has already been convicted on 34 felony charges related to a hush-money scheme to conceal an extramarital affair with an adult film star while Melania Trump was pregnant.

    Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, emphasized the need for lower courts to examine further which actions Trump can be prosecuted for. Specifically, the court determined that Trump’s interactions with Justice Department officials and Vice President Mike Pence in the lead-up to the January 6 Capitol attack by his supporters are considered core presidential powers and thus immune from prosecution.

    “The president is not above the law,” Roberts wrote. “But Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution.”
    The ruling leaves the future of the case uncertain, requiring further proceedings before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. Judge Chutkan will now review other alleged conduct by Trump, including his communications with state election officials, private parties, and members of the public, to determine if they qualify as official acts.

    The court’s liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor arguing that the ruling undermines a fundamental constitutional principle that no individual is above the law. “Trump will now be insulated from criminal prosecution. In every use of official power, the President is now a king, above the law,” said Sotomayor.

    Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a strongly worded dissent, accused the conservative majority of creating a dangerous precedent by establishing a new model of presidential accountability that grants undue immunity to the highest office.

    “With that understanding of how our system of accountability for criminal acts ordinarily functions, it becomes much easier to see that the majority’s ruling in this case breaks new and dangerous ground,” Jackson wrote.

    “Departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something entirely different: A Presidential accountability model that creates immunity — an exemption from criminal law — applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government,” she added.

    Justice Jackson further warned of the broader implications of the ruling, suggesting that even a hypothetical president who commits grave crimes, such as ordering assassinations of political rivals or instigating a coup, could potentially claim immunity under the new model.

    Trump, who faces about 50 other charges related to the 2020 election, has openly discussed executing his rivals.

  • Newswire : Biden Administration offers new plan after Supreme Court halts student debt cancellation 

     President Biden with Miguel Cardona, Secretary of Education

    By Charlene Crowell 

    (TriceEdneyWire.com) – On June 30, a long-awaited and consequential Supreme Court decision denied forgiveness that would have erased $430 billion of federal student loan balances for 20 million borrowers and lowered the median amount owed by another 23 million borrowers from $29,400 to $13,600.  
    Instead, the nation’s highest court yielded to six states – Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina – that had challenged the plan’s legality. The decision also revealed stark differences within the court that will likely affect future decisions. 
    In his opinion for the 6-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts, referring to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona wrote: “The Secretary asserts that the HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not… The question here is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it.”    
    In a stark dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Elena Kagen rebuked her colleagues and signaled future problematic decisions with the currently constituted court.  
    “After today,” continued Justice Kagen, “no one will have to go back 50 years for the classic case of the Court manipulating standing doctrine, rather than obeying the edict to stay in its lane…Thus, the Court once again substitutes itself for Congress and the Executive Branch—and the hundreds of millions of people they represent—in making this Nation’s most important, as well as most contested, policy decisions.”  
    Reactions by consumer advocates and civil rights organizations were as swift as they were serious.  
    “The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the President’s program is a clear disregard for what millions of Americans need — especially Black Americans,” stated Derrick Johnson, CEO of the NAACP. “America has so easily forgiven greedy corporations for their debts – why would they refuse to provide the same grace and investment in our own students?”  
    “There is no time to wait–the Administration must act fast to deliver promised relief to worried borrowers and prevent the federal government from sending bills Americans cannot afford to pay in September,” stated Abby Shafroth, Co-Director of Advocacy with the National Consumer Law Center.  
    Concurring with these and other advocates, Jaylon Herbin, Director of Federal Campaigns at the Center for Responsible Lending added, “We urge President Biden to explore all his options, including using his executive and statutory authority, to provide student loan debt relief to the millions of Americans who will face increased financial insecurity when payments restart.”  
    In response to the Supreme Court’s June 30 rejection of student loan forgiveness, Education Secretary Miguel Cardona announced a three-pronged effort to mitigate student loan debt beginning this summer and before July 1, 2024 when new borrower regulations will take full effect.  
    “[T]he Department finalized our new income driven repayment plan, Saving on A Valuable Education (SAVE), which will be the most affordable repayment plan in history,” stated Secretary Cardona. “It will cut monthly payments to zero dollars for millions of low-income borrowers, save all other borrowers at least $1,000 per year, and stop runaway interest that leaves borrowers owing more than their initial loan.”  
    Borrowers who enroll in the plan and pay what they owe will no longer see their loans grow due to unpaid interest. An estimated 70 percent of borrowers who already were on income-driven-repayment (IDR) before the payment pause are expected to see their payments on undergraduate loans cut in half, compared to other IDR plans. This will ensure that borrowers will not see their balance grow as long as they keep up with their required payments.  
    SAVE also provides adjustments for borrowers with varying family status and incomes. For example, single borrowers earning less than $15 an hour or $32,805 annually will not have to make any payments. Borrowers with a family of four can earn up to $67,500 and owe no payments. Married borrowers who file their taxes separately will no longer be required to include their spouse’s income in their payment calculation for SAVE. These borrowers also will have their spouse excluded from their family size when calculating IDR payments, simplifying the choice of repayment plan for borrowers. And borrowers earning above these annual amounts would save more than $1,000 a year on their payments compared to other IDR plans.  
    When the plan is fully implemented next July, additional benefits will begin and include:  
    Borrowers who have undergraduate and graduate loans will pay a weighted average of between 5-10 percent of their income based upon the original principal balances of their loans. For example, a single undergraduate borrower making $50,000 a year would see payments fall an additional $72 a month, bringing their total reduction on the SAVE plan to $163 a month;   
    Borrowers whose original principal balance was $12,000 or less will receive forgiveness after 120 payments, the equivalent of 10 repayment years. An additional 12 payments will be added for each additional $1,000 borrowed above that level, up to a maximum of 20 or 25 years; and 
    Borrowers in default will gain access to the existing income-based repayment (IBR) plan, allowing them to access lower payments and progress toward forgiveness while they work to exit default. However, borrowers in default who provide income information that shows they would have had a $0 payment at the time of default will be automatically moved to good standing, allowing them to access the SAVE plan.  
    Full details of the SAVE plan are available at: https://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/2021/idrfactsheetfinal.pdf. 
    An old adage teaches us that where there’s a will, there’s also a way. Many hope that this alternative loan forgiveness program will relieve the nation of its unsustainable debt.  
    Charlene Crowell is a senior fellow with the Center for Responsible Lending. She can be reached at Charlene.crowell@responsiblelending.org.  

  • Newswire : Supreme Court in 6-3 decision in Moore vs. Harper rejects ‘independent state legislative theory’

    By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Senior National Correspondent

    The U.S. Supreme Court declined to impose new restrictions on state courts regarding election-related matters. The decision came as the Court ruled against Republicans in North Carolina fighting for a congressional district map that favored their candidates.
The justices voted 6-3, in the case of Moore vs. Harper, stating that the North Carolina Supreme Court had acted within its authority by deeming the map a partisan gerrymander under the state Constitution.
The ruling rejects the “independent state legislature” theory, an obscure legal argument made by Republicans.
The theory argues that state courts have limited power to strike down election laws enacted by state legislatures.
However, the Supreme Court’s decision refused to adopt this broad interpretation, much to the relief of voting rights groups and Democrats concerned about potential limitations on state court authority.
Former President Barack Obama expressed his approval of the Court’s decision, tweeting, “Today the Supreme Court rejected the fringe independent state legislature theory that threatened to upend our democracy and dismantle our system of checks and balances.”
The “independent state legislature” argument centers on the language of the Elections Clause in the Constitution, which states that election rules “shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.”
Proponents of the theory claim that this language gives state legislatures ultimate power over federal election rules under state law, potentially overriding any constraints imposed by state constitutions.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the majority opinion, agreed that state courts could apply state constitutional restraints when legislatures exercise the power granted by the Elections Clause.
However, he noted that state courts should be within the bounds of ordinary judicial review when conflicts with federal law arise. Federal courts can intervene in such cases, according to the Court’s conclusion.
The North Carolina Supreme Court had previously issued the ruling.
Still, following the midterm elections, the court composition changed to Republican control, and the decision was recently overturned.
That development raised questions about whether the Supreme Court needed to decide the case at all. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by fellow conservative justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, dissented, arguing that the case was moot.
Thomas expressed concern that the decision would create confusion in lower courts, potentially leading to more cases resembling the controversial Bush v. Gore ruling in 2000 and ultimately resulting in Republican George W. Bush becoming president.
In a separate opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh hinted that the Court might address the scope of state court authority in a future case. He emphasized that the Court had established a general principle for federal court review of state court decisions in federal election cases.
He suggested that a more specific standard would be distilled in due course.
Although the congressional map in North Carolina will be redrawn before the 2024 election due to a state law provision, the Supreme Court’s ruling suggests that the new map is likely to favor Republicans heavily.
Had the Court embraced the “independent state legislature” theory, it would have impacted redistricting disputes and other election-related rules, including issues like mail-in voting and voter access to the polls.
This theory could have also called into question the power of governors to veto legislation.
Chief Justice William Rehnquist had endorsed a version of the theory in the 2000 Bush v. Gore case. During the recent oral arguments, several justices referenced Rehnquist’s opinion to support the notion of constraining state officials, including judges, from making changes to election laws enacted by legislatures without proper legal grounding.
Supporters of former President Donald Trump cited the “independent state legislature” theory in various cases related to the 2020 presidential election.
Republicans, including Tim Moore, used the theory after the North Carolina Supreme Court invalidated the congressional district map last year. They argued that the state court had exceeded its authority.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case but maintained an interim map for the 2022 midterm elections, in which Democrats and Republicans each won seven seats.
Prominent figures supporting the theory included John Eastman, a lawyer involved in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. Eastman argued that then-Vice President Mike Pence could block the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory on January 6, 2021. Conservative groups advocating for stricter voting restrictions and claiming widespread voter fraud also supported the theory.
Democrats and voting rights activists had raised concerns about the case, particularly in light of attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
“This 6-3 decision should put an end to the radical theory that state legislatures can operate without being bound by state constitutions or judicial review,” said Dr. Jennifer Jones of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
“The fight to end partisan gerrymanders is still ongoing, and politicians in North Carolina and other states may still try to lock in their power through biased maps, but today’s decision confirms that those legislators’ power is not absolute. Today’s decision is a relief for everyone concerned with free and fair elections.”

  • Newswire: Supreme Court rules most of Oklahoma is Indian territory

    By Frederick H. Lowe, BlackmansStreet.Today

    Map of Oklahoma, showing Indian territory



    Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring 3 million acres of land Indian Territory in Oklahoma traces its history back to Andrew Jackson and the Indian Removal Act of 1830, which forcibly removed from their native lands in Alabama and Georgia so hundreds of thousands of acres could be given to white farmers.
    The explusion is known as “The Trail of Tears,” which involved the relocation of estimated 100,000 Native Americans, forcing them to relocate from Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Historians estimated that as many as 15,000 men, women and children died on their way to the first Indian reservations. The Trail of Tears was more than 5,043 miles. The tribes driven off their land were Cherokee, Chickasaw, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Choctaw, mixed race people and African slaves.
    The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 decision in a case titled McGirt v. Oklahoma ruled that a large swath of land in Oklahoma, including Tulsa, remained part of the reservation even after Oklahoma became a state.
    “Today we are asked whether the land these treaties promised remains an Indian reservation for purposes of federal criminal law. Because Congress has not said otherwise, we hold the government at its word,” Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion. Gorsuch was joined in his opinion by Associate Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, and Stephen Beyer.
    Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh voted against the ruling.
    “On the far end of the Trail of Tears was a promise. Forced to leave their ancestral lands in Georgia and Alabama, the Creek Nation received assurances that their new land in the West would be secured forever,” Gorsuch wrote.
    Following the ruling, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation issued the following statement.
    “The Supreme Court today kept the United States’ sacred promise to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of a protected reservation. Today’s decision will allow the Nation to honor our ancestors by maintaining our established sovereignty and territorial boundaries. We will continue to work with federal and state law enforcement agencies to ensure that public safety will be maintained throughout the territorial boundaries of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation.”
    Muscogee (Creek) Nation is the fourth largest Indian Tribe in the country. After the Civil War, the Creek Nation, whose members fought both for the Confederacy and the Union, freed black slaves under a new treaty in 1866 with the federal government.
    The former slaves, now known as Creek Freedmen, settled in Tulsa , Oklahoma’s Greenwood District, where they established a significant concentration of black-owned businesses known as Black Wall Street. In one of the nation’s worst race massacres, whites destroyed Black Wall Street and murdered 300 of its residents burning their homes and businessness.
    In 1979, Creek Freedmen were forced out of the tribe. Lawyers for Creek Freedmen filed a lawsuit to get them re-admitted to the tribe. In 2018, Creek Freedmen filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court against the Muscogee (Creek) Nation Principal Chief James Floyd, the United States Department of the Interior and Secretary Ryan Zinke. The lawsuit alleged that under Article 2 of the Creek Treaty of 1866 between the United States and Muscogee Creek Nation that Freedmen and their descents regardless of blood status shall enjoy all the rights of Native citizens. The lawsuit charged the Muscogee Creek Nation and its federal benefactors perpetuated race-based discrimination against the Creek Freedman.
    In May 2019, a lawsuit from the descendants of black slaves who were once owned by members of the Muscogee Creek Nation and who are seeking citizenship in the tribe has been dismissed, with a federal judge ruling that they should go through the tribe’s own legal process first. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., dismissed the Muscogee Creek freedmen descendants’ lawsuit this week seeking citizenship in the Creek Nation the Tulsa World reported.
    The lawsuit charged that the Muscogee Creek Nation has spent the last four decades denying citizenship to the Creek Freedmen by rewriting its tribal constitution and citizenship regulations with the blessings of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
    The titled case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court involved Jimey McGirt and Patrick Murphy. Murphy, a Creek Indian, had been convicted of murdering George Jacobs in rural Oklahoma. His lawyers argued the federal government could prosecute him, but federal law barred Murphy from being sentenced to death because he was an Indian.
    McGirt, a Seminole Indian, was convicted in a state court of sex crimes against a child within the Creek nation. His lawyers argued that only federal authorities are entitled to prosecute him, not state officials.
    Andrew Jackson forced Indians from their land before he was elected the nation’s seventh president from 1829 to 1837. U.S. Congressman Davey Crocket of Tennessee vehemently opposed Andrew Jackson for forcing Indians off their lands. This was never mentioned once on Walt Disney’s television show.
    Jackson, Mississippi, is named in honor of Andrew Jackson. Recently, the City of Jackson has either removed or plans to remove his statute, placing it in a less prominent location.

  • Newswire- Supreme Court sends mixed Civil Rights signals as America celebrates July 4th

    By Hamil R. Harris

    Supreme Court

    (TriceEdneyWire.com) – On the eve of America’s celebration of its 243rd Independence Day, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down rulings that sent mixed messages to Civil Rights groups at a time when President Trump and Republicans hope to tilt the 2020 presidential elections their way.
    In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the issue of partisan gerrymandering (drawing district lines in order to achieve political outcomes) does not belong in federal court and should be decided by state legislatures. Conservatives applauded that decision because it comes on the eve of the 2020 Census when state lawmakers configure districts often to benefit whatever party controls their particular state.
    While the court rejected challenges to Republican-drawn congressional districts in North Carolina and a Democratic district in Maryland, the decision was still a major blow to critics who have argued for years that partisan manipulation of electoral maps unfairly results in single-party political control. The 5-4 decision fell along traditional conservative-liberal lines. Conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Chief Justice John Roberts voted to keep the redistricting cases out of the federal courts. And liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer voted to maintain federal jurisdiction over the cases.
    Speaking for the conservative majority, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that while redistricting plans “are highly partisan by any measure,” the Supreme Court and lower courts are not the venues to settle these disputes. With this decision, Civil Rights groups say the court is giving state houses, mostly controlled by Republicans, more power to tilt things in their ideological direction.
    But writing for the four dissenting judges, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, who was appointed by President Obama, said, “For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities.”
    In the case of Rucho V. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, NAACP President Derrick Johnson, said in a statement, “The Court’s rulings are allowing party politics to determine the outcomes of our elections…Extreme partisan gerrymandering has infected our electoral process for far too long. Exercise of the franchise, which many fought and even died for, must not be reduced to a political charade in which the outcomes are predetermined. In America, voters should choose their representatives instead of representatives choosing their voters.”
    Johnson concluded that the high court should have halted what the NAACP and other civil rights advocates consider unconstitutional conduct, but it did not. Therefore, he contends, this is a throwback racism of the past.
    “In racially polarized environments like North Carolina where racial block voting is standard, today’s decision will license policymakers to mask racial intent as partisan gerrymandering in order to suppress votes and prevent communities from fully participating in democracy to elect candidates of their choice,” Johnson stated.
    The court’s decision basically reverses the outcome of rulings in Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina and Ohio, where lower courts had ordered new maps drawn and it ends proceedings in Wisconsin, where a retrial was supposed to take place later this summer.
    Supreme Court decision in Census case more acceptable
    On the other hand, the NAACP and members of the Congressional Black Caucus applauded the court ruling in the case of the Department of Commerce v. New York that blocks the Trump Administration’s attempt to insert a citizenship question into the 2020 Census based on the pretext of enforcing the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
    “I am very pleased that the Supreme Court ruled today that the Trump Administration may not add the citizenship question to the 2020 Census based on the Administration’s claim that it was trying to protect voting rights,” said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), referring to the 5-4 decision where Robert’s decided with the most liberal leaning justices on the bench.
    Cummings, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Operations Committee, challenged President Trump’s move from the very beginning after his Secretary of Commerce added the citizenship question to the upcoming 2020 Census form.
    “Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross testified before Congress that the Trump Administration was adding the citizenship question to the census ‘solely’ at the request of the Justice Department to help enforce the Voting Rights Act,” Cummings said in a statement. “The Supreme Court has now eviscerated this claim, calling it a ‘pretext,’ ‘contrived,’ and ‘incongruent with what the record reveals.’
    Some have suggested that Secretary Ross could go back and offer other reasons for adding the citizenship question. However, any claim now that the Trump Administration had other reasons for adding the citizenship question would directly contradict Secretary Ross’ sworn testimony that helping the Justice Department enforce the Voting Rights Act was the Administration’s sole purpose.
    Johnson said that the NAACP also welcomed the court ruling, which he said stopped the Trump administration’s fraudulent efforts to suppress votes in the upcoming Presidential election.
    “Through various means, the Trump administration is deliberately seeking to undercount communities of color in the 2020 Census, a ploy designed to increase the political power of Whites at the expense of already underrepresented communities,” Johnson said. “Weakening the political representation of communities of color has been a stain on our democracy since its founding. The Three-Fifths Compromise of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 counted enslaved black people as three-fifths of a person in apportioning congressional districts. Since that time, the Census has severely undercounted the communities of color.”
    This week President Trump has planned a huge 4th of July celebration, complete with a military parade and even a jet fly over in Washington DC. But Johnson wrote that President Trump would do better by stopping his effort to take Democracy away from so many vulnerable people whether it is through a census or mass deportations scheduled sometimes after the holiday.
    “The citizenship question was not made for the reasons put forth by Secretary Ross,” Johnson said. “Rather, it was a bald-faced effort to benefit one race and one political party at the expense of some of our nation’s most vulnerable communities. This astounding truth can no longer be swept under the rug. It is there for all to see.”

  • Newswire : Supreme Court upholds Muslim travel ban

    by: Frederick Lowe, Northstar News

    Supreme Court.jpg

    U. S. Supreme Court building

    The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Trump a major victory Tuesday by upholding his ban on immigrants and visitors from seven mostly Muslim countries.
    In a 5-4 ruling in the case titled Trump v. Hawaii, the justices rejected the argument that Trump overstepped his authority under immigration laws and that the targeting of mostly Muslim-majority countries amounted to religious discrimination.
    Chief Justice John Roberts who wrote the majority opinion said the ruling concerned the nation’s security.
    Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined by Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court’s ruling blindly endorsed a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity towards Muslims.
    Sotomayor added that the ruling is a total and complete shutdown of Muslims coming to this country under a façade masquerading as national security measures.
    Trump’s order issued in September 2017 was the third version of the travel ban. It imposed a 90-day ban on citizens from Iran, Libya, Syria, Somalia Yemen, North Korea, and Venezuela entering the U.S. Later, the order put a 120-day hold on the admission of refugees.
    “The Supreme Court has upheld the clear authority of the President to defend the national security of the United States. In this era of worldwide terrorism and extremist movements bent on harming innocent civilians, we must properly vet those coming into our country,” Trump said in a statement.
    Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, advocacy and rights groups warned of an increase in attacks against Muslims, reported Al Jazeera.
    Since Trump took office, reports of crimes against Muslims have climbed, Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman of Council on American-Islamic Relations, told Al Jazeera.