Charges dropped against adult film star Stormy Daniels after strip club arrest, attorney says Good Morning America KARMA ALLEN and MORGAN WINSOR,Good Morning America 1 hour 6 minutes ago
At least one good headline for today.....
Charges dropped against adult film star Stormy Daniels after strip club arrest, attorney says originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Authorities dropped the charges against adult film star Stormy Daniels Thursday after she was taken into custody during a performance at a strip club in Ohio, according to her lawyer, who called the arrest a "politically motivated" setup.
Daniels, who made headlines earlier this year over her claims of an alleged affair with President Donald Trump, was arrested Wednesday night while performing at the Sirens Gentlemen’s Club in Columbus after she allegedly allowed "a customer to touch her while on stage," her attorney, Michael Avenatti, said via Twitter early Thursday morning.
Back to the subject at hand. If Collins and Muckowski vote to confirm so will Manchin. If they don't then Manchin is in a proverbial rock and a hard place.
He can't afford to abandon his liberal base by voting for Kavanaugh. But voting against him will cost him independents and cross over votes.
Mo Senator Claire McCaskill is in a pickle. Mo has turned a very Red since her last Election. This vote is going to be rough. "The Obama administration has no better friend, then Claire McCaskill, so said Pres Erased.
"lanned Parenthood issued a press release demanding the Senate reject Trump’s nominee, claiming that:
Judge Kavanaugh has already ruled to limit access to safe, legal abortion — just last year, he used his judicial power to try and prevent a young, undocumented woman in U.S. custody from accessing the safe, legal abortion she had asked for. In fact, Kavanaugh would have allowed the government to delay the young woman’s abortion by more than one month, pushing her pregnancy into the second trimester. Fortunately, the full court on which Kavanaugh sits intervened and allowed the young woman to access the health care she needed.
Senator Kamala D. Harris likewise declared her opposition to the Trump nominee in a press release but proved more circumspect in naming abortion as the reason:
Judge Kavanaugh has consistently proven to be a conservative ideologue instead of a mainstream jurist. As recently as last year, he disregarded Supreme Court precedent and opposed the health care rights of a vulnerable young woman. That ruling was overturned by a sitting of all the judges on his court.
Behind Harris’ “health care” euphemism, however, lies the same unnamed case highlighted by Planned Parenthood — Garza v. Hargan — and the same deceptive talking points pushed by the nation’s largest abortion provider.
Unless dispelled, the Left’s false narrative of Kavanaugh’s Garza decision will quickly take hold in the public’s conscious. So let’s set the record straight."
The Garza case first made headlines in October 2017, when the ACLU filed suit against the Trump administration on behalf of Jane Doe, represented at the time by her guardian, Rochelle Garza. Doe, an unaccompanied pregnant minor from Central America illegally present in the United States, sought release from the federal shelter where she was being detained to obtain an abortion. The government, through Eric Hargan, the acting secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, maintained it had no obligation to facilitate Doe’s abortion, stressing that Doe had the option of returning to her native country or, alternatively, being released to a sponsor.
The government maintained it had no obligation to facilitate Doe’s abortion, stressing that Doe had the option of returning to her native country or, alternatively, being released to a sponsor. A federal trial judge ruled in Doe’s favor, finding that the government’s refusal to release a minor from custody constituted an “undue burden” on Doe’s constitutional right to an abortion. The Trump administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit, and on appeal, Judge Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion reversing the lower court’s decision. The majority opinion began by assuming an illegal alien detained at the border holds a constitutional right to an abortion under Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Hargan majority then analyzed the government’s position — that the constitution did not require the government to facilitate Doe’s abortion, because Doe had the option of returning home or being placed with a sponsor. While no sponsor had been found to date, the government represented to the federal appellate court that it had identified a potential sponsor for Doe.
Writing for the court, Kavanaugh concluded that “so long as the process of securing a sponsor to whom the minor is released occurs expeditiously,” the government does not unduly burden the minor’s right to an abortion under Roe and Casey. The opinion then gave HHS twelve days to release Doe to a sponsor."
The ACLU immediately asked the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider the Garza holding, and without hearing argument in the case, the full court rejected Judge Kavanaugh’s view and ordered the government to immediately release Doe to obtain an abortion. Kavanaugh dissented from the full court decision, and two other circuit-court judges joined his dissent.
In his dissent, Kavanaugh criticized the majority for creating “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand, thereby barring any Government efforts to expeditiously transfer the minors to their immigration sponsors before they make that momentous life decision.” This approach, Kavanaugh explained, “is radically inconsistent with 40 years of Supreme Court precedent.”
Kavanaugh then highlighted the “wide variety of abortion regulations that entail some delay in the abortion but that serve permissible Government purposes,” “includ[ing] parental consent laws, parental notice laws, informed consent laws, and waiting periods, among other regulations. Those laws, of course, may have the effect of delaying an abortion.” Yet “the Supreme Court has upheld those laws, over vociferous dissents,” Kavanaugh wrote.
An honest reading of his dissent makes clear that Kavanaugh did not ignore Roe or Casey — he faithfully applied the controlling precedent and the “undue burden” test. Kavanaugh also did not use “his judicial power to try and prevent” a girl from having an abortion; rather, he held that the government did not unduly burden Doe’s right to an abortion by allowing the government the opportunity to expeditiously release her to a sponsor.
And there is one last detail abortion activists won’t tell you about the Garza case: It is no longer good law, because the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the full D.C. Circuit’s decision in Garza after the ACLU rushed Doe to an abortion clinic before the government had the opportunity to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Had the justices had the opportunity to weigh in on the Garza case, they might well have vindicated Kavanaugh’s actual view of controlling precedent — and not the distorted sound bites abortion activists are peddling."
11 comments:
Charges dropped against adult film star Stormy Daniels after strip club arrest, attorney says
Good Morning America KARMA ALLEN and MORGAN WINSOR,Good Morning America 1 hour 6 minutes ago
At least one good headline for today.....
Charges dropped against adult film star Stormy Daniels after strip club arrest, attorney says originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Authorities dropped the charges against adult film star Stormy Daniels Thursday after she was taken into custody during a performance at a strip club in Ohio, according to her lawyer, who called the arrest a "politically motivated" setup.
Daniels, who made headlines earlier this year over her claims of an alleged affair with President Donald Trump, was arrested Wednesday night while performing at the Sirens Gentlemen’s Club in Columbus after she allegedly allowed "a customer to touch her while on stage," her attorney, Michael Avenatti, said via Twitter early Thursday morning.
Just reenforces her sleaze factor. Avenatti is doing her no favors. Maybe he's just doing her.
Back to the subject at hand. If Collins and Muckowski vote to confirm so will Manchin. If they don't then Manchin is in a proverbial rock and a hard place.
He can't afford to abandon his liberal base by voting for Kavanaugh. But voting against him will cost him independents and cross over votes.
Brett Kavanaugh bought some sport tickets . That is the left's new attack . Oh and his name, they don't like that either.
On his actual rulings and writings , they got nothing.
Yeah, the WaPo was a laughing stock over that one.
Mo Senator Claire McCaskill is in a pickle. Mo has turned a very Red since her last Election. This vote is going to be rough.
"The Obama administration has no better friend, then Claire McCaskill, so said Pres Erased.
Roger told us a vote for Judge Kavanaugh will cause 1 million dead Americans.
"lanned Parenthood issued a press release demanding the Senate reject Trump’s nominee, claiming that:
Judge Kavanaugh has already ruled to limit access to safe, legal abortion — just last year, he used his judicial power to try and prevent a young, undocumented woman in U.S. custody from accessing the safe, legal abortion she had asked for. In fact, Kavanaugh would have allowed the government to delay the young woman’s abortion by more than one month, pushing her pregnancy into the second trimester. Fortunately, the full court on which Kavanaugh sits intervened and allowed the young woman to access the health care she needed.
Senator Kamala D. Harris likewise declared her opposition to the Trump nominee in a press release but proved more circumspect in naming abortion as the reason:
Judge Kavanaugh has consistently proven to be a conservative ideologue instead of a mainstream jurist. As recently as last year, he disregarded Supreme Court precedent and opposed the health care rights of a vulnerable young woman. That ruling was overturned by a sitting of all the judges on his court.
Behind Harris’ “health care” euphemism, however, lies the same unnamed case highlighted by Planned Parenthood — Garza v. Hargan — and the same deceptive talking points pushed by the nation’s largest abortion provider.
Unless dispelled, the Left’s false narrative of Kavanaugh’s Garza decision will quickly take hold in the public’s conscious. So let’s set the record straight."
The Garza case first made headlines in October 2017, when the ACLU filed suit against the Trump administration on behalf of Jane Doe, represented at the time by her guardian, Rochelle Garza. Doe, an unaccompanied pregnant minor from Central America illegally present in the United States, sought release from the federal shelter where she was being detained to obtain an abortion. The government, through Eric Hargan, the acting secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, maintained it had no obligation to facilitate Doe’s abortion, stressing that Doe had the option of returning to her native country or, alternatively, being released to a sponsor.
The government maintained it had no obligation to facilitate Doe’s abortion, stressing that Doe had the option of returning to her native country or, alternatively, being released to a sponsor.
A federal trial judge ruled in Doe’s favor, finding that the government’s refusal to release a minor from custody constituted an “undue burden” on Doe’s constitutional right to an abortion. The Trump administration appealed to the D.C. Circuit, and on appeal, Judge Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion reversing the lower court’s decision. The majority opinion began by assuming an illegal alien detained at the border holds a constitutional right to an abortion under Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Hargan majority then analyzed the government’s position — that the constitution did not require the government to facilitate Doe’s abortion, because Doe had the option of returning home or being placed with a sponsor. While no sponsor had been found to date, the government represented to the federal appellate court that it had identified a potential sponsor for Doe.
Writing for the court, Kavanaugh concluded that “so long as the process of securing a sponsor to whom the minor is released occurs expeditiously,” the government does not unduly burden the minor’s right to an abortion under Roe and Casey. The opinion then gave HHS twelve days to release Doe to a sponsor."
The ACLU immediately asked the full D.C. Circuit to reconsider the Garza holding, and without hearing argument in the case, the full court rejected Judge Kavanaugh’s view and ordered the government to immediately release Doe to obtain an abortion. Kavanaugh dissented from the full court decision, and two other circuit-court judges joined his dissent.
In his dissent, Kavanaugh criticized the majority for creating “a new right for unlawful immigrant minors in U.S. Government detention to obtain immediate abortion on demand, thereby barring any Government efforts to expeditiously transfer the minors to their immigration sponsors before they make that momentous life decision.” This approach, Kavanaugh explained, “is radically inconsistent with 40 years of Supreme Court precedent.”
Kavanaugh then highlighted the “wide variety of abortion regulations that entail some delay in the abortion but that serve permissible Government purposes,” “includ[ing] parental consent laws, parental notice laws, informed consent laws, and waiting periods, among other regulations. Those laws, of course, may have the effect of delaying an abortion.” Yet “the Supreme Court has upheld those laws, over vociferous dissents,” Kavanaugh wrote.
An honest reading of his dissent makes clear that Kavanaugh did not ignore Roe or Casey — he faithfully applied the controlling precedent and the “undue burden” test. Kavanaugh also did not use “his judicial power to try and prevent” a girl from having an abortion; rather, he held that the government did not unduly burden Doe’s right to an abortion by allowing the government the opportunity to expeditiously release her to a sponsor.
And there is one last detail abortion activists won’t tell you about the Garza case: It is no longer good law, because the Supreme Court unanimously vacated the full D.C. Circuit’s decision in Garza after the ACLU rushed Doe to an abortion clinic before the government had the opportunity to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Had the justices had the opportunity to weigh in on the Garza case, they might well have vindicated Kavanaugh’s actual view of controlling precedent — and not the distorted sound bites abortion activists are peddling."
D said...
"landed Parenthood issued a press release demanding the Senate reject Trump’s nominee
Can't be stopped unless the nominee has more debt than just baseball tickets maybe gambling!!!!
Post a Comment