Qcvx Clinton Channels Eva Peron
President Donald Trump appears likely to win his travel ban case at the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy both signaled support for the travel policy in arguments Wednesday at the high court. The ban s challengers almost certainly need one of those two justices if the court is to strike down the ban on travelers from several mostly Muslim countries.Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the most aggressive questione <a href=https://www.cup-stanley.es>stanley botella</a> r of Solicitor General Noel Francisco in his defense of the Trump policy, and the three other liberal justices also raised questions about it.The justices voted in December to allow the policy to take full effect pending their full consideration. Wednesday was the first time they took it up in open court.Listen to the full audio of the arguments hereThe Trump administration is asking the court to reverse lower court rulings that would strike down the ban. The Supreme Court is considering whether the president can indefinitely keep people out of the country based on nationality. It is also looking at whether the policy is aimed at excluding Muslims from the United States. A decision is expected by late June.Kennedy challenged lawyer Neal Katyal, representing the challengers, about whether the <a href=https://www.stanley-cup.it>stanley italia</a> ban would be unending. He said the policy s call for a report every six months indicates there ll be a reassessment from time to time. His only question that seemed to favor the challengers came earl <a href=https://www.cup-stanley.es>stanley taza</a> y in t Xfpm Jan. 6 committee conducts likely final interview, chairman says
THE COURTS AND FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE....Andrew McCarthy issues a blast of outrage today over the fact that courts have any role at all in regulating how foreign intelligence is gathered. Here s his contention:<H>ow could a FISA-court judge have come to the conclusion that foreign-to-foreign communications implicate FISA and required judicial sanction Only by making it up. That is, only by violating the terms of FISA in favor of what the judge subjectively believed FISA should cover. The happenstance that a foreign-to-foreign communication passes through American telecom networks is irrelevant.....As the Supreme C <a href=https://www.stanley-cup.pt>caneca stanley</a> ourt explained <a href=https://www.cup-stanley.de>stanley becher</a> in 1948, intelligence gathering involves decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry. The judiciary doesn t belong in this thicket at all.McCarthy is having an argument with thin air. Everyone agrees that the president has virtually unlimited legal authority to monitor foreign-to-foreign communications without a warrant. Republicans agree. Democrats agree. I was just on a radio show with Jack Balkin, as fierce a critic of the Democratic cave-in on FISA that I know, and he agrees. There s literally no serious controversy over this.The only serious question is one that McCarthy pretends never to have heard of: How do you make sure the <a href=https://www.stanley-cups.pl>kubki stanley</a> government is only monitoring foreign-to-foreig
President Donald Trump appears likely to win his travel ban case at the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy both signaled support for the travel policy in arguments Wednesday at the high court. The ban s challengers almost certainly need one of those two justices if the court is to strike down the ban on travelers from several mostly Muslim countries.Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the most aggressive questione <a href=https://www.cup-stanley.es>stanley botella</a> r of Solicitor General Noel Francisco in his defense of the Trump policy, and the three other liberal justices also raised questions about it.The justices voted in December to allow the policy to take full effect pending their full consideration. Wednesday was the first time they took it up in open court.Listen to the full audio of the arguments hereThe Trump administration is asking the court to reverse lower court rulings that would strike down the ban. The Supreme Court is considering whether the president can indefinitely keep people out of the country based on nationality. It is also looking at whether the policy is aimed at excluding Muslims from the United States. A decision is expected by late June.Kennedy challenged lawyer Neal Katyal, representing the challengers, about whether the <a href=https://www.stanley-cup.it>stanley italia</a> ban would be unending. He said the policy s call for a report every six months indicates there ll be a reassessment from time to time. His only question that seemed to favor the challengers came earl <a href=https://www.cup-stanley.es>stanley taza</a> y in t Xfpm Jan. 6 committee conducts likely final interview, chairman says
THE COURTS AND FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE....Andrew McCarthy issues a blast of outrage today over the fact that courts have any role at all in regulating how foreign intelligence is gathered. Here s his contention:<H>ow could a FISA-court judge have come to the conclusion that foreign-to-foreign communications implicate FISA and required judicial sanction Only by making it up. That is, only by violating the terms of FISA in favor of what the judge subjectively believed FISA should cover. The happenstance that a foreign-to-foreign communication passes through American telecom networks is irrelevant.....As the Supreme C <a href=https://www.stanley-cup.pt>caneca stanley</a> ourt explained <a href=https://www.cup-stanley.de>stanley becher</a> in 1948, intelligence gathering involves decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities nor responsibility and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry. The judiciary doesn t belong in this thicket at all.McCarthy is having an argument with thin air. Everyone agrees that the president has virtually unlimited legal authority to monitor foreign-to-foreign communications without a warrant. Republicans agree. Democrats agree. I was just on a radio show with Jack Balkin, as fierce a critic of the Democratic cave-in on FISA that I know, and he agrees. There s literally no serious controversy over this.The only serious question is one that McCarthy pretends never to have heard of: How do you make sure the <a href=https://www.stanley-cups.pl>kubki stanley</a> government is only monitoring foreign-to-foreig
0