A specially appointed federal panel of judges has dismissed all 83 ethics complaints brought against Justice Brett Kavanaugh regarding his conduct at his confirmation hearings.
The judges concluded that while the complaints "are serious," there is no existing authority that allows lower court judges to investigate or discipline Supreme Court justices.
The complaints against Kavanaugh ranged from allegations that he had misled the Senate about some of his activities in the George W. Bush White House to his angry, partisan statements in denying charges of sexual assault in high school.
At his contentious confirmation hearings, Kavanaugh railed against Democrats, accusing them of engaging in a liberal conspiracy, a sort of payback for his onetime role as a prosecutor investigating President Bill Clinton.
"This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups," Kavanaugh thundered. "This is a circus. ... And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around."
As soaring crime overwhelmed New York City’s courts in the 1970s, state lawmakers came up with a fix to speed things up. The State Legislature decided that people facing less than six months in jail would have their cases decided by a single judge rather than a jury.
That law has had the unintended effect of depriving immigrants in the city of jury trials for crimes like prostitution and harassment, even though they face the stiff punishment of deportation if convicted, advocates for immigrants said.
This week New York State’s highest court carved out an exception to the law, declaring in a 5-2 decision that noncitizens are entitled to jury trials for deportable offenses under the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the right to a trial by an impartial jury.
Immigrant advocates and civil rights lawyers hailed the ruling as giving all immigrants, not just those charged with serious crimes, an avenue under the Constitution to fight charges that could lead to their removal from the country and permanent separation from their families. But critics said it gave them more rights than citizens have and might lead to bigger backlogs in the criminal courts.
New York Times
CNN is suing President Donald Trump and multiple White House aides for revoking the press pass of the news network's White House correspondent, Jim Acosta.
The lawsuit comes less than a week after press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced it would suspend Acosta's White House credential, often called a "hard pass," in the wake of the reporter's fiery exchange with Trump at a news conference Wednesday.
Sanders, White House chief of staff John Kelly, deputy communications chief Bill Shine and Secret Service Director Randolph Alles are also included in the suit. The Secret Service officer who yanked Acosta's pass is included as well, though he is not identified by name.
In a statement, Sanders said the lawsuit was "just more grandstanding from CNN," and vowed that the White House will "vigorously defend" itself.
Editor's Note: Not Dr. Ford.
Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that could determine whether Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies can censor their users
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that could determine whether users can challenge social media companies on free speech grounds.
The case, Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, No. 17-702, centers on whether a private operator of a public access television network is considered a state actor, which can be sued for First Amendment violations.
The case could have broader implications for social media and other media outlets. In particular, a broad ruling from the high court could open the country's largest technology companies up to First Amendment lawsuits.
That could shape the ability of companies like Facebook, Twitterand Alphabet's Google to control the content on their platforms as lawmakers clamor for more regulation and activists on the left and right spar over issues related to censorship and harassment.
The Supreme Court accepted the case on Friday. It is the first case taken by a reconstituted high court after Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation earlier this month.
Senate Democrats accepted an offer Thursday from Senate Republicans to confirm 15 lifetime federal judges in exchange for the ability to go into recess through the midterms, allowing endangered Democrats to campaign.
The calculation by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and his caucus was simple: That Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) would be able to confirm roughly 15 judges if he kept the Senate in session for the next few weeks anyway. So Democrats OK’d an offer to confirm three Circuit Court judges and 12 Circuit Court judges as the price to pay to go home for election season.