Connect with us

Politics

Exclusive: No Recusal in Samantha Markle v. Meghan Markle

Published

on

No Pseudonymity in Challenge to Federal Vaccination Mandate

#Recusal #Samantha #Markle #Meghan #Markle

From Markle v. Markle, decided today by Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell (M.D. Fla.); seems quite correct to me (see here for the substantive issue in the case):

In this action, Samantha Markle sues Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, for defamation and injurious falsehood. She now seeks the undersigned’s disqualification under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)….

Samantha Markle seeks disqualification because President Barack Obama appointed the undersigned to serve as a federal judge in 2009. She asserts that “there exists a reasonable basis that [the undersigned’s] impartiality will be questioned” because President Obama appointed the undersigned and “the Obama family, Prince Harry, and Meghan are ‘allies’ and strong supporters of one another.” She also highlights that the Duchess met privately with First Lady Michelle Obama in 2018 and, in 2020, co-chaired a voter-registration drive with the former first lady, whom the Duchess called her “friend.”

In addition to describing Prince Harry and President Obama as “allies,” Markle asserts that Prince Harry visited the former president in the White House, welcomed the former president and former first lady to Kensington Palace, and conducted “an intimate interview” with the former president. Finally, she contends that the Duchess and the former president “share the same communications team lead.”

The Motion to Disqualify lacks merit. Despite arguing that members of the public would entertain a “significant doubt” as to the undersigned’s impartiality because “there seems to be an undeniable connection” between the Obamas and the Duchess, Markle concedes that she “is unaware if [the undersigned] has a current relationship with Obama, and how far back the relationship has existed.” Of course, a valid recusal request may not lack factual support, nor may a party premise a recusal request upon unsupported or highly tenuous speculation.

As Markle highlights, President Obama appointed the undersigned nearly 13 years ago. But the undersigned has never had any relationship, social or professional, with the Obamas. The undersigned has never spoken with the former president or the former first lady. President Obama’s appointment of the undersigned, without more, does not serve as a basis for recusal. See, e.g., Straw v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“There is no support whatsoever for the contention that a judge can be disqualified based simply on the identity of the President who appointed [her].”); McKee v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice  (D.D.C. 2017) (“[T]he identity of the President who appointed the judge assigned to a case has no bearing on recusal.”). Because the undersigned has never had any relationship with the Obamas, any relationship, or connection, between the Obamas and the Duchess and Prince Harry does not serve as a basis for the undersigned’s recusal. An objective, disinterested, lay observer fully informed of these facts would not entertain significant doubt about the undersigned’s impartiality. As such, the Court will deny the Motion to Disqualify.

{Further, Markle’s request for recusal is more attenuated than those cases in which presiding district judges declined motions for their recusal because the presidents who appointed them were parties to the litigation. See In re Executive Office of the President (D.C. Cir. 2000) (denying recusal request under § 455(a) and Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges where the action “[i]nvolved the conduct of the President who appointed” a presiding circuit court judge); see also Trump v. Clinton   (S.D. Fla. 2022) (denying recusal request where First Lady Hillary Clinton was a defendant and President Bill Clinton appointed the presiding district judge).}

Politics

Exclusive: The Most Conservative Court In 90 Years – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Compelling Television

#Conservative #Court #Years

“In 2018 just after he announced his retirement, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who sat at the ideological center of the court for much of his 30-year tenure, met with a groups of reporters. Was he worried that some of the precedents he helped establish–the right to abortion and LGBT rights, for instance–might now be in jeopardy? No, he replied. He was confident that constitutional rights, once established would remain in place,” NPR reports.

“It took just four years, and the addition of one more Trump appointee to the Supreme Court, to prove him wrong.”

FiveThirtyEight: “The data emphasizes that the court is deeply polarized along partisan lines — perhaps more than it’s ever been. There have always been ideological disagreements among the justices, and those have often pitted liberals against conservatives, but those divides weren’t consistently linked to the justice’s appointing party.”

LoadingSave to Favorites

Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: Sorry, Biden, Gas Stations Can't Just 'Bring Down the Price' – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Sorry, Biden, Gas Stations Can't Just 'Bring Down the Price'

#Biden #Gas #Stations #Can039t #039Bring #Price039

Over the holiday weekend, President Joe Biden discovered a new scapegoat for persistently high gas prices: Americans who own and operate gas stations.

“My message to the companies running gas stations and setting prices at the pump is simple: this is a time of war and global peril,” Biden tweeted on Saturday. “Bring down the price you are charging at the pump to reflect the cost you’re paying for the product. And do it now.”

It arguably lacks the pomposity of former President Donald Trump’s memorable tweet that “hereby ordered” American companies to stop doing business in China, but the content is equally unhinged. Biden has been aggressive about using vague executive powers to shape the economy in recent months, but that doesn’t change the fact that an American president has no business whatsoever telling gas stations how much to charge at the pump.

If the tweet merely overstepped the limits of executive authority, though, it wouldn’t be as noteworthy—that sort of thing is almost an everyday occurrence. It’s also a telling example of just how little the Biden administration seems to know about what it believes it can design.

It would take no more than a few minutes of a White House adviser’s time to learn that the “companies running gas stations and setting prices at the pump” in most cases aren’t companies at all. More than half the gas stations in the country are single-store operations run by an individual or a family, according to the Association for Convenience and Fuel Retailing (NACS), a trade association representing the stores that sell more than 80 percent of the gasoline American consumers use.

A “Shell” or “Exxon” logo on the canopy above a filling station doesn’t mean those oil companies own the gas station. All it means is that the station’s owners have contracted with that company for the right to advertise the well-known brand. It’s the same as having a neon “Coors Light” sign hanging in a bar—which doesn’t mean MillerCoors owns the establishment.

And those gas station owners aren’t raking in massive profits, either. Over the past five years, retailer gross margins have averaged 10.7 percent of the overall price of gas, according to NACS data. But most of those profits come from selling food, drinks, cigarettes, and the like.

The Hustle, a business and tech newsletter, put together a useful breakdown of the economics of gas stations last year. “Selling gas generally isn’t very profitable” due largely to intense price competition among retailers and the ease with which consumers can shop around (because they are literally in their cars). On fuel alone, gas stations have an average margin of 1.4 percent.

If gas stations sold fuel at cost, consumers might hardly notice the difference—but the small-time entrepreneurs running those stations would have a harder time making ends meet.

Advertisement

Biden’s ignorance about gas stations sounds like a replay of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D–Mass.) attempt at blaming higher food prices on greedy grocery store owners—despite the fact that they often operate on similarly tiny margins. It’s also a worrying sign when coupled with the fact that the White House has ordered the Department of Justice and FBI to investigate companies for earning “illicit profits” due to inflation. How can the Biden administration be trusted to police companies’ profits when it is demonstrating such economic illiteracy?

Biden’s gas station tweet is “either straight ahead misdirection or a deep misunderstanding of basic market dynamics,” tweeted Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, a man who knows a bit about what it takes to run a successful business. Meanwhile, the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, an industry group, recommended that the “WH intern who posted this tweet” sign up for a basic economics class.

Maybe Biden should take the class too.


Continue Reading

Politics

Exclusive: Supreme Court Deals New Blow To Left’s Climate Agenda – Limits EPA Power To Regulate Greenhouse Gasses – TalkOfNews.com

Published

on

By

Gun Rights Victory: Supreme Court Tosses New York Law Restricting Concealed Carry

#Supreme #Court #Deals #Blow #Lefts #Climate #Agenda #Limits #EPA #Power #Regulate #Greenhouse #Gasses

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot circumvent Congress and pass sweeping regulations to control emissions at power plants.

The decision, described by CNN as a “major defeat” for the Biden administration’s climate change agenda, limits the power of the executive branch to implement environmental regulations on its own.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing in the opinion, specifically goes after efforts to overhaul major industries through strict regulations without congressional approval.

“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’” Roberts explained.

But, he added, “A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.”

RELATED: Ten Policies That Could Unleash American Energy And Fuel Recovery

Liberals Aren’t Pleased With Supreme Court’s EPA Ruling

Like clockwork, Democrat lawmakers and liberal pundits responded to the Supreme Court’s EPA ruling with judicious, thoughtful, lucid, prudent, and sensible analysis.

Just kidding, they went to the ol’ thesaurus and looked up synonyms for ‘extreme’ and ‘doom.’

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) called the ruling “catastrophic,” a term we know she had to look up because it has three syllables more than most words she uses.

She suggested ‘doing away’ with the Supreme Court “for the sake of the planet.”

Honestly, we’re not certain why she’s so worried. According to her own calculations – in which she likely utilized a solar-powered calculator, an abacus, and all her fingers and little piggies – the world is going to end in 2031.

She’s not going to have to worry about the silly ol’ Supreme Court after that.

“Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we’re like: ‘The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?’” she said during an interview at an event in New York City in 2019.

RELATED: Biden’s Abuse Of The Defense Production Act Will Drive Gas Prices Even Higher

The Planet is on🔥 

Others swiftly followed suit by metaphorically lighting their hair on fire over the EPA ruling by the Supreme Court.

Advertisement

Senator Elizabeth Warren, who spent a good portion of her career claiming Native American status only to have to apologize after a DNA test, suggested the Court is illegitimate and referred to it as “extremist” and “radical.”

Warren also told followers that “the planet is on fire.”

Now, if the planet is on fire, and low-information supporters believe that it’s the Supreme Court that lit the match, what do you expect to happen? Especially when there have been assassination attempts against at least one Justice.

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes described the Supreme Court as “a threat to the planet.”

Ah, the tears are strong with that one.

Speaking of liberal tears, does anyone remember the ProPublica report that profiled how hard it was for employees at the EPA to work under a Trump administration? Here’s an unintentionally hilarious excerpt.

At EPA headquarters, the mood remains dark. A longtime career communications employee said in a phone interview Tuesday that more than a few friends were “coming to work in tears” each morning as they grappled with balancing the practical need to keep their jobs with their concerns for the issues they work on.

Wonder how they’re feeling today knowing the Supreme Court curtailed the power of the EPA and delivered a significant victory for the coal mining and coal power industry.

Now is the time to support and share the sources you trust.
The Political Insider ranks #3 on Feedspot’s “100 Best Political Blogs and Websites.”

Advertisement


Continue Reading

Exclusive

Copyright © 2022 Talk Of News.