Tag: Court

Colorado GOP asking US Supreme Court to overturn ruling disqualifying Trump from 2024 ballot

The Colorado Republican Party said it’s asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that barred former President Donald Trump from appearing on the state’s 2024 ballot. 

Earlier this month, the Colorado Supreme Court, in a 4-3 vote, overturned a lower court ruling that allowed Trump to appear on the ballot as a presidential candidate. The initial ruling said a president is not among the officials subject to disqualification on a ballot. 

“By excluding President Trump from the ballot, the Colorado Supreme Court engaged in an unprecedented disregard for the First Amendment right of political parties to select the candidates of their choice and a usurpation of the rights of the people to choose their elected officials,” attorneys for the state Republican party wrote in a petition of the Dec. 19 ruling. 

POLL SHOWS BIDEN HITTING RECORD LOW APPROVALS, FALLING BEHIND AGAINST TRUMP IN 2024 MATCHUP

Fox News Digital has reached out to the Colorado GOP. 

In their opinion, the justices on the state’s high court wrote that Trump “incited and encouraged” the use of violence to prevent the peaceful transfer of power on Jan. 6, 2021, when many of his followers stormed the U.S. Capitol as congressional lawmakers were certifying President Biden’s election win. 

The case is being appealed based on three main arguments: whether the president is among those officials subject to disqualification by Section Three of the 14th Amendment, the so-called insurrection clause; whether Section Three is “self-executing,” meaning that it allows states to remove candidates from a ballot in absence of any congressional action. 

The last point rests on whether denying a political party the ability to choose a candidate of its choice in a presidential primary and general election violates the First Amendment Right of Association. The attorneys said by excluding Trump, Colorado’s highest court has concluded that individuals, courts and election officials can possess legal authority to enforce Section Three. 

“Rejecting a long history of precedent, a state Supreme Court has now concluded that individual litigants, state courts, and secretaries of state in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia have authority to enforce Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the state party wrote.

The party also said that other states may follow Colorado’s lead and exclude Trump from their ballots as well. Disqualification lawsuits relating to Trump’s appearance on the ballot are pending in 13 states, including Texas, Nevada and Wisconsin.

“With the number of challenges to President Trump’s candidacy now pending in other states, ranging from lawsuits to administrative proceedings, there is a real risk the Colorado Supreme Court majority’s flawed and unprecedented analysis will be borrowed, and the resulting grave legal error repeated,” the petition states. 

In the lower court ruling, Colorado District Judge Sarah B. Wallace allowed Trump to stay on the ballot, but found that he “engaged in insurrection” for his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.

Biden won Colorado by 13.5 points in 2020.

On Wednesday, the Michigan Supreme Court rejected an attempt to remove Trump from the state’s 2024 Republican primary ballot.

“Significantly, Colorado’s election laws differ from Michigan’s laws in a material way that is directly relevant to why the appellants in this case are not entitled to the relief they seek concerning the presidential primary election in Michigan,” Justice Elizabeth Welch wrote Wednesday, explaining the court’s ruling.

Alex Murdaugh's lawyers slam court clerk's 'illegal' behavior as they push for new trial

An attorney for convicted killer Alex Murdaugh called South Carolina court clerk Rebecca Hill’s conduct during his murder trial “highly improper” and “frankly, illegal,” according to a new interview.

Lawyers Dick Harpootlian and Jim Griffin sat down Wednesday with Craig Melvin of the “Today” show less than 24 hours after dropping a bombshell motion demanding a new trial based on allegations of jury tampering. 

“Any time there’s outside influence in the sanctity of the jury room, it is improper,” Griffin said. 

The defense team alleges Hill had inappropriate, private chats with the jury foreperson and presented false information to the judge to get a juror she thought was sympathetic to Murdaugh kicked off the panel.

ALEX MURDAUGH SEEKS NEW TRIAL, ALLEGES JURY TAMPERING IN BOMBSHELL MOTION

They also allege she discussed Murdaugh’s guilt with jurors and tried to coerce a conviction so she could secure a book deal.

The Colleton County clerk, an elected official, published a memoir Aug. 1 about her role in the case, “Behind the Doors of Justice: The Murdaugh Murders.” 

BUSTER MURDAUGH SAYS HIS FATHER ALEX HAS CHARACTERISTICS OF A PSYCHOPATH, BUT MAINTAINS HIS DAD IS INNOCENT

Murdaugh, 55, was sentenced to two life terms in prison in March for fatally shooting his wife, Maggie Murdaugh, and his son, Paul Murdaugh, in June 2021.

The attorneys said Hill’s conduct was so egregious Murdaugh deserves another shot in the courtroom even if the verdict had been the same without her alleged meddling.

“The legal question is not whether the outcome of the trial would have been different. The question is whether the information provided to the jury outside the confines of the courtroom is prejudicial,” Griffin told Melvin. 

“You can never go back and rewind the clock or put the toothpaste back in the tube. That’s a game we can’t play. But what we do know is the conduct the jurors have reported to us is highly improper and, frankly, illegal,” he added.

ALEX MURDAUGH: TIMELINE OF ONCE-POWERFUL SOUTH CAROLINA LAWYER’S SPECTACULAR DOWNFALL

Hill, 55, stood in the Colleton County Courthouse March 2 and read the guilty verdict, which took the panel less than three hours to reach.

Many spectators were stunned by the swiftness of the decision, especially after a six-week trial. But the motion argues that Hill hurried the deliberations by denying the six smokers on the panel smoke breaks and threatening to send them to a hotel if they didn’t wrap up that night. 

Griffin and Harpootlian said at a press conference Tuesday the filing is based on new evidence, including interviews with two jurors who were so annoyed by Hill’s grandstanding and new book that they decided to speak to Murdaugh’s legal team.

Murdaugh has insisted he’s innocent and has the backing of his surviving son, Buster Murdaugh, who gave an exclusive interview to Martha MacCallum on Fox Nation’s docuseries “The Fall of the House of Murdaugh.”

The disgraced attorney from a prominent legal family has admitted stealing more than $9 million from his former law firm and clients to fuel an opioid addiction.

“A fraudulent lawyer does not equate to a murderer, and he did not murder his wife and son,” Griffin told Melvin. 

Pence's fiery response to Trump indictment, Pelosi attacker's day in court and more top headlines

NO UNCERTAIN TERMS – Pence leaves no doubt after Trump indicted in Jan. 6 case, issues fiery statement blasting ex-president. Continue reading … DAY IN COURT – Suspect charged with attacking Paul Pelosi to appear before a judge today ahead of his trial. Continue reading … SHOOTING DAGGERS – Suspected Gilgo Beach killer scowls in court … Continue reading Pence's fiery response to Trump indictment, Pelosi attacker's day in court and more top headlines

Law professors urge Biden to defy 'mistaken' rulings by 'MAGA' Supreme Court justices

President Biden should find ways to defy the rulings of “MAGA justices” for their “gravely mistaken” constitutional interpretations, law professors urged in a letter on Wednesday.

Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin penned “An Open Letter to the Biden Administration on Popular Constitutionalism” to respond to what Biden has called “not a normal court” following high-profile cases.

“We urge President Biden to restrain MAGA justices immediately by announcing that if and when they issue rulings that are based on gravely mistaken interpretations of the Constitution that undermine our most fundamental commitments, the Administration will be guided by its own constitutional interpretations,” they wrote.

The letter continued, “We have worked diligently over the past five years to advocate Supreme Court expansion as a necessary strategy for restoring democracy. Although we continue to support expansion, the threat that MAGA justices pose is so extreme that reforms that do not require Congressional approval are needed at this time, and advocates and experts should encourage President Biden to take immediate action to limit the damage.”

WHY MEDIA, LIBERALS ARE ATTACKING HIGH COURT’S LEGITIMACY AFTER LATEST RULINGS 

Tushnet and Belkin cited a solution known as “popular constitutionalism” claiming “that courts do not exercise exclusive authority over constitutional meaning.” They theorized that Biden could explain how the Supreme Court’s decisions are “egregiously wrong” and offer an alternative constitutional interpretation, particular if the ruling poses a “grave threat.”

“In this particular historical moment, MAGA justices pose a grave threat to our most fundamental commitments because they rule consistently to undermine democracy and to curtail fundamental rights, and because many of their rulings are based on misleading and untrue claims,” they warned.

George Washington University law professor and legal expert Jonathan Turley penned an op-ed for The Hill on Saturday that warned about this interpretation of the constitution.

“What is most striking about these professors is how they continue to claim they are defenders of democracy, yet seek to use unilateral executive authority to defy the courts and, in cases like the tuition forgiveness and affirmative action, the majority of the public. They remain the privileged elite of academia, declaring their values as transcending both constitutional and democratic processes,” Turley wrote.

JONATHAN TURLEY SAYS BIDEN’S STUDENT DEBT FORGIVENESS STOOD LITTLE CHANCE BEFORE SCOTUS: ‘BORDERED ON OBSCENE’ 

He added, “In other words, they are calling for Biden to declare himself the final arbiter of what the Constitution means and to exercise unilateral executive power without congressional approval. He is to become a government unto himself.”

In 2018, Tushnet and Belkin took part in the “1.20.21 Project,” an effort to counter “Republican obstruction, theft and procedural abuse” in the Supreme Court following the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. The project predominantly focused on expanding the size of all the nation’s federal courts and packing them with liberal judges.

Reporters previously pushed the Biden administration to ignore Supreme Court decisions based on its lack of legitimacy back in 2022.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“The court famously has no enforcement authority. Its authority is based in acceptance of the court’s legitimacy. But it can’t do whatever the hell it wants however it wants and expect deference. [E]xecutive ought to brush off the court’s junta-like attempts to rule by edict,” former Niskanen Center Vice President for Research Will Wilkinson tweeted.

Supreme Court rulings likely to intensify calls from the left to 'pack' the Court

The ruling Thursday on affirmative action, the rulings Friday for a web designer to refuse to design same-sex websites and the decision to strike down President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan will likely ignite calls by the left to expand or “pack” the composition of the High Court and impose terms for Supreme Court justices.

Calls to change the makeup of the Supreme Court have come from the left following appointments of more conservative justices under former President Trump. Though Congress has taken no concrete steps to dilute the power of justices appointed by Republican presidents, recent high profile rulings against the Biden administration have already inspired renewed calls to add more justices to the bench.

“People don’t have to live under constant fear of the Supreme Court. We can’t sit on our hands while these justices carry out the bidding of right wing organizations,” wrote Democratic Minnesota Sen. Tina Smith in a tweet Friday. “Expand the Court.”

SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF COLORADO GRAPHIC DESIGNER WHO REFUSED TO CREATE SAME-SEX WEDDING WEBSITES

Biden has not endorsed the idea of expanding the court, even after establishing a commission to study the proposal. He told MSNBC’s Nicole Wallace Thursday that expanding the court would “politicize it, maybe forever, in a way that’s not healthy.” 

However, he also stated his view that the current court is “too young and too conservative,” and could harm the country with its rulings.

The left’s grievances against the makeup of the Supreme Court have roots in recent and distant history. Liberals accuse conservatives and Trump of “stealing” at least two seats and perhaps the Supreme Court, tipping the balance of power among the nine justices.

When Trump surprised Democrats with his 2016 election win, the stage was set to change the ideological makeup of the high court.

THOMAS BLASTS JACKSON’S ‘RACE-INFUSED WORLD VIEW’ IN SUPREME COURT RULING OUTLAWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Senate Minority Leader — then Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — had refused to allow former President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court to even have a hearing in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Obama had nominated current Attorney General Merrick Garland to succeed Scalia, but McConnell and then-Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, blocked Garland.

McConnell argued that the Senate should not confirm a justice in a presidential election year.

After Trump won in 2016, McConnell then shepherded to confirmation Justice Neil Gorsuch to succeed Scalia in the spring of 2017. In fact, McConnell used the “nuclear option” in the Senate to avoid a Democratic filibuster of Gorsuch. Democrats first used the nuclear option to sidestep filibusters for nominations besides Supreme Court justices in 2013. However, McConnell then detonated the nuclear option, just to muscle Gorsuch onto the High Court. Otherwise, Democrats — still smarting from the Garland experience — could have filibustered Gorsuch’s nomination.

The Senate had never filibustered a Supreme Court nomination. However, the Senate did filibuster the promotion of late Justice Abe Fortas from Associate Justice to U.S. Chief Justice in the late 1960s.

McConnell again relied on the nuclear option to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the fall of 2018.

After the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, McConnell ignored what he said in 2016 about confirming justices in a presidential election year, and pushed through the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett days before the 2020 presidential election.

BIDEN SHOOTS DOWN SUPREME COURT EXPANSION, SAYS COURT COULD BE POLITICIZED IN ‘WAY THAT IS NOT HEALTHY’

So, liberals are livid over the composition of the Supreme Court and thus the rulings. That is why they are pushing for changing the fundamental makeup of the Court. The size of the Supreme Court is set by statute, not the Constitution, and theoretically could be expanded.

Liberals are still upset that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President George W. Bush over Democratic nominee Al Gore in the disputed election of 2000. Because of that, Bush was able to secure two seats on the Supreme Court: U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005 and Justice Samuel Alito in 2006.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 created a Supreme Court comprised of six justices. Congress added a seventh justice in 1807. The Court grew to nine justices in 1837.

The size of the Supreme Court has always been political. In 1863, Congress added a 10th seat to the Supreme Court for President Lincoln. Lincoln never filled that seat, but there was fear that President Johnson may alter the court. So, Congress shrunk the size of the Supreme Court to seven justices in 1867. Once Johnson was gone, Congress switched the number back to nine for President Grant. 

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to “pack” the Court in 1937 — adding justices for every member of the Supreme Court who was over the age of 70. Thus, FDR hoped to install six of his own justices on the Court, but the public was opposed, and the Senate Judiciary Committee emphatically torpedoed the plan.

5 charged with killing Irish UN peacekeeper in Lebanese military court

Lebanon’s military tribunal on Thursday charged five men with the killing of an Irish U.N. peacekeeper in December, a senior judicial official said. The official, speaking on condition of anonymity in line with regulations, alleged all five are linked with Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

The indictment followed a half-year probe after an attack on a U.N. peacekeeping convoy near the town of Al-Aqbiya in Lebanon’s south, a stronghold of Hezbollah. The shooting resulted in the death of Pvt. Seán Rooney, 24, of Newtown Cunningham, Ireland, and seriously wounded Pvt. Shane Kearney, 22. The wounded peacekeeper was medically evacuated to Ireland. Two other Irish soldiers sustained light injuries.

The indictment includes evidence from bystanders’ testimonies, as well as audio recordings and video footage from surveillance cameras, the Lebanese official said. In some of the recordings of the confrontation, the gunmen reportedly could be heard telling the peacekeepers that they are from Hezbollah.

BLAST IN EAST LEBANON KILLS 5 IN BASE CONTROLLED BY PALESTINIAN FACTION, ISRAEL DENIES ROLE

Hezbollah has denied any role in the killing, and a spokesperson for the group declined to comment on the indictments Thursday.

One of five indicted, Mohamad Ayyad, is currently in custody of Lebanese authorities. The four others facing charges – Ali Khalifeh, Ali Salman, Hussein Salman, and Mustafa Salman – are at large.

On the fatal night, Rooney and several other Irish soldiers with the peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, UNIFIL, were on their way from their base in the south to the Beirut airport. Two U.N. vehicles apparently took a detour through Al-Aqbiya, which is not part of the area under the peacekeepers’ mandate.

LEBANON GETS INTERPOL NOTICE FOLLOWING CENTRAL BANK CHIEF’S FAILURE TO APPEAR

Initial reports said angry residents confronted the peacekeepers, but the indictment concludes that the shooting was a targeted attack. The U.N. peacekeeper vehicle reportedly took a wrong turn and was surrounded by vehicles and armed men as they tried to make their way back to the main road.

UNIFIL spokesperson Andrea Tenenti said the indictment was an “important step towards justice”.

“Attacks on men and women serving the cause of peace are serious crimes and can never be tolerated,” Tenenti told the AP. “We look forward to justice for Private Rooney, his injured colleagues, and their families.”

UNIFIL was created to oversee the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon after Israel’s 1978 invasion. The U.N. expanded its mission following the 2006 war between Israel and the Iran-backed Hezbollah, allowing peacekeepers to deploy along the Israeli border to help the Lebanese military extend its authority into the country’s south for the first time in decades.

Hezbollah supporters in Lebanon frequently accuse the U.N. mission of collusion with Israel, while Israel has accused the peacekeepers of turning a blind eye to Hezbollah’s military activities in southern Lebanon.