Thursday, January 30, 2025

U.S. Catholic Bishops Set Down Markers on Deportation - National Catholic Reporter By Michael Sean Winters

                                                        Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich
 

U.S. Catholic Bishops Set Down Markers on Deportation - National Catholic Reporter

By Michael Sean Winters

The leaders of the U.S. hierarchy do not throw punches. But they are setting down some markers.

President Donald Trump came out swinging on the issue of immigration.

"First, I will declare a national emergency at our southern border," Trump said in his inaugural address. "All illegal entry will immediately be halted. And we will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came."

Trump promised to reinstate the "Remain in Mexico" policy. He pledged to send troops to our southern border "to repel the disastrous invasion of our country."

BUT the leaders of the U.S. Catholic hierarchy - showing firmness usually reserved for opposing  abortion - responded:

"While we wish the new administration success in promoting the common good, the reports being circulated of planned mass deportations targeting the Chicago area are not only profoundly disturbing but also wound us deeply," said Cardinal Blase Cupich in a statement issued during a visit to the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City. "We are proud of our legacy of immigration that continues in our day to renew the city we love. This is a moment to be honest about who we are."

Cupich acknowledged that governments have the responsibility to defend their borders, but strongly affirmed, "we also are committed to defending the rights of all people, and protecting their human dignity."

Protect birthright citizenship - NJ Attorney General leads multistate lawsuit

The 14th Amendment is plain:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Which part of "all" doesn't Donald Trump and his right wing allies not understand.  Their Know Nothing hatred of immigrants (except from the good places) takes a lof of forms.  The now-disbarred former Chapman Law School Dean John Eastman, like others on the right, has long campaigned against birthright citizenship.

 The Executive Order provides, as stated in the NJ AG brief:

A. Terms of the Executive Order. Within hours of taking office, President Trump issued an Executive Order, “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” (Ex. W) (“Order”) to strip American-born children of citizenship. The Order declares that birthright citizenship does not extend to anyone born to (i) a mother who is unlawfully present or who is lawfully present on a temporary basis, and (ii) a father who is neither a citizen nor lawful permanent resident. Based on this declaration, the Order announces a new policy: no federal agency “shall issue documents recognizing United States citizenship, or accept documents ... purporting to recognize United States citizenship” for such children born after February 19, 2025 (“Affected Children”). Order, § 2.

 

 

Protect birthright citizenship - NJ Attorney General leads multistate lawsuit

 

VIEW COMPLAINT

VIEW MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Case 1:25-cv-10139 U.S. Dt. Ct., DMA

TRENTON  Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin today announced he is leading a challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship, which violates the constitutional rights to which all children born in the United States are entitled.

“President Trump’s attempt to unilaterally end birthright citizenship is a flagrant violation of our Constitution,” said Attorney General Platkin. “For more than 150 years, our country has followed the same basic rule: babies who are born in this country are American citizens. New Jersey is a proud state of immigrants, and we benefit tremendously from the contributions of birthright citizens—in our state and across the country. State Attorneys General have been preparing for illegal actions like this one, and today’s immediate lawsuit sends a clear message to the Trump Administration that we will stand up for our residents and their basic constitutional rights.”

“The Constitution could not be more clear: citizenship of children born in the United States does not depend on the citizenship of their parents. That principle is fundamental to who we are as a nation and what it means to be an American,” said Governor Phil Murphy. “Yesterday’s announcement about birthright citizenship flouts the Constitution and will needlessly harm families who are lawfully present in the United States until it is inevitably overturned by the courts. We will not waver in our efforts to protect the rights of all who call New Jersey home.”

“The Trump administration’s proposal to deny children born in this country citizenship is not only cruel, it goes against our very foundation as Americans,” said Human Services Commissioner Sarah Adelman. “Here in New Jersey, we take pride in our diversity and understand the role immigration has played in shaping our country. We will not let this go without a fight, and I am proud to stand with Governor Murphy and Attorney General Platkin to defend the rights of all Americans.”

The New Jersey A.G.'s brief in support of a motion for preliminary injunction begins:

Few principles are stitched deeper into the American fabric than birthright citizenship— and few principles have clearer grounding in law. From the earliest days of this Nation’s history, America followed the common law tradition of jus soli, that those born within the United States’s sovereign territory are subject to its laws and citizens by birth. That tradition continued unimpeded until the Supreme Court’s notorious pronouncement in Dred Scott that descendants of slaves were not citizens despite their birth in this country. But that aberration was short-lived: in the wake of the Civil War, our Nation adopted the Fourteenth Amendment to ensure citizenship for all who are born here. The Citizenship Clause thus promises “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Since its adoption, Congress has codified that guarantee, and the Supreme Court has twice confirmed that it means what it says. See 8 U.S.C. § 1401(b); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). For more than 150 years, the promise of the Citizenship Clause has never been undermined—until now.


Wednesday, January 29, 2025

Goldsmith - Lawfare - Can Trump Fire the Inspectors General?

Jack Goldsmith - a Harvard Law  professor - was Assistant Attorney General in chare of the Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice.  He is s defender of its powers.

So when he asks Is Trump's Firing of 17 Inspectors General Legal?  we are well-advised to pay heed.

  

Bishops show bias in treatment of Biden and Vance - National Catholic Reporter

https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/ncr-voices/bishops-disparate-treatment-biden-and-vance-betrays-bias?utm_source=NCR+List&utm_campaign=c8a9dcdece-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_01_28_11_04&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6981ecb02e-c8a9dcdece-230211089

Statement of Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich regarding immigration at Our Lady of Guadelupe, Mexico City

 Statement of Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich regarding immigration at Our Lady of Guadelupe, Mexico City

While we wish the new administration success in promoting the common good, the reports being circulated of planned mass deportations targeting the Chicago area are not only profoundly disturbing but also wound us deeply. We are proud of our legacy of immigration that continues in our day to renew the city we love. This is a moment to be honest about who we are. There is not a person in Chicago, save the Indigenous people, who has not benefited from this legacy.

The Catholic community stands with the people of Chicago in speaking out in defense of the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers. Similarly, if the reports are true, it should be known that we would oppose any plan that includes a mass deportation of U.S. citizens born of undocumented parents.  

Government has the responsibility to secure our borders and keep us safe. We support the legitimate efforts of law enforcement to protect the safety and security of our communities—criminality cannot be countenanced, when committed by immigrants or longtime citizens. But we also are committed to defending the rights of all people, and protecting their human dignity. As such, we vigorously support local and state legislation to protect the rights of immigrants in Illinois. In keeping with the Sensitive Locations policy, in effect since 2011, we would also oppose all efforts by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other government agencies to enter  places of worship for any enforcement activities. 

Trump Exec Order wipes out LBJ and Biden anti-discrimination guidance

There is no doubt that the Trump administration practices hyperbole as a central feature. In one of his first Executive Orders Trump declared The First 100 Hours - Historic Action to Kick Off America's Golden Age 

One order is tabbed Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based OpportunityThe Order is one of a barrage signed by Donald Trump on his first day.  Trump revokes the landmark 1965 Executive Order implementing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and barring discrimination in federal government contracts.   But  the 1965 measure  Executive Order 11246  (Equal Employment Opportunity) was signed by President Lyndon Johnson.  That historic sixty year old measure pequires federal contractors to develop and implement affirmative action plans to promote equal employment opportunity.

But the Trump Order declares:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1. Purpose and Policy. The Biden Administration forced illegal and immoral discrimination programs, going by the name “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI), into virtually all aspects of the Federal Government, in areas ranging from airline safety to the military. This was a concerted effort stemming from President Biden’s first day in office, when he issued Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” Pursuant to Executive Order 13985 and follow-on orders, nearly every Federal agency and entity submitted “Equity Action Plans” to detail the ways that they have furthered DEIs infiltration of the Federal Government. The public release of these plans demonstrated immense public waste and shameful discrimination. That ends today. Americans deserve a government committed to serving every person with equal dignity and respect, and to expending precious taxpayer resources only on making America great.

Unsurprisingly the Biden Order does no such thing.  Its thrust is plain:

Sec. 5 . Conducting an Equity Assessment in Federal Agencies. The head of each agency, or designee, shall, in consultation with the Director of OMB, select certain of the agency's programs and policies for a review that will assess whether underserved communities and their members face systemic barriers in accessing benefits and opportunities available pursuant to those policies and programs. The head of each agency, or designee, shall conduct such review and within 200 days of the date of this order provide a report to the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy (APDP) reflecting findings on the following:

(a) Potential barriers that underserved communities and individuals may face to enrollment in and access to benefits and services in Federal programs;

(b) Potential barriers that underserved communities and individuals may face in taking advantage of agency procurement and contracting opportunities;

(c) Whether new policies, regulations, or guidance documents may be necessary to advance equity in agency actions and programs; and

(d) The operational status and level of institutional resources available to offices or divisions within the agency that are responsible for advancing civil rights or whose mandates specifically include serving underrepresented or disadvantaged communities.

 

Tuesday, January 21, 2025

Pope Francis urges welcome to migrants, renounces Trump deportation plans



Donald J. Trump, on the occasion of his inauguration as 47th President in the nation's history resumed his attacks on those seeking refuge from disaster or tyranny.  But on the eve of the second term, Trump's plan  was  denounced as a disgrace  by Pope Francis.  Christopher White of National Catholic Reporter tells us:
"On the occasion of your inauguration as the forty-seventh President of the United States of America," the Pope began, "I offer cordial greetings and the assurance of my prayers that Almighty God will grant you wisdom, strength, and protection in the exercise of your high duties." "Inspired by your nation’s ideals of being a land of opportunity and welcome for all, it is my hope that under your leadership the American people will prosper and always strive to build a more just society, where there is no room for hatred, discrimination or exclusion."

Trump: rename Mt. Denali - desecrating our National Monuments

Denali (f/k/a Mt. McKinley)

Eighteen years ago I spent a week on the Lake Creek River in Alaska fishing for salmon and trout.  One of the delights of the trip was the sight of the massive mountain - Denali - about fifty miles away.

The National Park Service maintains the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve.  The continent of North America has been inhabited for at least 16,000 years.  It is believed that peoples migrated across the Bering Strait Land Bridge and made their way across the continent.  The indigenous peple who stayed in what is now Alaska hadd a name for the greatest mountain of the region - Denali.

The assassinated imperialist U.S. President William McKinley has no claim to that area.  But Donald Trump, shamelessly indulging white settler chauvinism now demands that the respect we finally granted the indigenous people demands that it revert to the name of the 19th century U.S. President.  Not even General Motors buys that.  They are developing an EV version of their top of the line Denali pickup trucks. - GWC

EXECUTIVE ORDER Donald J. Trump

January 20, 2025 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose and Policy.  It is in the national interest to promote the extraordinary heritage of our Nation and ensure future generations of American citizens celebrate the legacy of our American heroes.  The naming of our national treasures, including breathtaking natural wonders and historic works of art, should honor the contributions of visionary and patriotic Americans in our Nation’s rich past. 

Sec. 2.  Appointments to the U.S. Board on Geographic Names.  (a)  Within seven days of the date of this order, each agency head with authority to appoint members to the Board on Geographic Names (Board) pursuant to 43 U.S.C. 364a, shall review their respective appointees and consider replacing those appointees in accordance with applicable law.

(b)  The Secretary of the Interior shall review and consider additional appointments to the Board to assist in fulfilling all aspects of this order, subject to all applicable laws.

(c)  With respect to all applications for naming and renaming submitted to the newly constituted Board, the Board shall advance the policy established in section 1 of this order to honor the contributions of visionary and patriotic Americans and may update its principles, policies, and procedures as needed to achieve this policy.

(d)  Where Congressional action is required to establish a renaming in public law, following Board approval on renaming, the Board shall provide guidance to all relevant Federal agencies to use the Board-approved name in the interim in federal documents and achieve consistency across the federal government.

Sec. 3.  Renaming of Mount McKinley.  (a)  President William McKinley, the 25th President of the United States, heroically led our Nation to victory in the Spanish-American War.  Under his leadership, the United States enjoyed rapid economic growth and prosperity, including an expansion of territorial gains for the Nation.  President McKinley championed tariffs to protect U.S. manufacturing, boost domestic production, and drive U.S. industrialization and global reach to new heights.  He was tragically assassinated in an attack on our Nation’s values and our success, and he should be honored for his steadfast commitment to American greatness.

Deportee - Woody Guthrie

 

Monday, January 20, 2025

Martin Luther King - "I have a dream "- 1963

 No one who was alive and sentient failed to recognize the importance of the moment when

in August 1963 - a hell of a year - Martin Luther King spoke to a huge crowd from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 bill was supported by John F. Kennedy and steered into law by Texan Lyndon Baines Johnson through the Senate after JFK's assassination in November 1963.

Ironically a shameless race baiter has today on   the Rev. ML King national holiday, taken possession for the second time of the White House.

On this grave occasion it is appropriate , like Lincoln at Gettysburg ,100 years before King spoke at th e Lincoln Memorial "that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Sunday, January 19, 2025

Thursday, January 16, 2025

Tuesday, January 14, 2025

The Jack Smith final report on events of January 6, 2021

The Final Report of Jack Smith, Special Counsel asserts with confidence the sufficiency of the evidence to convict Donald Trump for his unlawful attempt to hold power despite his election loss.
In July of last year - a Presidential election year - the majority of the United States Supreme Court decided that former President Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for core presidential acts, and presumptively immune from prosecution for any offical act.  In Trump v. United States. the Court held 

 Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his offcial acts. There is no immunity for unoffcial acts.

Faced with the fact of Donald Trump's election as President a second time Special Prosecutor Jack Smith oncluded and submitted to the Attorney General his final report (below).

Sunday, January 12, 2025

Tulsa: Justice Department reports on 1921 Massacre of Black citizens

We are, alas, in the deepest moment of denial about our history in my lifetime.  At 79 it is difficult to accept that a man who has built his success on racist appeals and innuendo was for the second time elected to be President of the United States of America.
In 1955 a young Black student - 13 year old Emmett Till was lynched in Mississippi.  The murder was an important spur to the incipient civil rights movement.  The United States Supreme Court was shedding its shameful racist legacy which included its Cruikshank v. U.S.  release of the attackers in the 1873 Colfax massacre of 150 Black men defending the Parish courthouse.  It had, in 1948 finally begun to vindicate the promise of the 1866 Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. 1982The Court declared whites-only deeds unenforceable in Shelley v. Kraemer. Then in 1954 Brown v. Board of Education declared racial segregation of school children to be a violation of the principles of equal protection of the law.

 Note: View Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke's remarks here.

The Justice Department issued a report [a Review and Evaluation undertaken pursuant to the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act] today on the Tulsa Race Massacre. The report documents the department’s findings, made during its review and evaluation of the Tulsa Race Massacre, undertaken pursuant to the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crimes Act. The Civil Rights Division previously announced it was undertaking this review during a Cold Case Convening held on Sept. 30, 2024.

“The Tulsa Race Massacre stands out as a civil rights crime unique in its magnitude, barbarity, racist hostility and its utter annihilation of a thriving Black community,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “In 1921, white Tulsans murdered hundreds of residents of Greenwood, burned their homes and churches, looted their belongings, and locked the survivors in internment camps. Until this day, the Justice Department has not spoken publicly about this race massacre or officially accounted for the horrific events that transpired in Tulsa. This report breaks that silence by rigorous examination and a full accounting of one of the darkest episodes of our nation’s past. This report lays bare new information and shows that the massacre was the result not of uncontrolled mob violence, but of a coordinated, military-style attack on Greenwood. Now, more than 100 years later, there is no living perpetrator for the Justice Department to prosecute. But the historical reckoning for the massacre continues. This report reflects our commitment to the pursuit of justice and truth, even in the face of insurmountable obstacles. We issue this report with recognition of the courageous survivors who continue to share their testimonies, acknowledgement of those who tragically lost their lives and appreciation for other impacted individuals and advocates who collectively push for us to never forget this tragic chapter of America’s history.”   

The report documenting the department’s findings on the Tulsa Race Massacre, examines events that occurred between on May 31 and June 1, 1921, when white Tulsans mounted a concerted effort to destroy a vibrant Black community, remembered today as Black Wall Street. During the massacre, hundreds of Black residents were murdered, their businesses and homes burned to the ground and their money and personal property stolen. Survivors were left without resources or recourse. In the aftermath, the City of Tulsa resisted offers of meaningful help to the victims and utterly failed to provide necessary aid or assistance, and efforts to seek justice through the courts foundered.

Despite the gravity of the department’s findings, it is clear that no avenue of prosecution now exists for crimes that occurred during the massacre — the youngest potential defendants would today be more than 115 years old, and the relevant statutes of limitations expired decades ago. Nevertheless, as the federal government’s first thorough reckoning with this devastating event, our review officially acknowledges, illuminates and preserves for history the horrible ordeals of the massacre’s victims. As antilynching advocate Ida B. Wells said, “The way to right wrongs is to turn the light of truth upon them.” This report aims to do just that.

The Nature of the Review...

A. Executive Summary4 On the night of May 31, 1921, a violent attack by as many as 10,000 white Tulsans5 destroyed the thriving Black community of Greenwood, Oklahoma—a prosperous area often referred to as “Black Wall Street.”6 The attack, which lasted into the afternoon of June 1, was so systematic and coordinated that it transcended mere mob violence. White men murdered hundreds of Black residents, burned businesses and homes to the ground, and left survivors without resources or recourse. In the aftermath, authorities failed to offer meaningful help, and efforts to seek justice through the courts foundered. Seeking to understand and acknowledge the scope and impact of the massacre, the United States Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, under the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, 7 recently announced that its Cold Case Unit would review the events of 1921. From the beginning of that effort, it has been clear that no avenue of prosecution now exists for these crimes— the youngest potential defendants would today be more than 115 years old, and the relevant statutes of limitations have long since expired. Nevertheless, as the federal government’s first thorough reckoning with this devastating event, our resulting review officially acknowledges, illuminates, and preserves for history the horrible ordeals of the massacre’s victims. The review, conducted by the Cold Case Unit in the Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section, involved speaking with survivors and their families, examining firsthand accounts, and studying primary materials8 —including an investigative report from June 1921 by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Investigation, the precursor to the FBI. 

Thursday, January 2, 2025

Project MUSE - When Should the Majority Rule?

Project MUSE - When Should the Majority Rule?
When do limits on majorities enhance democratic rule, and when do they undermine it? Constraints on majorities are, of course, essential to modern democracy. Liberal democracy is not simply a system of majority rule: It combines majority rule and protection of minority rights. But constraints on electoral majorities can also subvert democracy. This essay offers a new framework for understanding the ambiguous relationship between countermajoritarianism and contemporary democracy. Lumping all countermajoritarian institutions into the same category can lead us to preserve and prescribe outdated and undemocratic institutions that distort political competition and may undermine democratic legitimacy. This essay makes the case for a robust but minimalist countermajoritarianism. Although special protections for powerful minorities may have helped to secure the historical passage to democracy, today the healthiest democracies empower majorities.

“IP and Strategic Competition with China: Part IV – Patents, Standards, and Lawfare” | Committee Repository | U.S. House of Representatives

“IP and Strategic Competition with China: Part IV – Patents, Standards, and Lawfare” | Committee Repository | U.S. House of Representatives

Hearing: “IP and Strategic Competition with China: Part IV – Patents, Standards, and Lawfare”

Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet (Committee on the Judiciary)

By Mark Cohen (柯恒) on 2025/01/02

On December 18, 2024, I was honored to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.  These hearings were on “IP and Strategic Competition with China.” This hearing was concerned with “Patents, Standards, and Lawfare.”  I was joined by the Hon. Walter Copan, former Commerce Under Secretary in charge of NIST, Kent Baker, Esq., from Ublox, and Prof. Tom Cotter from the University of Minnesota Law School.  Our written and oral testimony can be found here

Perhaps it was the spirit of the season,  the consensus on the Hill regarding China, or the higher level of bipartisanship found on IP issues - but this hearing showed remarkable bipartisanship and collegiality. 

 In my testimony, I pointed out that SEPs present unique challenges to China. Although patents are private rights, standards are intended to advance public goals. China’s subsidization of patent filings and participation in standards-setting bodies further align SEP litigation with the interests of the State. I also discussed my research involving the diverse translations of “FRAND” into Chinese.

I  expressed concern about the potential erosion of national and most favored national treatment if we continue to treat China or Chinese companies differently from other countries.   The first recourse in expressing our concerns over SEP litigation with China should be to negotiate and, if necessary, exploit multilateral mechanisms such as WTO dispute resolution procedures.  Prof. Cotter wisely added that any retaliation brought by the United States for perceived unfair practices would likely elicit counterretaliation by China. 

Prof. Cotter also pointed out that the United States has long utilized many tools we are currently complaining about, such as anti-suit injunctions (ASIs).  While this is generally true, I also believe that China’s implementation of these practices is often markedly different from that of the United States.  In the past several years, I have written about several “false friends” involving transplanted IPR activities undertaken in China compared to the United States.  These transplants include anti-suit injunctionsadministrative enforcement of IP rights, and even disciplinary action by local bar authorities against unethical IP lawyers.  

At the time of the hearing, China’s ardor for ASIs seemed to have chilled since the EU filed a WTO dispute regarding China’s ASI practices.  This informal suspension of ASIs may be coming to an end in light of the Supreme People’s Court issuing its first anti-ASI on behalf of Huawei against Netgear at the Unified Patent Court’s Local Division and the Munich 1 Regional Court, which was announced on December 24, 2024.  

Kent Baker also pointed out the difficulties of determining essentiality in SEPs and the costs of participating in standards committees as an SME.  Walter Copan underscored the role of the United States as a major exporter of innovation.  He also raised concerns about regulatory frameworks in China and the European Union, which could undermine United States efforts to commercialize SEPs.  One of the sub-topics of the hearing was a proposal for a separate SEP tribunal in the United States to make it a more competitive forum for hearing SEP cases, which was raised in the hearing and in discussions after the formal hearing was over.

I had previously been honored to testify at the first hearing in this series on March 8, 2023.  At that time, I focused on how the United States could become more efficient and competitive with China’s IP system.  Jamieson Greer, President Trump’s nominee to be the next U.S. Trade Representative, also testified then.  The record of the first hearing is available here.