Archive for January, 2017

The Pronk Pops Show 828, January 31, 2017, Story 1: President Trump Nominates Judge Neil Gorsuch of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals For Supreme Court Justice — Videos

Posted on January 31, 2017. Filed under: American History, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, History, Human, Law, Life, Media, News, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Senate, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 828: January 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 827: January 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 826: January 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 787: October 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 786: October 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 785: October 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 784: October 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 783: October 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

trump-gosuch-and-wife

neil-gorsuch

three-possible-choices

neil-gosuch-and-wife

Trump Announces Supreme Court Pick: Neil Gorsuch

President Donald Trump Picks Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court 1/31/17

President Donald Trump announces his Supreme Court nominee – 31 Jan 2017

What Trump’s Gorsuch nomination means for the Supreme Court

Ted Cruz: Gorsuch is a ‘home run’ SCOTUS pick

Judge Gorsuch: A Dream Pick for Supreme Court?

On the short list: Colorado’s Neil Gorsuch could be the next Supreme Court justice

Here are the three candidates on Trump’s shortlist for Supreme Court justice pick

President Trump’s 3 Supreme Court Finalists: What To Know | TIME

Trump’s potential SCOTUS picks share one commonality

Who are Donald Trump’s Supreme Court picks?

How Is A U.S. Supreme Court Justice Appointed?

Why Supreme Court Justices Serve For Life

The Bias of the Supreme Court

As Trump readies to announce Supreme Court pick, one judge emerges as top candidate

Thomas Hardiman

Thomas Hardiman. AP Photo/Cliff Owen

President Donald Trump announced Monday morning that he had settled on a nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court — and one formerly dark-horse candidate has emerged as the judge with quite possibly the inside track to score the nod.

Thomas Hardiman, a 51-year-old judge who sits on the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals, has caught the attention of observers to fill the void left by the late Justice Antonin Scalia for several reasons.

With Democrats threatening to block Trump’s Supreme Court pick, it’s noteworthy that Hardiman was voted onto the appeals court in 2007 by a 95-0 tally. Both Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, voted to approve him.

Hardiman also has the backing of Trump’s closest judicial source: his sister.

Maryanne Trump Barry, a fellow 3rd Circuit judge, holds a high opinion of Hardiman. As an adviser who spoke with the president told Politico, “Maryanne is high on Hardiman.”

And those who know the conservative judge say there’s another trait that could be attractive to Trump.

“I don’t know that I can think of anybody that seemed as down-to-earth as he is,” Carter Phillips, a Washington, DC, lawyer who has argued before the Supreme Court more than any other attorney in private practice, told Business Insider.

Phillips said he has argued a pair of cases in front of Hardiman, been a part of a few panels with the Pittsburgh-based judge, and had a handful of Hardiman’s former clerks work at his law firm, Sidley Austin.

“He’s a really nice person,” Phillips said. “I think he will be what you see is what you get on the bench. I don’t think you’re going to see anything quite like Justice Scalia in that regard — I don’t expect him to be larger than life. … He appears, by all means, to be a solid conservative.”

Hardiman, at 37, was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve on the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. He was nominated to the appeals court four years later.

A Notre Dame graduate who received his law degree from Georgetown, Hardiman would find himself in sparse company on the Supreme Court bench — each justice currently seated holds an Ivy League law degree.

As SCOTUSblog noted, Hardiman has reflected originalist opinions on Second Amendment cases. On abortion-related issues, Hardiman has not weighed in directly.

Thomas Hardiman

AP Photo/Cliff Owen

Trump promised throughout the campaign to fill the vacancy with a judge in the mold of Scalia. Those who spoke with Business Insider about Hardiman said he would likely fall somewhere between Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts ideologically.

Former US District Judge Robert Cindrich, who hired Hardiman to join his Pittsburgh firm when Hardiman moved to the city, said he “tries to be humanistic” and “tries to solve problems” in a way similar to Roberts.

“That might be somewhere where he might fit,” Cindrich told Business Insider. “For sure he’s a conservative. In his philosophies, he is a Republican, There’s no question about his conservative bona fides. He was active in the Republican Party when he came to Pittsburgh — very successful at that, by the way — so you would have to say he’d be of the conservative mold. How far, it’s very hard for me to say.

“Whether he is as strict an originalist as Justice Scalia, I can’t say,” he said. “But whether he would pay heed to the word of the Constitution, I know he will. There’s no question.”

But Cindrich, a Democrat, also said he considered Hardiman to be “sufficiently forward-thinking and thoughtful.”

Echoing Phillips’ assessment, Cindrich said Hardiman is the consummate “people person.”

“[It’s] one of the reasons he was so successful as a district judge,” Cindrich said. “He wasn’t there very long. They picked him out as a star, which he was, and got him to [that] circuit court appointment.”

Phillips said Hardiman’s clerks say they “love him.”

“But they also say he’s open-minded, likes to talk through the issues, stays engaged with them after they complete their clerkship,” he said. “From my perspective, he’ll likely be pro-business, and he’ll be a lot like Justice Scalia in terms of his overall approach to the cases. I think he’ll probably be good for most of my clients.”

Like Cindrich, Phillips said he expects Hardiman would fall somewhere between Alito and Roberts ideologically and that he would be surprised if the judge ended up closer to the more moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy.

“At least based on everything I’ve read on him — which I won’t say is that much, I won’t start reading a judge’s opinions until I have a nominee in hand — everything I’ve heard about him and read about him suggests he will be a solid conservative,” Phillips said. “The same way I knew that Merrick Garland was going to be a solid liberal if his nomination hadn’t stalled.”

Phillips said it was “probably not an unfair comparison” to make that Hardiman would be for the right what Garland, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals judge who was nominated early last year by President Barack Obama for Scalia’s vacancy, was for the left.

Hardiman is joined on the Trump administration’s list of finalists by 10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch and 11th Circuit Judge Bill Pryor. Trump initially said he would announce the nomination on Thursday, but after a weekend firestorm surrounding his executive order that temporarily bars people immigrating to the US from seven Muslim-majority countries, the announcement was moved up to Tuesday night.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel of the Judicial Crisis Network, a group that plans to go to bat for Trump’s eventual nominee and spend millions to help get that person confirmed, told Business Insider that it seems as if there is a new front-runner for the vacancy with each passing day.

“You know, yesterday was Gorsuch’s day. Today is Hardiman. Tomorrow, we’ll probably be on [7th Circuit Judge] Diane Sykes,” she said.

She insisted that Hardiman would be an “excellent choice” for the vacancy and would fulfill Trump’s promise of picking a judge akin to Scalia. But Severino added that she feels “like an Ivy League admissions office” with what she believes are a litany of great conservative choices being reported as under consideration.

“You’ve got all these people with 4.0s and 1600 SAT scores,” Severino said. “You can kind of pick which flavor, and they’d all be great choices. That, I think, is the president’s task, but it’s a great problem to have.”

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-supreme-court-nomination-frontrunner-2017-1

Supreme Court nomination will come TOMORROW as Trump strains to shift national conversation away from Friday’s travel ban executive order

  • President had originally said announcement would come Thursday
  • He tweeted Monday morning: ‘It will be announced live on Tuesday at 8:00 P.M.’
  • Trump often used surprise announcements to shift attention away from negative media coverage during his presidential campaign
  • The White House is in siege mode, defending itself against complaints about Friday’s executive order controlling the entry of some Middle Eastern travelers 
  • Three federal appeals court judges are said to have emerged as leading candidates: Neil Gorsuch, Thomas Hardiman and William Pryor 
  • CNN is scheduled to host an hour-long town hall event with Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at 9:00 p.m., an event that will now be drowned out by reactions to Trump’s choice 

President Donald Trump has chosen a replacement for the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, and he will announce a name tomorrow night.

‘I have made my decision on who I will nominate for The United States Supreme Court. It will be announced live on Tuesday at 8:00 P.M. (W.H.),’ the president wrote on Twitter.

Trump originally said the announcement would come on Thursday. Word of a possible earlier announcement first came as the White House dealt with fallout from Trump’s partial travel ban on Middle Eastern refugees.

As a candidate, Trump often used surprise announcements to shift attention away from negative media coverage.

Trump told small business leaders gathered at the White House on Monday morning that he had made ‘a very big decision on the United States Supreme Court, that is going to be announced tomorrow night from the White House at 8 o’clock.’

The president called his choice ‘a person who is unbelievably highly respected, and I think you will be very impressed with this person.’

President Donald Trump said Monday morning that he will introduce his Supreme Court nominee to the nation at 8:00 p.m. Tuesday

President Donald Trump said Monday morning that he will introduce his Supreme Court nominee to the nation at 8:00 p.m. Tuesday

The White House is defending itself against complaints about Friday's travel-ban executive order; candidate Trump often used surprise announcements to shift the national dialogue away from hot-button issues

The White House is defending itself against complaints about Friday’s travel-ban executive order; candidate Trump often used surprise announcements to shift the national dialogue away from hot-button issues

Trump chose 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday for his announcement, just an hour before CNN is scheduled to host a town hall-style broadcast with Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi – meaning her big event will be drowned out by Trump's big reveal 

Trump chose 8:00 p.m. on Tuesday for his announcement, just an hour before CNN is scheduled to host a town hall-style broadcast with Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi – meaning her big event will be drowned out by Trump’s big reveal

The White House offered a hint at who the president had picked on Monday afternoon.

The president’s spokesman told a reporter Trump is ‘100 percent sure he’s the pick’ – indicating that it would not be a woman.

‘This individual is part of the list that he put out. He maintains exactly what he said he was going to do,’ Spicer said, referring to a definitive list of 21 names Trump previously put out.

Spicer claimed a moment later, after his questioner pointed out that he gave away the gender of the nominee in his answer, that he said ‘individual,’ even though he had, in fact used the phrase, ‘he’s the one.’

In doing so, Spicer inadvertently confirmed that Trump was likely going to nominate one of three, white men rumored to be on his short list.

It was not immediately clear why Trump bumped his Supreme Court announcement up.

The timing incidentally carries an added benefit for Republicans.

CNN is scheduled to host an hour-long town hall event with Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi at 9:00 p.m. Tuesday, an event that will now be drowned out by reactions to Trump’s choice.

Three federal appeals court judges are said to have emerged as leading candidates: Neil Gorsuch, Thomas Hardiman and William Pryor. The official says the president has also been considering Diane Sykes, one of his early favorites for the high court seat.

NEXT SUPREME COURT JUSTICE? Neil Gorsuch of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is said to be leading Trump's short list

NEXT SUPREME COURT JUSTICE? Neil Gorsuch of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals is said to be leading Trump’s short list

When Trump nominates his chosen justice, Senate Democrats and Republicans will immediately face intense political pressure, with liberals demanding that Democrats block the choice and the new president urging Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to blow up longstanding rules to secure confirmation.

What happens depends in part on who Trump chooses.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has said Democrats will oppose any nominee outside the mainstream. He will likely decide whether to try to block, or filibuster, based on the nominee’s performance in confirmation hearings and feedback from his Democratic caucus, including the 10 senators who are up for re-election in states that Trump won last year.

The advantages of trying a filibuster are clear – make Republicans work to find the 60 votes needed to end it, including at least eight Democrats, and as a result, delay or block the nomination. Republicans hold a 52-48 majority.

But there are also downsides. Democrats running for re-election next year in states Trump won in 2016 could face political consequences for their party’s attempted obstruction. And if Republicans change the rules and eliminate the filibuster altogether, Democrats would have lost their most powerful weapon in future Supreme Court fights.

The White House was preparing on Monday to go to battle. Spicer predicted that Senate Dems would try to ‘slow walk’ Trump’s nominee and ‘play political games,’ like they did with his cabinet secretaries.

‘He met with a bunch of Senate Democrats to talk about the qualities they want in a judge. And before they even heard who this individual is, you’ve got some of them saying “absolutely no.” I mean, that just shows you that it’s all about politics, it’s not about qualification,’ Spicer said. ‘I think that’s a pretty sad message.’

He pointed out that Senate Democrats have their backs to the wall, given their performance in recent elections. ‘The message came through loud and clear that the American people wanted decisive leadership. They’re getting it.’

When Trump nominates a justice, Senate Democrats and Republicans (including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, pictured) will come under immense pressure

When Trump nominates a justice, Senate Democrats and Republicans (including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, pictured) will come under immense pressure

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia found dead in February

Shortlisted: William Pryor of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Shortlisted: Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

NEXT SUPREME COURT JUSTICE? William Pryor of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are also said to be on Trump’s short list

Republicans did not try to filibuster either of former President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominees. The only filibuster attempt in the past few decades was by Democrats against Justice Samuel Alito, nominated by former President George W. Bush. The effort failed and Alito was confirmed.

If there’s an attempted filibuster, Republicans would first try to woo eight Democrats to vote with them to overcome it. But those votes aren’t a given. While there are several senators up for re-election in Republican-leaning states, some are loyal Democrats who rarely cross party lines.

Gorsuch and Hardiman won broad Senate support when they were confirmed for their appeals court judgeships. Gorsuch was confirmed by voice vote in 2006; Hardiman 95-0 in 2007. Pryor, who backed a Texas law that made gay sex a crime, will face opposition. He was confirmed 53-45 in 2005.

Conservative groups are ready. The Judicial Crisis Network has said it will spend $10 million to ensure Trump’s pick is confirmed.

‘We will force vulnerable senators up for re-election in 2018 like Joe Donnelly and Claire McCaskill to decide between keeping their Senate seats or following Chuck Schumer’s liberal, obstructionist agenda,’ said Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and policy director of the group.

Donnelly of Indiana and McCaskill of Missouri are both Democrats who represent states that Trump won with more than 55 percent of the vote.

Senate Liberals trying to block Trump's choice will be led by Chuck Schumer, whom Trump mocked Monday for crying during a press conference about his travel-ban measure

Senate Liberals trying to block Trump’s choice will be led by Chuck Schumer, whom Trump mocked Monday for crying during a press conference about his travel-ban measure

‘ASK THE NEAREST HIPPIE’: THE LEGACY OF JUSTICE SCALIA

Scalia, who died in February, was nominated to the US Supreme Court in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan and was the longest-serving justice on the current Court, as well as its first Italian-American Justice.

An advocate of an originalism interpretation of the Constitution, Scalia believed that its meaning was fixed at the time it was written and that it did not evolve and change with the times.

It was the foundation for his staunch opposition to same-sex marriage and affirmative action, his controversial comments in court and colorful dissents often making as many headlines as the decision itself.

‘Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms?’ he wrote in his dissent after same-sex marriage was legalized by the Supreme Court in June, a vote he called a ‘threat to American democracy’.

‘And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie,’ he wrote.

In the same dissent, Scalia wrote that the Supreme Court had descended ‘to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie’ and wrote that California didn’t count as a ‘genuine’ Western state.

If Democrats decide to try to filibuster and McConnell can’t get enough Democratic votes to overcome it, he’ll have a major decision to make. Does he change the rules of the Senate and make it impossible to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee? A last resort, getting rid of the filibuster is dubbed ‘the nuclear option.’

Then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the rules for lower-court judges in 2013 after Republicans had blocked many of President Barack Obama’s nominations. McConnell, a devout Senate institutionalist, strongly criticized Reid for doing that and is seen as reluctant to make a similar move.

Trump told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Thursday that he would encourage McConnell to go that route, however.

Conservatives are already somewhat split on whether McConnell should ‘go nuclear’ if he can’t find the votes. The Heritage Foundation warned of the consequences, suggesting that eliminating the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations could set a precedent for getting rid of the legislative filibuster, which has been used successfully by both parties, when in the minority, to block legislation.

The Heritage memo pushed another strategy for getting around the filibuster called the ‘two-speech rule.’ The idea is to use Senate rules allowing senators only two speeches in a legislative day, which is different from a calendar day.

By extending a legislative day over several days or weeks, Republicans could wait until all Democrats had given their two speeches and none were left to speak, allowing the Senate to move to a simple majority vote.

That strategy would require a lot of time and effort, and Democrats would likely look for procedural ways to thwart it.

Trump meets with bipartisan group ahead of Supreme Court pick

Whatever happens, look for each side to bring up history.

‘What we hope would be that our Democratic friends will treat President Trump’s nominees in the same way that we treated Clinton and Obama,’ McConnell said this week.

Scalia died last February, and McConnell said within hours of his death that the next president, not Obama, should have the pick. Republicans didn’t even hold hearings on Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, and the strategy paid off.

Democrats will be mindful of McConnell’s refusal to consider Garland when deciding how to treat Trump’s nominee.

In turn, Republicans are already reminding Democrats of their slogan for much of last year: ‘We need nine,’ referring to a full slate of judges on the court.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4170970/Trumps-justice-pick-trigger-intense-pressure-Senate.html#ixzz4XNZ4RYGA

Supreme Court of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“SCOTUS” redirects here. For other uses, see Scotus (disambiguation).
Supreme Court of the United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Established June 21, 1788; 228 years ago
Country United States
Location Washington, D.C., U.S.
Coordinates 38°53′26″N 77°00′16″WCoordinates: 38°53′26″N 77°00′16″W
Composition method Presidential nomination with Senate confirmation
Authorized by United States Constitution
Judge term length Life tenure
Number of positions 9, by statute
Website www.supremecourt.gov
Chief Justice of the United States
Currently John Roberts
Since September 29, 2005

Supreme Court of the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court of the United States. Established pursuant to Article III of the United States Constitution in 1789, it has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law, although it may only act within the context of a case in which it has jurisdiction.

The Court normally consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed after impeachment (though no justice has ever been removed). In modern discourse, the justices are often categorized as having conservative, moderate, or liberal philosophies of law and of judicial interpretation. Each justice has one vote, and while many cases are decided unanimously, the highest profile cases often expose ideological beliefs that track with those philosophical or political categories. The Court meets in the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.

The Supreme Court is sometimes colloquially referred to as SCOTUS, in analogy to other acronyms such as POTUS.[1]

History

The ratification of the United States Constitution established the Supreme Court in 1789. Its powers are detailed in Article Three of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is the only court specifically established by the Constitution, and all the others were created by Congress. Congress is also responsible for conferring the title “justice” upon the associate justices, who have been known to scold lawyers for instead using the term “judge”, which is the term used by the Constitution.[2]

The Court first convened on February 2, 1790,[3] by which time five of its six initial positions had been filled. According to historian Fergus Bordewich, in its first session: “[T]he Supreme Court convened for the first time at the Royal Exchange Building on Broad Street, a few steps from Federal Hall. Symbolically, the moment was pregnant with promise for the republic, this birth of a new national institution whose future power, admittedly, still existed only in the mind’s eye of a few farsighted Americans. Impressively bewigged and swathed in their robes of office, Chief Justice Jay and three associate justices — William Cushing of Massachusetts, James Wilson of Pennsylvania, and John Blair of Virginia — sat augustly before a throng of spectators and waited for something to happen. Nothing did. They had no cases to consider. After a week of inactivity, they adjourned until September, and everyone went home.”[4]

The sixth member (James Iredell) was not confirmed until May 12, 1790. Because the full Court had only six members, every decision that it made by a majority was also made by two-thirds (voting four to two).[5] However, Congress has always allowed less than the Court’s full membership to make decisions, starting with a quorum of four judges in 1789.[6]

Earliest beginnings to Marshall

Under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court heard few cases; its first decision was West v. Barnes (1791), a case involving a procedural issue.[7] The Court lacked a home of its own and had little prestige,[8] a situation not helped by the highest-profile case of the era, Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which was reversed within two years by the adoption of the Eleventh Amendment.[9]

Chief Justice Marshall

The Court’s power and prestige grew substantially during the Marshall Court (1801–35).[10] Under Marshall, the Court established the power of judicial review over acts of Congress,[11]including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison)[12][13] and made several important constitutional rulings giving shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and the states (prominently, Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden).[14][15][16][17]

The Marshall Court also ended the practice of each justice issuing his opinion seriatim,[18] a remnant of British tradition,[19] and instead issuing a single majority opinion.[18] Also during Marshall’s tenure, although beyond the Court’s control, the impeachment and acquittal of Justice Samuel Chase in 1804–05 helped cement the principle of judicial independence.[20][21]

From Taney to Taft

The Taney Court (1836–64) made several important rulings, such as Sheldon v. Sill, which held that while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, it may limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to prevent them from hearing cases dealing with certain subjects.[22] Nevertheless, it is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[23]which helped precipitate the Civil War.[24] In the Reconstruction era, the Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new Civil War amendments to the Constitution[17] and developed the doctrine of substantive due process (Lochner v. New York;[25] Adair v. United States).[26]

Under the White and Taft Courts (1910–30), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment had incorporated some guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the states (Gitlow v. New York),[27]grappled with the new antitrust statutes (Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States), upheld the constitutionality of military conscription (Selective Draft Law Cases)[28] and brought the substantive due process doctrine to its first apogee (Adkins v. Children’s Hospital).[29]

The New Deal era

During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts (1930–53), the Court gained its own accommodation in 1935[30] and changed its interpretation of the Constitution, giving a broader reading to the powers of the federal government to facilitate President Franklin Roosevelt‘s New Deal (most prominently West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, Wickard v. Filburn, United States v. Darby and United States v. Butler).[31][32][33] During World War II, the Court continued to favor government power, upholding the internment of Japanese citizens (Korematsu v. United States) and the mandatory pledge of allegiance (Minersville School District v. Gobitis). Nevertheless, Gobitis was soon repudiated (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette), and the Steel Seizure Case restricted the pro-government trend.

Warren and Burger

Main articles: Burger Court and Warren Court

The Warren Court (1953–69) dramatically expanded the force of Constitutional civil liberties.[34] It held that segregation in public schools violates equal protection (Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe and Green v. County School Bd.)[35] and that traditional legislative district boundaries violated the right to vote (Reynolds v. Sims). It created a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut),[36] limited the role of religion in public school (most prominently Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp),[37][38] incorporated most guarantees of the Bill of Rights against the States—prominently Mapp v. Ohio (the exclusionary rule) and Gideon v. Wainwright (right to appointed counsel),[39][40]—and required that criminal suspects be apprised of all these rights by police (Miranda v. Arizona);[41] At the same time, however, the Court limited defamation suits by public figures (New York Times v. Sullivan) and supplied the government with an unbroken run of antitrust victories.[42]

The Burger Court (1969–86) marked a conservative shift.[43] It also expanded Griswold’s right to privacy to strike down abortion laws (Roe v. Wade),[44] but divided deeply on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke)[45] and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo),[46] and dithered on the death penalty, ruling first that most applications were defective (Furman v. Georgia),[47] then that the death penalty itself was not unconstitutional (Gregg v. Georgia).[47][48][49]

Rehnquist and Roberts

Main articles: Rehnquist Court and Roberts Court

The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of judicial enforcement of federalism,[50] emphasizing the limits of the Constitution’s affirmative grants of power (United States v. Lopez) and the force of its restrictions on those powers (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, City of Boerne v. Flores).[51][52][53][54][55] It struck down single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas),[56] and the line item veto (Clinton v. New York), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) and reaffirmed Roe’s restrictions on abortion laws (Planned Parenthood v. Casey).[57] The Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the electoral recount during the presidential election of 2000, was controversial.[58][59]

The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded by some as more conservative than the Rehnquist Court.[60][61] Some of its major rulings have concerned federal preemption (Wyeth v. Levine), civil procedure (TwomblyIqbal), abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart),[62] climate change (Massachusetts v. EPA), same-sex marriage (United States v. Windsor and Obergefell v. Hodges), and the Bill of Rights, prominently Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (First Amendment),[63] HellerMcDonald (Second Amendment),[64] and Baze v. Rees (Eighth Amendment).[65][66]

Composition

Size of the Court

Article III of the United States Constitution does not specify the number of justices. The Judiciary Act of 1789 called for the appointment of six justices, and as the nation’s boundaries grew, Congress added justices to correspond with the growing number of judicial circuits: seven in 1807, nine in 1837, and ten in 1863.

In 1866, at the behest of Chief Justice Chase, Congress passed an act providing that the next three justices to retire would not be replaced, which would thin the bench to seven justices by attrition. Consequently, one seat was removed in 1866 and a second in 1867. In 1869, however, the Circuit Judges Act returned the number of justices to nine,[67] where it has since remained.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court in 1937. His proposal envisioned appointment of one additional justice for each incumbent justice who reached the age of 70 years 6 months and refused retirement, up to a maximum bench of 15 justices. The proposal was ostensibly to ease the burden of the docket on elderly judges, but the actual purpose was widely understood as an effort to pack the Court with justices who would support Roosevelt’s New Deal.[68] The plan, usually called the “Court-packing Plan“, failed in Congress.[69] Nevertheless, the Court’s balance began to shift within months when Justice van Devanter retired and was replaced by Senator Hugo Black. By the end of 1941, Roosevelt had appointed seven justices and elevated Harlan Fiske Stone to Chief Justice.[70]

Appointment and confirmation

The Roberts Court (October 2010 – February 2016). Front row (left to right): Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia (now deceased), John Roberts (Chief), Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Back row (left to right): Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, Elena Kagan.

The U.S. Constitution states that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Judges of the Supreme Court.”[71] Most presidents nominate candidates who broadly share their ideological views, although a justice’s decisions may end up being contrary to a president’s expectations. Because the Constitution sets no qualifications for service as a justice, a president may nominate anyone to serve, subject to Senate confirmation.

In modern times, the confirmation process has attracted considerable attention from the press and advocacy groups, which lobby senators to confirm or to reject a nominee depending on whether their track record aligns with the group’s views. The Senate Judiciary Committee conducts hearings and votes on whether the nomination should go to the full Senate with a positive, negative or neutral report. The committee’s practice of personally interviewing nominees is relatively recent. The first nominee to appear before the committee was Harlan Fiske Stone in 1925, who sought to quell concerns about his links to Wall Street, and the modern practice of questioning began with John Marshall Harlan II in 1955.[72] Once the committee reports out the nomination, the full Senate considers it. Rejections are relatively uncommon; the Senate has explicitly rejected twelve Supreme Court nominees, most recently Robert Bork in 1987.

Nevertheless, not every nominee has received a floor vote in the Senate. Although Senate rules do not necessarily allow a negative vote in committee to block a nomination, a nominee may be filibustered once debate has begun in the full Senate. No nomination for associate justice has ever been filibustered, but President Lyndon Johnson‘s nomination of sitting Associate Justice Abe Fortas to succeed Earl Warren as Chief Justice was successfully filibustered in 1968. A president may also withdraw a nomination before the actual confirmation vote occurs, typically because it is clear that the Senate will reject the nominee, most recently Harriet Miers in 2006.

Once the Senate confirms a nomination, the president must prepare and sign a commission, to which the Seal of the Department of Justice must be affixed, before the new justice can take office.[73] The seniority of an associate justice is based on the commissioning date, not the confirmation or swearing-in date.[74]

Before 1981, the approval process of justices was usually rapid. From the Truman through Nixon administrations, justices were typically approved within one month. From the Reagan administration to the present, however, the process has taken much longer. Some believe this is because Congress sees justices as playing a more political role than in the past.[75] According to the Congressional Research Service, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote since 1975 is 67 days (2.2 months), while the median is 71 days (or 2.3 months).[76][77]

Recess appointments

When the Senate is in recess, a president may make temporary appointments to fill vacancies. Recess appointees hold office only until the end of the next Senate session (less than two years). The Senate must confirm the nominee for them to continue serving; of the two chief justices and eleven associate justices who have received recess appointments, only Chief Justice John Rutledge was not subsequently confirmed.[78]

No president since Dwight D. Eisenhower has made a recess appointment to the Court, and the practice has become rare and controversial even in lower federal courts.[79] In 1960, after Eisenhower had made three such appointments, the Senate passed a “sense of the Senate” resolution that recess appointments to the Court should only be made in “unusual circumstances.”[80] Such resolutions are not legally binding but are an expression of Congress’s views in the hope of guiding executive action.[80][81]

The 2014 Supreme Court ruling in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning limited the ability of the President to make recess appointments (including appointments to the Supreme Court), ruling that the Senate decides when the Senate is in session (or in recess). Justice Breyer writing for the Court, stated, “We hold that, for purposes of the Recess Appointments Clause, the Senate is in session when it says it is, provided that, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact Senate business.” [82] This ruling allows the Senate to prevent recess appointments through the use of pro-forma sessions.[83]

Tenure

The Constitution provides that justices “shall hold their offices during good behavior” (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term “good behavior” is understood to mean justices may serve for the remainder of their lives, unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress, resign or retire.[84] Only one justice has been impeached by the House of Representatives (Samuel Chase, March 1804), but he was acquitted in the Senate (March 1805).[85] Moves to impeach sitting justices have occurred more recently (for example, William O. Douglas was the subject of hearings twice, in 1953 and again in 1970; and Abe Fortas resigned while hearings were being organized), but they did not reach a vote in the House. No mechanism exists for removing a justice who is permanently incapacitated by illness or injury, but unable (or unwilling) to resign.[86]

Because justices have indefinite tenure, timing of vacancies can be unpredictable. Sometimes vacancies arise in quick succession, as in the early 1970s when Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. and William Rehnquist were nominated to replace Hugo Black and John Marshall Harlan II, who retired within a week of each other. Sometimes a great length of time passes between nominations, such as the eleven years between Stephen Breyer‘s nomination in 1994 to succeed Harry Blackmun and the nomination of John Roberts in 2005 to fill the seat of Sandra Day O’Connor (though Roberts’ nomination was withdrawn and resubmitted for the role of Chief Justice after Rehnquist died).

Despite the variability, all but four presidents have been able to appoint at least one justice. William Henry Harrison died a month after taking office, though his successor (John Tyler) made an appointment during that presidential term. Likewise, Zachary Taylor died 16 months after taking office, but his successor (Millard Fillmore) also made a Supreme Court nomination before the end of that term. Andrew Johnson, who became president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, was denied the opportunity to appoint a justice by a reduction in the size of the Court. Jimmy Carter is the only person elected president to have left office after at least one full term without having the opportunity to appoint a justice. Somewhat similarly, presidents James Monroe, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George W. Bush each served a full term without an opportunity to appoint a justice, but made appointments during their subsequent terms in office. No president who has served more than one full term has gone without at least one opportunity to make an appointment.

Three presidents have appointed justices who collectively served more than 100 years: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln.[87]

Membership

Current justices

The court currently has eight justices and one vacancy after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, 2016.

Name Born Appt. by Senate conf. vote Age at appt. First day /
Length of service
Previous positions Succeeded
RobertsJohn Roberts (Chief Justice) January 27, 1955
(age 62)
in Buffalo, New York
George W. Bush 78–22 50 September 29, 2005
11 years, 4 months
Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2003–05); Private practice (1993–2003); Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center (1992–2005); Principal Deputy Solicitor General (1989–93); Private practice (1986–89); Associate Counsel to the President (1982–86); Special Assistant to the Attorney General (1981–82) William Rehnquist
KennedyAnthony Kennedy July 23, 1936
(age 80)
in Sacramento, California
Ronald Reagan 97–0 51 February 18, 1988
28 years, 11 months
Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (1975–88); Professor, McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific (1965–88); Private practice (1963–75) Lewis Powell
ThomasClarence Thomas June 23, 1948
(age 68)
in Pin Point, Georgia
George H. W. Bush 52–48 43 October 23, 1991
25 years, 3 months
Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1990–91); Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1982–90); legislative assistant for Missouri Senator John Danforth (1979–81); employed by Monsanto Company Inc. (1977–79); Assistant Attorney General in Missouri under State Attorney General John Danforth (1974–77) Thurgood Marshall
GinsburgRuth Bader Ginsburg March 15, 1933
(age 83)
in Brooklyn, New York
Bill Clinton 96–3 60 August 10, 1993
23 years, 5 months
Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1980–93); General Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union (1973–80); Professor, Columbia Law School (1972–80); Professor, Rutgers University School of Law (1963–72) Byron White
BreyerStephen Breyer August 15, 1938
(age 78)
in San Francisco, California
Bill Clinton 87–9 55 August 3, 1994
22 years, 5 months
Chief Judge, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (1990–94); Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (1980–90); Professor, Harvard Law School (1967–80) Harry Blackmun
AlitoSamuel Alito April 1, 1950
(age 66)
in Trenton, New Jersey
George W. Bush 58–42 55 January 31, 2006
11 years
Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (1990–2006); Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law (1999–2004); U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey (1987–90); Deputy Assistant Attorney General (1985–87); Assistant to the Solicitor General (1981–85); Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey (1977–81) Sandra Day O’Connor
SotomayorSonia Sotomayor June 25, 1954
(age 62)
in The Bronx, New York
Barack Obama 68–31 55 August 8, 2009
7 years, 5 months
Circuit Judge, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1998–2009); District Judge, District Court for the Southern District of New York (1992–98); Private practice (1984–91); Assistant District Attorney, New York County, New York (1979–84) David Souter
KaganElena Kagan April 28, 1960
(age 56)
in New York, New York
Barack Obama 63–37 50 August 7, 2010
6 years, 5 months
Solicitor General of the United States (2009–10); Dean of Harvard Law School (2003–09); Professor, Harvard Law School (2001–03); Visiting Professor, Harvard Law School (1999–2001); Associate White House Counsel (1995–99); Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council (1995–99); Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1995); Associate Professor, University of Chicago Law School (1991–95) John Paul Stevens
VacantVacant Antonin Scalia

Vacancy and pending nomination

Seat Seat last held by Vacancy reason Date of vacancy Nominee Date of nomination
9 Antonin Scalia Death February 13, 2016 [88]

Court demographics

The Court currently has five men and three women justices. One justice is African American, one is Latina, and the remaining six are non-Hispanic white; five justices are Roman Catholics, and three are Jewish. The average age is 69 years, 11 months. Every current justice has an Ivy League background.[89] Four justices are from the state of New York, two from California, one from New Jersey, and one from Georgia.

In the 19th century, every justice was a man of European descent (usually Northern European), and almost always Protestant. Concerns about diversity focused on geography, to represent all regions of the country, rather than religious, ethnic, or gender diversity.[90]

Most justices have been Protestants, including 35 Episcopalians, 19 Presbyterians, 10 Unitarians, 5 Methodists, and 3 Baptists.[91][92] The first Catholic justice was Roger Taney in 1836, and 1916 saw the appointment of the first Jewish justice, Louis Brandeis. Several Catholic and Jewish justices have since been appointed, and in recent years the situation has reversed: after the retirement of Justice Stevens in 2010, the Court is without a Protestant for the first time.[93]

Racial, ethnic, and gender diversity began to increase in the late 20th century. Thurgood Marshall became the first African American justice in 1967. Sandra Day O’Connor became the first female justice in 1981. Antonin Scalia became the first Italian-American to serve on the Court in 1986. Marshall was succeeded by African American Clarence Thomas in 1991. O’Connor was joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993. After O’Connor’s retirement Ginsburg was joined in 2009 by Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina justice; and in 2010 by Elena Kagan, for a total of four female justices in the Court’s history.

Retired justices

There are currently three living retired justices of the Supreme Court of the United States: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, and David Souter. As retired justices, they no longer participate in the work of the Supreme Court, but may be designated for temporary assignments to sit on lower federal courts, usually the United States Courts of Appeals. Such assignments are formally made by the Chief Justice, on request of the Chief Judge of the lower court and with the consent of the retired Justice. In recent years, Justice O’Connor has sat with several Courts of Appeals around the country, and Justice Souter has frequently sat on the First Circuit, the court of which he was briefly a member before joining the Supreme Court.

The status of a retired Justice is analogous to that of a Circuit or District Judge who has taken senior status, and eligibility of a Supreme Court Justice to assume retired status (rather than simply resign from the bench) is governed by the same age and service criteria.

Justices sometimes strategically plan their decisions to leave the bench, with personal, institutional, and partisan factors playing a role.[94][95] The fear of mental decline and death often motivates justices to step down. The desire to maximize the Court’s strength and legitimacy through one retirement at a time, when the Court is in recess, and during non-presidential election years suggests a concern for institutional health. Finally, especially in recent decades, many justices have timed their departure to coincide with a philosophically compatible president holding office, to ensure that a like-minded successor would be appointed.[96][97]

Name Born Appt. by Retired under Conf. vote Age at appt. First day Date of retirement
StevensJohn Paul Stevens April 20, 1920
(age 96)
in Chicago, Illinois
Gerald Ford Barack Obama 98–0 55 December 19, 1975 June 29, 2010
O'ConnorSandra Day O’Connor March 26, 1930
(age 86)
in El Paso, Texas
Ronald Reagan George W. Bush 99–0 51 September 25, 1981 January 31, 2006
SouterDavid Souter September 17, 1939
(age 77)
in Melrose, Massachusetts
George H. W. Bush Barack Obama 90–9 51 October 9, 1990 June 29, 2009

Seniority and seating

Many of the internal operations of the Court are organized by the seniority of the justices; the Chief Justice is considered the most senior member of the Court, regardless of the length of his or her service. The Associate Justices are then ranked by the length of their service.

The interior of the United States Supreme Court

The interior of the United States Supreme Court

During Court sessions, the justices sit according to seniority, with the Chief Justice in the center, and the Associate Justices on alternating sides, with the most senior Associate Justice on the Chief Justice’s immediate right, and the most junior Associate Justice seated on the left farthest away from the Chief Justice. Therefore, the current court sits as follows from left to right, from the perspective of those facing the Court: Kagan, Alito, Ginsburg, Kennedy (most senior Associate Justice), Roberts (Chief Justice), Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor. The final seat is reserved for the next appointee, who will be the most junior member. In the official yearly Court photograph, justices are arranged similarly, with the five most senior members sitting in the front row in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions (The most recent photograph, prior to Scalia’s death, included Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg), and the four most junior justices standing behind them, again in the same order as they would sit during Court sessions (Sotomayor, Breyer, Alito, Kagan).

In the justices’ private conferences, the current practice is for them to speak and vote in order of seniority from the Chief Justice first to the most junior Associate Justice last. The most junior Associate Justice in these conferences is charged with any menial tasks the justices may require as they convene alone, such as answering the door of their conference room, serving coffee, and transmitting the orders of the Court to the court’s clerk.[98] Justice Joseph Story served the longest as the junior justice, from February 3, 1812, to September 1, 1823, for a total of 4,228 days. Justice Stephen Breyer follows close behind, with 4,199 days when Samuel Alito joined the court on January 31, 2006.[99]

Salary

For the years 2009 through 2012, associate justices were paid $213,900 and the chief justice $223,500.[100] Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from reducing the pay for incumbent justices. Once a justice meets age and service requirements, the justice may retire. Judicial pensions are based on the normal formula for federal employees, but a justice’s pension will never be less than their salary at time of retirement. (The same procedure applies to judges of other federal courts.)

Judicial leanings

Although justices are nominated by the President in power, justices do not represent or receive official endorsements from political parties, as is accepted practice in the legislative and executive branches. Jurists are, however, informally categorized in legal and political circles as being judicial conservatives, moderates, or liberals. Such leanings, however, generally refer to legal outlook rather than a political or legislative one. The nominations of justices are endorsed by individual politicians in the legislative branch who vote their approval or disapproval of the nominated justice.

Following the death of Antonin Scalia in February 2016, the Court consists of four justices appointed by Republican presidents and four appointed by Democratic presidents. It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and justices Thomas and Alito (appointed by Republican presidents) comprise the Court’s conservative wing. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan (appointed by Democratic presidents) comprise the Court’s liberal wing. Justice Kennedy (appointed by President Reagan) is generally considered “a conservative who has occasionally voted with liberals”,[101] and up until Justice Scalia’s death, was often the swing vote that determined the outcome of cases divided between the conservative and liberal wings.[102][103][104]

Tom Goldstein argued in an article in SCOTUSblog in 2010, that the popular view of the Supreme Court as sharply divided along ideological lines and each side pushing an agenda at every turn is “in significant part a caricature designed to fit certain preconceptions.”[105] He pointed out that in the 2009 term, almost half the cases were decided unanimously, and only about 20% were decided by a 5-to-4 vote. Barely one in ten cases involved the narrow liberal/conservative divide (fewer if the cases where Sotomayor recused herself are not included). He also pointed to several cases that defied the popular conception of the ideological lines of the Court.[106] Goldstein further argued that the large number of pro-criminal-defendant summary dismissals (usually cases where the justices decide that the lower courts significantly misapplied precedent and reverse the case without briefing or argument) were an illustration that the conservative justices had not been aggressively ideological. Likewise, Goldstein stated that the critique that the liberal justices are more likely to invalidate acts of Congress, show inadequate deference to the political process, and be disrespectful of precedent, also lacked merit: Thomas has most often called for overruling prior precedent (even if long standing) that he views as having been wrongly decided, and during the 2009 term Scalia and Thomas voted most often to invalidate legislation.

According to statistics compiled by SCOTUSblog, in the twelve terms from 2000 to 2011, an average of 19 of the opinions on major issues (22%) were decided by a 5–4 vote, with an average of 70% of those split opinions decided by a Court divided along the traditionally perceived ideological lines (about 15% of all opinions issued). Over that period, the conservative bloc has been in the majority about 62% of the time that the Court has divided along ideological lines, which represents about 44% of all the 5–4 decisions.[107]

In the October 2010 term, the Court decided 86 cases, including 75 signed opinions and 5 summary reversals (where the Court reverses a lower court without arguments and without issuing an opinion on the case).[108][109] Four were decided with unsigned opinions, two cases affirmed by an equally divided Court, and two cases were dismissed as improvidently granted. Justice Kagan recused herself from 26 of the cases due to her prior role as United States Solicitor General. Of the 80 cases, 38 (about 48%, the highest percentage since the October 2005 term) were decided unanimously (9–0 or 8–0), and 16 decisions were made by a 5–4 vote (about 20%, compared to 18% in the October 2009 term, and 29% in the October 2008 term).[110] However, in fourteen of the sixteen 5–4 decisions, the Court divided along the traditional ideological lines (with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan on the liberal side, and Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito on the conservative, and Kennedy providing the “swing vote”). This represents 87% of those 16 cases, the highest rate in the past 10 years. The conservative bloc, joined by Kennedy, formed the majority in 63% of the 5–4 decisions, the highest cohesion rate of that bloc in the Roberts court.[108][111][112][113][114]

In the October 2011 term, the Court decided 75 cases. Of these, 33 (about 44%) were decided unanimously, and 15 (about 20%, the same percentage as in the previous term) were decided by a vote of 5–4. Of the latter 15, the Court divided along the perceived ideological lines 10 times, with Justice Kennedy siding with the conservative justices (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito) five times, and with the liberal justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) five times.[107][115][116]

In the October 2012 term, the Court decided 78 cases. Five of them were decided in unsigned opinions. 38 out of the 78 decisions (representing 49% of the decisions) were unanimous in judgement, with 24 decisions being completely unanimous (a single opinion with every justice that participated joining it). This was the largest percentage of unanimous decisions that the Court had in ten years, since the October 2002 term (when 51% of the decisions handed down were unanimous). The Court split 5-4 in 23 cases (29% of the total); of these, 16 broke down along the traditionally perceived ideological lines, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito on one side, Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan on the other, and Justice Kennedy holding the balance. Of these 16 cases, Justice Kennedy sided with the conservatives on 10 cases, and with the liberals on 6. Three cases were decided by an interesting alignment of justices, with Chief Justice Roberts joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer and Alito in the majority, with Justices Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan in the minority. The greatest agreement between justices was between Ginsburg and Kagan, who agreed on 72 of the 75 cases in which both voted; the lowest agreement between justices was between Ginsburg and Alito, who agreed only on 45 out of 77 cases in which they both participated. Justice Kennedy was in the majority of 5-4 decisions on 20 out of the 24 cases, and in 71 of the 78 cases of the term, in line with his position as the “swing vote” of the Court.[117][118]

Facilities

The present U.S. Supreme Court building as viewed from across 1st Street NE

From the 1860s until the 1930s, the court sat in the Old Senate Chamber of the U.S. Capitol.

The Supreme Court first met on February 1, 1790, at the Merchants’ Exchange Building in New York City. When Philadelphia became the capital, the Court met briefly in Independence Hall before settling in Old City Hall from 1791 until 1800. After the government moved to Washington, D.C., the Court occupied various spaces in the United States Capitol building until 1935, when it moved into its own purpose-built home. The four-story building was designed by Cass Gilbert in a classical style sympathetic to the surrounding buildings of the Capitol and Library of Congress, and is clad in marble. The building includes the courtroom, justices’ chambers, an extensive law library, various meeting spaces, and auxiliary services including a gymnasium. The Supreme Court building is within the ambit of the Architect of the Capitol, but maintains its own police force separate from the Capitol Police.[119]

Located across the street from the United States Capitol at One First Street NE and Maryland Avenue,[120][121] the building is open to the public from 9 am to 4:30 pm weekdays but closed on weekends and holidays.[120] Visitors may not tour the actual courtroom unaccompanied. There is a cafeteria, a gift shop, exhibits, and a half-hour informational film.[119] When the Court is not in session, lectures about the courtroom are held hourly from 9:30 am to 3:30 pm and reservations are not necessary.[119] When the Court is in session the public may attend oral arguments, which are held twice each morning (and sometimes afternoons) on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays in two-week intervals from October through late April, with breaks during December and February. Visitors are seated on a first-come first-served basis. One estimate is there are about 250 seats available.[122] The number of open seats varies from case to case; for important cases, some visitors arrive the day before and wait through the night. From mid-May until the end of June, the court releases orders and opinions beginning at 10 am, and these 15 to 30-minute sessions are open to the public on a similar basis.[119] Supreme Court Police are available to answer questions.[120]

Jurisdiction

Inscription on the wall of the Supreme Court Building from Marbury v. Madison, in which Chief Justice John Marshall outlined the concept of judicial review

Section 2 of Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

The jurisdiction of the federal courts was further limited by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which forbade federal courts from hearing cases “commenced or prosecuted against [a State] by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” However, states may waive this immunity, and Congress may abrogate the states’ immunity in certain circumstances (see Sovereign immunity). In addition to constitutional constraints, Congress is authorized by Article III to regulate the court’s appellate jurisdiction. The federal courts may hear cases only if one or more of the following conditions are met:

  1. If there is diversity of citizenship (meaning, the parties are citizens of different states or countries, including foreign states),[123] and the amount of damages exceeds $75,000.[124]
  2. If the case presents a federal question, meaning that it involves a claim or issue “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”, assuming that the question is not constitutionally committed to another branch of government.[125]
  3. If the United States federal government (including the Post Office)[126] is a party in the case.[127][128]

Exercise of this power can become controversial (see jurisdiction stripping). For example, 28 U.S.C. § 2241(e)(1), as amended by the Detainee Treatment Act, provides that “No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.”

The Constitution specifies that the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases in which a state is a party. In all other cases, however, the Court has only appellate jurisdiction. It considers cases based on its original jurisdiction very rarely; almost all cases are brought to the Supreme Court on appeal. In practice, the only original jurisdiction cases heard by the Court are disputes between two or more states.

The power of the Supreme Court to consider appeals from state courts, rather than just federal courts, was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and upheld early in the Court’s history, by its rulings in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) and Cohens v. Virginia (1821). The Supreme Court is the only federal court that has jurisdiction over direct appeals from state court decisions, although there are several devices that permit so-called “collateral review” of state cases.

Since Article Three of the United States Constitution stipulates that federal courts may only entertain “cases” or “controversies”, the Supreme Court avoids deciding cases that are moot and does not render advisory opinions, as the supreme courts of some states may do. For example, in DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974), the Court dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a law school affirmative action policy because the plaintiff student had graduated since he began the lawsuit, and a decision from the Court on his claim would not be able to redress any injury he had suffered. The mootness exception is not absolute. If an issue is “capable of repetition yet evading review”, the Court will address it even though the party before the Court would not himself be made whole by a favorable result. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), and other abortion cases, the Court addresses the merits of claims pressed by pregnant women seeking abortions even if they are no longer pregnant because it takes longer than the typical human gestation period to appeal a case through the lower courts to the Supreme Court.

Justices as Circuit Justices

The United States is divided into thirteen circuit courts of appeals, each of which is assigned a “circuit justice” from the Supreme Court. Although this concept has been in continuous existence throughout the history of the republic, its meaning has changed through time.

Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, each justice was required to “ride circuit”, or to travel within the assigned circuit and consider cases alongside local judges. This practice encountered opposition from many justices, who cited the difficulty of travel. Moreover, there was a potential for a conflict of interest on the Court if a justice had previously decided the same case while riding circuit. Circuit riding was abolished in 1891.

Today, the circuit justice for each circuit is responsible for dealing with certain types of applications that, under the Court’s rules, may be addressed by a single justice. These include applications for emergency stays (including stays of execution in death-penalty cases) and injunctions pursuant to the All Writs Act arising from cases within that circuit, as well as routine requests such as requests for extensions of time. In the past, circuit justices also sometimes ruled on motions for bail in criminal cases, writs of habeas corpus, and applications for writs of error granting permission to appeal. Ordinarily, a justice will resolve such an application by simply endorsing it “granted” or “denied” or entering a standard form of order. However, the justice may elect to write an opinion—referred to as an in-chambers opinion—in such matters if he or she wishes.

A circuit justice may sit as a judge on the Court of Appeals of that circuit, but over the past hundred years, this has rarely occurred. A circuit justice sitting with the Court of Appeals has seniority over the chief judge of the circuit.

The chief justice has traditionally been assigned to the District of Columbia Circuit, the Fourth Circuit (which includes Maryland and Virginia, the states surrounding the District of Columbia), and since it was established, the Federal Circuit. Each associate justice is assigned to one or two judicial circuits.

As of February 25, 2016, the allotment of the justices among the circuits is:[129]

Circuit Justice
District of Columbia Circuit Chief Justice Roberts
First Circuit Justice Breyer
Second Circuit Justice Ginsburg
Third Circuit Justice Alito
Fourth Circuit Chief Justice Roberts
Fifth Circuit Justice Thomas
Sixth Circuit Justice Kagan
Seventh Circuit Justice Kagan
Eighth Circuit Justice Alito
Ninth Circuit Justice Kennedy
Tenth Circuit Justice Sotomayor
Eleventh Circuit Justice Thomas
Federal Circuit Chief Justice Roberts

Four of the current justices are assigned to circuits on which they previously sat as circuit judges: Chief Justice Roberts (D.C. Circuit), Justice Breyer (First Circuit), Justice Alito (Third Circuit), and Justice Kennedy (Ninth Circuit).

Process

A term of the Supreme Court commences on the first Monday of each October, and continues until June or early July of the following year. Each term consists of alternating periods of approximately two weeks known as “sittings” and “recesses.” Justices hear cases and deliver rulings during sittings; they discuss cases and write opinions during recesses.

Case selection

Nearly all cases come before the court by way of petitions for writs of certiorari, commonly referred to as “cert.” The Court may review any case in the federal courts of appeals “by writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case.”[130] The Court may only review “final judgments rendered by the highest court of a state in which a decision could be had” if those judgments involve a question of federal statutory or constitutional law.[131] The party that appealed to the Court is the petitioner and the non-mover is the respondent. All case names before the Court are styled petitioner v. respondent, regardless of which party initiated the lawsuit in the trial court. For example, criminal prosecutions are brought in the name of the state and against an individual, as in State of Arizona v. Ernesto Miranda. If the defendant is convicted, and his conviction then is affirmed on appeal in the state supreme court, when he petitions for cert the name of the case becomes Miranda v. Arizona.

There are situations where the Court has original jurisdiction, such as when two states have a dispute against each other, or when there is a dispute between the United States and a state. In such instances, a case is filed with the Supreme Court directly. Examples of such cases include United States v. Texas, a case to determine whether a parcel of land belonged to the United States or to Texas, and Virginia v. Tennessee, a case turning on whether an incorrectly drawn boundary between two states can be changed by a state court, and whether the setting of the correct boundary requires Congressional approval. Although it has not happened since 1794 in the case of Georgia v. Brailsford,[132] parties in an action at law in which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction may request that a jury determine issues of fact.[133] Two other original jurisdiction cases involve colonial era borders and rights under navigable waters in New Jersey v. Delaware, and water rights between riparian states upstream of navigable waters in Kansas v. Colorado.

A cert petition is voted on at a session of the court called a conference. A conference is a private meeting of the nine Justices by themselves; the public and the Justices’ clerks are excluded. If four Justices vote to grant the petition, the case proceeds to the briefing stage; otherwise, the case ends. Except in death penalty cases and other cases in which the Court orders briefing from the respondent, the respondent may, but is not required to, file a response to the cert petition.

The court grants a petition for cert only for “compelling reasons”, spelled out in the court’s Rule 10. Such reasons include:

  • Resolving a conflict in the interpretation of a federal law or a provision of the federal Constitution
  • Correcting an egregious departure from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings
  • Resolving an important question of federal law, or to expressly review a decision of a lower court that conflicts directly with a previous decision of the Court.

When a conflict of interpretations arises from differing interpretations of the same law or constitutional provision issued by different federal circuit courts of appeals, lawyers call this situation a “circuit split.” If the court votes to deny a cert petition, as it does in the vast majority of such petitions that come before it, it does so typically without comment. A denial of a cert petition is not a judgment on the merits of a case, and the decision of the lower court stands as the final ruling in the case.

To manage the high volume of cert petitions received by the Court each year (of the more than 7,000 petitions the Court receives each year, it will usually request briefing and hear oral argument in 100 or fewer), the Court employs an internal case management tool known as the “cert pool.” Currently, all justices except for Justice Alito participate in the cert pool.[134][135][136]

Oral argument

When the Court grants a cert petition, the case is set for oral argument. Both parties will file briefs on the merits of the case, as distinct from the reasons they may have argued for granting or denying the cert petition. With the consent of the parties or approval of the Court, amici curiae, or “friends of the court”, may also file briefs. The Court holds two-week oral argument sessions each month from October through April. Each side has thirty minutes to present its argument (the Court may choose to give more time, though this is rare),[137] and during that time, the Justices may interrupt the advocate and ask questions. The petitioner gives the first presentation, and may reserve some time to rebut the respondent’s arguments after the respondent has concluded. Amici curiae may also present oral argument on behalf of one party if that party agrees. The Court advises counsel to assume that the Justices are familiar with and have read the briefs filed in a case.

Supreme Court bar

In order to plead before the court, an attorney must first be admitted to the court’s bar. Approximately 4,000 lawyers join the bar each year. The bar contains an estimated 230,000 members. In reality, pleading is limited to several hundred attorneys. The rest join for a one-time fee of $200, earning the court about $750,000 annually. Attorneys can be admitted as either individuals or as groups. The group admission is held before the current justices of the Supreme Court, wherein the Chief Justice approves a motion to admit the new attorneys.[138] Lawyers commonly apply for the cosmetic value of a certificate to display in their office or on their resume. They also receive access to better seating if they wish to attend an oral argument.[139] Members of the Supreme Court Bar are also granted access to the collections of the Supreme Court Library.[140]

Decision

At the conclusion of oral argument, the case is submitted for decision. Cases are decided by majority vote of the Justices. It is the Court’s practice to issue decisions in all cases argued in a particular Term by the end of that Term. Within that Term, however, the Court is under no obligation to release a decision within any set time after oral argument. At the conclusion of oral argument, the Justices retire to another conference at which the preliminary votes are tallied, and the most senior Justice in the majority assigns the initial draft of the Court’s opinion to a Justice on his or her side. Drafts of the Court’s opinion, as well as any concurring or dissenting opinions,[141] circulate among the Justices until the Court is prepared to announce the judgment in a particular case.

It is possible that, through recusals or vacancies, the Court divides evenly on a case. If that occurs, then the decision of the court below is affirmed, but does not establish binding precedent. In effect, it results in a return to the status quo ante. For a case to be heard, there must be a quorum of at least six justices.[142] If a quorum is not available to hear a case and a majority of qualified justices believes that the case cannot be heard and determined in the next term, then the judgment of the court below is affirmed as if the Court had been evenly divided. For cases brought to the Supreme Court by direct appeal from a United States District Court, the Chief Justice may order the case remanded to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals for a final decision there.[143] This has only occurred once in U.S. history, in the case of United States v. Alcoa (1945).[144]

Published opinions

The Court’s opinions are published in three stages. First, a slip opinion is made available on the Court’s web site and through other outlets. Next, several opinions and lists of the court’s orders are bound together in paperback form, called a preliminary print of United States Reports, the official series of books in which the final version of the Court’s opinions appears. About a year after the preliminary prints are issued, a final bound volume of U.S. Reports is issued. The individual volumes of U.S. Reports are numbered so that users may cite this set of reports—or a competing version published by another commercial legal publisher but containing parallel citations—to allow those who read their pleadings and other briefs to find the cases quickly and easily.

As of the beginning of October Term 2014, there are:

  • 557 final bound volumes of U.S. Reports, covering cases through the end of October Term 2008, which ended on October 2, 2009.[145]
  • 4 volumes’ worth of soft-cover preliminary prints (volumes 558–561), covering cases for October Term 2009[146]
  • 12 volumes’ worth of opinions available in slip opinion form (volumes 562–573)[146]

As of March 2012, the U.S. Reports have published a total of 30,161 Supreme Court opinions, covering the decisions handed down from February 1790 to March 2012.[citation needed] This figure does not reflect the number of cases the Court has taken up, as several cases can be addressed by a single opinion (see, for example, Parents v. Seattle, where Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education was also decided in the same opinion; by a similar logic, Miranda v. Arizona actually decided not only Miranda but also three other cases: Vignera v. New York, Westover v. United States, and California v. Stewart). A more unusual example is The Telephone Cases, which comprise a single set of interlinked opinions that take up the entire 126th volume of the U.S. Reports.

Opinions are also collected and published in two unofficial, parallel reporters: Supreme Court Reporter, published by West (now a part of Thomson Reuters), and United States Supreme Court Reports, Lawyers’ Edition (simply known as Lawyers’ Edition), published by LexisNexis. In court documents, legal periodicals, and other legal media, case citations generally contain the cites from each of the three reporters; for example, the citation to Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is presented as Citizens United v. Federal Election Com’n, 585 U.S. 50, 130 S. Ct. 876, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010), with “S. Ct.” representing the Supreme Court Reporter, and “L. Ed.” representing the Lawyers’ Edition.[147][148]

Citations to published opinions[edit]

Lawyers use an abbreviated format to cite cases, in the form “vol U.S. page, pin (year)”, where vol is the volume number, page is the page number on which the opinion begins, and year is the year in which the case was decided. Optionally, pin is used to “pinpoint” to a specific page number within the opinion. For instance, the citation for Roe v. Wade is 410 U.S. 113 (1973), which means the case was decided in 1973 and appears on page 113 of volume 410 of U.S. Reports. For opinions or orders that have not yet been published in the preliminary print, the volume and page numbers may be replaced with “___”.

Institutional powers and constraints

The Federal court system and the judicial authority to interpret the Constitution received little attention in the debates over the drafting and ratification of the Constitution. The power of judicial review, in fact, is nowhere mentioned in it. Over the ensuing years, the question of whether the power of judicial review was even intended by the drafters of the Constitution was quickly frustrated by the lack of evidence bearing on the question either way.[149] Nevertheless, the power of judiciary to overturn laws and executive actions it determines are unlawful or unconstitutional is a well-established precedent. Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review; in Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote: “A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute.”

The Supreme Court firmly established its power to declare laws unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison (1803), consummating the American system of checks and balances. In explaining the power of judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall stated that the authority to interpret the law was the particular province of the courts, part of the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. His contention was not that the Court had privileged insight into constitutional requirements, but that it was the constitutional duty of the judiciary, as well as the other branches of government, to read and obey the dictates of the Constitution.[150]

Since the founding of the republic, there has been a tension between the practice of judicial review and the democratic ideals of egalitarianism, self-government, self-determination and freedom of conscience. At one pole are those who view the Federal Judiciary and especially the Supreme Court as being “the most separated and least checked of all branches of government.”[151] Indeed, federal judges and justices on the Supreme Court are not required to stand for election by virtue of their tenure “during good behavior”, and their pay may “not be diminished” while they hold their position (Section 1 of Article Three). Though subject to the process of impeachment, only one Justice has ever been impeached and no Supreme Court Justice has been removed from office. At the other pole are those who view the judiciary as the least dangerous branch, with little ability to resist the exhortations of the other branches of government.[150] The Supreme Court, it is noted, cannot directly enforce its rulings; instead, it relies on respect for the Constitution and for the law for adherence to its judgments. One notable instance of nonacquiescence came in 1832, when the state of Georgia ignored the Supreme Court’s decision in Worcester v. Georgia. President Andrew Jackson, who sided with the Georgia courts, is supposed to have remarked, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”;[152] however, this alleged quotation has been disputed. Some state governments in the South also resisted the desegregation of public schools after the 1954 judgment Brown v. Board of Education. More recently, many feared that President Nixon would refuse to comply with the Court’s order in United States v. Nixon (1974) to surrender the Watergate tapes. Nixon, however, ultimately complied with the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Supreme Court decisions can be (and have been) purposefully overturned by constitutional amendment, which has happened on five occasions:

When the Court rules on matters involving the interpretation of laws rather than of the Constitution, simple legislative action can reverse the decisions (for example, in 2009 Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter act, superseding the limitations given in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in 2007). Also, the Supreme Court is not immune from political and institutional consideration: lower federal courts and state courts sometimes resist doctrinal innovations, as do law enforcement officials.[153]

In addition, the other two branches can restrain the Court through other mechanisms. Congress can increase the number of justices, giving the President power to influence future decisions by appointments (as in Roosevelt’s Court Packing Plan discussed above). Congress can pass legislation that restricts the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other federal courts over certain topics and cases: this is suggested by language in Section 2 of Article Three, where the appellate jurisdiction is granted “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” The Court sanctioned such congressional action in the Reconstruction case ex parte McCardle (1869), though it rejected Congress’ power to dictate how particular cases must be decided in United States v. Klein (1871).

On the other hand, through its power of judicial review, the Supreme Court has defined the scope and nature of the powers and separation between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government; for example, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), and notably in Goldwater v. Carter (1979), (where it effectively gave the Presidency the power to terminate ratified treaties without the consent of Congress or the Senate). The Court’s decisions can also impose limitations on the scope of Executive authority, as in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935), the Steel Seizure Case (1952), and United States v. Nixon (1974).

Law clerks

Each Supreme Court justice hires several law clerks to review petitions for writ of certiorari, research them, prepare bench memorandums, and draft opinions. Associate justices are allowed four clerks. The chief justice is allowed five clerks, but Chief Justice Rehnquist hired only three per year, and Chief Justice Roberts usually hires only four.[154] Generally, law clerks serve a term of one to two years.

The first law clerk was hired by Associate Justice Horace Gray in 1882.[154][155] Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and Louis Brandeis were the first Supreme Court justices to use recent law school graduates as clerks, rather than hiring a “stenographer-secretary”.[156] Most law clerks are recent law school graduates.

The first female clerk was Lucile Lomen, hired in 1944 by Justice William O. Douglas.[154] The first African-American, William T. Coleman, Jr., was hired in 1948 by Justice Felix Frankfurter.[154] A disproportionately large number of law clerks have obtained law degrees from elite law schools, especially Harvard, Yale, the University of Chicago, Columbia, and Stanford. From 1882 to 1940, 62% of law clerks were graduates of Harvard Law School.[154]Those chosen to be Supreme Court law clerks usually have graduated in the top of their law school class and were often an editor of the law review or a member of the moot court board. In recent times,[when?] clerking previously for a judge in a federal circuit court has been a prerequisite to clerking for a Supreme Court justice.

Six Supreme Court justices previously clerked for other justices: Byron White clerked for Frederick M. Vinson, John Paul Stevens clerked for Wiley Rutledge, Stephen Breyer clerked for Arthur Goldberg, William H. Rehnquist clerked for Robert H. Jackson, John G. Roberts, Jr. clerked for William H. Rehnquist, and Elena Kagan clerked for Thurgood Marshall. Many of the justices have also clerked in the federal Courts of Appeals. Justice Samuel Alito clerked for Judge Leonard I. Garth of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Elena Kagan clerked for Judge Abner J. Mikva of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Politicization of the Court

Clerks hired by each of the justices of the Supreme Court are often given considerable leeway in the opinions they draft. “Supreme Court clerkship appeared to be a nonpartisan institution from the 1940s into the 1980s”, according to a study published in 2009 by the law review of Vanderbilt University Law School.[157][158] “As law has moved closer to mere politics, political affiliations have naturally and predictably become proxies for the different political agendas that have been pressed in and through the courts”, former federal court of appeals judge J. Michael Luttig said.[157] David J. Garrow, professor of history at the University of Cambridge, stated that the Court had thus begun to mirror the political branches of government. “We are getting a composition of the clerk workforce that is getting to be like the House of Representatives”, Professor Garrow said. “Each side is putting forward only ideological purists.”[157]

According to the Vanderbilt Law Review study, this politicized hiring trend reinforces the impression that the Supreme Court is “a superlegislature responding to ideological arguments rather than a legal institution responding to concerns grounded in the rule of law.”[157]

A poll conducted in June 2012 by The New York Times and CBS News showed that just 44 percent of Americans approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing. Three-quarters said the justices’ decisions are sometimes influenced by their political or personal views.[159]

Criticism

The court has been the object of criticisms on a range of issues. Among them:

  • Judicial activism: The Supreme Court has been criticized for not keeping within Constitutional bounds by engaging in judicial activism, rather than merely interpreting law and exercising judicial restraint. Claims of judicial activism are not confined to any particular ideology.[160] An often cited example of conservative judicial activism is the 1905 decision in Lochner v. New York, which has been criticized by many prominent thinkers, including Robert Bork, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice John Roberts.[160][161] An often cited example of liberal judicial activism is Roe v. Wade (1973), which legalized abortion in part on the basis of the “right to privacy” expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment, a reasoning that some critics argued was circuitous.[160] Legal scholars,[162][163] justices,[164] and presidential candidates[165] have criticized the Roe decision. The progressive Brown v. Board of Education decision has been criticized by conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan[166] and former presidential contender Barry Goldwater.[167] More recently, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was criticized for changing the long-standing view that the first amendment did not apply to the corporation.[168] Lincoln warned, referring to the Dred Scott decision, that if government policy became “irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court…the people will have ceased to be their own rulers.”[169] Former justice Thurgood Marshall justified judicial activism with these words: “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.”[170] During different historical periods, the Court has leaned in different directions.[171][172] Critics from both sides complain that activist-judges abandon the Constitution and substitute their own views instead.[173][174][175] Critics include writers such as Andrew Napolitano,[176] Phyllis Schlafly,[177] Mark R. Levin,[178] Mark I. Sutherland,[179] and James MacGregor Burns.[180][181] Past presidents from both parties have attacked judicial activism, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan.[182][183] Failed Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork wrote: “What judges have wrought is a coup d’état, – slow-moving and genteel, but a coup d’état nonetheless.”[184]Senator Al Franken quipped that when politicians talk about judicial activism, “their definition of an activist judge is one who votes differently than they would like.”[185] One law professor claimed in a 1978 article that the Supreme Court is in some respects “certainly a legislative body.”[186]
  • Failing to protect individual rights: Court decisions have been criticized for failing to protect individual rights: the Dred Scott (1857) decision upheld slavery;[187] Plessy v Ferguson (1896) upheld segregation under the doctrine of separate but equal;[188] Kelo v. City of New London (2005) was criticized by prominent politicians, including New Jersey governor Jon Corzine, as undermining property rights.[189][190] Some critics suggest the 2009 bench with a conservative majority has “become increasingly hostile to voters” by siding with Indiana’s voter identification laws which tend to “disenfranchise large numbers of people without driver’s licenses, especially poor and minority voters”, according to one report.[191] Senator Al Franken criticized the Court for “eroding individual rights.”[185] However, others argue that the Court is too protective of some individual rights, particularly those of people accused of crimes or in detention. For example, Chief Justice Warren Burger was an outspoken critic of the exclusionary rule, and Justice Scalia criticized the Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush for being too protective of the rights of Guantanamo detainees, on the grounds that habeas corpus was “limited” to sovereign territory.[192]
  • Supreme Court has too much power: This criticism is related to complaints about judicial activism. George Will wrote that the Court has an “increasingly central role in American governance.”[193] It was criticized for intervening in bankruptcy proceedings regarding ailing carmaker Chrysler Corporation in 2009.[194] A reporter wrote that “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg‘s intervention in the Chrysler bankruptcy” left open the “possibility of further judicial review” but argued overall that the intervention was a proper use of Supreme Court power to check the executive branch.[194] Warren E. Burger, before becoming Chief Justice, argued that since the Supreme Court has such “unreviewable power” it is likely to “self-indulge itself” and unlikely to “engage in dispassionate analysis”.[195] Larry Sabato wrote “excessive authority has accrued to the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court.”[196]
  • Courts are poor check on executive power: British constitutional scholar Adam Tomkins sees flaws in the American system of having courts (and specifically the Supreme Court) act as checks on the Executive and Legislative branches; he argues that because the courts must wait, sometimes for years, for cases to wend their way through the system, their ability to restrain the other two branches is severely weakened.[197][198] In contrast, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany for example, can directly declare a law unconstitutional upon request.
  • Federal versus state power: There has been debate throughout American history about the boundary between federal and state power. While Framers such as James Madison[199] and Alexander Hamilton[200] argued in The Federalist Papers that their then-proposed Constitution would not infringe on the power of state governments,[201][202][203][204] others argue that expansive federal power is good and consistent with the Framers’ wishes.[205] The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution explicitly grants “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Supreme Court has been criticized for giving the federal government too much power to interfere with state authority. One criticism is that it has allowed the federal government to misuse the Commerce Clause by upholding regulations and legislation which have little to do with interstate commerce, but that were enacted under the guise of regulating interstate commerce; and by voiding state legislation for allegedly interfering with interstate commerce. For example, the Commerce Clause was used by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the Endangered Species Act, thus protecting six endemic species of insect near Austin, Texas, despite the fact that the insects had no commercial value and did not travel across state lines; the Supreme Court let that ruling stand without comment in 2005.[206] Chief Justice John Marshall asserted Congress’s power over interstate commerce was “complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the Constitution.”[207] Justice Alito said congressional authority under the Commerce Clause is “quite broad.”[208] Modern day theorist Robert B. Reich suggests debate over the Commerce Clause continues today.[207] Advocates of states’ rights such as constitutional scholar Kevin Gutzman have also criticized the Court, saying it has misused the Fourteenth Amendment to undermine state authority. Justice Brandeis, in arguing for allowing the states to operate without federal interference, suggested that states should be laboratories of democracy.[209] One critic wrote “the great majority of Supreme Court rulings of unconstitutionality involve state, not federal, law.”[210] However, others see the Fourteenth Amendment as a positive force that extends “protection of those rights and guarantees to the state level.”[211]
  • Secretive proceedings: The Court has been criticized for keeping its deliberations hidden from public view.[212] According to a review of Jeffrey Toobin‘s expose The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court; “Its inner workings are difficult for reporters to cover, like a closed “cartel”, only revealing itself through “public events and printed releases, with nothing about its inner workings”.[213] The reviewer writes: “few (reporters) dig deeply into court affairs. It all works very neatly; the only ones hurt are the American people, who know little about nine individuals with enormous power over their lives.”[213] Larry Sabato complains about the Court’s “insularity.”[196] A Fairleigh Dickinson University poll conducted in 2010 found that 61% of American voters agreed that televising Court hearings would “be good for democracy”, and 50% of voters stated they would watch Court proceedings if they were televised.[214][215] In recent years, many justices have appeared on television, written books, and made public statements to journalists.[216][217] In a 2009 interview on C-SPAN, journalists Joan Biskupic (of USA Today) and Lyle Denniston (of SCOTUSblog) argued that the Court is a “very open” institution, with only the justices’ private conferences being inaccessible to others.[216] In October 2010, the Court began the practice of posting on its website recordings and transcripts of oral arguments on the Friday after they take place.
  • Judicial interference in political disputes: Some Court decisions have been criticized for injecting the Court into the political arena, and deciding questions that are the purview of the other two branches of government. The Bush v. Gore decision, in which the Supreme Court intervened in the 2000 presidential election and effectively chose George W. Bush over Al Gore, has been criticized extensively, particularly by liberals.[213][218][219][220][221][222] Another example are Court decisions on apportionment and re-districting: in Baker v. Carr, the court decided it could rule on apportionment questions; Justice Frankfurter in a “scathing dissent” argued against the court wading into so-called political questions.[223]
  • Not choosing enough cases to review: Senator Arlen Specter said the Court should “decide more cases”.[185] On the other hand, although Justice Scalia acknowledged in a 2009 interview that the number of cases that the Court hears now is smaller today than when he first joined the Supreme Court, he also stated that he has not changed his standards for deciding whether to review a case, nor does he believe his colleagues have changed their standards. He attributed the high volume of cases in the late 1980s, at least in part, to an earlier flurry of new federal legislation that was making its way through the courts.[216]
  • Lifetime tenure: Critic Larry Sabato wrote: “The insularity of lifetime tenure, combined with the appointments of relatively young attorneys who give long service on the bench, produces senior judges representing the views of past generations better than views of the current day.”[196] Sanford Levinson has been critical of justices who stayed in office despite medical deterioration based on longevity.[224] James MacGregor Burns stated lifelong tenure has “produced a critical time lag, with the Supreme Court institutionally almost always behind the times.”[180] Proposals to solve these problems include term limits for justices, as proposed by Levinson[225] and Sabato[196][226] as well as a mandatory retirement age proposed by Richard Epstein,[227] among others.[228] However, others suggest lifetime tenure brings substantial benefits, such as impartiality and freedom from political pressure. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 wrote “nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office.”[229]
  • Accepting gifts: The 21st century has seen increased scrutiny of justices accepting expensive gifts and travel. All of the members of the Roberts Court have accepted travel or gifts. In 2012, Justice Sonia Sotomayor received $1.9 million in advances from her publisher Knopf Doubleday.[230] Justice Scalia and others took dozens of expensive trips to exotic locations paid for by private donors.[231] Private events sponsored by partisan groups that are attended by both the justices and those who have an interest in their decisions have raised concerns about access and inappropriate communications.[232] Stephen Spaulding, the legal director at Common Cause, said: “There are fair questions raised by some of these trips about their commitment to being impartial.”[231]

See also

Neil Gorsuch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Neil Gorsuch
Neil Gorsuch 10th Circuit.jpg
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Assumed office
August 8, 2006
Appointed by George W. Bush
Preceded by David M. Ebel
Personal details
Born Neil McGill Gorsuch
August 29, 1967 (age 49)
Denver, Colorado, U.S.
Education Columbia University(BA)
Harvard University(JD)
University College, Oxford (DPhil)

Neil McGill Gorsuch (born August 29, 1967)[1] is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.[2]

Gorsuch is a proponent of originalism and of textualism in interpreting the constitution.[3][4][5]

Early life and education

Gorsuch is the son of David Gorsuch and Anne Gorsuch Burford (née Anne Irene McGill), a Republican and states’ rights proponent, who, under President Ronald Reagan, was the first female head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency from 1981 to 1983, when she was forced to resign for failure to turn over documents to Congress related to the alleged mishandling of Superfund.[6][7] Neil Gorsuch was born in Denver, Colorado but moved to Washington, DC as a teenager, after his mother was appointed to the EPA.[8]

In 1985, he graduated from the Georgetown Preparatory School.[9] He received a B.A. from Columbia University in 1988.[1][6] While a student at Columbia University, he wrote columns for the Columbia Daily Spectator student newspaper[10] and was a fan of the Columbia University Marching Band.[11] In 1986, he co-founded the alternative Columbia student newspaper, The Fed.[12] He earned his J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1991,[1][6] where he received a Truman Scholarship.[13] He received a Doctor of Philosophy in Law from University College at Oxford University in 2004,[1][6] where he received a Marshall Scholarship.[4]

Career

Gorsuch clerked for Judge David B. Sentelle on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1991–1992, and then for United States Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy from 1993–1994.[1]

From 1995–2005, Gorsuch was a lawyer at the Washington, D.C. law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel.[14] He was an associate from 1995–1997 and a partner from 1998–2005.[1] The law firm, which includes partner Peter W. Huber, is known as an “uber-elite..litigation boutique” that pays associates starting salaries of over $225,000 per year, starting bonuses of $175,000, and year-end bonuses of $100,000 to $300,000.[15]

While he was a partner at the firm, Gorsuch wrote a brief denouncing class action lawsuits by shareholders.[14] In the case of Dura Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo, Gorsuch opined that “The free ride to fast riches enjoyed by securities class action attorneys in recent years appeared to hit a speed bump” and that “the problem is that securities fraud litigation imposes an enormous toll on the economy, affecting virtually every public corporation in America at one time or another and costing businesses billions of dollars in settlements every year”.[14]

He served as Principal Deputy to the Associate Attorney General, Robert McCallum, at the U.S. Department of Justice from 2005 until 2006.[1]

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

On May 10, 2006, Gorsuch was nominated by President George W. Bush to the seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit vacated by Judge David M. Ebel when he took senior status.[6] Like Gorsuch, Ebel was also a former clerk of Supreme Court Justice Byron R. White. Just over two months later, on July 20, 2006, Gorsuch was confirmed by voice vote in the U.S. Senate.[16][6] Gorsuch was President Bush’s fifth appointment to the Tenth Circuit.[17]

Since he took office, Gorsuch has sent some of his law clerks on to become Supreme Court clerks, and he is sometimes regarded as a “feeder judge“.[18]

Freedom of religion

Gorsuch advocates a broad definition of religious freedom and sided with Christian employers and religious organizations in the cases of Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and the case of Little Sisters of the Poor Home for the Aged v. Burwell, later consolidated into Zubik v. Burwell. In the Hobby Lobby case, Gorsuch held that the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers provide insurance coverage for contraceptives without a co-pay violated the rights of those employers that object to use of contraceptives on religious grounds.[19] He wrote: “The ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong.”[20]

In his dissent of the 2007 case Summum v. Pleasant Grove City, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, Gorsuch took the view that displaying a religious monument, such as the Ten Commandments, did not obligate a governmental authority to display other offered monuments, such as those from other religions.[21]

Gorsuch has written that “the law … doesn’t just apply to protect popular religious beliefs: it does perhaps its most important work in protecting unpopular religious beliefs, vindicating this nation’s long-held aspiration to serve as a refuge of religious tolerance”.[22]

Authority of federal agencies

In writing his opinion for Hugo Rosario Gutierrez-Brizuela v. Loretta E. Lynch, Gorsuch postulated that the 1984 case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which gives federal agencies (and not the courts) the authority to interpret ambiguous laws and regulations, should be reconsidered.[23] In his opinion, Gorsuch wrote that the practice of administrative deference established by the Chevron case is “more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers’ design.”[24] The impact of an overturn of the Chevron case would be to shift power from federal agencies to the courts.[23]

Interstate commerce

Gorsuch has been an opponent of the dormant commerce clause, which allows state laws to be declared unconstitutional if they too greatly burden interstate commerce. In his opinion for the 2015 case of Energy and Environmental Legal Institute v. Joshua Epel, Gorsuch opined that Colorado’s mandates for renewable energy did not violate the commerce clause by putting out-of-state coal companies at a disadvantage. Gorsuch wrote that the Colorado renewable energy law “isn’t a price-control statute, it doesn’t link prices paid in Colorado with those paid out of state, and it does not discriminate against out-of-staters”.[25][26]

Criminal law

In the 2012 case of United States of America v. Miguel Games-Perez, Gorsuch ruled on a case where a felon owned a gun in a jurisdiction where gun ownership by felons is illegal; however, the felon did not know that he was a felon at the time. Gorsuch concurred with the opinion that “The only statutory element separating innocent (even constitutionally protected) gun possession from criminal conduct in §§ 922(g) and 924(a) is a prior felony conviction. So the presumption that the government must prove mens rea here applies with full force.”[27]

Death penalty

Gorsuch favours a strict reading of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.[28] In a 2003 case, Gorsuch denied requests of death-row inmates seeking to escape executions.[29]

Possible nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court

In September 2016, during the U.S. presidential election, then-candidate Donald Trump included Gorsuch, as well as his circuit colleague Timothy Tymkovich, in a list of 21 current judges whom Trump would consider nominating to the Supreme Court if elected.[30] In January 2017, after President Trump was elected, some unnamed Trump advisers listed Gorsuch in a shorter list of eight of those names, who they said were the leading contenders to be nominated to replace the seat vacated by the late Justice Antonin Scalia.[31]

Legal philosophy

Gorsuch is a proponent of originalism, the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted as the Founding Fathers would have interpreted it, and of textualism, the idea that statutes should be interpreted literally, without considering the legislative history and underlying purpose of the law.[3][4][5]

Judicial Activism

In a 2005 speech at Case Western Reserve University, Gorsuch said that judges should strive “to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be—not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best.”[32]

In a 2005 article published by National Review, Gorsuch argued that “American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda” and that they are “failing to reach out and persuade the public”. Gorsuch wrote that, by relying on judges instead of elected officials and the ballot box to enact their agenda, American liberals are circumventing the democratic process on issues like gay marriage, school vouchers, and assisted suicide, and this has led to a compromised judiciary, which is no longer independent. Gorsuch wrote that American liberals’ “overweening addiction” to using the courts for social debate is “bad for the nation and bad for the judiciary”.[33][16]

States’ rights

Gorsuch was described by Justin Marceau, a professor at the University of Denver‘s Sturm College of Law, as “a predictably socially conservative judge who tends to favor state power over federal power”. Marceau added that the issue of states’ rights is important since federal laws have been used to reel in “rogue” state laws in civil rights cases.[34]

Abortion

Gorsuch has never had the opportunity to write an opinion on Roe v. Wade.[32] However, based on his opinions expressed in his books opposing euthanasia and the taking of human life, people on both sides of the abortion debate presume he holds a pro-life stance.[22]

Euthanasia

In his book The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Gorsuch argued for “retaining the laws banning assisted suicide and euthanasia … based on the idea that all human beings are intrinsically valuable and the intentional taking of human life by private persons is always wrong”.[7]

Personal life

Gorsuch and his wife, Louise, have two daughters, Emma (born 1999) and Belinda (born 2001), and live in Boulder, Colorado.[35][8]

Gorsuch enjoys being outdoors and fly fishing. He raises horses, chickens, and goats, and often arranges ski trips with colleagues and friends.[28]

In 2016, he was paid $26,000 for teaching services provided at the University of Colorado Law School.[14]

Gorsuch has authored two books. His first book, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, was published by Princeton University Press in July 2006. Gorsuch wrote in the book that euthanasia should not be legalized in any form.[20] In 2016, he received $304 in royalties for this book.[14] He is also one of 12 co-authors of The Law of Judicial Precedent, published by Thomson West in 2016. He was paid $5,000 in 2016 as a result of his work on this book.[14]

See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch

Thomas Hardiman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the American handball player, see Thomas Hardiman (handballer).
Thomas Hardiman
JudgeThomasHardiman.pdf
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Assumed office
April 2, 2007
Appointed by George W. Bush
Preceded by Richard Nygaard
Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
In office
October 27, 2003 – April 2, 2007
Appointed by George W. Bush
Preceded by William Standish
Succeeded by Cathy Bissoon
Personal details
Born Thomas Michael Hardiman
July 8, 1965 (age 51)
Winchester, Massachusetts,U.S.
Political party Republican
Education University of Notre Dame(BA)
Georgetown University(JD)

Thomas Michael Hardiman (born July 8, 1965) is a federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was previously a United States district judge. He maintains chambers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Since 1994, he has been a registered Republican.[1]

Hardiman is known as a champion of gun rights and a strong defender of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.[2]

Hardiman is a leading contender to be appointed by President Donald Trump to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the vacancy caused by the passing of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.[3]

Early life and education

Hardiman was born in 1965 in Winchester, Massachusetts and was raised in Waltham.[4][5] His father, Robert, owned and operated a taxicab and school transportation business and his mother, Judith, was a homemaker and bookkeeper for the family business.[4][5][6]

As a teenager, Hardiman began working part-time as a taxi driver, which he continued to do throughout high school and college.[6][7] In 1983, he graduated from Waltham High School, where he served as president of the student council and played football, basketball, and baseball.[8]

He was the first person in his family to graduate from college, receiving a B.A. from the University of Notre Dame on an academic scholarship and graduating with honors in 1987.[4][6]He then studied law at Georgetown University Law Center, where he served as an editor of the Georgetown Law Journal[4] and a member of the moot court team,[9] while working at law firms during the summers and academic terms to help pay his tuition.[10] He received a J.D. with honors in 1990, and in 2010 received the law school’s Paul R. Dean Award for distinguished alumni.[10][4]

Legal career

After graduation, Hardiman joined the Washington, D.C. law firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, where he was an associate in the litigation department from 1989–1992.[4] From 1992–1999, he practiced with the Pittsburgh law firm of Titus & McConomy, first as an associate, and then from 1996–1999 as a partner.[10] From 1999–2003, he was a partner in the litigation department at law firm of Reed Smith, also in Pittsburgh.[4] His practice consisted mainly of civil and white-collar criminal litigation.

Cases argued

In 1994, Hardiman represented residents of the apartment community of Allegheny Commons East in their opposition against the Department of Housing and Urban Development allowing very low income residents into the community.[1]

In 1996, Hardiman represented residents of Edgewood, a suburb of Pittsburgh who were opposing a plan by the Department of Housing and Urban Development to buy 8 houses and use them as low-income housing.[1]Hardiman wrote that “the influx of public housing units will depress property values”.[1] As a result of the case, the number of houses was reduced from eight to three.[1]

In the 1999 case of Alexander v. Riga, Hardiman represented landlords that were accused of discrimination for repeatedly refusing to show African-American couples an apartment that was for rent. While the jury did find discrimination, Hardiman argued that there was no resulting damage and made the case that efforts to reverse segregation might cause incalculable harm.[1][11][12]

In 2000, Hardiman defended Allegheny County, Pennsylvania in a challenge by atheists Andy Modrovich and James Moore, with help from Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The plaintiffs objected to the government adding a plaque on the courthouse that lists the Ten Commandments.[1][13] Hardiman and his colleagues wrote that “the Constitution no more requires the expungement of public references to the Ten Commandments than it does any other aspect of the heritage we share as Americans”.[1]

Federal bench nominations and confirmations

Hardiman was appointed by President George W. Bush to be a judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. He was nominated to that position on April 9, 2003, and confirmed by voice vote on October 22, 2003.[14] He took the bench on November 1, 2003.[4]Democrats raised several concerns with the nomination, including Hardiman’s conservative ideology, trial history, and an endorsement by the American Bar Association that suggested that one or more of the ABA committee members judged him to be “Not Qualified”.[1][12]

Hardiman was subsequently nominated to the Third Circuit by President Bush on January 9, 2007, to fill a seat vacated by Judge Richard Lowell Nygaard, who assumed senior status in 2005.[14] He was confirmed to that seat by the U.S. Senate on March 15, 2007 by a vote of 95–0.[14][15] He was the seventh judge appointed to the Third Circuit by Bush. Since 2013, Hardiman has served as chair of the Committee on Information Technology of the Judicial Conference of the United States.[16][17]

Notable rulings

Police and prison powers

In the 2012 case of Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, Hardiman held that a jail policy of strip-searching everyone who was arrested does not violate the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[18]

In the 2014 case of Karen Barkes v. First Correctional Medical, Inc., et al., Hardiman dissented from the ruling of the Third Circuit that two Delaware prison officials could be sued for failing to provide adequate suicide prevention protocols after a mentally ill inmate committed suicide. The Supreme Court agreed and unanimously reversed in Taylor v. Barkes.[19]

Criminal sentencing

In the 2009 case of United States of America v. Kevin Abbott, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, Hardiman held that a defendant’s mandatory minimum sentence is not affected by the imposition of another mandatory minimum for a different offense.[20]

In the 2007 case of United States of America v. Tracy Lamar Fisher, Hardiman ruled that a judge could find facts to enhance a criminal sentence according to the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof.[21]

Religious freedom

In the 2008 case of Busch vs. Marple Newton School District, Hardiman held the minority opinion, ruling in favor of parents who described themselves as Evangelical Christians and were barred from reading from the Bible during a kindergarten “show and tell” presentation. Hardiman wrote that “the school went too far in this case in limiting participation in ‘All About Me’ week to nonreligious perspectives,” which “plainly constituted” discrimination. Hardiman also wrote that “the majority’s desire to protect young children from potentially influential speech in the classroom is understandable” but that it cannot be used to bar the students from expressing “something about themselves, except what is most important to them.”[22]

Gun rights

In the 2011 case of United States of America vs. James Francis Barton, Jr., Hardiman rejected a challenge to the federal law that bans felons from owning firearms.[23] However, in the 2016 case of Daniel Binderup v. Attorney General of United States of America and Director Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms & Explosives, he qualified such opinion to only include dangerous persons which were likely to use firearms for illicit purposes. He wrote “the most cogent principle that can be drawn from traditional limitations on the right to keep and bear arms is that dangerous persons likely to use firearms for illicit purposes were not understood to be protected by the Second Amendment”.[24]

In the 2013 case of John M. Drake et al. v. The Honorable Rudolph A Filko, Hardiman disagreed with the New Jersey requirement that gun owners must show a “justifiable need” to own a gun. Hardiman cited the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, writing that based on the Heller ruling, the Second Amendment “protects an inherent right to self-defense.”[25][26]

Free speech

In the 2006 case of United States of America v. Robert J. Stevens, Hardiman struck down a federal law that criminalized videos depicting animal cruelty.[27]

In the 2010 case of Brian D. Kelly v. Borough of Carlisle, Hardiman ruled that a police officer had qualified immunity because there is no clearly established First Amendment right to videotape police officers during traffic stops.[28]

In the 2013 case of B.H. Hawk & Relatives v. Easton Area School District, Hardiman dissented from the court’s holding that a public school violated the First Amendment by banning middle-school students from wearing bracelets inscribed “I [love] boobies!” that were sold by a breast cancer awareness group.[29]

In the 2014 case of Lodge No. 5 of Fraternal Order of Police v. City of Philadelphia, Hardiman struck down a city charter provision barring police officers from donating to their union’s political action committee, under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[30]

Immigration

In the 2010 case of Mauricio Valdiviezo-Galdamez v. Attorney General of United States of America, Hardiman ruled in favor of a man from Honduras who was seeking asylum in the United States to avoid being recruited into a violent gang.[31]

In the 2015 case of Di Li Li v. Attorney General of United States of America, Hardiman opined that the Board of Immigration Appeals must re-open a case when an asylum seeker from China converted to Christianity and argued that “conditions have worsened over time” for Christians in China.[32]

Discrimination and gender stereotyping

In the 2009 case of Brian D. Prowel vs. Wise Business Forms, Inc., Hardiman opined in the case of an employee who accused his employer of “gender stereotyping discrimination” because he was viewed as being effeminate. Hardiman wrote that, even though discrimination based on an sexual orientation was not outlawed, the employee can sue for illegal discrimination for failing to conform to “gender stereotypes”.[33]

Commerce

In the 2011 case of United States of America v. Thomas S. Pendleton, Hardiman ruled in the case of a man who sexually molested a 15-year old boy in Germany and was later sentenced in Delaware under the PROTECT Act of 2003. The defendant argued that the PROTECT Act was unconstitutional based on the Foreign Commerce Clause. Hardiman ruled that the PROTECT Act was valid because of an “express connection” to the channels of foreign commerce.[34]

Bankruptcy law

In the 2015 case of In re Jevic Holding Corp., Hardiman ruled that a “structured dismissal” of a Chapter 11bankruptcy may, in rare circumstances, deviate from the priority system of the Bankruptcy Code.[35]

Personal life

Hardiman married Lori Hardiman (née Zappala) in 1992, an attorney and real estate professional.[1] The Zappala family, which includes Stephen A. Zappala and Stephen Zappala Sr., are prominent Democrats.[1][6] Hardiman is the father of three children: Kate (born 1994), a senior at the University of Notre Dame, Matthew (born 1997), a freshman at University of Notre Dame, and Marissa (born 2001), a high school sophomore.[36]

Hardiman is a board member and former president of Big Brothers Big Sisters of Greater Pittsburgh.[4]

Hardiman speaks fluent Spanish and as a student, participated in an exchange program in Mexico. When living in Washington, DC, he volunteered with the Ayuda immigration legal aid office, representing immigrants.[6]

Before becoming a judge, Hardiman was a member of the bars of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and the District of Columbia.[4] He is currently a member of the American Law Institute,[37] a master of the Edward M. Sell University of Pittsburgh Chapter of the American Inns of Court, and a fellow in the Academy of Trial Lawyers of Allegheny County.[4]

See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hardiman

 

William H. Pryor Jr.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other people named William Pryor, see William Pryor (disambiguation).
William H. Pryor Jr.
Portrait of US federal judge William H. Pryor, Jr.jpg
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Assumed office
February 20, 2004
Appointed by George W. Bush
Preceded by Emmett Ripley Cox
Attorney General of Alabama
In office
January 3, 1997 – February 20, 2004
Governor Fob James
Don Siegelman
Bob Riley
Preceded by Jeff Sessions
Succeeded by Troy King
Personal details
Born William Holcombe Pryor Jr.
April 26, 1962 (age 54)
Mobile, Alabama, U.S.
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Kristan Wilson
Children 2 daughters
Education University of Louisiana,
Monroe
(BA)
Tulane University (JD)

William Holcombe “Bill” Pryor Jr. (born April 26, 1962) is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and a Commissioner on the United States Sentencing Commission.[1] Previously, he was the Attorney General of the State of Alabama from 1997 to 2004.

Background

Born in Mobile, Alabama, the son of William Holcombe Pryor Sr., and his wife, Laura Louise (née Bowles), Pryor was raised in a devoutly Roman Catholic family. He and his siblings attended McGill–Toolen Catholic High School in Mobile. He earned his Bachelor of Arts from Northeast Louisiana University in 1984 (now University of Louisiana, Monroe) and his Juris Doctor from Tulane University Law School in 1987, where he served as editor in chief of the Tulane Law Review.

Legal career

Pryor served as a law clerk to Judge John Minor Wisdom of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from 1987 to 1988. Pryor worked as a private attorney from 1988–1995, serving as adjunct professor of maritime law at the Cumberland School of Law at Samford University from 1989–1995. Pryor is currently a visiting professor at the University of Alabama School of Law[2] and an adjunct professor at the Cumberland School of Law at Samford University.[3]

Political career

From 1995–1997, he served as Alabama’s deputy attorney general. He became the state’s Attorney General in 1997. He was, at that time, the youngest state attorney general in the United States. Pryor was elected in 1998 and reelected in 2002. At reelection, Pryor received nearly 59% of the vote, the highest percentage of any statewide candidate.[4]

Pryor received national attention in 2003 when he called for the removal of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who had disobeyed a federal court order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building. Pryor said that although he agreed with the propriety of displaying the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, he was bound to follow the court order and uphold the rule of law. Pryor personally prosecuted Moore for violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and the Alabama Court of the Judiciary unanimously removed Moore from office.[5]

Pryor has been criticized[6] for his refusal to reopen the case of Anthony Ray Hinton, an Alabama man whose 1985 conviction was vacated in 2015.[7] In 2014, the United States Supreme Court held that Hinton’s trial lawyer was “constitutionally deficient” because he failed to research how much money he could obtain for an expert witness.[8] The expert that Hinton’s lawyer obtained on the cheap was insufficiently qualified. Hinton was released on April 3, 2015 after the State of Alabama could not regather enough evidence for a retrial.[9]In 2002, Pryor opposed Hinton’s attempts to challenge his conviction, stating that Hinton’s new experts “did not prove [his] innocence and the state does not doubt his guilt.”[10]

Notable opinions

  • United States v. Phillips (11th Cir. 2016). Judge Pryor wrote an opinion for a unanimous panel, affirming the denial of Ted Phillips’s motion to suppress. The police caught Phillips, a convicted felon, with a firearm while they were arresting him on a civil writ of bodily attachment for his failure to pay child support. The Court’s opinion explored the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment and the history of civil writs to conclude that the writ for unpaid child support gave the police the authority to arrest Phillips and to conduct a search incident to arrest.[11]
  • Eternal Word Television Network, Inc. v. Sec’y, U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Servs. (11th Cir. 2014). In a unanimous order, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit enjoined the Secretary of HHS from enforcing the contraception mandate against Catholic television network EWTN. Judge Pryor specially concurred, explaining why, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby, EWTN had shown a substantial likelihood of success on the merits under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The concurrence is particularly notable because Judge Pryor noted that he parted ways with decisions of the Sixth and Seventh Circuits on the subject “because the decisions of those courts are wholly unpersuasive.”[12]
  • Walker v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (11th Cir. 2013). On behalf of a unanimous panel, Pryor rejected the due process challenge brought by R.J. Reynolds to the application, as res judicata, of the previous determinations on liability made by a Florida jury in an unorthodox class action against the tobacco companies in the 1990s. The panel concluded that it was required to give full faith and credit to the decision of the Florida trial court, as interpreted by the Florida Supreme Court and that the application of full faith and credit did not violate the tobacco company’s due process rights because R.J. Reynolds had been given notice and an opportunity to be heard throughout the litigation. The opinion is particularly notable for a colorful paragraph at its conclusion discussing the intractable problem of tobacco litigation.[13]
  • Day v. Persels & Associates (11th Cir. 2013). Pryor wrote the majority (2–1) opinion vacating a settlement award in a class action relating to debt-settlement services. The court concluded that the magistrate judge had subject-matter jurisdiction to approve the settlement because unnamed class members are not parties whose consent is required for adjudication by a magistrate judge. But the court also concluded that the magistrate judge had abused its discretion when it approved a settlement that provided no monetary relief to the class members because he found that the defendants could not pay such monetary relief, but no evidence supported that finding.[14]
  • United States v. Bellaizac-Hurtado (11th Cir. 2012). Pryor wrote the majority (2–1) opinion reversing the convictions of four defendants for drug-trafficking in the territorial waters of Panama because the Act that criminalized their behavior exceeded the authority of Congress under the Offences against the Law of Nations Clause of the Constitution. The opinion is the first in-depth interpretation of the constitutional provision by a federal circuit court. Judge Rosemary Barkett specially concurred in the judgment.[15]
  • United States v. Shaygan (11th Cir. 2011). Pryor wrote the majority (2–1) opinion vacating an award of over $600,000 in attorney’s fees and costs against the United States and the public reprimand of two federal prosecutors. The court explained that the prosecution was objectively reasonable and did not warrant sanctions under the Hyde Amendment. The court also concluded that the district court had violated the due process rights of the federal prosecutors when it denied them notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard.[16] Pryor later wrote a statement respecting the denial of rehearing en banc of this opinion in United States v. Shaygan (11th Cir. Apr. 10, 2012).[17]
  • First Vagabonds Church of God v. Orlando (11th Cir. 2011). Writing for a unanimous en banc court, Pryor rejected an as-applied challenge by Orlando Food Not Bombs to a municipal ordinance that restricted the frequency of its feedings of homeless persons in parks located within a 2-mile radius of the Orlando City Hall. The court assumed, without deciding, that the feeding of homeless persons constituted expressive conduct and determined that the ordinance, as applied to Orlando Food Not Bombs, constituted a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction and a reasonable regulation of expressive conduct.[18]
  • In re United States (11th Cir. 2010). Pryor wrote the majority (2–1) opinion granting a writ of mandamus to substitute an Assistant Administrator of the EPA for the appearance of the Administrator in a case about the ecology of the Everglades. The panel explained that the district court had abused its discretion in ordering the appearance of the agency head and encroached on the separation of powers.[19]
  • Scott v. Roberts (11th Cir. 2010). Pryor wrote for a unanimous panel reversing the district court and preliminarily restraining the enforcement of a Florida law that provided a dollar-for-dollar subsidy to a candidate’s opponent once that candidate exceeded a statutory expenditure limit. The panel concluded that Rick Scott, then-candidate in the Republican primary for the Governor of Florida, had made a substantial showing of likelihood of success on the merits because, even if the law served compelling state interests, the law was not the least restrictive means of serving those interests. Scott went on to win the Republican primary and the general election.[20]
  • Common Cause/Georgia v. Billups (11th Cir. 2009). Pryor wrote for a unanimous panel upholding a Georgia law that required all registered voters in Georgia to present a government-issued photo identification to be allowed to vote in person. The law also required Georgia to issue, free of charge, a “Georgia voter identification card” to any registered Georgia voter who lacked an acceptable form of identification. The panel concluded that the NAACP and voters had standing to challenge the law, but that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to enjoin the law because the burdens on voters from the law were insignificant and the state had legitimate interests in preventing voter fraud.[21]
  • Pelphrey v. Cobb County (11th Cir. 2008). Pryor wrote the majority (2–1) opinion, joined by Judge Charles R. Wilson, affirming the district court ruling that sectarian prayers used to open commission meetings did not violate the Establishment Clause as long as the prayer opportunity was not exploited to proselytize or to advance or disparage any particular faith or belief. U.S. District Court Judge Donald Middlebrooks dissented.[22]
  • United States v. Campa, (11th Cir. 2008). Pryor wrote the majority (2–1) opinion, joined by Judge Birch, upholding the convictions of five Cuban spies (“The Cuban Five”) for espionage.[23]
  • Zibtluda LLC v. Gwinnett County, Georgia, (11th Cir. 2005). Opinion affirmed district court ruling that a local ordinance limiting the placement of adult entertainment establishments was constitutional. The opinion was notable for Pryor’s quote of a line from The B-52’s hit song “Love Shack” in describing the proposed establishment.[24]

Eleventh Circuit nomination and confirmation

Pryor was nominated to the Eleventh Circuit by President George W. Bush on April 9, 2003 to fill a seat vacated by Judge Emmett Ripley Cox, who had assumed senior status. Originally, William H. Steele had been nominated to the seat in 2001, but his nomination had become stalled in the Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee during the 107th United States Congress because African-American groups protested his decisions in two civil rights cases as a magistrate judge. His nomination was withdrawn in January 2003. Pryor was nominated as Steele’s replacement.

Despite the fact that the 108th United States Congress was controlled by the Republican Party, Senate Democrats refused to allow Pryor to be confirmed, criticizing him as an extremist, citing statements he had made such as referring to the Supreme Court as “nine octogenarian lawyers” and saying that Roe v. Wade was the “worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.”[25]

During the confirmation hearing, Pryor was criticized in particular for filing an amicus brief on behalf of the State of Alabama in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas that urged the Court to uphold Texas penal code § 21.06, which classifies homosexual sex as a misdemeanor.[26] Pryor’s brief argued that the recognition of a constitutional right to sodomy would “logically extend” to activities like “prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, incest and pedophilia.”[27][28][29]

Due to a filibuster of his nomination, President George W. Bush installed Pryor as a circuit court judge on February 20, 2004 using a recess appointment to bypass the regular Senate confirmation process. Pryor resigned as Alabama’s attorney general that same day and took his judicial oath for a term lasting until the end of the first session of the 109th Congress (December 22, 2005), when his appointment would have ended had he not been eventually confirmed.[30]

On May 23, 2005 Senator John McCain announced an agreement between seven Republican and seven Democratic U.S. Senators, the Gang of 14, to ensure an up-or-down vote on Pryor and two other stalled Bush nominees, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. On June 9, 2005, Pryor was confirmed to the Eleventh Circuit by a vote of 53–45,[31] and received his commission on June 10, 2005 and on June 20, 2005, he was sworn in at the age of 43.

Pryor was the only judge appointed to the Eleventh Circuit by President George W. Bush.[32]

U.S. Sentencing Commission nomination and confirmation

President Barack Obama nominated Pryor to serve as a commissioner on the United States Sentencing Commission on April 15, 2013. Pryor had experience with sentencing issues and reform at the state level. During his tenure as Attorney General of the State of Alabama, he successfully led the effort to establish, by legislation, the Alabama Sentencing Commission. Pryor has written several law review articles about his experiences with sentencing reform. The Senate unanimously confirmed Pryor by voice vote on June 6, 2013, and he will serve a term that expires on October 31, 2017.[33] On January 3, 2017, Pryor was named the Acting Chair of the Commission. [34]Pryor will continue to serve as an active judge on the Eleventh Circuit during his service on the Commission.

Supreme Court consideration

On May 16, 2016, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump released a list of eleven individuals from which he would pick to fill the vacancy left on the Supreme Court by the death of Antonin Scalia, among them was Pryor.[35]At a Republican primary debate in South Carolina, President Trump said the following about Supreme Court nominations “we could have a Diane Sykes or you could have a Bill Pryor, we have some fantastic people.”[36] It was reported in mid-December that President Trump had narrowed his choices to “three or four individuals”, with the top two leading candidates being Sykes and Pryor.[37] President Trump will announce his pick for the Court on January 31, 2017.[38]

See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Pryor_Jr.

Supreme Court Justices – The Senate Confirmation Process

Updated September 06, 2016.

Under Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, the President of the United States alone is empowered to nominate Supreme Court Justices and the U.S. Senate is required to confirm those nominations. Because the Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, the President may nominate any individual to serve on the Court.

Several steps are involved in the Supreme Court justice appointment and confirmation process. After being nominated by the president, candidates are subjected to a series of often politically partisan hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee composed of lawmakers from both parties. The committee may also call other witnesses to testify regarding the suitability and qualifications of the candidate to serve on the Supreme Court.

Consideration by Senate Judiciary Committee

1 simple trick & my credit score jumped 217 pts. Banks hate this!
$37-$47/hr Real Work at home Job Requirements: Must Have Computer.
If you’re over 50 and you eat this carb, you will never lose belly fat.
  • The Judiciary Committee sends the nominee a questionnaire. The questionnaire requests the nominee’s biographical, financial and employment information, and copies of the nominee’s legal writings, opinions issued, testimony and speeches.
  • The Judiciary Committee holds a hearing on the nomination. The nominee makes an opening statement and then answers questions from the Committee members. The hearing can take several days and the questioning can become politically partisan and intense.
  • After the hearing is completed, Committee members are given one week to submit written follow-up questions. The nominee submits written responses.
  • Finally, the Committee votes on the nomination. The Committee can vote to send the nomination to the full Senate with a recommendation of either approval or rejection. The Committee can also vote to send the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation.

Consideration by the Full Senate

  • After receiving the recommendation of the Judiciary Committee, the full Senate holds its own hearing and debates the nomination. The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee leads the Senate hearing. The senior Democratic and Republican members of the Judiciary Committee lead their party’s questioning. The Senate hearing and debate typically take less than a week.
  • Finally the full Senate will vote on the nomination. A simple majority vote of the Senators present is required for the nomination to be confirmed.

Swearing In

If the Senate confirms the nomination, the nominee usually goes directly to the White House to be sworn in. The swearing in is typically conducted by the Chief Justice. If the Chief Justice is not available, any Supreme Court Justice can administer the oath of office.

How Long Does All of This Usually Take?

According to records compiled by the Senate Judiciary Committee, it takes an average of 2-1/2 months for a nominee to reach a full vote in the Senate.

How Many Nominations are Confirmed?

Since the Supreme Court was established in 1789, presidents have submitted 161 nominations for the Court, including those for chief justice. Of this total, 124 were confirmed, including 7 nominees who decline to serve.

About Recess Appointments

Presidents may and have also placed justices on the Supreme Court using the often-controversial recess appointment process.

Whenever the Senate is in a recess, the president is allowed to make temporary appointments to any office requiring Senate approval, including vacancies on the Supreme Court, without the Senate’s approval.

Persons appointed to the Supreme Court be a recess appointment are allowed to hold their positions only until the end of the next session of Congress – or for a maximum of two years. In order to continue to serve afterwards, the nominee must be formally nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-828

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Pronk Pops Show 827, January 30, 2017: Story 1: No Thanks To The Lying Lunatic Left Losers The American People Thank President Trump for Making America Safer From Radical Islamic Terrorists From Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen With A 90 Day Temporary Pause for Travelers From These Countries To Begin Extreme Vigorous Vetting — Videos

Posted on January 31, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Coal, Communications, Constitutional Law, Countries, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Empires, Energy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, History, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Libya, Lying, Media, Natural Gas, News, Nuclear, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rule of Law, Scandals, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States Constitution, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 827: January 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 826: January 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 787: October 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 786: October 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 785: October 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 784: October 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 783: October 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

Story 1: No Thanks To The Lying Lunatic Left Losers The American People Thank President Trump for Making America Safer From Radical Islamic Terrorists From Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen With A 90 Day Temporary Pause for Travelers From These Countries To Begin Extreme Vigorous Vetting — Videos

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

~Edmund Burke

It follows reports that Muslim-majority countries with ties to Trump's business empire have been excluded from the order

STEPHEN MILLER FULL ONE-ON-ONE EXPLOSIVE INTERVIEW ON FOX & FRIENDS | FOX NEWS (1/30/2017)

Reaction to Trump’s Travel Ban

Published on Jan 30, 2017

President Donald Trump signed an executive order barring the entry of U.S. visa holders and others from seven Muslim-majority countries. The White House defends its order as federal judges intervene and protests continue in cities and airports across America.
Originally published at – http://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/…

Legal scholar on travel ban: Law favors Trump

President Trump EXTREME vetting efforts face backlash, Critics claim Trump travel ban is illegal.

What We Saw at the #MuslimBan Protest at LAX

Charles Koch Compares Trump’s Muslim Ban To Nazi Germany

Critics claim President Trump’s travel ban is illegal

Chuck Schumer Starts CRYING Over Donald Trump’s Refugee Travel Ban!

Thousands protest at airports across the country

Sean Spicer Interview: Trump Won’t ‘Apologize For Putting Safety of This Country First’ | This Week

Trump Copy’s Obama Muslim Ban, Media Flips

President Trump defends controversial travel ban

President Trump Signs Executive Order Halting ALL Immigration From 7 Primarily Muslim Countries

Trump’s Exclusion of Aliens from Specific Countries Is Legal

by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY January 28, 2017 5:30 PM

Arguments to the contrary ignore the Constitution and misstate federal law.

On Friday, President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for heightened vetting of certain foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States.

The order temporarily suspends entry by the nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen. It is to last for 90 days, while heightened vetting procedures are developed. The order has predictably prompted intense protest from critics of immigration restrictions (most of whom are also critics of Trump). At the New York Times, the Cato Institute’s David J. Bier claims the temporary suspension is illegal because, in his view, it flouts the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. This contention is meritless, both constitutionally and as a matter of statutory law.

Let’s start with the Constitution, which vests all executive power in the president. Under the Constitution, as Thomas Jefferson wrote shortly after its adoption, “the transaction of business with foreign nations is Executive altogether. It belongs then to the head of that department, except as to such portions of it as are specifically submitted to the Senate. Exceptions are to be construed strictly.”

The rare exceptions Jefferson had in mind, obviously, were such matters as the approval of treaties, which Article II expressly vests in the Senate. There are also other textual bases for a congressional role in foreign affairs, such as Congress’s power over international commerce, to declare war, and to establish the qualifications for the naturalization of citizens. That said, when Congress legislates in this realm, it must do so mindful of what the Supreme Court, in United States v. Curtiss-Wright (1936), famously described as “the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations – a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress.”

In the international arena, then, if there is arguable conflict between a presidential policy and a congressional statute, the president’s policy will take precedence in the absence of some clear constitutional commitment of the subject matter to legislative resolution. And quite apart from the president’s presumptive supremacy in foreign affairs, we must also adhere to a settled doctrine of constitutional law: Where it is possible, congressional statutes should be construed in a manner that avoids constitutional conflicts.

With that as background, let’s consider the claimed conflict between the president’s executive order and Congress’s statute.

Mr. Bier asserts that Trump may not suspend the issuance of visas to nationals of specific countries because the 1965 immigration act “banned all discrimination against immigrants on the basis of national origin.” And, indeed, a section of that act, now codified in Section 1152(a) of Title 8, U.S. Code, states that (with exceptions not here relevant) “no person shall receive any preference or priority or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence” (emphasis added).

Even on its face, this provision is not as clearly in conflict with Trump’s executive order as Bier suggests. As he correctly points out, the purpose of the anti-discrimination provision (signed by President Lyndon Johnson in 1965) was to end the racially and ethnically discriminatory “national origins” immigration practice that was skewed in favor of Western Europe. Trump’s executive order, to the contrary, is in no way an effort to affect the racial or ethnic composition of the nation or its incoming immigrants. The directive is an effort to protect national security from a terrorist threat, which, as we shall see, Congress itself has found to have roots in specified Muslim-majority countries.

Because of the national-security distinction between Trump’s 2017 order and Congress’s 1965 objective, it is not necessary to construe them as contradictory, and principles of constitutional interpretation counsel against doing so.

Nevertheless, let’s concede for argument’s sake that there is conflict. At issue is a matter related to the conduct of foreign affairs – a matter of the highest order of importance since it involves foreign threats to national security. If there were a conflict here, the president’s clear constitutional authority to protect the United States would take precedence over Congress’s dubious authority to limit the president’s denial of entry to foreign nationals.

But there is no conflict.

Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate” (emphasis added).

Section 1182(f) plainly and sweepingly authorizes the president to issue temporary bans on the entry of classes of aliens for national-security purposes. This is precisely what President Trump has done. In fact, in doing so, he expressly cites Section 1182(f), and his executive order tracks the language of the statute (finding the entry of aliens from these countries at this time “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”).

While Bier ignores the president’s constitutional foreign-affairs authority (although Trump expressly relies on it in the first line of his executive order), he concedes that Trump is relying on a statute. He theorizes, nevertheless, that because Section 1182(f) was enacted in 1952, whereas the non-discrimination provision (Section 1152(a)) was enacted years afterward, the latter must be deemed to have amended the former – thus removing the president’s authority to impose class restrictions based on the aliens’ country of origin.

Nice try.

Put aside that Trump is principally relying on his inherent constitutional authority, and that the class restriction he has directed is based on national-security, not racial or ethnic considerations. Trump’s executive order also expressly relies on an Obama-era provision of the immigration law, Section 1187(a)(12), which governs the Visa Waiver Program. This statute empowers the executive branch to waive the documentation requirements for certain aliens. In it, Congress itself expressly discriminates based on country of origin.

Under this provision, Congress provides that an alien is eligible for the waiver only if he or she has not been present (a) in Iraq or Syria any time after March 1, 2011; (b) in any country whose government is designated by the State Department as “repeatedly provid[ing] support for acts of international terrorism”; or (c) in any country that has been designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a country “of concern.” Trump is principally relying on his inherent constitutional authority.

So, not only has Congress never repealed the president’s sweeping statutory power to exclude classes of aliens from entry on national-security grounds; decades after the 1965 anti-discrimination provision touted by Bier, Congress expressly authorized discrimination on the basis of national origin when concerns over international terrorism are involved. Consequently, by Bier’s own logic, the 1965 statute must be deemed amended by the much more recent statute.

Bier concedes that, despite the 1965 anti-discrimination statute, President Jimmy Carter barred entry by Iranian nationals in 1980, after the Khomeini revolution led to the U.S.-hostage crisis. But he treats Carter’s restriction based on national origin as an aberration. Instead, he insists, we should place more stock in the federal courts’ affirmation of the 1965 anti-discrimination provision during the 1990s — specifically, in a litigation involving an alien from Vietnam who had fled to Hong Kong and objected to being required to return to Vietnam to apply for a visa when applicants from other countries faced no such requirement.

But there is no inconsistency here. Bier perceives one only by overlooking the salient national-security distinction. The discriminatory treatment of Iranians was rationally rooted in anti-terrorism concerns, and was clearly proper. The discriminatory treatment of the Vietnamese alien was unrelated to national security or terrorism, and thus problematic. Trump, like Carter, is quite properly acting on national-security concerns.

One can debate the policy wisdom of the executive order, which is plainly a temporary measure while a more comprehensive and thoughtfully tailored policy is developed. The seven countries the president has singled out are surely hotbeds of radical Islam; but he has omitted other countries – e.g., Saudi Arabia, home to 15 of the 19 suicide-hijackers who attacked our country on 9/11 – that are also cauldrons of jihadism.

Furthermore, as I have argued, the real threat to be targeted is sharia-supremacist ideology, which is inherently hostile to the Constitution. Were we to focus our vetting, unapologetically, on that ideology (also known as “radical” or “political” Islam), it would be unnecessary to implement a categorical ban on Muslims or immigrants from majority-Muslim countries. That is critical because non-Islamist Muslims who can demonstrate loyalty to our constitutional principles should not be barred from admission; while Islamists, on the other hand, are not found only in Muslim-majority countries – other things being equal, a sharia supremacist from the banlieues of Paris poses as much of a threat as a sharia supremacist from Raqqa.

Yet, all that can be debated as we go forward. For now, there is no doubt that the executive order temporarily banning entry from specified Muslim-majority countries is both well within President Trump’s constitutional authority and consistent with statutory law.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444371/donald-trump-executive-order-ban-entry-seven-muslim-majority-countries-legal

Full text of Trump’s executive order on 7-nation ban, refugee suspension

(CNN)President Donald Trump on Friday banned nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for at least the next 90 days by executive order.

The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as “countries of concern.”
The executive order also bans entry of those fleeing from war-torn Syria indefinitely.
The order also calls for a review into suspending the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which allows travelers from 38 countries — including close allies — to renew travel authorizations without an in-person interview.
Here is the order in its entirety:
Trump’s immigration order: Which countries are affected?
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Syria
  • Sudan
  • Libya
  • Yemen
  • Somalia
PROTECTING THE NATION FROM FOREIGN TERRORIST ENTRY INTO THE UNITED STATES
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States.
Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism.
The ban and its impact
  • 134 million banned from US
  • What to know about the restrictions
  • In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.
    Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes.
    Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat.
    (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence.
    Executive orders: Read more
  • All of Trump’s executive orders, memos and proclamations
  • Will the orders and actions stick?
  • (c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).
    (d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification.
    (e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs.
    (f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment.
    (g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.
    (h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order.
    Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant’s likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant’s ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States.
    (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order.
    Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.
    (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization.
    (c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest.
    (d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest.
    (e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States.
    (f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order.
    (g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement.
    Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda.
    Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
    (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational.
    Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1222, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions.
    (b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected.
    Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable.
    Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter:
    (i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later;
    (ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
    (iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and
    (iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses.
    (b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels.
    Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
    (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
    (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
    (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
    (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
    DONALD J. TRUMP
    THE WHITE HOUSE, January 27, 2017

    US travel ban: Why these seven countries?

    President Donald Trump has signed an executive order that banned travel into the United States for citizens from these seven countries for 90 days: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen.

    The restrictions were part of wide ranging immigration controls that also suspended refugee arrivals. It appears that existing restrictions in place during the Obama administration informed Mr Trump’s list.

    These countries were already named as “countries of concern” after a law passed by a Republican-led Congress in 2015 altered a visa admissions programme.

    The Visa Waiver Program allows citizens from 38 countries to enter the US for 90 days without a visa. The UK, France and Germany are among those countries allowed in under the waiver programme. Visitors apply for an Electronic System for Travel Authorization (Esta).

    In December 2015 Congress passed a law – created by senators from both parties, and supported and signed by the White House – that removed waiver benefits for foreign nationals who had visited certain countries since March 2011. The countries were identified as having a terrorist organisation with a significant presence in the area, or the country was deemed a “safe haven” for terrorists.

    Protesters stand together at the Miami International AirporImage copyrightJOE RAEDLE/GETTY 
    Image captionThe executive order has been followed by demonstrations across the United States

    After Libya, Somalia and Yemen were added to the list in February 2016, the “countries of concern” were the seven named in Mr Trump’s order.

    According to the restrictions, citizens who had been eligible for the waiver programme and had visited one of those seven countries in the time period were forced to apply for a visa.

    The Obama administration passed the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 after the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris. The Act, however, unlike Trump’s much more broad order, only affected people eligible for the visa waiver programme, rather than suspend all citizens’ travel from one of those seven countries.

    In a statement on 29 January, President Trump said his policy was “similar” to an Obama order that “banned visa for refugees from Iraq”.

    Trump referred to an incident in May 2011 when the FBI indicted two Iraqi citizens in Kentucky on federal terrorism charges. Both were accused of providing material support to al-Qaeda and had been involved in attacks against US forces in Iraq.

    A hearing before the Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence found that the pair had “exploited special Iraqi refugee programs”. The vetting system came under review and this resulted in fewer Iraqi refugee admissions that year.

    The number of refugees from Iraq dropped from 18,016 to 9,388 as a result of the suspension. That number increased to 12,163 the following year.

    Do citizens from the seven countries pose the biggest threats?

    Mr Trump’s order said that foreign-born individuals have been responsible for “numerous” terrorism-related crimes since 9/11, including foreign nationals who have entered the country on visa or refugee programmes. The 9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, UAE, Lebanon and Egypt.

    In September 2015 the Homeland Security Committee reported that the so-called Islamic State had inspired or directed 60 terror plots or attacks in Western countries, including 15 in the United States. There are 250 American citizens known to have joined Islamist extremist groups.

    Significant recent attacks in the US were not committed by citizens from any of the seven countries included in the order. This list includes:

    • Fort Lauderdale airport shooting (January 2017): A US citizen
    • Orlando nightclub shooting (June 2016): A US citizen with Afghan parents
    • San Bernardino shooting (December 2015): A US citizen with Pakistani parents, and a Pakistani citizen
    • Chattanooga shootings (July 2015): A Kuwait-born US citizen
    • Charleston church shooting (June 2015): A US citizen
    • Boston marathon bombing (April 2013): Two Russian citizens with Chechen ethnicity

    There have been a few non-fatal attacks by individuals from two of the countries on the banned list.

    According to the New America Foundation, 82% of all terrorism incidents since 2001 were conducted by citizens and permanent residents. Since 9/11, jihadists have killed 94 people inside the United States.

    A Cato Institute study found that Americans are 253 times more likely to die in a regular homicide than dying in a terrorist attack committed by a foreigner in the US.

    US Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have said the order “may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security”, because of the signal it sends to the Muslim world.

    But President Trump has rejected that notion, saying in an interview that America’s enemies were already angry and it was his number one responsibility to keep the country safe. And his supporters wholeheartedly agree.

    “Donald Trump says this is temporary and I trust him,” said one resident in New York’s Staten Island. “His number one job is to protect the American people.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38798588

    Trump’s latest executive order: Banning people from 7 countries and more

    Story highlights

    • Many of the provisions in the order are consistent with Trump’s campaign pledges
    • Here’s a breakdown of what the executive order does

    Washington (CNN)With just a few quick strokes of the pen, President Donald Trump on Friday banned — temporarily, for now — roughly 218 million people from entering the United States.

    Trump barred citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US for at least the next 90 days by executive order, which a senior White House official said later Friday is likely just a first step toward establishing a broader ban.
    Executive orders: Read more
  • All of Trump’s executive orders, memos and proclamations
  • Will the orders and actions stick?
  • It’s unclear how many more countries will be added to the list, but the official said the administration will be “very aggressive” as it weighs how many more countries to add to the list.
    Asked what criteria the administration will consider as it looks to expand the ban beyond the initial seven countries, the official said simply the “mandate is to keep America safe.”
    “Not going to take any risks,” the official added.
    That’s just one part of the controversial executive order Trump signed Friday dubbed: “Protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” Many of the provisions in the order are consistent with Trump’s campaign pledges.
    Here’s a breakdown of what the executive order does.

    Bans citizens of 7 countries

    Trump banned citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the US for at least the next 90 days.
    The executive order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen — or at least 218 million people, based on 2015 data published by the World Bank — from entering the United States. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as “countries of concern.”
    But the executive order also makes clear those seven countries are just a starting point for a likely broader ban.
    The order exempts diplomats and members of international organizations from the ban.

    Orders review of countries to be added to the ban

    The order also directs the secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a 30-day review to determine which countries do not provide “adequate information” for its citizens to be issued visas to enter the US.
    During the campaign, Trump talked about these countries as “terror-prone” countries. During the GOP primary campaign, he called for banning all Muslims from the US — a statement he never retracted — before shifting toward calling for banning individuals from countries with terrorist links, though he never specified the countries.

    Suspends the US refugee program

    Trump also stopped the admission of all refugees to the United States for four months.
    During that time, Trump’s secretary of state will review the application and screening process for refugees to be admitted to the US. The process is already highly rigorous and often takes successful refugee applicants at least two years to be admitted into the United States, but Trump has argued the program could still be exploited by terrorists.
    Trump also more than halved the number of refugees who could eventually be admitted in 2017 to 50,000 from the 110,000 cap established under former President Barack Obama.
    Trump also states in the order that refugees should be prioritized for entry on the basis of religious persecution, “provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion.” That would open the door for Christian refugees from Muslim-majority countries to be accepted in the US while Muslims fleeing those countries would be excluded.

    Bans Syrian refugees

    “I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry,” Trump declared in Friday’s executive order.
    While Trump during his campaign called for banning Syrian refugees from the US — decrying their entry as a potential “Trojan horse” — he also called for establishing a safe zone in Syria where Syrians fleeing the war-ravaged country could live peacefully. Trump made no mention of that plan in Friday’s executive order, even though a draft of the executive order circulating in recent days called for beginning to plan for creating such zones.

    Calls for new immigration screening procedures

    The executive order also calls for the secretaries of state and homeland security, the director of national intelligence and the FBI director to develop and implement new immigration screening procedures.
    Trump during his campaign called for developing new “extreme vetting” screening procedures that would weed out potential terrorists from visa applicants by asking questions about their views on the US and ensuring that individuals support the US’s pluralistic values.
    “In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles,” Trump states in the opening section of the executive order.
    “The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred…or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”
    Correction: The combined population of the seven countries named in the executive order — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — is roughly 218 million, according to 2015 data published by the World Bank. An earlier version of this story incorrectly used a lower figure.

    Confusion Grips Airports as Courts Limit Trump Travel Curbs

    January 29, 2017, 4:40 AM CST January 29, 2017, 1:54 PM CST
    • Some carriers still imposing blanket ban even after rulings
    • Gulf hubs permit flights with green cards, bar visa holders

    Confusion Reigns as Courts Limit Trump Travel Curbs

    Confusion reigned at airports around the world Sunday over exactly which citizens from the seven nations subject to President Donald Trump’s immigration ban are still permitted to fly to the U.S.

    Airlines at international hubs from Dubai to London Heathrow were grappling with the implications of three court rulings in the U.S. Saturday and Sunday that have temporarily blocked the enforcement of parts of Trump’s executive order.

    In the hours after the presidential edict, many airports imposed blanket bans on U.S. travel for citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, with Amsterdam Schiphol turning away seven people with valid visas, and Cairo denying boarding to migrants accompanied by United Nations officials.

    Throughout the U.S., security officials detained 109 people arriving from the seven countries, including some legal U.S. residents, until judges in Brooklyn, New York; Alexandria, Virginia; and Boston intervened. The Boston ruling, issued Sunday, requires U.S. officials to let passengers from all seven countries who have valid visas deplane and go on their way, though the ruling applies only in Boston.

    ‘Nothing Has Changed’

    Still, airports and airlines are coming to terms with the implications. A security official at the American Airlines Group Inc. check-in desk at Heathrow’s Terminal 3 said Sunday that he’d seen news of the court rulings overnight, but that no further guidance had filtered through from the carrier’s U.S. base. Passengers holding passports from the seven countries will therefore all be turned away, in line with the executive order.

    “Nothing has changed,” he said.

    Meanwhile, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “the executive order doesn’t affect green-card holders moving forward,” in what seemed to be an adjustment to the administration’s policy.

    Airports like Heathrow, Amsterdam and their Persian Gulf rivals are especially affected by the presidential instruction because the seven countries affected have few or no direct U.S. flights, compelling people from those states to fly via such major hubs. Global airlines have struggled to comply after being caught flat-footed by the executive order, and U.S. carriers didn’t get advance notice of the travel ban either, according to a person familiar with the matter.

    Stuck Overseas

    The court decisions came after a day in which students, refugees and dual citizens were stuck overseas or detained and some businesses warned employees from those countries not to risk leaving the U.S.

    There were wrenching scenes — and angry protests — at major airports across the U.S. before the court orders were issued. At New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport, thousands protested outside the international arrivals terminal Saturday chanting, “Let them in!” and “No hate! No fear! Immigrants are welcome here!”

    ‘Difficult to Explain’

    A Delta Air Lines Inc. supervisor at Heathrow said staff had been briefed on the matter Sunday and suggested the situation had become “clearer,” but that travel was still being limited to holders of green cards and diplomatic visas. Even then there has been some confusion with Homeland Security officials, she said. The U.S. carrier will refund anyone refused travel, the official said, adding that it has so far turned away “a few” people, which has been “very difficult to explain” to those concerned.

    In the Gulf, Qatar Airways, Etihad Airways PJSC and Emirates of Dubai are advising that passengers from the seven nations targeted by Trump can fly to the U.S. if they hold green cards or NATO visas, or are diplomatic officials or UN representatives. Abu Dhabi-based Etihad also said people of dual nationality may travel if they hold a passport from a country not affected by the ban and have a visa.At the same time, the carriers made no mention of travel by ordinary citizens of the seven countries who have valid visas, or refugees from those nations, which the U.S. court rulings indicated should still be permitted.

    Emirates, the world’s biggest long-haul airline, said it has so far suffered no significant disruption from the Trump order. About 20 people were affected by the travel ban on Saturday.

    In Amsterdam, KLM, a unit of Air France-KLM Group, was unable to say whether passengers like those turned away Saturday would now be able to travel following the legal intervention.

    “We simply follow the information we get from immigration and airline authorities in the U.S.,” spokeswoman Manel Vrijenhoek said. “They make that call. It’s not up to KLM.”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-29/airports-gripped-by-confusion-as-courts-limit-trump-travel-curbs

    Syrian refugee passed through customs despite Trump’s ban

    A Syrian refugee entered the United States through JFK Airport despite President Trump’s indefinite ban on admitting people fleeing the civil war-ravaged Middle Eastern country, an immigration lawyer said Monday.

    The unidentified Syrian had a “refugee travel document” and “was not technically detained” before passing through customs on Sunday, said Camille Mackler of the New York Immigration Coalition.

    Mackler wouldn’t identify the person or say if the refugee was picked up by family members or a resettlement group.

    “We don’t know where he is,” Mackler said.

    It was unclear why federal officials would have allowed the refugee into America.

    The executive order Trump signed Friday prohibited citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the US for at least 90 days, with Syrians barred indefinitely.

    Trump said the move was needed to protect Americans from terrorists seeking to sneak into the country.

    At an afternoon news briefing, White House press secretary Sean Spicer appeared unprepared to discuss the admission of the Syrian refugee, but didn’t deny it had occurred.

    “I think every individual that has gone through the process has gone through vetting to make sure they [aren’t] a threat to this country. So the individual must have gone through the system. It’s pretty plain and simple,” he said.

    Spicer then dodged a follow-up question seeking further clarification on the matter.

    http://nypost.com/2017/01/30/syrian-refugee-passed-through-customs-despite-trumps-ban/

     

    ‘This is not a Muslim ban!’ Trump defends his ‘extreme vetting’ order as he says Obama created the list of seven targeted countries and did the SAME THING to Iraqi refugees in 2011

    • Trump said in a White House statement that he is not banning Muslims from entering the U.S.
    • Friday’s executive order covers travelers bound for the U.S. from seven terror-prone countries
    • Its measures expire in 90 days and leave people in 46 Muslim-majority nations unaffected
    • Trump’s statement pointed to Barack Obama as the source of the seven-nation list he used Friday
    • President also said Obama did much the same thing to Iraqi refugees in 2011 – for twice as long
    • Trump tweeted Sunday morning about the ‘need’ for ‘strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW’ 
    • ‘Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world – a horrible mess!’ he wrote on Twitter 
    • Reports of dozens of people being stopped from entering the U.S. or booted off airplanes poured in Saturday
    • Twelve refugees were also detained at New York’s JFK airport on Friday night, prompting a massive protest
    • 109 travelers were detained when they entered the U.S.; 173 more were prevented from boarding planes
    • One of the people detained was an 88-year-old blind man whose medication was taken away
    • Homeland Security said a judge’s temporary stay will not stop Trump’s new policy from being put in place
    • White House chief of staff Reince Priebus insisted Sunday that green card holders aren’t affected in a new way
    • Customs and Border Protection already has authority to question those arriving from terror-prone countries

    President Donald Trump issued his most substantial defense of his ‘extreme vetting’ executive order on Sunday afternoon, saying in a statement from the White House that he’s not banning Muslims from entering the U.S. – and laying much of the grief at former president Barack Obama‘s feet.

    ‘My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months,’ Trump said of his own order, which is slated to expire in 90 days.

    Obama’s directive, carried out in response to a specific terror threat, affected only refugees. Trump’s order is broader, including people from seven countries who want to emigrate to the U.S.

    Trump also said Sunday said that those nations – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia Sudan, Syria and Yemen – ‘are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.’

    ‘To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.’

    White House chief of staff Reince Priebus and press secretary Sean Spicer, at times flustered on-camera, struggled to defend the president’s policy with some of the same messages during appearances Sunday on political talk shows.

    Donald Trump has refused to back down and instead reiterated his belief that America needs to strengthen its borders. He is seen speaking on the phone with the King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud

    Donald Trump has refused to back down and instead reiterated his belief that America needs to strengthen its borders. He is seen speaking on the phone with the King of Saudi Arabia, Salman bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud

    ‘What people need to understand is that 325,000 foreign travelers came into the United States,’ Priebus said, referring to Saturday. ‘About 109 of those people were retained – detained for further questioning because they came from the identified seven countries that the Obama administration and both houses of Congress have identified as being countries that harbor and train terrorists.’

    Trump himself refused to back down as protests flooded a few major airports. On Twitter, his preferred mode of instant communication with voters, he reiterated his belief that America needs to strengthen its borders.

    ‘Our country needs strong borders and extreme vetting, NOW. Look what is happening all over Europe and, indeed, the world – a horrible mess!’ the president tweeted.

    As Trump was tweeting, senior White House official Reince Priebus said on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ that one of the Democrats’ main points of contention – a fear that the executive order made lawful permanent residents, those holding ‘green cards,’ eligible for the same special screening as first-time visitors.

    ‘The executive order doesn’t affect green card holders moving forward,’ Priebus said. But that’s only because they were already subject to extra scrutiny if they arrive from a terror hotbed.

    ‘If they have a person that’s traveling back and forth to Libya or Somalia or Yemen, I would suspect within their discretion, they might ask a few more questions at JFK or some other airport when someone’s coming back and forth within their discretionary authority as a customs and border patrol agent,’ he said.

    ‘And what I’m saying is I would suspect that most Americans would agree that that might be a good thing to do.’

    Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly declared the entry of lawful permanent residents, also known as green card holders, to be of national interest on Sunday evening.

    ‘In applying the provisions of the president’s executive order, I hereby deem the entry of lawful permanent residents to be in the national interest,’ he said in a statement.

    ‘Accordingly, absent the receipt of significant derogatory information indicating a serious threat to public safety and welfare, lawful permanent resident status will be a dispositive factor in our case-by-case determinations.’

    PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP’S SUNDAY STATEMENT

    The president issued a statement Sunday afternoon, defiantly defending his decision to implement an ‘extreme vetting’ program affecting people arriving in the United States from seven of the world’s 53 Muslim-majority countries:

    ‘America is a proud nation of immigrants and we will continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border. America has always been the land of the free and home of the brave. We will keep it free and keep it safe, as the media knows, but refuses to say.

    ‘My policy is similar to what President Obama did in 2011 when he banned visas for refugees from Iraq for six months. The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror.

    ‘To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting. This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order.

    ‘We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days. I have tremendous feeling for the people involved in this horrific humanitarian crisis in Syria. My first priority will always be to protect and serve our country, but as President I will find ways to help all those who are suffering.’

    Trump is pictured with Jared Kushner, Communications Director Sean Spicer and National Security Advisor Michael Flynn during a call to the Saudi King on Sunday

    Kellyanne Conway was also doing the rounds on Sunday morning talk shows, and told ‘Fox News Sunday’ host Chris Wallace that 90-day slowdown was needed to stop another September 11-style attack.

    ‘It’s temporary,’ she said of the ban, downplaying the affect it could have of separating families.

    ‘And it’s just circumstantial in terms of whether you are one of those 300 or some who were already on an aircraft or trying to get to an aircraft, as opposed to the 3,000 children who will be forever more separated from their parents who perished on 9/11.’

    Spicer said on ABC’s ‘This Week’ that the White House chose not to give front-line border security agencies a heads-up about the coming order, because doing so posed a threat to national security.

    Terrorists, he hinted, might have seen the advance warning as a reason to flood the U.S. before the policy took effect Friday afternoon.

    But ‘the people that needed to know knew,’ Spicer said.

    ‘What we couldn’t do was telegraph our position ahead of time to ensure that people flooded in before that happened, before it went into place,’ he added.

    ‘So the appropriate leadership was notified and cables were being sent out through the state Department as we speak.’

    Trump also took aim at The New York Times, whose front page Sunday was dominated by stories about airport protests.

    ‘Somebody with aptitude and conviction should buy the FAKE NEWS and failing @nytimes and either run it correctly or let it fold with dignity!’ Trump raged.  

    Senior White House official Reince Priebus revealed on NBC’s Meet the Press that a big change has been made for permanent residents, with green card holders no longer affected

    Senior White House official Reince Priebus revealed on NBC’s Meet the Press that a big change has been made for permanent residents, with green card holders no longer affected

    The president’s reactions came after the Department of Homeland Security said a temporary stay granted by a federal court will not stop Trump’s immigration ban from being put in place.

    The agency said the court order affected a relatively small number of travelers who were inconvenienced by security procedures upon their return to the United States.

    One of them was an 88-year-old blind man, who was detained for hours and had his medication taken from him at Dulles Airport in Virginia, the Daily Beast reported.

    ‘President Trump’s Executive Orders remain in place – prohibited travel will remain prohibited, and the US government retains its right to revoke visas at any time if required for national security or public safety,’ a statement read.

    Senior Trump policy adviser Stephen Miller also dismissed the stay order, saying nothing in it ‘in any way impedes or prevents the implementation of the president’s executive order which remains in full, complete and total effect.’

    It was also reported on Sunday a coalition of states is considering how they might legally challenge Trump’s order.

    Democratic attorneys general are expected to be a source of fierce resistance, much as Republican attorneys general opposed former President Barack Obama’s policies most controversial directives.

    A federal lawsuit with the muscle of state governments behind it would heighten the legal stakes surrounding the executive order, signed late Friday; court challenges have so far mostly been filed by individuals with the backing of the ACLU and other groups opposed to scaled-up border security.

    Donald Trump signs an executive order to impose tighter vetting of travelers entering the United States

    The front page of Sunday's New York Times is seen

     Donald Trump was also annoyed by the New York Times on Sunday morning, with the newspaper featuring news of the protests prominently on its front page (right)
    Trump called on the historic newspaper to be sold, and continued his war on information and the press by dubbing it, 'fake news'

    Trump called on the historic newspaper to be sold, and continued his war on information and the press by dubbing it, ‘fake news’

    One of the people detained on Saturday was an 88-year-old blind man, who was held for hours and had his medication taken from him at Dulles Airport in Virginia, the Daily Beast 's Betsy Woodruff reports

    One of the people detained on Saturday was an 88-year-old blind man, who was held for hours and had his medication taken from him at Dulles Airport in Virginia, the Daily Beast ‘s Betsy Woodruff reports

    ‘The Trump executive order should not stand and must be confronted as a constitutional overreach,’ said a statement from California Attorney General Xavier Becerra. ‘It tramples on centuries of American tradition.’

    California and New York joined Pennsylvania, Washington and Hawaii in evaluating what specific claims could be filed, and in which court.

    The states could decide not to file lawsuits, and it was unclear how many states would ultimately sign on for such an effort.

    ‘There certainly are conversations underway,’ said Joe Grace, a spokesman for Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro.

    On Saturday night, the federal court for the Eastern District of New York issued the stay after only two of 12 refugees held at JFK airport were released. They had been held for 14 and 24 hours respectively.

    Migrants around the country were detained, with about 375 travelers impacted by the order.

    Out of the 375, 109 were in transit to the US and denied entry. Another 173 people were stopped by airlines from boarding an aircraft to the US.

    An additional 81 travelers with green cards or special immigrant visas received waivers.

    People protested across the country on Saturday, including in New York where a massive demonstration carried on through Saturday evening as 10 out of 12 refugees remained held at JFK airport

    WHAT IS TRUMP’S IMMIGRATION ORDER SUPPOSED TO DO?

    Ban refugee entries from all countries for 120 days. Refugees can be accepted on case-by-case basis, including if they are a religious minority facing religious persecution

    Block refugee entries from Syria indefinitely.

    Cap refugee intake at 50,000 per year.

    Ban visa and immigration entries for 90 days from Muslim-majority countries on banned list, including Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

    Suspend visa issuance to countries of particular concern.

    The stay issued Saturday evening blocks the situation pending a permanent ruling.

    The ACLU lawyers who handled the case have also filed a motion for class certification, which means other people affected by the order will be able to benefit from the stay as part of a class action.

    As a result, travelers cannot be deported back to their home countries, but it does not force authorities to allow them into the US.

    Trump’s ban affects citizens from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. The temporary stay also protects refugees with an approved case.

    It is unclear what will happen to those detained. A later court date has been set for February.

    Thousands of people were seen protesting at airports across the country, including New York, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, San Francisco and more.

    ‘I hope Trump enjoys losing. He’s going to lose so much we’re going to get sick and tired of his losing,’ ACLU national political director Faiz Shakir told Yahoo News.

    Lawyers also headed to airports to volunteer to help those who were being detained.

    President Donald Trump on Saturday defended his executive order barring refugees and citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering the country

    The federal court for the Eastern District of New York issued an emergency stay (pictured) Saturday evening. The stay means that none of the travelers detained in airports around the country can be deported

    The federal court for the Eastern District of New York issued an emergency stay (pictured) Saturday evening. The stay means that none of the travelers detained in airports around the country can be deported

    WHO EXACTLY IS BANNED FROM THE U.S?

    Any non-US citizen from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia or Yemen is now barred from entering the United States.

    That covers visa-holders from those seven countries who were out of the United States after Friday, when President Donald Trump signed an executive order with the temporary ban. They cannot return to the US for 90 days.

    There’s an exemption for immigrants and legal permanent residents whose entry is in the US national interest, but it’s unclear how that exemption will be applied.

    Visa holders already in the US will be allowed to stay.

    Customs and Border Protection is notifying airlines about passengers whose visas have been canceled or legal residents scheduled to fly back to the US Airlines are being told to keep them off those flights.

    Source: Associated Press

    ACLU Executive Director Anthony D Romero added: ‘Clearly the judge understood the possibility for irreparable harm to hundreds of immigrants and lawful visitors to this country.

    ‘Our courts today worked as they should as bulwarks against government abuse or unconstitutional policies and orders. On week one, Donald Trump suffered his first loss in court.’

    It followed reports that Muslim-majority countries with ties to Trump’s business empire have been excluded from the order, Bloomberg reports.

    Statistics show Trump doesn’t have any business relations with the seven black-listed countries, but does with Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Turkey.

    Speaking on Saturday afternoon, Trump defended his policy – hours before protesters and lawyers across the country fought against it.

    ‘It’s not a Muslim ban, but we are totally prepared,’ Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Saturday afternoon, according to The Hill.

    ‘It’s working out very nicely. You see it in the airports, you see it all over. It’s working out very nicely and we are going to have a very, very strict ban and we are going to have extreme vetting, which we should have had in this country for many years.’

    Reports of people being detained came from all around the US on Saturday. ‘They’re literally pouring in by the minute,’ director of the International Refugee Assistance Project Becca Heller told the New York Times.

    A crowd of protesters gathered on Brooklyn's Cadman Plaza Saturday night, outside of the federal court for the Eastern District of New York that issued the stay

    A crowd of protesters gathered on Brooklyn’s Cadman Plaza Saturday night, outside of the federal court for the Eastern District of New York that issued the stay

    Protesters rallied in Brooklyn outside of the federal courthouse, which blocked Trump's order temporarily Saturday evening

    Protesters rallied in Brooklyn outside of the federal courthouse, which blocked Trump’s order temporarily Saturday evening

    Demonstrators rallied outside the courthouse Saturday night as a judge granted the emergency stay protecting the detained travelers from deportation

    A massive rally was held on Cadman Plaza, where the temporary measure was granted

    'No ban': Demonstrators at the massive rally in Brooklyn voiced their disagreement with Trump's executive order

    ‘No ban’: Demonstrators at the massive rally in Brooklyn voiced their disagreement with Trump’s executive order

    HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE BEING DETAINED?

    A senior Homeland Security official told Reuters that roughly 375 travelers affected by the order.

    Out of the 375, 109 were in transit to the US and denied entry. Another 173 people were stopped by airlines from boarding an aircraft to the US.

    An additional 81 travelers with green cards or special immigrant visas received waivers.

    The ACLU gave an estimate comprised between 100 and 200 people.

    New York City/JFK: 12

    Dallas/Fort Worth: 50

    Dulles International: 50

    Los Angeles International: 50

    Seattle–Tacoma: 13

    Atlanta: 11

    Chicago: 13

    About 50 people were held at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, USA Today reported. Fifty people were also detained at Dulles International Airport, where protesters gathered. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Attorney General Mark Herring have said the state could take legal action against the ban.

    One Yale student said he would be unable to attend the prestigious Ivy League university. Another student from the Massachusetts Institute Of Technology said he was barred from boarding a plane.

    A Stanford University student, a Sudanese national and legal permanent resident with a green card, was held for eight hours at JFK before being able to return to California.

    An Iranian scientist was meant to fly to Boston to study cardiovascular medicine at Harvard but has now had his visa suspended indefinitely.

    ‘This outstanding young scientist has enormous potential to make contributions that will improve our understanding of heart disease, and he has already been thoroughly vetted,’ Professor Thomas Michel, who was going to supervise the student, told The New York Times.

    Up to 13 people were detained at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, KUOW reported. Eleven people were held at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. Thirteen were detained at Chicago O’Hare according to the Chicago Tribune. At least 50 Iranians were held at Los Angeles International Airport, the LA Times wrote.

    An official spokesman said Sunday UK leader Theresa May does 'not agree' with Trump's order and will challenge the US government if it has an adverse effect on British nationals. May is pictured in the Oval Office with Trump this week

    An official spokesman said Sunday UK leader Theresa May does ‘not agree’ with Trump’s order and will challenge the US government if it has an adverse effect on British nationals. May is pictured in the Oval Office with Trump this week

    A spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel said the German leader believes the Trump administration's travel ban on people from some Muslim-majority countries is wrong. Merkel is pictured on January 28

    A spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel said the German leader believes the Trump administration’s travel ban on people from some Muslim-majority countries is wrong. Merkel is pictured on January 28

    Mehdi Radgoudarzi (left) greeted his wife Susan (right) after being detained for five hours upon his arrival from Tehran, Iran at San Francisco's SFO International Airport

    Mehdi Radgoudarzi (left) greeted his wife Susan (right) after being detained for five hours upon his arrival from Tehran, Iran at San Francisco’s SFO International Airport

    Hillary Clinton tweeted out against the ban on Saturday night, saying she stands with those protesting the 'Muslim ban'

    Hillary Clinton tweeted out against the ban on Saturday night, saying she stands with those protesting the ‘Muslim ban’

    WHAT IS THE EMERGENCY STAY?

    The emergency stay issued Saturday evening by a federal court is a temporary measure that preserves the status quo pending a permanent ruling.

    It means that none of the travelers currently held at airports across the nation can be deported back to their countries.

    That is because Judge Ann Donnelly ruled that doing so would cause the travelers irreparable harm.

    The stay does not, however, mean that the travelers have to be let into the United States.

    It is unclear what will happen to those detained.

    The stay is not a ruling on Donald Trump’s executive order enforcing the immigration ban.

    Lawyers had filed a petition on behalf of two out of 12 refugees detained at JFK airport.

    The men, two Iraqi nationals, had valid visas. One of them had worked for the US government for years.

    ACLU attorneys had filed a petition on their behalf, but the stay is effective nationwide.

    The lawyers who handled the case have also filed for class certification, which means other people affected by the order will be able to benefit from the stay as part of a class action.

    Two families of six from Syria were also impacted. One was supposed to relocate to Cleveland, Ohio, after having to flee their home in 2014. But their trip was canceled.

    Another family of six from the war-torn country was detained at Philadelphia International Airport Saturday morning even though they had required legal documents and approved green cards and visas.

    Plane passengers were turned away in Dubai and Istanbul, including at least one family who got ejected from a flight.

    Hameed Khalid Darweesh, one of the Iraqi refugees, was detained for 14 hours in New York and released on Saturday afternoon. The second detainee, Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, was released around 7 pm on Saturday after 24 hours.

    Darweesh, 53, had arrived in America on a flight from Istanbul on Friday night, just hours after Trump implemented the immigration ban.

    He had worked for the US government in Iraq for 10 years as a translator, engineer and contractor and had a valid special immigration visa to relocate to America.

    Alshawi, 33 – who was approved for a visa on January 11 – was flying to America to join his wife and son in Texas. ‘I’m sleepy and tired and exhausted,’ he told the New York Post after being released Saturday.

    Darweesh pumped his fist in the air outside the airport following his release, as a crowd of supporters cheered him on.

    ‘First of all I want to thank the people that take care of me and support me. This is the humility, this is the soul of America,’ he told a crowd gathered outside the airport.

    ‘This is what pushed me to move – leave my country and come here. America is the land of freedom… America is the greatest nation, the greatest people in the world.’

    He was travelling with his wife and three children at the time but they were not detained. They were heading to Charlotte, North Carolina to start their new life in America.

    Radgoudarzi (center) made his way through the arrival pick up area with his wife Susan (left) and daughter Niloofar (right) after being detained at San Francisco's SFO International Airport as a result of Trump's order

    Radgoudarzi (center) made his way through the arrival pick up area with his wife Susan (left) and daughter Niloofar (right) after being detained at San Francisco’s SFO International Airport as a result of Trump’s order

    Mazdak Tootkaboni is pictured being embraced during a demonstration at Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts. Tootkaboni is a US green card holder from Iran and a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, but he was still separated from other passengers and questioned

    Mazdak Tootkaboni is pictured being embraced during a demonstration at Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts. Tootkaboni is a US green card holder from Iran and a professor at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, but he was still separated from other passengers and questioned

    A female veteran held a sign reading 'We thought we were helping, sorry' at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport

    A female veteran held a sign reading ‘We thought we were helping, sorry’ at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport

    Ten other refugees were still being held at JFK airport.

    Republican lawmakers have spoken out against Trump’s immigration ban. Senator Chris Murphy tweeted: ‘To my colleagues: don’t ever again lecture me on American moral leadership if you chose to be silent today.’ He later called the emergency stay a temporary victory.

    Representative Charlie Dent also spoke out against Trump’s order.

    ‘This is ridiculous,’ he told the Washington Post. ‘I guess I understand what his intention is, but unfortunately the order appears to have been rushed through without full consideration. You know, there are many, many nuances of immigration policy that can be life or death for many innocent, vulnerable people around the world.’

    Yolanda Roa, a Latina Muslim, joined the protest to denounce Trump's executive order at Dallas-Fort Worth International

    Yolanda Roa, a Latina Muslim, joined the protest to denounce Trump’s executive order at Dallas-Fort Worth International

    Demonstrators gathered in the international arrivals area at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport to protest on Saturday

    Demonstrators gathered in the international arrivals area at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport to protest on Saturday

    Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney (middle) alongside Councilwoman Helen Gym (left) and Representative Bob Brady, addresses a crowd of protestors inside the Philadelphia International Airport

    Philadelphia mayor Jim Kenney (middle) alongside Councilwoman Helen Gym (left) and Representative Bob Brady, addresses a crowd of protestors inside the Philadelphia International Airport

    Representative Justin Amash questioned whether the measure was legal.

    ‘It’s not lawful to ban immigrants on basis of nationality,’ he tweeted. ‘If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress.’

    Senator Ben Sasse said that Trump was right to focus on border control, but said the president’s order was is ‘too broad’.

    ‘If we send a signal to the Middle East that the US sees all Muslims as jihadis, the terrorist recruiters win by telling kids that America is banning Muslims and that this is America versus one religion,’ he said. ‘Our generational fight against jihadism requires wisdom.’

    Police stopped a man giving pizza to protesters who were chanting slogans outside Terminal 4 at JFK airport in New York City

    Police stopped a man giving pizza to protesters who were chanting slogans outside Terminal 4 at JFK airport in New York City

    The protest followed Trump's executive order barring refugees and citizens from seven countries from entering the US

    The protest followed Trump’s executive order barring refugees and citizens from seven countries from entering the US

    Port Authority Police Department blocked an entrance as protesters gathered outside Terminal 4 at JFK airport

    Port Authority Police Department blocked an entrance as protesters gathered outside Terminal 4 at JFK airport

    Trump’s ban puts a 90-day pause on visas and immigration from seven countries including Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran, Libya, Yemen and Somalia.

    The order also puts a 120-day ban on all refugee entries into the country and declares that refugees from Syria are not welcome until further notice.

    After that period of time, refugees will be accepted only from countries that the State and Homeland Security Departments decide are safe to work with.

    Backlash against the ban continued to grow internationally on Sunday morning, with British Prime Minister Theresa May joining other leaders in criticizing Trump.

    A sea of protesters gathered outside of Terminal 4 of JFK after people from Muslim countries were detained at border control

    A sea of protesters gathered outside of Terminal 4 of JFK after people from Muslim countries were detained at border control

    Protesters held a massive rally at New York City's JFK airport Saturday after 12 refugees were detained due to the ban

    Protesters held a massive rally at New York City’s JFK airport Saturday after 12 refugees were detained due to the ban

    The protest at John F Kennedy International Airport carried on through Saturday as people remained detained

    The protest at John F Kennedy International Airport carried on through Saturday as people remained detained

    'This is illegal': Demonstrators gathered outside JFK Saturday for a long protest after 12 refugees were detained inside

    ‘This is illegal’: Demonstrators gathered outside JFK Saturday for a long protest after 12 refugees were detained inside

    An official spokesman said Sunday that May does ‘not agree’ with Trump’s order and will challenge the US government if it has an adverse effect on British nationals.

    The official comment came after May refused to condemn the ban during a visit to Turkey to meet with Turkish leaders. She said in Turkey the decision was a matter solely for the United States.

    Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party, went a step further and called on Trump’s planned visit to the UK to be canceled as long as the immigration ban is in place.

    Referring to ‘awful attacks on Muslims,’ ‘awful misogynist language’ and the ‘absurd idea’ of building a wall along the Mexican border, Corbyn says Britain should make it clear to the Trump administration ‘that we are extremely upset about it, and I think it would be totally wrong for him to be coming here while that situation is going on.’

    J'accuse: One protester held a sign reading: 'Trump is the terrorist' while another proclaimed: 'This is not how to defeat ISIS!'

    J’accuse: One protester held a sign reading: ‘Trump is the terrorist’ while another proclaimed: ‘This is not how to defeat ISIS!’

    One of the JFK protesters demanded more protection for immigrant families, as some were detained around the US

    One of the JFK protesters demanded more protection for immigrant families, as some were detained around the US

    Demonstrators poured into JFK airport all throughout Saturday to express their disagreement with Trump's order

    Demonstrators poured into JFK airport all throughout Saturday to express their disagreement with Trump’s order

    Police at one point blocked protesters from accessing the Air Train at JFK but Governor Andrew Cuomo later ordered authorities to let them through

    Police at one point blocked protesters from accessing the Air Train at JFK but Governor Andrew Cuomo later ordered authorities to let them through

    A spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel said the German leader believes the Trump administration’s travel ban on people from some Muslim-majority countries is wrong.

    Germany’s dpa news agency quoted Merkel’s spokesman Steffen Seibert saying Sunday that ‘she is convinced that even the necessary, resolute fight against terrorism doesn’t justify putting people of a particular origin or particular faith under general suspicion.’

    The Iraqi government also spoke out, saying it understands the security motives behind President Donald Trump’s decision to ban seven predominantly Muslim nations, including Iraq, from entering the United States, but underlined that their ‘special relationship’ should be taken into consideration.

    Government spokesman Saad al-Hadithi says Iraqis are hoping that the new orders ‘will not affect the efforts of strengthening and developing the bilateral relations between Iraq and the United States.’

    Hundreds gathered at Chicago O’Hare airport Saturday to speak out against Trump’s ban on immigration Saturday

    'Muslims are welcome': One Chicago protester insisted that all should be able to come to the US regardless of their religion

    ‘Muslims are welcome’: One Chicago protester insisted that all should be able to come to the US regardless of their religion

    Hundreds of protesters arrived at Chicago O'Hare airport to protest against Trump's executive order on Saturday

    Protestors rallied at a demonstration against the new ban on immigration issued by Trump at Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts

    More than 1,000 people gathered at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to protest Trump's order that restricts immigration

    More than 1,000 people gathered at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to protest Trump’s order that restricts immigration

    Al-Hadithi told The Associated Press on Sunday the government hopes the ‘measures will be temporary and for regulatory reasons and not permanent at least for Iraq.’

    Iran’s foreign ministry suggested the country would limit issuing visas to American tourists in retaliation for Trump’s suspension of immigration and visas.

    The official IRNA news agency carried a statement by the Iranian foreign ministry on Saturday that said Iran will resort to ‘counteraction’ to Trump’s executive order.

    ‘Iran, to defend the dignity of the great Iranian nation, will implement the principle of reciprocity until the removal of the insulting restriction against Iranian nationals,’ the statement read.

    Protesters gathered at the international arrivals area of Dulles International Airport, where 50 people were detained

    Protesters gathered at the international arrivals area of Dulles International Airport, where 50 people were detained

    'America wants you here!' Protesters sent a clear message to all visitors arriving at Washington Dulles International Airport

    ‘America wants you here!’ Protesters sent a clear message to all visitors arriving at Washington Dulles International Airport

    While a protest unfolded at Dulles International airport, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Attorney General Mark Herring have said the state could take legal action against the ban

    While a protest unfolded at Dulles International airport, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Attorney General Mark Herring have said the state could take legal action against the ban

    Demonstrators also gathered in San Francisco International Airport Saturday to protest against the ban on immigration

    Demonstrators also gathered in San Francisco International Airport Saturday to protest against the ban on immigration

    'No ban, no wall': One demonstrator spoke out against two of Trump's major campaign promises at the San Francisco rally

    ‘No ban, no wall’: One demonstrator spoke out against two of Trump’s major campaign promises at the San Francisco rally

    Kayla Razavi, whose family emigrated from Iran, addressed the crowd during the San Francisco protest Saturday afternoon

    Kayla Razavi, whose family emigrated from Iran, addressed the crowd during the San Francisco protest Saturday afternoon

    Demonstrators hold signs reading 'Home of the free' during the rally against the ban on immigration in San Francisco

    Demonstrators hold signs reading ‘Home of the free’ during the rally against the ban on immigration in San Francisco

    ‘It will apply corresponding legal, consular and political actions.’

    The two countries have had no diplomatic relations since 1979 when militants stormed the US embassy.

    But the ban has received some support, with the National Border Patrol Council, which represents about 18,000 border patrol staffers, backing Trump’s measures.

    Demonstrators rallied at the Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport Saturday afternoon to protest against Trump's ban

    Demonstrators rallied at the Minneapolis-St Paul International Airport Saturday afternoon to protest against Trump’s ban

    James Badue, who is with the Minnesota NAACP, led other opponents in a chant: 'No hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here,' as an airport police officer tried to quiet him at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

    James Badue, who is with the Minnesota NAACP, led other opponents in a chant: ‘No hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here,’ as an airport police officer tried to quiet him at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport

    Travelers arriving to at the international gate of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport were greeted by protesters demonstrating against the executive order signed by President Trump

    Travelers arriving to at the international gate of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport were greeted by protesters demonstrating against the executive order signed by President Trump

    Protesters also demonstrated at Dallas Forth Worth Airport Saturday afternoon as the immigration ban created chaos

    Protesters also demonstrated at Dallas Forth Worth Airport Saturday afternoon as the immigration ban created chaos

    'He will not divide us': One demonstrator made a plea for unity at Dallas Fort Worth Airport while protesting with his brother

    ‘He will not divide us’: One demonstrator made a plea for unity at Dallas Fort Worth Airport while protesting with his brother

    One demonstrator at LAX re-purposed Hillary Clinton's supporters' motto, this time applying it to the Statue Of Liberty

    One demonstrator at LAX re-purposed Hillary Clinton’s supporters’ motto, this time applying it to the Statue Of Liberty

    People held signs with the names of people detained and denied entry at Los Angeles International Airport on Saturday

    People held signs with the names of people detained and denied entry at Los Angeles International Airport on Saturday

    Homa Homaei, a US Citizen from Iran, is pictured receiving a hug from a lawyer working to help her Iranian family members effected by the travel ban at Los Angeles International Airport

    Homa Homaei, a US Citizen from Iran, is pictured receiving a hug from a lawyer working to help her Iranian family members effected by the travel ban at Los Angeles International Airport

    ‘We fully support and appreciate President Trump’s swift and decisive action to keep the American people safe and allow law enforcement to do its job,’ the council said in a statement.

    ‘We applaud the three executive orders he has issued to date, and are confident they will make America safer and more prosperous.

    ‘Morale amongst our agents and officers has increased exponentially since the signing of the orders.

    ‘The men and women of ICE and Border Patrol will work tirelessly to keep criminals, terrorists, and public safety threats out of this country, which remains the number one target in the world – and President Trump’s actions now empower us to fulfill this life saving mission, and it will indeed save thousands of lives and billions of dollars.’

    Volunteer lawyers are pictured working pro-bono Saturday in New York preparing petitions for detainees at JFK

    Volunteer lawyers are pictured working pro-bono Saturday in New York preparing petitions for detainees at JFK

    Hameed Khalid Darweesh, who had worked as a interpreter with the U.S. Army in Iraq, was released from detention on Saturday. He was detained after flying into New York on Friday night

    Emotional: Muslim travelers were nervous as they arrived in JFK today as chaos was apparent over the enforcement of Trump's immigration executive order

    Emotional: Muslim travelers were nervous as they arrived in JFK today as chaos was apparent over the enforcement of Trump’s immigration executive order

    It follows reports that Muslim-majority countries with ties to Trump's business empire have been excluded from the order

    It follows reports that Muslim-majority countries with ties to Trump’s business empire have been excluded from the order

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4169090/Trump-defends-controversial-Muslim-ban-Twitter.html#ixzz4XI4qclSJ
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4169090/Trump-defends-controversial-Muslim-ban-Twitter.html#ixzz4XI4SYpEP
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

    Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

    The Pronk Pops Show 826, January 27, 2017, Story 1: March for Life 2017, Washington D.C. — Vice President Mike Pence, Counselor to the President Kelllyanne Conway and Representative Mia Love Speeches — Voices for The Voiceless — Celebrating Life — Videos

    Posted on January 27, 2017. Filed under: Abortion, American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Elections, Employment, Federal Government, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, History, House of Representatives, Human, Law, Life, Medicine, Mike Pence, News, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Security, Senate, Technology, Terror, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

    Project_1

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

    Pronk Pops Show 826: January 27, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 787: October 31, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 786: October 28, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 785: October 27, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 784: October 26, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 783: October 25, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

    The Pronk Pops Show 826, January 27, 2017, Story 1: March for Life 2017, Washington D.C. — Vice President Mike Pence, Counselor to the President Kelllyanne Conway and Representative Mia Love Speeches — Voices for The Voiceless — Celebrating Life — Videos

    “Never tire of firmly speaking out in defense of life from its conception and do not be deterred from the commitment to defend the dignity of every human person with courageous determination. Christ is with you: be not afraid!”

    ~Pope John Paul II

    Image result for number of abortions since roe v wade

    Image result for cartoons on march for life pro lifeImage result for declaration of independence right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness

    Image result for number of abortions since roe v wadeImage result for Pro-life march washington dc 2017Image result for Pro-life march washington dc January 27, 2017Image result for Pro-life march washington dc 2017Image result for Pro-life march washington dc January 27, 2017Image result for mia love January 27, 2017 Pro-life march washington dc Image result for January 27, 2017 Pro-life march washington dc Image result for cartoons on march for life pro lifeImage result for January 27, 2017 Pro-life march washington dc Image result for mia love January 27, 2017 Pro-life march washington dc Image result for January 27, 2017 Pro-life march washington dc Image result for president trump tweet on march for life january 27, 2017Image result for president trump tweet on march for life january 27, 2017Image result for mia love January 27, 2017 Pro-life march washington dc Image result for mia love January 27, 2017 Pro-life march washington dc Image result for January 27, 2017 Pro-life march washington dc Image result for president trump tweet on march for life january 27, 2017Image result for president trump tweet on march for life january 27, 2017Image result for president trump tweet on march for life january 27, 2017

    Image result for president trump tweet on march for life january 27, 2017Image result for declaration of independence right to life liberty and pursuit of happinessImage result for cartoons on march pro life

    Image result for number of abortions since roe v wade

    Image result for number of abortions since roe v wade

    Image result for number of abortions since roe v wadeImage result for 2016 number of abortions since roe v wade

    Image result for 60 million number of abortions since roe v wade

    Image result for number of abortions since roe v wade

    Image result for number of abortions since roe v wade

    Image result for number of abortions since roe v wade

    Image result for number of abortions since roe v wade

    Image result for number of abortions since roe v wade

    Image result for number of abortions since roe v wadeImage result for number of abortions since roe v wadeImage result for margret sanger and hillary clintonImage result for number of abortions since roe v wade

    Image result for number of abortions since roe v wade

    Image result for 2016 number of abortions since roe v wade

     

    Image result for 60 million number of abortions since roe v wade

    WATCH LIVE: Vice President Mike Pence speaks at March for Life

    President Donald Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway Speech at March for Life -Washington,DC

    “Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these, ‘It might have been.”

    ― John Greenleaf Whittier, Maud Muller – Pamphlet

    Rep. Mia Love (R-UT) full remarks at March for Life (C-SPAN)

    Women from around the nation prepare to March for Life

    Will Pence draw more attention to March for Life?

    March For Life welcomes VP Pence and record crowds

    Pro-Life Wisconsin says “March for Life” is pro-women

    USA: Thousands join ‘pro-life’ march in DC, Trump tweets ‘full support’

    March For Life 2017 Washington DC Featuring Vice President Mike Pence

    WATCH: Vice President Mike Pence Speech March For Life 2017 Washington DC

    Published on Jan 27, 2017

    For the first time in the history of the March For Life a sitting Vice President addressed the audience.

    FULL SPEECH: Kellyanne Conway March For Life 2017 Washington DC

    Published on Jan 27, 2017

    Kellyanne Conway, highest-ranking woman in President-elect Trump’s administration, speaks speak at the 44th annual March for Life, the world’s largest annual pro-life demonstration, in Washington, D.C. on January 27th, 2017

    Mia Love’s Powerful Speech at Pro-Life March Event in DC – January 27, 2017

    LIVE STREAM: March For Life Event in Washington DC

    Pro-Life Women on Why They’re Going to the Women’s March | The Daily Signal

    Life is winning Pence fires up March for Life crowd

    Trump calls out ABC’s David Muir not covering March For Life

    LIVE STREAM: March for Life 2017 RALLY Washington DC JANUARY 27 2017 Mike Pence & Conway Speech ✔

    ‘March for Life’ in Washington, DC, on Friday

    VP Mike Pence Appears At March For Life Anti Abortion Rally in Washington DC (REACTION)

    The Abortion Rate Is At An All-Time Low, Why?

    20 Real Abortion Facts That Will Make You Cry

    Tears Of Abortion – Story of an aborted baby, This ProLife Video will make you cry your eyes out.

    What Actually Happens When You Have An Abortion?

    The Silent Scream (Full Length)

    Fit vs. UnFit, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood & Psychology, Mind Control Report

    Abortion Clinic Employees — “Babies born alive daily.”

    GRAPHIC WARNING Gosnell Abortions – TheBlaze

    “See No Evil” – the case of Kermit Gosnell (45 minutes)

    The Nazi Doctors, American Eugenics & Psychiatry Part 1

    Uploaded on Jun 13, 2007

    Be My Friend – http://www.myspace.com/psychtruth

    The Nazi Doctors, American Eugenics & Psychiatry Part 1

    Dr. Breeding, Ph.D. in psychology, discusses the role of psychiatry and the Nazi doctors in the holocaust. Did eugenics on people with mental health issues end with the end of world war II or is eugenics alive and well in modern day America?

    The Nazi Doctors, American Eugenics & Psychiatry Part 2

    The Nazi Doctors, American Eugenics & Psychiatry Part 3

    Image result for the war on the weak

    Eugenics Glenn Beck w/ Edwin Black author of “War Against the Weak” talk Al Gore & Margaret Sanger

    Eugenics, Hitler, Margaret Sanger’s Planned Murderhood, etc. by Edwin Black

    BLACK REPUBLICANS Tell Other Blacks To WAKE UP!!!

    American eugenics extermination of the black race

    Eugenicist Movement in America: Victims Coming Forward

    Black Genocide: The Democrats Institutionalized Racism

    MAAFA 21: BLACK GENOCIDE

    Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

    Planned Parenthood’s Racist History – Margaret Sanger’s Eugenics Abortion Program

    Pence fires up anti-abortion activists in Washington march

    WASHINGTON: U.S. Vice President Mike Pence fired up tens of thousands of anti-abortion activists who gathered on Friday for the 44th March for Life, celebrating a political shift in their favor with the election of President Donald Trump.

    “Life is winning again in America,” Pence told the demonstrators on the National Mall, near where Trump was sworn in a week ago before hundreds of thousands.

    The March for Life took place in the same area where even more massive crowds flooded Washington a day after Trump’s inauguration in favor of women’s rights, including abortion rights.

    Pence, a longtime hero of the anti-abortion movement, is the most senior government official to speak in person at the rally, organizers said. As governor of Indiana, he signed what were seen as some of the nation’s strictest abortion laws.

    Pence praised “the election of pro-life majorities in the Congress of the United States of America,” Trump’s upcoming nomination of an anti-abortion Supreme Court justice, and the president’s reinstatement on Monday of a policy that cuts off U.S. funding to healthcare providers that promote or provide abortions overseas.

    “It’s the best day I’ve ever seen for the March of Life,” he said.

    Trump senior aide Kellyanne Conway was one of many women to address the demonstrators before they started their march from the Mall to the U.S. Supreme Court, about 1.5 miles (2 km) away.

    “We hear you. We see you. We respect you,” Conway said. “And we look forward to working with you.”

    Protesters hoisted signs saying “Choose life,” “I am the pro-life generation,” and “Equal Rights For Unborn People.”

    A Christian rock band warmed up the crowd for Pence, leading people in hand-clapping at the rally within sight of the White House.

    “We’re here to stand up for the unborn because no one else can, and having Donald Trump in the White House makes everyone more enthusiastic,” said Jim Kolar, 59, of West Palm Beach, Florida.

    Organizers had no immediate estimate of crowd size, but the march to the Supreme Court after the rally filled the street for many blocks amid chants of “We love babies, yes, we do, we love babies, how ’bout you?”

    “This is good, this is a good turnout,” said the Rev. Kevin Cusick, a Catholic priest from Benedict, Maryland, who has been coming to the marches off and on for more than 40 years.

    The March for Life is held each year close to the anniversary of the court’s Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion in 1973.

    Trump has said Roe v. Wade should be overturned and has vowed to appoint an anti-abortion justice to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last year.

    He also has pledged to defund Planned Parenthood, which draws the ire of many Republicans because it provides abortions, along with other services.

    Abortion rights supporters say cutting off funding for abortion providers will prevent poor women from getting other critical heath care and birth control that could prevent unwanted pregnancies.

    The rally comes as the number of U.S. abortions has fallen to a record low. The Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health and rights organization, said last week that it dropped below 1 million in 2013 for the first time since 1975.

    A Quinnipiac University poll released on Friday showed that 64 percent of Americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 31 percent said it should be illegal in all or most cases.

    Anti-abortion forces are often inspired by a religious conviction that life begins at conception and see abortion as murder.

    (Reporting by Ian Simpson and Will Dunham; Writing by Daniel Trotta; Editing by Bill Trott and Lisa Shumaker)

    http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/health/pence-fires-up-anti-abortion-activists-in-huge-washington-march/3472882.html

    Anti-abortion activists to ‘march for life’ in Washington

    By Ian Simpson

    WASHINGTON, Jan 27 (Reuters) – Anti-abortion activists gathered in Washington on Friday for the 44th March for Life, buoyed by President Donald Trump’s pledge to restrict the procedure and Vice President Mike Pence’s plan to address the marchers.

    Organizers expect tens of thousands of supporters to converge on the National Mall for the march, which is held each year close to the anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion in 1973.

    Vice President Mike Pence, a Republican and longtime hero of the anti-abortion movement, is due to be the most senior government official ever to speak in person at the rally, organizers said. As governor of Indiana, Pence signed what were seen as some of the nation’s strictest abortion laws.

    Senior Trump aide Kellyanne Conway, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan and several Republican lawmakers also are scheduled to speak.

    Rally participants will march from the Mall about 1.5 miles (2 km) to the Supreme Court.

    The March for Life comes six days after Washington was flooded by hundreds of thousands of anti-Trump protesters, many of them backers of abortion rights. That protest came a day after Trump was sworn in as president.

    Trump has said Roe v. Wade should be overturned and has vowed to appoint an anti-abortion justice to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last year.

    He also has pledged to defund Planned Parenthood, which draws the ire of many Republicans because it provides abortions, along with other services.

    In a speech to Republican lawmakers at a retreat in Philadelphia on Thursday, Trump noted that on Monday he reinstated a national policy banning U.S. aid to non-governmental organizations abroad that provide or “promote” abortion.

    Trump, who has frequently accused the media of underestimating the crowd at his inauguration, predicted the size of the march crowd would be “300, 400, 500, 600,000 people.”

    The rally comes as the number of U.S. abortions has fallen to a record low. The Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health and rights organization, said last week that it dropped below 1 million in 2013 for the first time since 1975.

    The drop could be because of improved contraceptive practices as well as restrictive abortion laws, the institute said.

    A Pew poll last year showed 57 percent of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. (Reporting by Ian Simpson and Will Dunham; Editing by Daniel Wallis and Bill Trott)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/reuters/article-4164408/Anti-abortion-activists-march-life-Washington.html#ixzz4X148c9E1

    ANTI-ABORTION GROUPS HOLD TRIUMPHANT RALLY AFTER OBAMA YEARS

    The politically ascendant anti-abortion movement gathered Friday for a triumphant rally on the National Mall, rejoicing at the end of an eight-year presidency that participants said was dismissive of their views.

    Vice President Mike Pence told the crowd at the March for Life that anti-abortion policies were a top priority of the new administration, and President Donald Trump tweeted that the rally had his “full support.”

    The March for Life is held every year in Washington to mark the anniversary of the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. While no official crowd estimates were available, the turnout was clearly larger than in recent years, when abortion opponents had less political clout. Many thousands huddled in the shadow of the Washington Monument and stood in long lines outside security checkpoints made necessary by Pence’s appearance.

    “We’ve come to a historic moment in the cause for life,” said Pence, the first vice president to address the rally. “Life is winning in America.”

    Pence said ending taxpayer-funded abortion and choosing a Supreme Court justice in the mold of the late Antonin Scalia – a conservative Catholic who opposed abortion – are among the administration’s most important goals.

    One of Trump’s first acts after taking office a week ago was to sign an executive order banning U.S. aid to foreign groups that provide abortions. Pence said more such actions would follow.

    A budget provision known as the Hyde Amendment already bans federal funding for Medicaid coverage of most abortions. Conservatives would like to see the rule made into a permanent law.

    Majority Republicans in the House and Senate would also like to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood, which provided more than a third of the nation’s abortions in 2014. They also hope to ban most abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Trump has pledged to sign both measures if they reach his desk.

    Many people at the march said they were encouraged by the early days of the Trump administration, even if they did not support him initially or disagreed with him on other issues.

    Trump “was elected because of people who did not have a voice before. This past administration did not listen to us and did not even care,” said Glenn Miller, 60, a cabinet maker from Coventry, Connecticut, who was attending the march for the fourth time. “I wouldn’t say that I was a supporter of Donald Trump. I voted for him because I didn’t think I had a choice.”

    Other participants said they felt the march was important this year because their voices were not represented at last week’s Women’s March on Washington, an anti-Trump demonstration that drew massive crowds in Washington and cities around the country. The women’s march included support for abortion rights in its mission statement and dropped an anti-abortion group as a partner.

    Joi Hulecki, 63, a nurse practitioner from Orlando, Florida, said abortion-rights supporters wrongly portray the decision to terminate a pregnancy as empowering for women, when in fact women often feel pressured to have abortions and regret it later.

    “We don’t want to judge them. We want to help them,” she said. “We consider ourselves pro-women too.”

    The annual event was never expected to attract a crowd on the scale of the women’s march, which brought more than half a million people to Washington. Organizers said in their permit application that they expected 50,000 people, though they hoped for more.

    “There’s been a lot of talk about numbers this past week,” said Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life. “It’s hard to add up so many numbers after 44 years because there have been a lot of us.”

    Mancini added that the most important number for marchers was 58 million, an estimate for the number of abortions performed in the United States since 1973.

    Americans remain deeply divided on abortion. The latest Gallup survey, released last spring, found that 47 percent of Americans described themselves as pro-abortion rights and 46 percent as anti-abortion. It also found that 79 percent believed abortion should be legal in either some or all circumstances.

    Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said that poll shows why abortion-rights supporters should not despair.

    “The vast majority of Americans support Roe v. Wade and support the legal right to abortion,” Hogue said.

    The March for Life, however, is running ads arguing that a majority of Americans support some restrictions on abortion and don’t believe it should be funded by tax dollars.

    Kellyanne Conway, a senior adviser to Trump, also addressed the rally and assured the crowd that Trump and Pence were on their side.

    “Their decisive actions as president and vice president will further this cause,” she said.

    Follow Ben Nuckols on Twitter at https://twitter.com/APBenNuckols .

    Kellyanne Conway

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Kellyanne Conway
    Kellyanne Conway by Gage Skidmore.jpg
    Counselor to the President
    Assumed office
    January 20, 2017
    President Donald Trump
    Preceded by John Podesta (2015)
    Personal details
    Born Kellyanne Elizabeth Fitzpatrick
    January 20, 1967 (age 50)
    Camden, New Jersey, U.S.
    Political party Republican
    Spouse(s) George Conway
    Children 4
    Education Trinity Washington University
    (BA)
    George Washington University
    (JD)

    Kellyanne Elizabeth Conway (née Fitzpatrick; born January 20, 1967) is an American Republican campaign manager, strategist, pollster, and trusted advisor to President Donald Trump. She holds the title of Counselor to the President. She is president and CEO of The Polling Company Inc./Woman Trend.

    In 2016, Conway endorsed Ted Cruz in the Republican presidential primaries and chaired a pro-Cruz political action committee, Keep the Promise I, which ran advertisements critical of then Republican candidate Donald Trump.[1][2] On July 1, 2016, after Cruz withdrew from the race, Donald Trump appointed her as a senior advisor to his campaign. Conway was promoted to the position of campaign manager on August 19, 2016, after the resignation of Paul Manafort.[3][4] She served as Trump’s campaign manager for two and a half months, through the November 8, 2016, election, and was the first woman to successfully run a presidential campaign.[5] On December 22, 2016, Trump, then president-elect, announced that Conway would join his administration as Counselor to the President.[6]

    Early life

    Kellyanne Elizabeth Fitzpatrick was born on January 20, 1967, in Camden, New Jersey, to Diane Fitzpatrick.[7][8] Conway’s father, who had Irish ancestry, owned a small trucking company, and her mother, who was of Italian descent, worked at a bank. They divorced when she was three.[9] She was raised by her mother, grandmother and two unmarried aunts in the Atco section of Waterford Township, New Jersey and graduated from St. Joseph High School in 1985. Her family’s religion was Catholic.[7][10][11]

    Conway credits her experience working for eight summers on a blueberry farm in Hammonton, New Jersey for teaching her a strong work ethic. “The faster you went, the more money you’d make.” At age 16 she won the New Jersey Blueberry Princess pageant. At 20, she won the World Champion Blueberry Packing competition. She states, “Everything I learned about life and business started on that farm.”[11]

    In 1989, Conway received her B.A. magna cum laude in political science from Trinity College, Washington, D.C. (now Trinity Washington University), where she was elected to Phi Beta Kappa[citation needed]. She then earned a J.D. with honors from the George Washington University Law School in 1992.[12] She served as a judicial clerk for Judge Richard A. Levie of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia after graduation.[13][14]

    Career

    Conway at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)

    Conway entered the polling business with Wirthlin Group, a Republican polling firm. She also worked for Luntz Research Companies before founding her own firm,[10] The Polling Company, in 1995. Conway’s company has consulted on consumer trends, often trends regarding women. Conway’s clients have included Vaseline, American Express and Hasbro.[15]

    In the 1990s, Conway, along with other young conservative women, Laura Ingraham, Barbara Olsen and Ann Coulter, helped turn punditry into “stylish stardom” in both Washington and cable television She and her fellow conservative women commentators were referred to as a “pundettes”.[16][17] As she put it, however, her “broad mind and small waist have not switched places”[18]

    Among the political figures Conway worked for were Congressman Jack Kemp; Senator Fred Thompson;[14][better source needed] former Vice President Dan Quayle;[19] Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich; and Congressman (now Vice President) Mike Pence.[15] She worked as the senior advisor to Gingrich during his unsuccessful 2012 United States presidential election campaign.;[20] another client in 2012 was U.S. Senate candidate Todd Akin.[21]

    In addition to her political opinion research work, Conway has directed demographic and attitudinal survey projects for trade associations and private companies, including American Express, ABC News, Major League Baseball, and Ladies Home Journal.[14] Her firm The Polling Company also includes WomanTrend, a research and consulting division.[14]

    Conway has appeared as a commentator on polling and the political scene, having appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, NY1, and the Fox News Channel, in addition to various radio programs. She received the Washington Post’s “Crystal Ball” award for accurately predicting the 2004 elections.[22]

    2016 presidential election

    Ted Cruz support and endorsement

    In the 2016 Republican presidential campaign, Conway endorsed Ted Cruz and chaired a pro-Cruz political action committee known as Keep the Promise I, which was almost entirely funded by businessman Robert Mercer.[23][24] Conway’s organization criticized Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump as “extreme” and “not a conservative.”[25] On January 25, 2016, Conway criticized Trump as “a man who seems to be offending his way to the nomination.”[26] On January 26, Conway criticized Trump’s use of eminent domain, saying “Donald Trump has literally bulldozed over the little guy to get his way.”[27]

    In mid-June, following Cruz’s suspension of his campaign. Conway left the organization.[28]

    Trump campaign

    On July 1, 2016, Trump announced that he had hired Conway for a senior advisory position on his presidential campaign.[29] Conway was expected to advise Trump on how to better appeal to female voters.[29]

    On August 19, Trump named Conway the campaign’s third campaign manager.[15][30] She served in this capacity for 10 weeks, through the November 8 general election, and was the first woman to run a Republican general election presidential campaign.[30]

    Since October 2016, Conway has been parodied on Saturday Night Live by Kate McKinnon.[31][32][33]

    Presidential transition

    On November 10, 2016, Conway tweeted publicly that Trump had offered her a White House job.[34] “I can have any job I want,” she said on November 28.[35]

    On November 24, Conway tweeted that she was “Receiving deluge of social media & private comms re: Romney. Some Trump loyalists warn against Romney as sec of state” with a link to an article on Trump loyalists’ discontent for the 2012 nominee. Conway told CNN she was only tweeting what she has shared with President-elect Donald Trump and Vice President-elect Mike Pence in private.[36]

    On November 28, two top sources at the Trump transition team told media outlets that Trump “was furious” at Conway for media comments she made on Trump administration cabinet appointments.[37] The following day, however, Trump released a written statement stating that the campaign sources were wrong and that he had sanctioned her critical comments on Romney.[38] CNBC reported on November 28 that senior officials in the Trump transition “have reportedly been growing frustrated by Conway’s failure to become a team player.”[35]

    On December 1, Conway appeared with senior aides of the Trump campaign, at Harvard‘s Kennedy School of Government, for a forum on the 2016 presidential race; the quadrennial post-presidential election forum has been held at the School of Government since 1972. Sitting across from Conway were senior Clinton campaign aides, including Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook. As tempers began to flare, the forum escalated into a “shouting match”; during one exchange, Clinton senior strategist Joel Benenson said “The fact of the matter is that more Americans voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump.” Conway replied to Benenson while looking at the Trump aides: “Hey, guys, we won. You don’t have to respond. He was the better candidate. That’s why he won.”[39]

    In early December, Conway said that Hillary Clinton supporters were making death threats against her.[40]

    In a January 2017 press conference, Conway stated that there are “alternative facts” to explain factual discrepancies reported by the media; this led to the George Orwell novel 1984 suddenly appearing at the top of the Amazon.com best-seller list, as Conway’s phrase is reminiscent of “Newspeak,” a dystopian language style that was a key element of the society portrayed in Orwell’s novel.[41][42]

    Political views

    Conway views herself as a Gen X conservative.[43][44]

    She is opposed to abortion. Her reasoning is “We grew up with sonograms. We know life when we see it”.[44] On January 27, 2017, Conway was invited as one of the speakers at the 2017 March for Life, an annual rally protesting abortion and Roe v. Wade.[45]

    She is pro immigration reform. In 2014 she coauthored a memo for FWD.us that supported a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers living in the US.[46]

    Personal life

    Conway married George T. Conway III, a litigation partner at the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, in 2001.[47] The couple have four children, including twins, and live in Alpine, New Jersey.[14][48][49]

    Book

    In 2005, Conway and Democratic pollster Celinda Lake co-authored What Women Really Want: How American Women Are Quietly Erasing Political, Racial, Class, and Religious Lines to Change the Way We Live (Free Press/Simon and Schuster, 2005; ISBN 0-7432-7382-6).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellyanne_Conway

    Mia Love

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Mia Love
    Mia Love Congressional Photo.jpg
    Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
    from Utah‘s 4th district
    Assumed office
    January 3, 2015
    Preceded by Jim Matheson
    Mayor of Saratoga Springs
    In office
    January 8, 2010 – January 8, 2014
    Preceded by Timothy Parker
    Succeeded by Jim Miller
    Personal details
    Born Ludmya Bourdeau
    December 6, 1975 (age 41)
    New York City, New York, U.S.
    Political party Republican
    Spouse(s) Jason Love
    Children 3
    Alma mater University of Hartford(BFA)

    Ludmya BourdeauMiaLove (born December 6, 1975) is an American politician and the U.S. Representative from Utah’s 4th congressional district. She is the first Haitian American and the first black female Republican in Congress,[1][2] as well as the first African American to be elected to Congress from Utah.[3]

    Born to Haitian parents in Brooklyn, New York, Love was elected as the Mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, serving from 2010 to 2014.[4] She was previously on its city council. In 2012, Love ran for Utah’s 4th congressional district, losing narrowly to incumbent Democratic Representative Jim Matheson. She was a speaker at the 2012 Republican National Convention. She was elected as a Republican to the House of Representatives on November 4, 2014, defeating Democratic opponent Doug Owens, son of the former Congressman Wayne Owens and defeated him again in their 2016 rematch to win her second term.[1][2] In 2016, Love made headlines by joining a long list of Republicans who opposed the GOP nominee for President, Donald Trump.[5]

    Early life and education

    Love was born Ludmya Bourdeau on December 6, 1975, in Brooklyn, New York, the daughter of Mary and Jean Maxine Bourdeau.[6] At a time of political repression, her parents emigrated together from Haiti in 1973,[7] leaving their two older children behind with family.[8][9] Her father had been threatened by the Tonton Macoute, the secret police in Haiti, and her parents traveled to the United States on a tourist visa.[10] They spoke only French when they arrived. Her father became a paint-company manager and her mother worked as a nurse.[11]

    Love’s birth enabled her parents to gain a US residency permit (green card) under an immigration law that favored immigrants from the Western Hemisphere who had a child born in the United States; it expired in early 1976.[8][12] They later became naturalized citizens.[13]

    When Love was five, her family moved from Brooklyn to Norwalk, Connecticut.[14] Love attended Norwalk High School.[10] She was raised as a Roman Catholic in the faith of her parents. After the family settled in Norwalk, her parents brought her older siblings from Haiti to reunite the family.[2][15]

    Love attended the University of Hartford Hartt School with a half-tuition scholarship.[16] She graduated with a degree in musical theatre.[10]

    After college, she worked at Sento Corporation and the Ecopass Corporation.[17] She was also a flight attendant with Continental Airlines.[12][18] She moved to Utah in 1998 after converting to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and while working for Continental. There she married Jason Love.

    Early political career

    Love began to be active in civic affairs when she served as the community spokesperson in Saratoga Springs, Utah in an effort to persuade the developer of her neighborhood to spray against flies.[10] The city of 18,000 near Salt Lake City was established in 1997 and has had rapid growth.

    In 2003 Love won a seat on the Saratoga Springs City Council. She was the first female Haitian-American elected official in Utah County; she took office in January 2004.[18] During an economic downturn, as part of the city council Love approved a transition from the agriculture tax to municipal tax. She worked with other city council members to cut expenses, reducing the city’s shortfall during the economic downturn from $3.5 million to $779,000. Saratoga Springs now has the highest possible bond rating for a city of its size.[19]

    After six years on the Council, Love was elected mayor,[20] winning with 861 votes to 594 for her opponent Jeff Francom.[21] She served from January 2010 to January 2014.[17] During her term, Love led the city in dealing with natural disasters, including a wildfire, followed shortly afterward by a severe mudslide.[22]

    Elections

    2012

    Love ran in Utah’s 4th congressional district, which was created after the 2010 Census.[23][24] She competed for the Republican nomination against attorney Jay Cobb and State Reps. Stephen Sandstrom of Orem and Carl Wimmer of Herriman; she won the nomination on April 21, 2012, at the 2012 Utah Republican Party Convention with over 70 percent of the vote. She faced six-term Democratic incumbent Jim Matheson in the general election, who while living in the 2nd congressional district ran in the new 4th district. losing some of his reliably Democratic constituents.

    Nationally, Love received campaign support from 2012 Republican presidential nomineeMitt Romney and his wife Ann Romney, House Majority LeaderEric Cantor, House Budget Committee Chairman and 2012 Republican vice presidential nomineePaul Ryan, and Speaker of the House John Boehner.[25][26]

    In 2012, National Journal named Love one of ten Republicans to follow on Twitter.[27] When speaking to the 2012 Republican National Convention on August 28, 2012, she discussed lessons learned from her parents, immigrants from Haiti who fled political repression.[28] She said, “Mr. President, I am here to tell you we are not buying what you are selling in 2012.”[29]

    In September 2012, questions arose about her parents’ immigrant status. Forbes investigated a claim in an article that month in Mother Jones that no law existed in 1976 that would have allowed Love’s parents to become citizens of the United States after her birth. Forbes found that immigrants who had been residents of the Western Hemisphere could get long-term residency permits (green cards) if they had a child born in the United States. Mother Jones issued a correction.[6][8][30] Love did not make her family’s papers available for review.[citation needed] In an October 2012 interview, her father said that Mia’s birth as a U.S. citizen was key to him and his wife gaining permanent legal status and ultimately citizenship.[10]

    Love lost the election to Jim Matheson by 768 votes out of 245,277 votes cast,[31] a difference of 0.31%. She was regarded to have run a weak campaign, switching campaign managers three times, trying to “nationalize” the race rather than focus on local issues, and missing interviews and appointments because of rifts in her campaign staff.[32]

    2014

    Mia Love

    In March 2013, Love said she was seriously considering another run against Matheson.[33] In May 2013 she announced she would run in 2014. As of July 2013, Love had raised over $475,000 for her campaign.[34] Love was an opening speaker at the 2013 Western Conservative Summit. She spoke of the need for increased grassroots organization in the GOP, and the need to be independent from the government.[35]

    In August 2013, Love was chosen by Newsmax as an “Up and Comer” in their list of top “25 Influential Women of the GOP,” given her visible position as a young black female Republican.[36] In November 2013, Love acknowledged the growing consensus that the Tea Party needed to shift away from being the “party of no,” disagreeing with its part in forcing a federal government shutdown over the budget.[37] She later reiterated her support for the philosophy of the Tea Party and many of its leaders, including Utah Sen. Mike Lee.[38]

    On December 17, 2013, Matheson announced that he would not run for re-election. Love was ranked as the favored candidate due to her name recognition and characteristics of the district. In early October 2014, the National Journal listed Utah’s 4th district as the number one most likely district to change hands in November.[39]

    In early 2014 Love was made a member of the Republican National Committee’s National Advisory Council on African-American outreach.[40] On April 26, 2014 Love won the Republican nomination for the 4th congressional district at the Utah Republican Convention, with 78% of the vote at the convention.[29][41]

    On election night, Owens led Love until late in the evening, when she pulled ahead and ultimately won by more than 4,000 votes.[29][42]

    2016

    Love ran for re-election in 2016. She defeated Democrat Doug Owens in the general election with 53% of the vote.[43][44] David Scott, a Democratic Representative from Georgia, gave $1,000 to Love’s campaign.[45]

    A poll released in August 2016 found that Love was leading Owens by 13 percentage points, 51% to 38%.[46] According to the poll, Love was leading Owen with both Republicans and independents.[46] As of the federal financial disclosure dated June 30, 2016, Love had nearly $1.5 million in the bank and Owens had $890,000.[46] In a September 2016 poll, Love held a 18% lead over Owens, 53% to 35%.[47]

    U.S. House of Representatives

    Mia Love speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland on February 26, 2015.

    With the start of the new Congress, Love was appointed to the House Financial Services Committee.[48] Love joined the Congressional Black Caucus in January 2015 after taking her seat.[49] While campaigning in 2012, Love had said that if elected, she would “join the Congressional Black Caucus and try to take that thing apart from the inside out.” She described the mainly Democratic Caucus as characterized by

    …demagoguery. They sit there and ignite emotions and ignite racism when there isn’t. They use their positions to instill fear. Hope and change is turned into fear and blame. Fear that everybody is going to lose everything and blaming Congress for everything instead of taking responsibility.[50]

    In May 2015 she was a lead sponsor along with Duncan Hunter of HR 2518 the Student Right to Know Before You Go Act, designed to increase the amount of information universities and colleges are required to provide prospective students.[51]

    In October 2015, Love was named to serve on the Select Investigative Panel on Planned Parenthood.[52]

    In April 2016, Love got her first bill through the U.S. House. HR3791, which was approved in a 247-171 vote, raises limits on how large community banks can grow, which Love says will make more credit available.[53]

    Political positions

    Love says she favors “fiscal discipline, limited government, and personal responsibility.”[20] She has also said that she asks herself three questions whenever she approaches an issue: “Is it affordable? Is it sustainable? Is it my job?”[54]

    Love was described as a Tea Party conservative in 2012.[32] In a 2015 article titled “How ‘tea party’ is Mia Love?”, the Washington Post wrote that “Love’s rhetoric from 2012 to 2014 changed a bit, even as her policy positions remained fairly constant” and noted that Love had “angered some conservatives when she questioned the tea party driven government shutdown in 2013 over Obamacare.”[55] A blogger for libertarian-leaning magazine Reason described her as a “Trojan horse libertarian” due to her stance on homeschooling, federal control of land, and other issues.[56]

    Love is pro-life.[57] She supports gun rights and holds a concealed weapons permit.[57] Love supports Utah’s effort to reclaim public land from federal agency controls.[57]

    During her first campaign for Congress, Love proposed deep cuts to federal spending, particularly in the area of entitlement spending.[32] She also supports cutting taxes.[32] She supported cuts to foreign aid and tort reform.[58] She believes that the federal government should have less power.[58] In 2014, Love focused more on balancing the budget, avoiding stating specific cuts needed but identifying the goal of matching spending to revenue.[59] Love supported the March 2015 budget, which required an increase in federal employee contributions to their retirement funds.[60]

    On October 8, 2016, Love issued a statement that she would not vote for Republican candidate Donald Trump in the upcoming presidential election and urged him to withdraw from the race for the good of the party and the country.[61]

    Personal life

    Raised a Roman Catholic, Love joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after graduating from college in 1998.[62] While working as a flight attendant, she moved to Utah as part of her work. She also wanted to be closer to a Mormon temple and to learn more about her faith.[10] There she got to know Jason Love, whom she had met briefly when he was an LDS missionary in Connecticut.

    The two were married in December 1998, four months after their first date. Love turned down an offer to appear in the Broadway show Smokey Joe’s Café that would start two days before her marriage.[10][63] When first married, the Loves lived in American Fork. They have three children together. The Loves decided that Jason should continue his software work and maintain their residence in Utah.[64]

    Electoral history

    Utah’s 4th congressional district election, 2014[42]
    Party Candidate Votes %
    Republican Mia B. Love 74,936 50.92
    Democratic Doug Owens 67,425 45.81
    Independent American Tim Aalders 2,032 1.38
    Constitution Collin Simonsen 1,424 0.97
    Libertarian Jim L. Vein 1,151 0.92
    Total votes 147,168 100.00
    Republicangain from Democratic
    Utah’s 4th congressional district election, 2012[65]
    Party Candidate Votes %
    Democratic Jim Matheson (incumbent) 119,803 48.84
    Republican Mia B. Love 119,035 48.53
    Libertarian Jim L. Vein 6,439 2.63
    Total votes 245,277 100.0
    Democratichold

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mia_Love

    March for Life (Washington, D.C.)

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    March for Life
    The start of the 2009 March (2009)

    The start of the 2009 March (2009)
    Date Every year since January 22, 1974
    (anniversary of Roe v. Wade).
    Location Washington, D.C.
    Website www.marchforlife.org

    The March for Life is an annual rally protesting abortion, held in Washington, D.C., on or around the anniversary of the United States Supreme Court‘s decision legalizing abortion in the case Roe v. Wade. The march is organized by the March for Life Education and Defense Fund. The overall goal of the march is to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and reduce access to the procedure.[1]

    The 2017 march was held on January 27th, a week following the United States presidential inauguration.[2]

    History

    Logo for the March for Life as of 2014[3]

    The first March for Life, which was founded by Nellie Gray,[4] was held on January 22, 1974, on the West Steps of the Capitol, with an estimated 20,000 supporters in attendance.[5]

    During the 33rd annual March for Life in 2006, the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court caused a major positive shift, because of the expectation that Alito would “win Senate approval and join a majority in overturning Roe.”[6]

    Around the time of the 35th annual March for Life in 2008, a Guttmacher Institute report was released, which revealed that the number of abortions performed in the United States dropped to 1.2 million in 2005. This was the lowest level of abortions since 1976. Although this seemed like a victory, many march participants stressed that the figures were not a large enough decline. Many marchers said they would not stop protesting until abortions were illegal.[7]

    During the 2009 March for Life, the threat of passage by the 111th United States Congress of the Freedom of Choice Act—a bill that would “codify Roe v. Wade” by declaring a fundamental right to abortion and lifting many restrictions on abortion—served as a key rallying point, because pro-lifers worried that the legislation would eliminate certain abortion restrictions like parental notification for minors and repeal the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.[8]

    Itinerary

    The March for Life proceedings begin around noon.[8] They typically consist of a rally at the National Mall near Fourth Street. It is followed by a march which travels down Constitution Avenue NW, turns right at First Street and then ends on the steps of the Supreme Court of the United States, where another rally is held. Many protesters start the day by delivering roses and lobbying members of Congress.[9]

    Attendance

    Students from the University of Notre Dame

    In 1987, approximately 5,000 participated, despite a snowstorm.[9]

    In 1995, which is the last year that the National Park Service made an official estimate of attendance, 45,000 attended, compared to 35,000 in 1994.[10]

    In 2016, the march proceeded despite a blizzard that dropped 24 inches of snow in D.C., with attendees that “appeared to be in the thousands”.[11][12]

    Many teenagers and college students attend the march each year, typically traveling with church/youth groups. The Washington Post columnist Robert McCartney estimated that about half of the marchers are under age 30.[13]

    Notable speakers

    In 1987, Ronald Reagan spoke remotely via telephone, and vowed to help “end this national tragedy”. Jesse Helms, then Senator of North Carolina, attended and spoke. He called abortion an “American holocaust”.[9]

    In 2003, George W. Bush spoke remotely via telephone and thanked participants for their “devotion to such a noble cause”. During his telephone addresses, he tended to speak broadly of opposing abortion as opposed to offering any specific efforts being made to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision.[1]

    In 2003, speakers included Representative Chris Smith, Republican of New Jersey, and Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue. In his speech, Terry targeted the youth in the audience, calling them to “fight for all you’re worth.”[14]

    In 2004, 15 lawmakers, all Republican, spoke. Many of them stressed the importance of backing and voting for only candidates whose platform supported antiabortion in the November elections. Among the lawmakers who spoke were Representatives Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, and Patrick J. Toomey of Pennsylvania. Tiahrt, who also spoke at the 30th annual march, urged marchers to “help pro-lifers in your state”; Toomey supported these remarks, saying to vote for pro-life candidates in order to reclaim the Senate and, in turn, the courts.[1]

    In 2006, Representative Steve Chabot, an Ohio Republican and prominent pro-life advocate in the United States House of Representatives, spoke to the masses on overturning Roe v. Wade. He stated that what he called the killing of millions of babies should be “sufficient justification for overruling that awful case”. Nellie Gray, the founder of March for Life, spoke of “feminist abortionists”, foretelling that the United States would hold them accountable for their actions in trials equivalent to the Nuremberg trials.[6]

    In 2009, approximately 20 Congress members spoke, including Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Wisconsin Republican and former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Gray.[8]

    In 2011, speakers included House Majority LeaderEric Cantor, House Majority WhipKevin McCarthy, and several other members of Congress, including Mike Pence (see below).[15]

    In 2013, presenters included Speaker of the United States House of RepresentativesJohn Boehner (via a pre-recorded video address), former United States Senator and candidate for the 2012 Republican Party presidential nominationRick Santorum, as well as other members of Congress.[16]

    In 2016, Republican Presidential candidate Carly Fiorina took part in the march.[17]

    In 2017, speakers included Kellyanne Conway, the Counselor to President Donald Trump; the Archbishop of New York Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan; pro-life activist Abby Johnson; NFL player Benjamin Watson; Virginia gubernatorial candidate Corey Stewart; and Mexican telenovela actress Karyme Lozano as speakers.[18] Vice President Mike Pence announced on the eve of the march that he would also attend, a first for any vice president.[19][20] Pence was also one of the speakers at the 2010 march when he was serving as representative of Indiana‘s 6th congressional district.[21]

    Media attention

    March for Life has received relatively little media attention over the years.[22] The typical coverage consists of a “story with a tiny little comment from one individual marcher”, Gray has said. The 36th annual march in 2009 was just two days after President Barack Obama’s inauguration.

    To counter the relative lack of media coverage, one of the March for Life’s supporters, the Family Research Council, organized a “Blogs for Life” conference in Washington, D.C. The main goal of the conference was to “bring pro-life bloggers together to talk over strategies” for securing more effective media coverage and advancing pro-life issues. Such strategies include securing media coverage through legislative means or by tapping into new media outlets.[23]

    Associated events

    Various pro-life organizations hold events before and after the March. Such events include a Luau for Life at Georgetown University and a candlelight vigil at the Supreme Court.[7] Additionally, independent films with a pro-life message have premiered or have been promoted in association with the March, including the Vatican endorsed film Doonby, which was shown at Landmark E Street Cinema during the 2013 march, and 22 Weeks, which premiered at Union Station’s Phoenix Theatre on the eve of the 2009 march.[24][25][26][27]

    Anglican events

    Anglicans for Life, the pro-life apostolate of the Anglican Church in North America, launched the “Mobilizing the Church for Life” conference on the day before the 2016 March for Life.[28] On the following day, the primate of the Anglican Church in North America, Foley Beach, led Anglicans in the March for Life.[28]

    Catholic events

    Youth Rally and Mass at Verizon Center (2006)

    Preceding the March for Life, there are several Masses; two of which are celebrated at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception as well as the Verizon Center in Chinatown. The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington hosts a Youth Rally and Mass every year at the Verizon Center, attended by approximately 20,000 young people,[29] where a message from the Pope is relayed.

    In 2009, the apostolic nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Pietro Sambri, read Pope Benedict XVI‘s message, which told attendants that he was “deeply grateful” for the youths’ “outstanding annual witness for the gospel of life”.[8] In 2008, the Pope’s message thanked attendants for “promoting respect for the dignity and inalienable rights of every human being.”[7] In 2011, an event parallel to the Verizon Center event was held at the D.C. Armory; a total of over 27,000 young people attended the events.[30]

    In response to a growing number of pilgrims traveling to the area for the March for Life, in 2009 the Roman Catholic Diocese of Arlington began to host the “Life is VERY Good” Evening of Prayer, the night before the March.[31] In 2013, a Morning Mass and Rally (preceding the March for Life) was added and held at the Patriot Center on the campus of George Mason University, including Arlington Bishop Paul Loverde and more than 100 bishops and priests from across the nation.[32] Life is VERY Good, which began with 350 participants in 2009, gathered in excess of 12,000 between its two events, held before and after the March, in 2013.[33]

    Since 2000, Catholic students at Georgetown University have hosted the annual Cardinal O’Connor Conference on Life the day after the march. It is the largest of the student-run pro-life conferences in the U.S., and it regularly hosts prominent pro-life speakers such as Cardinal O’Malley and feminist Helen Alvaré. Hundreds of laypeople and clergy attend each year to hear the speakers and to participate in break-out sessions on pro-life issues. [34]

    Eastern Orthodox events

    Orthodox clergy and laity at the March for Life in 2012.

    The Orthodox presence at the March for Life is a long one with representation from many jurisdictions every year. The evening before the March, there is often at least one Vespers service at a local D.C. church. During the March there is a Panakhida for the Unborn performed along the way. Seminarians from Christ the Saviour Seminary, Holy Cross Seminary, St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Seminary, and St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary (represented by the St. Ambrose Society[35]) are invariably in attendance along with their families, hierarchs, clergy, and monastics from all over the country. Metropolitan Jonah of Washington (Orthodox Church in America) has been a speaker at the pre-March invocations in recent years. The Carpatho-Russian Diocese and Greek Archdiocese also have a strong connection to the March for Life and have been at the forefront of the pro-life movement. Metropolitan Nicholas of Amissos (American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese) was a constant presence during his episcopate dating back to 1987.

    Evangelical events

    Clergy and laity at the 2017 United Methodist event for the March for Life hosted by Lifewatch, Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality

    At the 2016 March for Life rally, the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, organized a conference “aimed at increasing the level of engagement in the pro-life cause”.[36]

    The Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality, which is a part of the National Pro-Life Religious Council, holds its annual service of worship at the United Methodist Building, and the liturgy held for the 2016 March of Life featured “a sermon by Dr. Thomas C. Oden, General Editor of the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, former Professor of Theology and Ethics at Drew University, and Lifewatch Advisory Board member.”[37][28]

    Lutheran events

    Several factions of the Lutheran Church, including the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, North American Lutheran Church and Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, have held conferences in Washington D.C. surrounding the March of Life and the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) is planning the 2017 LCMS Life Conference to be held on 27 January, 2017, on the day of the March for Life.[38] Students from schools affiliated with the Lutheran factions mentioned above have made pilgrimages to the capitol of the United States in order to march in the event.[39][40] Before the 2016 March for Life, a Divine Service was celebrated at Immanuel Lutheran Church in Alexandria, Virginia.[28]

    Virtual March for Life

    In 2010, Americans United for Life launched an online virtual March. Pro-lifers unable to attend the event in person could create avatars of themselves and take part in a virtual demonstration on a Google Maps version of the Washington Mall.[41] The online event attracted approximately 75,000 participants.[42]

    See also

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_for_Life_(Washington,_D.C.)

    U.S. Abortion Rate Falls To Lowest Level Since Roe v. Wade

    The abortion rate in the United States fell to its lowest level since the historic Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalized abortion nationwide, a new report finds.

    The report by the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports legalized abortion, puts the rate at 14.6 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age (ages 15-44) in 2014. That’s the lowest recorded rate since the Roe decision in 1973. The abortion rate has been declining for decades — down from a peak of 29.3 in 1980 and 1981.

    The report also finds that in 2013, the total number of abortions nationwide fell below 1 million for the first time since the mid-1970s. In 2014 — the most recent year with data available — the number fell a bit more, to 926,200. The overall number had peaked at more than 1.6 million abortions in 1990, according to Guttmacher.

    Perhaps not surprisingly, given the longstanding controversy around abortion policy, the meaning of the report is somewhat in dispute.

    Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said efforts to help women get better access to contraception are paying off. She points in particular to recent improvements in the rate of unintended pregnancies, and a historically low teen pregnancy rate.

    “It shows that we’re finally doing a better job of helping women get access to birth control that’s affordable and that’s high-quality,” Richards said.

    As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office, Richards is gearing up for a fight over federal funding for women’s health services provided by Planned Parenthood. Republican leaders in Congress have vowed to work with Trump to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which requires contraceptive coverage for many women.

    “We shouldn’t go backwards on access to birth control,” Richards said.

    Some anti-abortion groups, meanwhile, argue the Guttmacher report shows new state restrictions on abortion are working. Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for Americans United for Life, said she has her doubts about the Guttmacher report — since the data come from surveys of abortion providers — but accepts the overall conclusion. She emphasized the impact of new regulations on clinics and laws requiring women seeking abortions to get an ultrasound, which she said are having a “real, measurable impact on abortion.”

    “These have been game-changers, and we see the abortion rate dropping in response,” Hamrick said.

    Hamrick said she believes abortion numbers are also falling in part because public sentiment is turning against abortion — although surveys by the Pew Research Center show opinions on abortion have been largely stable over the past two decades. The Gallup polling firm has found Americans largely divided on abortion in recent decades, with a majority labeling themselves “pro-choice” in a 2015 survey.

    The Guttmacher report says abortion restrictions do appear to be a factor in the declining numbers in some states. But principal research scientist Rachel Jones, lead author of the report, said that’s not the whole story. She noted that abortion declined in almost every state, and “having fewer clinics didn’t always translate into having fewer abortions.”

    A more important driver of the declining abortion rate, Jones said, appears to be improved access to contraception, particularly long-acting birth control options like IUDs. She noted that women in the United States have been using the highly effective devices in growing numbers for more than a decade, and said the declining birthrate suggests more women are preventing unwanted pregnancies.

    “Abortion is going down, and births aren’t going up,” Jones said.

    Chuck Donovan, president of the anti-abortion Charlotte Lozier Institute, called the drop in the abortion rate “good news,” regardless of one’s political point of view. He said there are likely a number of factors behind the decline.

    “By and large, this is encouraging for a country that obviously remains deeply divided and discomfited about the benefits of abortion to the public,” Donovan said.

    But when it comes to abortion, common ground is hard to find. The Guttmacher Institute’s Jones said the data may signal that some women who want abortions can’t get access.

    “If there are women in these highly restrictive states who want abortions but can’t get them because there aren’t any clinics that they can get to, and that’s why abortion’s going down, that’s not a good thing,” Jones said. “But we think the story that’s going on in a lot of situations, in a lot of states, is that fewer women are having unintended pregnancies and in turn fewer abortions, and that is actually a good story.”

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/17/509734620/u-s-abortion-rate-falls-to-lowest-level-since-roe-v-wade

    Number of Abortions – Abortion Counters

    * Documentation for the basis for the Abortion Counters (Guttmacher, etc.)

    Return to Life Matters TV
    Below are the sources for the statistics used and rationale for the number of abortions used in the abortion counters. Each abortion counter is a real-time estimate of the number of abortion in the US and the number of abortions worldwide based on the very latest data of the actual number of abortions performed in past years.  Most of the abortions reported in these numbers are surgically induced.  The eleven abortion counters include: number of abortions in the US today, number of abortions in the US since Roe versus Wade (1973), number of abortions in the US this year, number of abortions in the US this year due to rape or incest, number of abortions in the US this year after 16 weeks gestation, number of abortions by Planned Parenthood since 1970, and the number of aborions by planned Parenthood this year, number of abortions worldwide since 1980, number of abortions worldwide this year, and number of abortions worldwide today.

    * Note that the abortions in the counters on this site are almost all “surgical abortions”.   We have made no attempt to tally the totals for “chemically-induced abortions” here.  The Pharmacists for Life organization estimates that their have been approximately 250 million babies aborted chemically since 1973 in the USA: http://www.pfli.org/

    * The Guttmacher Institute, formed as a division of Planned Parenthood of America, reported 42 million abortions World-Wide in 2003 which was down from 46 million in 1995.  The study was funded by the World Health Organization, an agency of the UN and the World Bank.

    * In January 2014, the Guttmacher Institute reported:  * 1.05 million abortions in the US in 2012; * 4.8% of abortions in the US occurred from week 16 of pregnancy to week 32.  US 2014 STUDY on abortions:
    http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

    World Wide STUDY on abortions: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.pdf

    *  The National Right to Life Committee reported on their 2/2015 fact sheet  (http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/FS01AbortionintheUS.pdf )    that the total of  US abortions since 1973 (RVW) through 2014  was 57496011 based  on state government health organization data & the Guttmacher Institute data including factoring in the possible 3% undercount cited by GI for their own figures.

    * Planned Parenthood reports the number of abortions performed each year in their annual report. Planned Parenthood’s 2005-2006 annual report states that they committed 264,943 abortions in the USA in 2005 and from 1977 through 2005, Planned Parenthood performed 4,068,749 abortions in the USA.  More recent PP annual reports show they committed 289,750 in 2006, 305,310 in 2007, 324,008 in 2008, 331796 in 2009,  and 329,445 in 2010.  They reported 329,445 in 2010, 333,924 in 2011, 327,166 in 2012, 327166 in 2013 and 323999 in 2014 : 2013 report. , 2014 report 
    * The World Wide abortion counters uses one of the more conservative estimates on the number of abortions world-wide since 1980 (40 Million per year for 30years)  and this equals 1,200,000 Billion (from Lifesitenews.com: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/oct/09101604.html )

    * All the US abortion counters show results with one decimal place displayed.  This was originally done to show that these abortion counters are active and not a static count.  If you look at abortion procedures like Dilation & Evacuation   or Partial-Birth abortion (http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/FS04AbortionTechniques.pdf), you realize that the abortion takes place in pieces over time so the decimal places do represent some reality.

    * Why did we include a “black baby counter”:  Two African-American Religious-based web sites asked us to put in a black baby counter to highlight the disparity of the high number of abortions in the black population.  Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, had this as objective in her eugenics plan.
    * Why is there a “After 16 weeks gestation” abortion counter?  There is a lot of argument about “When does life begin” ?  It would seem to be pretty hard for anyone to argue that a baby at 16 weeks gestation “is just a blob of tissue” based on what the scientific community knows today about the development of a baby at 16 weeks:

    – The body is fully formed, the fingers and toes have fingerprints & nails.

    – Is about 5 inches long and weighs  about 3 ounces, about the size of a large avacado.

    – The baby is moving about: may grasp for the umbilical cord , suck it’s thumb, and  is capable of making facial expressions and kicking at the amniotic sac.

    – The heart & circulatory system and the urinary tract are fully functioning. and the blood is pumping through these tiny veins

    – The baby is inhaling and exhaling the amniotic fluid through the lungs.

    -The eyes are in the proper position, and the baby can see straight ahead & blink his/her eyelids.

    – The genitals have formed. In the case of a girl, the uterus has already developed and the ovaries are in the proper place.

    – Umberto Castiello, University of Padova, Italy  reported unborn babies have the ability to interact as early as 14 weeks into the pregnancy: “We conclude that performance of movements towards the co-twin is not accidental: already starting from the 14th week of gestation twin fetuses execute movements specifically aimed at the co-twin.”

    * This site is also accessible by www.usabortionclock.org.  The original idea a page of abortion counters came from the site www.usdebtclock.org is a very interesting perspective on the magnitude of the US debt obligations.

    To view the active count of the number of abortions in the US and the numbers of abortions worldwide return to www.abortioncounters.com web page.

    http://www.numberofabortions.com/

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-827

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

    Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

    The Pronk Pops Show 825, January 26, 2017, Story 1: Trump’s Impossible Dream — What Good is Dreaming It If You Don’t Actually Do It! — Approval Numbers Rising To 59% — President Trump Addresses Republicans in Philadelphia — We Must Deliver — Videos — Story 2: United Kingdom Prime Minister Theresa May Addresses Republicans — Videos — Story 3: President Trump Signs Two Executive Orders On Immigration — What is Next? — Cutting The $650 Billion in Federal Funding To All Sanctuary Jurisdictions (Cities, Counties and States) — Financial Leverage Long Overdue! –Videos

    Posted on January 26, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Budgetary Policy, Communications, Congress, Consitutional Law, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, News, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Prime Minister, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Senate, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

    Project_1

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

    Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

    Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 787: October 31, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 786: October 28, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 785: October 27, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 784: October 26, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 783: October 25, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

     Story 1: Trump’s Impossible Dream — What Good is Dreaming It If You Don’t Actually Do It! — Approval Numbers Rising To 59% — President Trump Addresses Republicans in Philadelphia — We Must Deliver! — Videos —

    Image result for president trump a in philadelphiaImage result for president trump addresses republicans in philadelphia t

     “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.”

    ~President Donald J. Trump Inauguration Speech

    72 percent agreed

    17 percent disagreed

    11 percent were not sure

    Rasmussen Reports

     

    Jim Nabors – Impossible Dream

    WATCH: President Trump Departs On Air Force One For The First Time

    LIVE: Trump Addresses Congressional Republicans in Philadelphia

    What do people think of President Trump so far?

    Limbaugh Explains Trump’s Historically Low Approval Rating: ‘FAKE NEWS, FAKE POLLS’

    Honda – The Impossible Dream (TV Commercial)

    President Trump’s job approval rating hits 59 percent

    Voters also agree with key statements in his inaugural address

    President Donald Trump talks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2017, before signing an executive order on the Keystone XL pipeline. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
    – The Washington Times – Wednesday, January 25, 2017

    Things appear very promising for the new White House: A new Rasmussen Reports survey released Thursday says President Trump has a 59 percent job approval rating among likely voters.

    In separate findings, the pollster also isolated key passages in Mr. Trump’s inaugural speech and asked respondents if they agreed with the ideas he presented.

    Voters like Mr. Trump’s populist standing: 72 percent agreed with his statement that “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.” 17 percent disagreed, 11 percent were not sure.

    A majority of the respondents — 52 percent — also agreed with this statement: “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first.” Thirty-seven percent disagreed, 11 percent were undecided.

    In addition, Rasmussen also reveals that 54 percent of voters favor a proposal that would cut spending up to 10 percent and cut staffing up to 20 percent. in some federal government agencies. Twenty-seven percent oppose such cuts, while 19 percent are undecided.

    The results are based on tracking polls of 1,500 likely U.S. voters conducted Sunday through Wednesday.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/25/president-trumps-approval-rating-rises-57-percent/

    Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

    Thursday, January 26, 2017

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-one percent (41%) disapprove.

    The latest figures include 44% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 31% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +13 (see trends).

    Regular updates are posted Monday through Friday at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).

    In the latest of this week’s executive orders, Trump has begun a crackdown on illegal immigration, adding thousands of Border Patrol agents, starting the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and cutting federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration law. He also has imposed a temporary ban on refugees from and visas for citizens of several Middle Eastern countries until the U.S. government can do a better job screening out possible terrorists.

    Stopping illegal immigration has long been voters’ number one immigration priority.

    Most also support Trump’s plan for temporarily restricting immigration from countries with a history of terrorism and for testing to screen out newcomers who don’t share America’s values.

    The new president has pulled the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership mega-trade deal and promises to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. We’ll tell what voters think at 10:30 a.m. EST.

    Trump this week also told business leaders that he hopes to cut regulations on corporations by 75% or more because current regulations “make it impossible to get anything built.” Few voters defend the current level of government regulation.

     

    Most voters support the president’s plan for major spending and staffing cuts in the federal government, but many still worry he won’t shrink the government enough.

    Many of Trump’s Cabinet nominees still have not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, due largely to delaying efforts by Democrats. Voters are closely divided over the impact of these delays.

    A sizable number of voters believe last Saturday’s Women’s March on Washington made its point and will champion women’s rights worldwide.

     

    Some readers wonder how we come up with our job approval ratings for the president since they often don’t show as dramatic a change as some other pollsters do. It depends on how you ask the question and whom you ask.

    To get a sense of longer-term job approval trends for the president, Rasmussen Reports compiles our tracking data on a full month-by-month basis.

    Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).

    Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 2.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Platinum Members.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan26

     

     Story 2: United Kingdom Prime  Minister Theresa May Addresses Republicans — Videos —

     

    Image result for prime minister may addresses republican in philadelphia January 26, 2017 Image result for prime minister may addresses republican in philadelphia January 26, 2017

    Nigel Farage praises Prime Minister May’s speech

    Watch British Prime Minister Theresa May address GOP retreat

    Theresa May UK Prime Minister Speech at Congressional Institute Philadelphia

    Theresa May’s speech to Republicans in Philadelphia: full text

    I defy any person to travel to this great country at any time and not to be inspired by its promise and its example.  For more than two centuries, the very idea of America – drawn from history and given written form in a small hall not far from here – has lit up the world.

    That idea – that all are created equal and that all are born free – has never been surpassed in the long history of political thought.  And it is here – on the streets and in the halls of this great city of Philadelphia – that the founding fathers first set it down, that the textbook of freedom was written, and that this great nation that grew “from sea to shining sea” was born.

    Since that day, it has been America’s destiny to bear the leadership of the free world and to carry that heavy responsibility on its shoulders. But my country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has been proud to share that burden and to walk alongside you at every stage.

    For the past century, Britain and America – and the unique and special relationship that exists between us – have taken the idea conceived by those “fifty-six rank-and-file, ordinary citizens”, as President Reagan called them, forward. And because we have done so, time and again it is the relationship between us that has defined the modern world.

    One hundred years ago this April, it was your intervention in the First World War that helped Britain, France, our friends in the Commonwealth and other allies to maintain freedom in Europe.  A little more than seventy-five years ago, you responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour by joining Britain in the Second World War and defeating fascism not just in the Pacific but in Africa and Europe too.

    And later, in the aftermath of these wars, our two countries led the West through the Cold War, confronting communism and ultimately defeating it not just through military might, but by winning the war of ideas. And by proving that open, liberal, democratic societies will always defeat those that are closed, coercive and cruel.

    But the leadership provided by our two countries through the Special Relationship has done more than win wars and overcome adversity. It made the modern world.

    The institutions upon which that world relies were so often conceived or inspired by our two nations working together.
    The United Nations – in need of reform, but vital still – has its foundations in the Special Relationship, from the original Declaration of St James’ Palace to the Declaration by United Nations, signed in Washington, and drafted themselves by Winston Churchill and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

    The World Bank and International Monetary Fund, born in the post-war world at Bretton Woods, were conceived by our two nations working together.

    And NATO – the cornerstone of the West’s defence – was established on the bonds of trust and mutual interests that exist between us.  Some of these organisations are in need of reform and renewal to make them relevant to our needs today. But we should be proud of the role our two nations – working in partnership – played in bringing them into being, and in bringing peace and prosperity to billions of people as a result.

    Because it is through our actions over many years, working together to defeat evil or to open up the world, that we have been able to fulfil the promise of those who first spoke of the special nature of the relationship between us. The promise of freedom, liberty and the rights of man.

    “We must never cease”, Churchill said, “to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law, find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence”.

    So it is my honour and my privilege to stand before you today in this great city of Philadelphia to proclaim them again, to join hands as we pick up that mantle of leadership once more, to renew our Special Relationship and to recommit ourselves to the responsibility of leadership in the modern world.

    And it is my honour and privilege to do so at this time, as dawn breaks on a new era of American renewal.  For I speak to you not just as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but as a fellow Conservative who believes in the same principles that underpin the agenda of your Party. The value of liberty. The dignity of work. The principles of nationhood, family, economic prudence, patriotism – and putting power in the hands of the people.

    Principles instilled in me from a young age. Principles that my parents taught me in the vicarage in Southern England in which I was raised.  I know that it is these principles that you have put at the heart of your plan for government.

    And your victory in these elections gives you the opportunity to put them at the heart of this new era of American renewal too.

    President Trump’s victory – achieved in defiance of all the pundits and the polls – and rooted not in the corridors of Washington, but in the hopes and aspirations of working men and women across this land. Your Party’s victory in both the Congress and the Senate where you swept all before you, secured with great effort, and achieved with an important message of national renewal.

    And because of this – because of what you have done together, because of that great victory you have won – America can be stronger, greater, and more confident in the years ahead.

    And a newly emboldened, confident America is good for the world.  An America that is strong and prosperous at home is a nation that can lead abroad. But you cannot – and should not – do so alone. You have said that it is time for others to step up. And I agree.

    Sovereign countries cannot outsource their security and prosperity to America. And they should not undermine the alliances that keep us strong by failing to step up and play their part.

    This is something Britain has always understood. It is why Britain is the only country in the G20 – other than yours – to meet its commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence, and to invest 20% of that in upgrading equipment. It is why Britain is the only country in the G20 to spend 0.7% of gross national income on overseas development. It is why my first act as Prime Minister last year was to lead the debate in Parliament that ensured the renewal of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent. And it is why the Government I lead will increase spending on defence in every year of this Parliament.

    It is why Britain is a leading member – alongside the United States – of the coalition working successfully to defeat Daesh; why we have agreed to send 800 troops to Estonia and Poland as part of NATO’s forward presence in eastern Europe; why we are increasing our troop contribution to NATO’s Resolute Support mission that defends the Afghan government from terrorism; and it is why we are reinforcing our commitment to peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, South Sudan and Somalia.

    And it is why Britain is leading the way in pioneering international efforts to crack down on modern slavery – one of the great scourges of our world – wherever it is found. I hope you will join us in that cause – and I commend Senator Corker in particular for his work in this field. It is good to see him here today.

    As Americans know, the United Kingdom is by instinct and history a great, global nation that recognises its responsibilities to the world.

    And as we end our membership of the European Union – as the British people voted with determination and quiet resolve to do last year – we have the opportunity to reassert our belief in a confident, sovereign and Global Britain, ready to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike.

    We will build a new partnership with our friends in Europe. We are not turning our back on them, or on the interests and the values that we share. It remains overwhelmingly in our interests – and in those of the wider world – that the EU should succeed. And for as long as we remain members we will continue to play our full part, just as we will continue to cooperate on security, foreign policy and trade once we have left.

    But we have chosen a different future for our country.  A future that sees us restore our parliamentary sovereignty and national self-determination, and to become even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit.

    A future that sees us take back control of the things that matter to us – things like our national borders and immigration policy, and the way we decide and interpret our own laws – so that we are able to shape a better, more prosperous future for the working men and women of Britain.  A future that sees us step up with confidence to a new, even more internationalist role, where we meet our responsibilities to our friends and allies, champion the international cooperation and partnerships that project our values around the world, and continue to act as one of the strongest and most forceful advocates for business, free markets and free trade anywhere around the globe.

    This is a vision of a future that my country can unite around – and that I hope your country, as our closest friend and ally, can welcome and support.

    So as we rediscover our confidence together – as you renew your nation just as we renew ours – we have the opportunity – indeed the responsibility – to renew the Special Relationship for this new age. We have the opportunity to lead, together, again.

    Because the world is passing through a period of change – and in response to that change we can either be passive bystanders, or we can take the opportunity once more to lead. And to lead together.  I believe it is in our national interest to do so. Because the world is increasingly marked by instability and threats that threaten to undermine our way of life and the very things that we hold dear.

    The end of the Cold War did not give rise to a New World Order. It did not herald the End of History. It did not lead to a new age of peace, prosperity and predictability in world affairs.

    For some – the citizens of Central and Eastern Europe in particular – it brought new freedom.  But across the world, ancient ethnic, religious and national rivalries – rivalries that had been frozen through the decades of the Cold War – returned. New enemies of the West and our values – in particular in the form of Radical Islamists – have emerged.  And countries with little tradition of democracy, liberty and human rights – notably China and Russia – have grown more assertive in world affairs.

    The rise of the Asian economies – China yes, but democratic allies like India too – is hugely welcome. Billions are being lifted out of poverty and new markets for our industries are opening up.  But these events – coming as they have at the same time as the financial crisis and its fall out, as well as a loss of confidence in the West following 9/11, the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and sporadic terrorist attacks – have led many to fear that, in this century, we will experience the eclipse of the West.

    But there is nothing inevitable about that. Other countries may grow stronger. Big, populous countries may grow richer. And as they do so, they may start to embrace more fully our values of democracy and liberty.

    But even if they do not, our interests will remain. Our values will endure. And the need to defend them and project them will be as important as ever.  So we – our two countries together – have a joint responsibility to lead. Because when others step up as we step back, it is bad for America, for Britain and the world.

    It is in our interests – those of Britain and America together – to stand strong together to defend our values, our interests and the very ideas in which we believe.  This cannot mean a return to the failed policies of the past. The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over. But nor can we afford to stand idly by when the threat is real and when it is in our own interests to intervene. We must be strong, smart and hard-headed. And we must demonstrate the resolve necessary to stand up for our interests.

    And whether it is the security of Israel in the Middle East or Estonia in the Baltic states, we must always stand up for our friends and allies in democratic countries that find themselves in tough neighbourhoods too.

    We each have different political traditions. We will sometimes pursue different domestic policies. And there may be occasions on which we disagree. But the common values and interests that bring us together are hugely powerful.

    And – as your foremost friend and ally – we support many of the priorities your government has laid out for America’s engagement with the world.  It is why I join you in your determination to take on and defeat Daesh and the ideology of Islamic extremism that inspires them and many others terrorist groups in the world today. It is in both of our national interests to do so. This will require us to use the intelligence provided by the finest security agencies in the world. And it will require the use of military might.

    But it also demands a wider effort. Because one of the lessons of fighting terrorism in the last 15 years or so is yes, killing terrorists can save innocent lives. But until we kill the idea that drives them, the ideology, we will always have to live with this threat.

    And as they are defeated on the ground, the terrorists are exploiting the internet and social media to spread this ideology that is preying on vulnerable citizens in our own countries, inspiring them to commit acts of terror in our own cities.

    That is why the UK has led the world in developing a strategy for preventing violent extremism, and why the British and American governments are working together to take on and defeat the ideology of Islamist Extremism. I look forward to working with the President and his Administration to step up our efforts still further in order to defeat this evil ideology.

    But of course, we should always be careful to distinguish between this extreme and hateful ideology, and the peaceful religion of Islam and the hundreds of millions of its adherents – including millions of our own citizens and those further afield who are so often the first victims of this ideology’s terror. And nor is it enough merely to focus on violent extremism. We need to address the whole spectrum of extremism, starting with the bigotry and hatred that can so often turn to violence.

    Yet ultimately to defeat Daesh, we must employ all of the diplomatic means at our disposal. That means working internationally to secure a political solution in Syria and challenging the alliance between the Syrian regime and its backers in Tehran.

    When it comes to Russia, as so often it is wise to turn to the example of President Reagan who – during negotiations with his opposite number Mikhail Gorbachev – used to abide by the adage “trust but verify”. With President Putin, my advice is to “engage but beware”.

    There is nothing inevitable about conflict between Russia and the West. And nothing unavoidable about retreating to the days of the Cold War. But we should engage with Russia from a position of strength. And we should build the relationships, systems and processes that make cooperation more likely than conflict – and that, particularly after the illegal annexation of Crimea, give assurance to Russia’s neighbouring states that their security is not in question. We should not jeopardise the freedoms that President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher brought to Eastern Europe by accepting President Putin’s claim that it is now in his sphere of influence.

    And progress on this issue would also help to secure another of this nation’s priorities – to reduce Iran’s malign influence in the Middle East.
    This is a priority for the UK too as we support our allies in the Gulf States to push back against Iran’s aggressive efforts to build an arc of influence from Tehran through to the Mediterranean.

    The nuclear deal with Iran was controversial. But it has neutralised the possibility of the Iranians acquiring nuclear weapons for more than a decade. It has seen Iran remove 13,000 centrifuges together with associated infrastructure and eliminate its stock of 20% enriched uranium. That was vitally important for regional security. But the agreement must now be very carefully and rigorously policed – and any breaches should be dealt with firmly and immediately.

    To deal with the threats of the modern world, we need to rebuild confidence in the institutions upon which we all rely.  In part that means multinational institutions. Because we know that so many of the threats we face today – global terrorism, climate change, and unprecedented mass movements of people – do not respect national borders. So we must turn towards those multinational institutions like the UN and NATO that encourage international cooperation and partnership.

    But those multinational institutions need to work for the countries that formed them, and to serve the needs and interests of the people of those nations. They have no democratic mandate of their own. So I share your reform agenda and believe that, by working together, we can make those institutions more relevant and purposeful than they are today.

    I call on others, therefore, to join us in that effort and to ensure they step up and contribute as they should. That is why I have encouraged Antonio Guterres, the new UN Secretary General, to pursue an ambitious reform programme, focusing the United Nations on its core functions of peacekeeping, conflict prevention and resolution. And it is why I have already raised with my fellow European leaders the need to deliver on their commitments to spend 2pc of their GDP on defence – and 20pc of their defence budgets on equipment.

    It is also why I have already raised with Jens Stoltenberg – the Secretary General of NATO – the need to make sure the Alliance is as equipped to fight terrorism and cyber warfare, as it is to fight more conventional forms of war.

    America’s leadership role in NATO – supported by Britain – must be the central element around which the Alliance is built. But alongside this continued commitment, I am also clear that EU nations must similarly step up to ensure this institution that provides the cornerstone of the West’s defence continues to be as effective as it can be.

    Yet the most important institution is – and should always be – the nation state. Strong nations form strong institutions. And they form the basis of the international partnerships and cooperation that bring stability to our world.

    Nations, accountable to their populations – “deriving” as the Declaration of Independence puts it “their just powers from the consent of the governed” – can choose to join international organisations, or not. They can choose to cooperate with others, or not. Choose to trade with others, or not.

    Which is why if the countries of the European Union wish to integrate further, my view is that they should be free to do so. Because that is what they choose.

    But Britain – as a sovereign nation with the same values but a different political and cultural history – has chosen to take a different path.  Because our history and culture is profoundly internationalist.

    We are a European country – and proud of our shared European heritage – but we are also a country that has always looked beyond Europe to the wider world. We have ties of family, kinship and history to countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and countries across Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean.

    And of course, we have ties of kinship, language and culture to these United States too. As Churchill put it, we “speak the same language, kneel at the same altars and, to a very large extent, pursue the same ideals”.

    And, today, increasingly we have strong economic, commercial, defence and political relationships as well.

    So I am delighted that the new Administration has made a trade agreement between our countries one of its earliest priorities. A new trade deal between Britain and America must work for both sides and serve both of our national interests. It must help to grow our respective economies and to provide the high-skilled, high-paid jobs of the future for working people across America and across the UK.

    And it must work for those who have too often felt left behind by the forces of globalisation. People, often those on modest incomes living in relatively rich countries like our own, who feel that the global system of free markets and free trade is simply not working for them in its current form.

    Such a deal – allied to the reforms we are making to our own economy to ensure wealth and opportunity is spread across our land – can demonstrate to those who feel locked out and left behind that free markets, free economies and free trade can deliver the brighter future they need. And it can maintain – indeed it can build – support for the rules-based international system on which the stability of our world continues to rely.

    The UK is already America’s fifth largest export destination, while your markets account for almost a fifth of global exports from our shores. Exports to the UK from this State of Pennsylvania alone account for more than $2 billion a year. The UK is the largest market in the EU – and the third largest market in the world – for exporters here.

    America is the largest single destination for UK outward investment and the single largest investor in the UK. And your companies are investing or expanding in the UK at a rate of more than ten projects a week.

    British companies employ people in every US state from Texas to Vermont. And the UK-US Defence relationship is the broadest, deepest and most advanced of any two countries, sharing military hardware and expertise. And of course, we have recently invested in the new F-35 strike aircraft for our new aircraft carriers that will secure our naval presence – and increase our ability to project our power around the world – for years to come.

    Because of these strong economic and commercial links – and our shared history and the strength of our relationship – I look forward to pursuing talks with the new Administration about a new UK/US Free Trade Agreement in the coming months. It will take detailed work, but we welcome your openness to those discussions and hope we can make progress so that the new, Global Britain that emerges after Brexit is even better equipped to take its place confidently in the world.

    Such an agreement would see us taking that next step in the special relationship that exists between us. Cementing and affirming one of the greatest forces for progress this world has ever known.

    Seventy years ago in 1946, Churchill proposed a new phase in this relationship – to win a Cold War that many had not even realised had started. He described how an iron curtain had fallen from the Baltic to the Adriatic, covering all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe: Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Sofia and Bucharest.

    Today those great cities – homes of great culture and heritage – live in freedom and peace. And they do so because of the leadership of Britain and America, and of Mrs Thatcher and President Reagan.

    They do so – ultimately – because our ideas will always prevail. And they do so because, when the world demands leadership, it is this alliance of values and interests – this Special Relationship between two countries – that, to borrow the words of another great American statesman, enters the arena, with our faces marred by dust and sweat and blood, to strive valiantly and know the triumph of high achievement.

    As we renew the promise of our nations to make them stronger at home – in the words of President Reagan as the “sleeping giant stirs” – so let us renew the relationship that can lead the world towards the promise of freedom and prosperity marked out in parchment by those ordinary citizens 240 years ago.

    So that we may not be counted with the “cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat”, but with those who “strive to do the deeds” that will lead us to a better world.  That better future is within reach. Together, we can build it.

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/theresa-mays-speech-republicans-philadelphia-full-text/

     

    Story 3: President Trump Signs Two Executive Orders On Immigration — What is Next? — Cutting The $650 Billion in Federal Funding To All Sanctuary Jurisdictions (Cities, Counties and States) — Long Overdue! –Videos

    Image result for sanctuary cities name and shame Image result for sanctuary cities list of

    President Trump signs order to build U.S.-Mexico border wall

    What is a Sanctuary City? It’s Not What They’ve Been Telling You

    President Trump signs order to strip sanctuary cities of federal funding

    US ‘sanctuary’ cities face funding cuts if migrant-tolerant policies continue

    Published on Jan 26, 2017

    Donald Trump’s new Mexican border policy looks something like this; hire 5000 new guards, close the frontier, and suffocate the cities offering sanctuary status to illegal migrants.

    Sanctuary facilities began to be made available in several churches in the 1980s for
    migrants fleeing central America’s savage conflicts who failed to obtain asylum. The large town of Cambridge in Massachusetts is one of these sanctuary cities. Local officials insist it will remain so. Cambridge to remain sanct…
    READ MORE : http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/26/us…

    Officials In Sanctuary Cities Blast President’s Trump’s Plan To Cut Federal Funds For Special Project

    GOOD NEWS: Trump Can Immediately Crack Down on Sanctuary Cities & Illegal Immigration.

    Jim Nabors’ Last “Back Home Again in Indiana” 2014

    Texas governor vows sanctuary cities will not be tolerated

    ONE LAST TIME-JIM NABORS

    Trump eviscerates Obama’s immigration policy in two executive orders

    – The Washington Times – Wednesday, January 25, 2017

    With a couple of strokes of his pen, President Trump wiped out almost all of President Obama’s immigration policies on Wednesday, laying the groundwork for his signature wall along the Mexican border, unleashing immigration agents to enforce the law and punishing “sanctuary cities” that try to defy federal law and thwart his deportation surge.

    Left untouched, for now, is Mr. Obama’s 2012 deportation amnesty that is shielding more than 750,000 Dreamers.

    But most of Mr. Obama’s other policies, including his “priorities” list that protected almost all illegal immigrants from deportation, are now gone. In their place is a series of directives that would free border agents to enforce long-forgotten but punitive parts of the law beyond the border; encourage Mexico to take a more active role in discouraging illegal migration; and close the loopholes that illegal immigrants have learned to exploit to gain a foothold in the U.S.

    “From here on out, I’m asking all of you to enforce the laws of the United States of America — they will be enforced, and enforced strongly,” Mr. Trump said Wednesday during a visit to the Homeland Security Department’s headquarters. “We do not need new laws. We will work within the existing system and framework.”

    He called for adding 5,000 more U.S. Border Patrol agents and 10,000 more U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to the payroll — his promised “deportation force” — and released his own set of priorities that put many more illegal immigrants in danger of being kicked out and give plenty of discretion to agents to decide how to handle the cases.

    He also proposed a weekly name-and-shame list of sanctuary cities and the criminals they are releasing, saying communities deserve to see who is being let back onto their streets because their local leaders refuse to cooperate with immigration agents.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/25/trump-eviscerates-obamas-immigration-policy/

    Sanctuary city

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Not to be confused with Cities of Refuge.

    In the United States and Canada, a sanctuary city is a city that has adopted a policy of protecting illegal immigrants by not prosecuting them for violating federal immigration laws in the country in which they are now living illegally. Such a policy can be set out expressly in a law (de jure) or observed only in practice (de facto). The term applies generally to cities that do not use municipal funds or resources to enforce national immigration laws, and usually forbid police or municipal employees to inquire about a person’s immigration status. The designation has no precise legal meaning.[1]

    In the United Kingdom and Ireland, a “City of Sanctuary” is a place that is committed to welcoming refugees, asylum seekers and others who are seeking safety. The movement is spread across over 80 towns, cities and local areas in England, Wales, Ireland including Northern Ireland and the Republic, and Scotland. The emphasis is on building bridges of connection and understanding, which is done through awareness raising, befriending schemes and forming cultural connections in the arts, sport, health, education, faith groups and other sectors of society.[2] Glasgow, Sheffield and Swansea are noted Cities of Sanctuary.[3][4]

    Terminology

    The concept of a sanctuary city goes back thousands of years. It has been associated with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Baha’i, Sikhism, and Hinduism.[5] In Western Civilization, sanctuary cities can be traced back to the Old Testament. The Book of Numbers names six cities of refuge in which the perpetrators of manslaughter could claim the right of asylum. Outside of these cities, blood vengeance against such perpetrators was allowed by law.[6] In 392 CE, Christian Roman emperor Theodosius I set up sanctuaries under church control. In 600 CE in medieval England, churches were given a general right of sanctuary, and some cities were set up as sanctuaries by Royal charter. The general right of sanctuary for churches in England was abolished in 1621 CE.[5]

    In the United States

    Local governments in certain cities in the United States began designating themselves as sanctuary cities during the 1980s.[7][8] Some have questioned the accuracy of the term “sanctuary city” as used in the USA.[9] The policy was first initiated in 1979 in Los Angeles, to prevent police from inquiring about the immigration status of arrestees. The internal policy, “Special Order 40“, states: “Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code (Illegal Entry).”[10] These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances banning city employees and police officers from asking people about their immigration status.[11][12]

    Electoral politics

    This issue entered presidential politics in the race for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2008. Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo ran on an anti-illegal immigration platform and specifically attacked sanctuary cities. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney accused former mayor Rudy Giuliani of running New York City as a sanctuary city.[13] Giuliani’s campaign responded saying that Romney ran a sanctuary Governor’s mansion, and that New York City is not a “haven” for undocumented immigrants.[13]

    After the murder of a restaurant waitress in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in late June 2009 that was suspected to be perpetrated by three undocumented immigrants (one of whom was not deported despite being arrested for two prior DUI incidents), then mayoral candidate Richard J. Berry decried the city’s sanctuary city policy. He also vowed, if elected, to repeal the policy that has been continued by the incumbent mayor, Martin Chávez.[14]

    Following the shooting death of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco (a sanctuary city) by an undocumented immigrant, Hillary Clinton told CNN on 8 July 2015: “The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.”[15] The following day, her campaign stated: “Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years.”[16]

    Political action

    The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[17] Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities’ bans against municipal workers’ reporting persons’ immigration status to federal authorities.[18]

    Section 287(g) makes it possible for state and local law enforcement personnel to enter into agreements with the federal government to be trained in immigration enforcement and, subsequent to such training, to enforce immigration law. However, it provides no general power for immigration enforcement by state and local authorities.[19] This provision was implemented by local and state authorities in five states, California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida and North Carolina by the end of 2006.[20] On June 16, 2007 the United States House of Representatives passed an amendment to a United States Department of Homeland Security spending bill that would withhold federal emergency services funds from sanctuary cities. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) was the sponsor of this amendment. 50 Democrats joined Republicans to support the amendment. The amendment would have to pass the United States Senate to become effective.[21]

    In 2007, Republican representatives introduced legislation targeting sanctuary cities. Reps. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., Thelma Drake, R-Va., Jeff Miller, R-Fla., and Tom Tancredo introduced the bill. The legislation would make undocumented immigrant status a felony, instead of a civil offense. Also, the bill targets sanctuary cities by withholding up to 50 percent of Department of Homeland Security funds from the cities.[22]

    On September 5, 2007, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a House committee that he certainly wouldn’t tolerate interference by sanctuary cities that would block his “Basic Pilot Program” that requires employers to validate the legal status of their workers. “We’re exploring our legal options. I intend to take as vigorous legal action as the law allows to prevent that from happening, prevent that kind of interference.”[23][24]On May 5, 2009, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed a bill into law that prohibited sanctuary city policies in the state of Georgia.[25]

    On June 5, 2009, the Tennessee state House passed a bill banning the implementation of sanctuary city policies within the state of Tennessee.[26]

    In June 2011, Texas Governor Rick Perry proposed legislation to ban sanctuary cities, SB 9, to the Special Session agenda for the State Legislature.[27] Public hearings on the sanctuary cities legislation were held before the Texas Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee on June 13, 2011.[28]

    On January 25, 2017 President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Secretary of Homeland Security and Attorney General to defund sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to comply with federal immigration law.[29]He also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to begin issuing weekly public reports that include “a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.”[29]

    Effects

    According to one study by Loren Collingwood, assistant professor of political science at University of California at Riverside, sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime.[30]

    According to a study by Tom K. Wong, associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, and published by the Center for American Progress, “Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. Moreover, economies are stronger in sanctuary counties—from higher median household income, less poverty, and less reliance on public assistance to higher labor force participation, higher employment-to-population ratios, and lower unemployment.”[31] The study evaluated sanctuary and non-sanctuary cities “while controlling for differences in population, the foreign-born percentage of the population, and the percentage of the population that is Latino”.[31]

    Laws by city

    Arizona[edit]

    • Following the passage of SB 1070, a state law, few if any cities in Arizona are “sanctuary cities.” A provision of SB 1070 requires local authorities to “contact federal immigration authorities if they develop reasonable suspicion that a person they’ve detained or arrested is in the country illegally.”[32] The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates restrictive immigration policies, labels only one city in the state, South Tucson, a “sanctuary city”; the label is because South Tucson does not honor ICE detainers “unless ICE pays for cost of detention.”[32]

    California

    Colorado

    Connecticut

    • In 2013, Connecticut passed a law that gives local law enforcement officers discretion to carry out immigration detainer requests, though only for suspected felons.[36]
    • New Haven, Connecticut became one of the first sanctuary cities in the US in 2007
    • Hartford, Connecticut became a sanctuary city in 2008[37]

    Illinois

    • Chicago became a “de jure” sanctuary city in 2012 when Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the City Council passed the WELCOMING CITY ORDINANCE. [38][39] The ordinance protects residents’ rights to access city services regardless of immigration status. The ordinance states that Chicago police officers cannot arrest individuals on the basis of immigration status alone.[40] Chicago came under fire during the 2016 elections, prompting Mayor Rahm Emanuel to reaffirm Chicago as a sanctuary city. [41][42]
    • Urbana, Illinois [43]

    Louisiana

    Maine

    • In 2011, Maine governor Paul LePage rescinded a 2004 executive order that prohibited state officials from inquiring about immigration status of individual seeking public assistance stating “it is the intent of this administration to promote rather than hinder the enforcement of federal immigration law”. In 2015 Governor LePage accused the city of Portland, Maine of being a sanctuary city. Portland city officials, however, did not accept that characterization. Portland cooperates with federal authorities although “city employees are prohibited from asking about the immigration status of people seeking city services unless compelled by a court or law”[46]

    Maryland

    • In 2008, Baltimore and Takoma Park are sometimes identified as sanctuary cities.[47] However, “[m]ost local governments in Maryland — including Baltimore — still share information with the federal government.”[48] In 2016, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said that she did not consider Baltimore to be a “sanctuary city.”[49]

    Massachusetts

    • Boston has an ordinance, enacted in 2014, that bars the Boston Police Department “from detaining anyone based on their immigration status unless they have a criminal warrant.”[50] Cambridge, Chelsea, Somerville, Orleans, Northampton, and Springfield have similar legislation.[50] In August 2016, Boston Police Commissioner, William B. Evans re-issued a memo stating ““all prisoners who are subject to ICE Detainers must receive equal access to bail commissioners, which includes notifying said prisoner of his or her right to seek bail.” Bail commissioners are informed of the person’s status on an ICE detainer list and may set bail accordingly.[51]

    Michigan

    • Detroit and Ann Arbor are sometimes referred to as “sanctuary cities” because they “have anti-profiling ordinances that generally prohibit local police from asking about the immigration status of people who are not suspected of any crime.”[52] Unlike San Francisco’s ordinance, however, the Detroit and Ann Arbor policies do not bar local authorities from cooperating and assisting ICE and Customs and Border Protection, and both cities frequently do so.[52]

    Minnesota

    • Minneapolis has an ordinance, adopted in 2003,[53] that directs local law enforcement officers “not to ‘take any law enforcement action’ for the sole purpose of finding undocumented immigrants, or ask an individual about his or her immigration status.”[54] The Minneapolis ordinance does not bar cooperation with federal authorities: “The city works cooperatively with the Homeland Security, as it does with all state and federal agencies, but the city does not operate its programs for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws. The Homeland Security has the legal authority to enforce immigration laws in the United States, in Minnesota and in the city.”[53]

    New York

    New Jersey

    Oregon

    • State law passed in 1987: “Oregon Revised Statute 181.850, which prohibits law enforcement officers at the state, county or municipal level from enforcing federal immigration laws that target people based on their race or ethnic origin, when those individuals are not suspected of any criminal activities.[59][60]
    • Beaverton city council passed a resolution in January 2017 stating, in part, “The City of Beaverton is committed to living its values as a welcoming city for all individuals …regardless of a person’s … immigration status” and that they would abide by Oregon state law of not enforcing federal immigration laws.[61]
    • Corvallis[62]
    • Portland[63]

    Pennsylvania

    Philadelphia Pittsburgh

    Texas

    • Austin[64]
    • Houston – Harris County Sheriff vows to ignore Federal laws, ending his county’s participation in an ICE program known as 287(g)[65]

    Washington

    In Canada

    In Canada, Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario, have declared themselves sanctuary cities since 2014.[67][68]

    In the United Kingdom and Ireland

    In the United Kingdom and Ireland, a “City of Sanctuary” or “Places of Sanctuary”, is a city that provides services, such as housing, education, and cultural integration, to asylum seekers (i.e. persons fleeing one country and seeking protection in another).[2] The movement began in Sheffield in the north of England in 2005. It was motivated by a national policy adopted in 1999 to disperse asylum seekers to different towns and cities in the UK. In 2009, the city council of Sheffield drew up a manifesto outlining key areas of concern and 100 supporting organizations signed on.[69]

    A “City of Sanctuary” is not necessarily a formal governmental designation. The organization “City of Sanctuary” encourages local grass roots groups throughout the UK and Ireland to build a culture of hospitality towards asylum seekers.[70]

    Glasgow is a noted City of Sanctuary in Scotland. In 2000 the city council accepted their first asylum seekers relocated by the Home Office. The Home Office provided funding to support asylum seekers but would also forcibly deport them (“removal siezures”) if it was determined they could not stay in the UK. As of 2010 Glasgow had accepted 22,000 asylum seekers from 75 different nations. In 2007 local residents upset by the human impact of removal seizures, organized watches to warn asylum seekers when Home Office vans were in the neighborhood. They also organized protests and vigils which led to the ending of the removal seizures.[3][4]

    See also

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary_city

    Center for Immigration Studies

    Sanctuary Cities Continue to Obstruct Enforcement, Threaten Public Safety

    By Jessica Vaughan
    December 14, 2016

    Sanctuary jurisdictions remain a significant public safety problem throughout the country. About 300 jurisdictions have been identified by ICE as having a policy that is non-cooperative and obstructs immigration enforcement (as of September 2015). The number of cities has remained relatively unchanged since our last update in August 2016, as some new sanctuary jurisdictions have been added and few jurisdictions have reversed their sanctuary policies.

    Over the 19-month period from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015, more than 17,000 detainers were rejected by these jurisdictions. Of these, about 11,800 detainers, or 68 percent, were issued for individuals with a prior criminal history.

    According to ICE statistics, since the Obama administration implemented the new Priority Enforcement Program in July 2015 restricting ICE use of detainers, the number of rejected detainers has declined. However, the number of detainers issued by ICE also has declined in 2016, so it is not clear if the new policies are a factor. It is apparent that most of the sanctuary policies remain in place, raising concerns that the Priority Enforcement Program has failed as a response to the sanctuary problem, and has simply resulted in fewer criminal aliens being deported.

    The Department of Justice’s Inspector General recently found that some of the sanctuary jurisdictions appear to be violating federal law, and may face debarment from certain federal funding or other consequences.

    The sanctuary jurisdictions are listed below. These cities, counties, and states have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE — either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies from complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer acceptance, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication or information exchanges between their personnel and federal immigration officers.

    A detainer is the primary tool used by ICE to gain custody of criminal aliens for deportation. It is a notice to another law enforcement agency that ICE intends to assume custody of an alien and includes information on the alien’s previous criminal history, immigration violations, and potential threat to public safety or security.

    The Center’s last map update reflected listings in an ICE report that was originally published by the Texas Tribune, with a few additions and changes resulting from the Center’s research.

    States
    California, Connecticut, New Mexico, Colorado

    Cities and Counties

    Arizona
    South Tucson

    California (in addition to all counties)
    Alameda County
    Berkley
    Contra Costa County
    Los Angeles County
    Los Angeles
    Monterey County
    Napa County
    Orange County
    Riverside County
    Sacramento County
    San Bernardino County
    San Diego County
    San Francisco County
    San Mateo County
    Santa Ana (New)
    Santa Clara County
    Santa Cruz County
    Sonoma County

    Colorado (in addition to all counties)
    Arapahoe County
    Aurora Detention Center
    Boulder County
    Denver
    Denver County
    Fort Collins
    Garfield County
    Glenwood Springs
    Grand County
    Jefferson County
    Larimer County
    Mesa County
    Pitkin County
    Pueblo County
    Routt County
    San Miguel County

    Connecticut (in addition to state LEAs)
    Bridgeport
    East Haven
    Fairfield County
    Hamden
    Hartford County
    Hartford
    Manchester
    Meriden
    New Haven
    New Haven County
    New London County
    Stamford
    Stratford
    Tolland County

    Florida
    Broward County
    Hernando County
    Hillsborough County
    Miami-Dade County
    Palm Beach County
    Pasco County
    Pinellas County

    Georgia
    Clayton County

    Illinois
    Champaign County
    Chicago
    Cook County
    Des Plaines
    Hanover Park
    Hoffman Estates
    Palatine

    Iowa
    Allamakee County
    Benton County
    Cass County
    Clinton County
    Delaware County
    Dubuque County
    Franklin County
    Freemont County
    Greene County
    Ida County
    Iowa County
    Jefferson County
    Johnson County
    Linn County
    Marion County
    Monona County
    Montgomery County
    Polk County
    Pottawattamie County
    Sioux County
    Story County
    Wapello County
    Winneshiek County

    Kansas
    Butler County
    Finney County
    Harvey County
    Johnson County
    Sedgwick County
    Shawnee County

    Kentucky
    Campbell County
    Franklin County
    Scott County
    Woodford County

    Louisiana
    New Orleans
    Orleans Parish

    Maine
    Portland

    Maryland
    Baltimore City
    Montgomery County
    Prince George’s County

    Massachusetts
    Amherst
    Boston
    Cambridge
    Hampden County
    Holyoke
    Lawrence
    Northhampton
    Somerville
    Springfield

    Minnesota
    Bloomington
    Brooklyn Park
    Hennepin County
    Ramsey County

    Nebraska
    Douglas County
    Hall County
    Lancaster County
    Sarpy County

    Nevada
    Clark County
    Washoe County

    New Jersey
    Linden
    Middlesex County
    Newark
    Ocean County
    Plainfield
    Union County

    New Mexico (in addition to all counties)
    Bernalillo County
    Dona Ana County
    Luna County
    Otero County
    Rio Arriba County
    San Miguel County
    Santa Fe County
    Taos County

    New York
    Franklin County
    Nassau County
    New York City
    Onondaga County
    Rensselaer County
    Saratoga County
    St. Lawrence County
    Wayne County

    North Dakota
    North Dakota State Penitentiary
    South West Multiple County Corrections Center

    Oregon
    Baker County
    Clackamas County
    Clatsop, Oregon
    Coos County
    Crook County
    Curry County
    Deschutes County
    Douglas County
    Gilliam County
    Grant County
    Hood River County
    Jackson County
    Jefferson County
    Josephine County
    Lincoln County
    Linn County
    Malheur County
    Marion County
    Multnomah County
    Oregon State Correctional Institution
    Polk County
    Sherman County
    Springfield Police Department
    Tillamook County
    Umatilla County
    Union County
    Wallowa County
    Wasco County
    Washington County
    Wheeler County
    Yamhill County

    Pennsylvania
    Abington
    Bedford County (New)
    Bradford County (New)
    Bucks County (New)
    Butler County (New)
    Chester County
    Clarion County (New)
    Delaware County
    Erie County (New)
    Lebanon County (New)
    Lehigh County
    Lycoming County (New)
    Montgomery County
    Montour County (New)
    Perry County (New)
    Philadelphia
    Philadelphia County
    Pike County (New)
    Westmoreland County (New)

    Rhode Island
    Rhode Island Department of Corrections

    Texas
    Dallas County
    Travis County

    Vermont
    Winooski (New)
    Montpelier (New)

    Virginia
    Arlington
    Chesterfield County

    Washington
    Benton County
    Chelan County
    Clallam County
    Clark County
    Cowlitz County
    Fife City
    Franklin County
    Jefferson County
    Issaquah
    Kent
    King County
    Kitsap County
    Lynnwood City
    Marysville
    Pierce County
    Puyallup
    Skagit County
    Snohomish County
    South Correctional Entity (SCORE) Jail, King County
    Spokane County
    Sunnyside
    Thurston County
    Walla Walla County
    Washington State Corrections
    Whatcom County
    Yakima County

    Washington, DC

    Wisconsin
    Milwaukee County

     

    http://cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map

    Trump creates name-and-shame list to embarrass sanctuary cities

     

    Trump creates name-and-shame list to embarrass sanctuary cities

    – The Washington Times – Thursday, January 26, 2017

    President Trump on Wednesday ordered the Homeland Security Department to begin releasing a name-and-shame list of sanctuary cities, listing the specific crimes such as murder or robbery committed by those who have been released back into their communities under the sanctuary policies.

    That was one of a number of less-noticed but potentially far-reaching moves tucked inside two new executive orders erasing decades of previous immigration enforcement policy and replacing it with the Trump plan, which calls for aggressive enforcement of existing laws.

    Border Patrol and interior enforcement agents have been unshackled from the limits imposed by former President Barack Obama, as Mr. Trump said he wants to see them doing the jobs they were hired for.

    He said he wants to enlist those local police and sheriff’s offices that are eager to enforce immigration law, and will punish those that throw up roadblocks — including the new name-and-shame list.

    Some 279 cities and counties refused to cooperate on at least some deportations in 2016, accounting for 2,008 immigrants who were shielded, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Each of those immigrants’ convictions will now be publicly listed so residents can see the level of crimes committed by those released into their communities, under the Trump orders.

    Analysts said that list could help rally internal opposition to sanctuary cities, which are already rallying to defy Mr. Trump.

    “We will fight against attempts to undermine our values and the security of our cities,” said the group Cities for Action, a coalition of big municipalities that support sanctuary policies. “As mayors and county executives nationwide have made clear today, we will continue to provide for all in our communities — regardless of where they come from — and work to continue building trust between city residents and law enforcement.”

    In addition to the shame list, Mr. Trump ordered Homeland Security to produce a list four times a year of all illegal immigrants serving time in federal or state prisons, or being held for trial.

    And in another striking move, Mr. Trump ordered Homeland Security officials to begin releasing more information on illegal immigrants. He said the Privacy Act, which has regularly shielded information about illegal immigrants from public disclosure, will no longer apply to anyone who isn’t a citizen or green card holder.

    That could give the public a new depth of transparency, enabling them to see the types of illegal immigrants the government is encountering.

    One part of the new orders would allow Homeland Security to ship illegal immigrants caught crossing the border from Mexico back into Mexico, even as they await the outcome of their deportation cases in the U.S.

    That’s allowed under existing law, but legal analysts said they’d never heard of it being used, and debated how far it might be used. But immigrant-rights advocates said it could hurt migrants who need protections.

    “Given that many of the people crossing the border today are children and families fleeing violence in the Northern Triangle countries of Central America, invoking this provision threatens to undermine our commitment to refugee protections,” said Tom Jawetz, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress.

    The Mexican Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment on the provision Wednesday night.

    Experts said it’s an open question whether Mexico could stymie that part of Mr. Trump’s orders by refusing to take back those who crossed over its northern border into the U.S.

    Another lesser-noticed provision of the new orders would push Homeland Security to collect fines from both illegal immigrants and “those who facilitate their presence” in the U.S.

    That could potentially include sanctuary colleges and universities that protect illegal immigrants, and businesses that hire unauthorized workers.

    Current law calls for fines of more than $20,000 per illegal immigrant for companies that are repeat offenders.

    Conspiracy to harbor an illegal immigrant carries potential jail time or a fine of up to $10,000.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-creates-name-and-shame-list-embarrass/

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-825

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download