Federal District Court Strikes Down Washington D.C. Draconian Handgun Law...

This is a big Second Amendment victory... 

Via Legal Insurrection

Well, well, well–I guess the big guy upstairs knew I could do with a pick-me-up while I struggle through this respiratory infection. And boy, did he deliver big (with a h/t to Ace of Spades HQ).
In light of Heller, McDonald, and their progeny, there is no longer any basis on which this Court can conclude that the District of Columbia’s total ban on the public carrying of ready-to-use handguns outside the home is constitutional under any level of scrutiny. Therefore, the Court finds that the District of Columbia’s complete ban on the carrying of handguns in public is unconstitutional.
Palmer v. District of Columbia (1:09-CV-1482 , filed July 26, 2014; full decision at the end of this post).
This should, of course, be the common fate of virtually every gun law currently on the books, particularly when (as is the only proper legal course) strict scrutiny is applied to the thousands of state and Federal laws that continue to irrationally infringe our rights to keep and bear arms.
Kudos to Attorney Alan Gura, for his continuing masterful efforts in defense and promotion of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. As Alan noted in his own blog, Reality-Based Litigation:

Scary: Obama claims "we are remaking the courts"

Remaking them into a den of liberals who think the Constitution is good toilet paper.

Via Twitchy: 

Yep, at a fundraiser in Texas last night, President Obama said his administration is “remaking the courts.”
Here’s the full quote for context via a WhiteHouse.gov transcript:

We were able to reform our financial system so that the likelihood of taxpayer-funded bailouts is a lot less than it was. We were able to expand funding for young people going to college. We were able to expand national service for young people who want to serve. We fought long and hard for consumer protections that weren’t there before.
As Lisa mentioned, we are remaking the courts. I know that we’ve got some lawyers here, and here in Texas sometimes people feel a little frustrated about the pace of appointments here in Texas. But you should know that in addition to the Supreme Court, we’ve been able to nominate and confirm judges of extraordinary quality all across the country on federal benches. We’re actually, when it comes to the district court, matching the pace of previous Presidents. When it comes to the appellate court, we’re just a little bit behind, and we’re just going to keep on focused on it.

Shocker: Obama would have given Bin Laden same rights under court system as US citizen...

Barack Obama wanted to try Osama bin Laden in federal Court if he was captured alive. Bin Laden would have had the same rights as a US citizen.  Former President George W. Bush would have given Osama the water-board treatment.

Via Vanity Fair:

In an adaptation from his new book, The Finish—first reported for Vanity Fair—magazinecontributing editor Mark Bowden reveals that President Obama intended to put Osama bin Laden on trial in the federal court system if he had been captured, rather than killed, during the Abbottabad raid. Bowden had access to key players including C.I.A. deputy director Michael Morell and the president himself.

According to Bowden in the story—in November’s Vanity Fair—in the unlikely event that bin Laden surrendered, Obama saw an opportunity to resurrect the idea of a criminal trial, which Attorney General Eric Holder had planned for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. This time, the president tells Bowden, he was prepared to bring bin Laden back and put him on trial in a federal court. “We worked through the legal and political issues that would have been involved, and Congress and the desire to send him to Guantánamo, and to not try him, and Article III.” Obama continues: “I mean, we had worked through a whole bunch of those scenarios. But, frankly, my belief was if we had captured him, that I would be in a pretty strong position, politically, here, to argue that displaying due process and rule of law would be our best weapon against al-Qaeda, in preventing him from appearing as a martyr.”

Keep on reading…

Federal Appeals Court rules states can withhold funding for planned parenthood...

Best news of the day!

Via Beltway Confidential:

A federal appeals court upheld Texas’ right not to give Planned Parenthood taxpayer money Tuesday, a blow to the abortion provider’s bottom line.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a district court judge’s earlier temporary injunction that forced Texas to fund Planned Parenthood.

Texas law has always prohibited state agencies from contracting with “entities that perform or promote elective abortions or are affiliates of entities that perform or promote elective abortions.” But until Gov. Rick Perry’s administration, the statute was never given force with an implementing regulation.

Keep on reading…

White House cuts short time for petition requiring TSA to follow the law

 Images: TSA

The White house has pulled the plug on a petition requiring TSA to follow the law.

At approximately 11:30 am EDT, the White House removed a petition about the TSA airport screening procedures from the White House "We the People" website. About 22,500 of the 25,000 signatures necessary for a response from the Administration were obtained when the White House unexpectedly cut short the time period for the petition.

A year ago, a federal court ordered TSA to hold public hearings on their nude body scanners and screening methods. TSA has failed to comply. 

A federal appeals court Wednesday ordered the Transportation Security Administration to explain why it hasn’t complied with the court’s year-old decision demanding the agency hold public hearings concerning the rules and regulations pertaining to the so-called nude body scanners installed in U.S. airport security checkpoints.

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s brief order came in response to the third request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center for the court to enforce its order.

The petition would have required the White House to respond. It was very close to the required number.

Federal Appeals Court Orders Obama to Show His Cards on Federal Courts Authority

A Federal Appeals Court has ordered Obama's Justice Department to tell them if they believe Federal Courts have ability to strike down Federal Law. Popcorn anyone?

(CBS News) — In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president’s bluff — ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president’s comments yesterday about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was “confident” the Court would not “take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

Federal Court on Obama Drilling Permit Delays: “unreasonable, unacceptable, and unjustified.”

Ouch!

(CNN/Money) — A federal court ordered the Obama administration Thursday to act on five deep water drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico within 30 days, calling the delays in issuing new decisions “unreasonable, unacceptable, and unjustified.”

In a case brought by the drilling company Ensco, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Judge Martin Feldmen ruled that the four to nine months the company has waited for a decision on the permits it has a stake in is simply too long.