Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case
The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection. The ruling was 7-2.
The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips, but leaves unsettled the broader constitutional questions the case presented.
The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is not the wide-ranging ruling on religious liberty that some expected. It is tailored to the case at hand with the justices holding that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom were made to justify discrimination.
As a result, the decision did not resolve whether other opponents of same-sex marriage, such as florists and photographers, can refuse commercial wedding services to gay couples.
Trump’s Lawyers Making a lot of Assertions
On Saturday, the New York Times published two confidential memos President Donald Trump’s legal team sent to Special Counsel Robert Mueller last year (July 2017) and earlier this year (January 2018).
The first memo, written shortly after Mueller’s appointment, offers an almost unfettered view of some of the powers the nation’s chief law enforcement official enjoys: “Put simply, the Constitution leaves no question that the President has exclusive authority over the ultimate conduct and disposition of all criminal investigations and over those executive branch officials responsible for conducting those investigations. Thus, as set forth more fully below, as a matter of law and common sense, the President cannot obstruct himself or subordinates acting on his behalf by simply exercising these inherent Constitutional powers.”
The second memo, written in January in response to Mueller’s request to interview Trump, put it more bluntly: “The President’s actions here, by virtue of his position as the chief law enforcement officer, could neither constitutionally nor legally constitute obstruction because that would amount to him obstructing himself, and that he could, if he wished, terminate the inquiry, or even exercise his power to pardon if he so desired.”
John Dowd and Jay Sekulow composed a secret 20-page letter to special counsel Robert Mueller to assert that Trump cannot be forced to testify while arguing that he could not have committed obstruction because he has absolute authority over all federal investigations.
Mueller has requested an interview with the president to determine whether he had criminal intent to obstruct the investigation into his associates’ possible links to Russia’s election interference. If Trump does not consent to an interview, Mueller will have to decide whether to go ahead with a historic grand jury subpoena.
Rudy Giuliani said that as things stand, he would advise Trump against sitting down with Mueller’s investigators.
“We’re leaning toward not. But look, if they can convince us that it will be brief, it would be to the point, there were five or six points they have to clarify, and with that, we can get this long nightmare for the American public over,” Giuliani said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”
In the same ABC interview, Giuliani asserted that Trump has the power to pardon himself, though he said the president has “no intention” of making such a move.
On Monday, Trump tweeted: “As has been stated by numerous legal scholars, I have the absolute right to PARDON myself, but why would I do that when I have done nothing wrong? In the meantime, the never ending Witch Hunt, led by 13 very Angry and Conflicted Democrats (& others) continues into the mid-terms!”
Congressional Hearings Update
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is set to testify before congressional committees next week, presumably after the release of the Inspectors General’s Report.
Michael Horowitz announced that the draft report was done in a letter to members of Congress earlier this month but did not say when the results of the review will be officially released to the FBI, DOJ and congressional committees.
Both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Oversight Committee are preparing to have Michael Horowitz appear before them in early June.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) announced that his committee would hold a hearing titled, “Examining the Inspector General’s First Report on Justice Department Decisions Regarding the 2016 Presidential Election” on June 11th at 10am ET (it was previously scheduled for June 5th).
The joint Judiciary-Oversight review, led by chairs Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) is centered on the bureau’s decision making in both the investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state and the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Another event that will be held in June is the House Republicans plan to interview three FBI officials linked to the agency’s handling of the Clinton email probe. This is part of an ongoing joint investigation by the House Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees.
The Economy is on the Rise
Friday payrolls report showed a gain of 223,000 in May, well above market expectations of 188,000. Additionally, the unemployment rate hit an 18-year low of 3.8 percent. The ISM (Institute for Supply Management) manufacturing index registered a 58.7 reading which represents the percentage of businesses that report expanding conditions also topped Wall Street estimates. The construction spending report showed a monthly gain of 1.8 percent, a full point higher than expectations.
Bill Clinton on “TODAY”
Former President Bill Clinton appeared on the TODAY show this morning, June 4. Bill Clinton and author James Patterson interviewed with TODAY’s Craig Melvin to discuss their new thriller, “The President Is Missing”.
In the interview, Bill Clinton discussed his past scandal with Monica Lewinsky and explained that he felt his apology was enough and he has no plans to directly ask the former White House intern for forgiveness. He admitted to Craig Melvin that he has never privately apologized to Monica Lewinsky over the ordeal.
“I do not. I have never talked to her. But I did say, publicly, on more than one occasion, that I was sorry.”
Bill Clinton compared his scandal and affair with Monica Lewinsky to the allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior with various women of President Trump, all of which President Trump has denied. Clinton stuck by his decision to fight his impeachment rather than resign.
“A lot of the facts have been conveniently omitted to make the story work, I think partly because they were frustrated that they got all these serious allegations against the current occupant of the Oval Office. And his voters don’t seem to care. I think I did the right thing. I defended the Constitution.”
Nearly half of Bay Area residents want out, poll shows
On Sunday, the 2018 Bay Area Council Poll was released and showed that nearly half of the Bay Area residents want out of the area in the next few years. 46% of Bay Area residents plan to move out of area. That number is up from 34% in 2016 and 40% in 2017 in the same poll.
Some of the Highlighted questions from poll are:
- What is the most important problem facing the Bay Area today?:
- 42% Housing/ Housing Costs/ Housing Availability
- 18% Traffic/Congestion
- 14% Poverty/ Homelessness
- 12% Cost of Living
- 6% Development/ Overpopulation
- 6% Crime/Safety
- You mentioned you may be likely to move out of the Bay Area in the next few years. Why do you say that?:
- 45% Cost of Living;
- 27% Housing/Rent Costs
- 9% Traffic/Congestion
- 9% Too many Taxes
- 9% Development/Overpopulation
The study found that about 461 of the 1,000 residents surveyed are planning to move from the Bay Area, but 24% said that they are likely to stay in California and 5% indicated they would likely move to Sacramento. 60% of participants said that the Bay Area will see an economic downturn within the next five years.
Mail Time!
- Hey Bill, interesting question for you. After Roseanne’s firing, many in the media and Hollywood have labeled Roseanne a racist. I find this to be a sad step in the dialogue in our country if ONE horrible statement by a person now invalidates their entire life/career and makes them a racist. I think we can all agree that her tweet was racist, bigoted, and inappropriate, but I do not believe that this one tweet should define her entire existence and moral character as racist. People say stupid things sometimes and make mistakes. She apologized. Her firing aside, I just don’t think it’s fair to attack a person’s character for ONE statement they have made and apologized for. What do you think Bill?
- Mr. O'Reilly, I use to watch you on Fox and I feel you are honest and would give me the right answer to a question. I have asked everybody, but nobody will answer me. If by some reason Trump was to be impeached, what would the Democrats have accomplished? And what will they gain? Because Pence would still be in the white house till 2020. They wouldn't gain anything as far as I can see. I really need to know what you think.
- Mr. O.,
please help me with definitions. What is the difference between a spy, an informant or unknown guest?
Word of the Day: Visigoth |
