Judicial Watch Scores Supreme Court Win
How about a little good news? Your Judicial Watch, on behalf
of a group of patriotic Americans, scored a major victory for the U.S.
Constitution and national unity before the United States Supreme Court. This
week, we convinced the Supreme Court to issue an injunction (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/akina-v-hawaii-no-scotus-injunction-15a551/) halting a race-based "Native Hawaiian-only"
election in Hawaii. In August, Judicial Watch filed a federal lawsuit on behalf
of the five Hawaiian residents and one Texas resident of Hawaiian descent who
opposed the discriminatory election process (Keli'i Akina, et al. v. The State
of Hawaii, et al. (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/akina-v-hawaii-race-based-voter-rolls-00322/) (No. 1:15-cv-00322)).
The Supreme Court victory is remarkable. The JW statement
issued to the press puts it all together:
"The Supreme Court today issued an injunction that put
a hard stop to the race-based, separatist election in Hawaii that violated the
'fundamental constitutional rights' of our American citizen clients. Today's
ruling is a historic setback to the State of Hawaii and the Obama
administration, which misused public monies to push a racially discriminatory
election. President Obama and Hawaiian political leaders should be called to
account for their cynical support of a race-based election that violated
numerous civil rights laws and the U.S. Constitution. Our clients are brave
patriots who took a public stand on behalf of the rule of law. The High Court agreed
our clients had an indisputable right to this relief and it is wonderful to see
their faith in our Constitution vindicated by today's Supreme Court ruling. In
addition, Judicial Watch's hundreds of thousands of supporters deserve thanks
for providing the voluntary support that allowed our team of hard-working
attorneys to stop this corrupt and dangerous election. Kudos also to the
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii (http://new.grassrootinstitute.org/), a Hawaii-based think tank, that gave invaluable assistance
to our efforts."
After we filed our lawsuit over the issue in August, we
quickly asked the court for a preliminary injunction (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-files-preliminary-injunction-to-halt-native-hawaiian-only-separatist-election/) to stop the vote that had been scheduled for November 2015.
Our lawyers argued that our clients would be denied the right to vote either
because of their race or their political views - in direct violation of the
U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Hawaii's Act 195
authorizes the Native Hawaiian Roll Commission (NHRC) to create a list of
"Native Hawaiians" who would be eligible to elect delegates to a
planned constitutional convention, which would then prepare "governance
documents" for a separate Native Hawaiian entity.
The lower court denied our injunction, so we took it
upstairs to the appellate court. We filed an Urgent Motion for Injunction (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-asks-appeals-court-to-halt-race-based-separatist-election-in-hawaii/) with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. We
lost again. Undeterred and confident in our legal arguments, the JW team
immediately thereafter filed an emergency application (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/akina-v-hawaii-scotus-emergency-application-151108/) on November 23 to the Honorable Justice Anthony Kennedy,
Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court who oversees the Ninth
Circuit. Last Friday, shortly after Judicial Watch replied (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/akina-v-hawaii-reply-15a551/) to Hawaii's opposition, Justice Kennedy issued an order (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/akina-v-hawaii-order-15a1551/) temporarily enjoining the election pending review by the
entire Supreme Court. That was a sweet victory. But this week, the Supreme
Court (voting 5-4) granted our request. The December 2, ruling reads:
The application for injunction pending appellate review
presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is granted.
Respondents are enjoined from counting the ballots cast in, and certifying the
winners of, the election described in the application, pending final
disposition of the appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan
would deny the application.
Under federal law, the Supreme Court only issues emergency
injunctions when the circumstances presented are "critical and
exigent" and the legal rights at issue are "indisputably clear."
Accordingly, this Supreme Court decision sends a strong message for the lower
courts.
The aborted election, which was being conducted by mail-in
ballots, was to have ended in November but the voting deadline was recently
extended to midnight Monday, December 21. The election was made possible by a
grant by the State of Hawaii of $2.6 million in public funds.
The war isn't over, but this is a significant success for
the rule of law. Here, it's important to point out that the Obama
administration supported the race-based election (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/dept-of-interior-amicus-hawaii-race-based-election-00322/) in this litigation despite the fact that the State of
Hawaii limits eligible voters in the election to those who have at least one
drop of Native Hawaiian blood. Go back in history, and you will find that this
"one drop of blood" rule is like other laws last seen in the racist
Jim Crow era: "It also has an unfortunate resonance in American history.
See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 5 n. 4 (1967) (discussing Virginia
statute holding that '[e]very person in whom there is ascertainable any Negro
blood shall be deemed and taken to be a colored person')."
Imagine if this "one drop of blood" rule had
resulted in a new "tribe" that had as its goal
"independence" for Hawaii. The precedent could lead to Muslims
asserting sovereignty, Hispanics, Scottish-Americans - you get the picture.
This case was not only about the rights of our few clients, it was about the
future of our nation.
That we were able to stop this potential calamity for our
nation the day after Thanksgiving is providential. And our legal team requires
special recognition, especially as they had to work over Thanksgiving! Robert
Popper, director of Judicial Watch's Election Integrity Project, is Judicial
Watch's lead attorney (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-asks-appeals-court-to-halt-race-based-separatist-election-in-hawaii/) on the lawsuit and lead counsel for all plaintiffs. Mr.
Popper was formerly deputy chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights
Division of the Justice Department. Michael Lilly of the Honolulu law firm
Ning, Lilly & Jones, a former Attorney General for Hawaii, is serving as
Judicial Watch's local counsel for the plaintiffs. H. Christopher Coates is
also an attorney for the plaintiffs. Coates is an expert voting rights attorney
who most recently served as Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights
Division of the Justice Department under President Barack Obama. William S.
Consovoy and J. Michael Connolly of Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC just joined as
counsel as the litigation went before the Supreme Court.
The fight isn't over, and the litigation will continue in
the lower courts. But the corrupted election won't take place any time soon,
and I wouldn't bet, based on this week's extraordinary Supreme Court action,
that it will ever take place.
Benghazi Scandal Exposed: Hillary Clinton Slept Past Staff
Efforts to Set Up Intelligence Briefing
It feels like Benghazi all over again. The Obama
administration is pretending not to know the "motives" for the
terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, that left 14 innocent Americans
dead this week. Both Barack Obama and his appointee Attorney General Loretta
Lynch suggest the motives are still a mystery, that it could be terrorism or
"workplace violence." The Obama gang then attacks gun owners and the
NRA to distract from its own massive intelligence and policy failures that
resulted in the Islamist terrorist attack. As with Benghazi, the Obama
administration's response to a terrorist attack is corruptly political and
dishonest - and places more Americans at risk.
This is all the more relevant, as we have uncovered and
released a new batch of emails (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-blumenthal-bergdahl-wilson-01511/) of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that are
connected to the Benghazi attack. Included is an email chain showing that
Clinton slept late the Saturday after the Benghazi attack and missed a meeting
that her staff had been trying to set up about sensitive intelligence issues,
including the Presidential Daily Brief, on a day she was to make a slew of
phone calls to foreign leaders.
Also included in the documents is an email from Clinton
advisor Sidney Blumenthal, sent three days after the attack, describing
then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney as "contemptible on a
level not seen in past contemptible political figures" and a "mixture
of greedy ambition and hollowness."
The documents contain an email passed to Clinton in the days
following the Benghazi attack in which the father of alleged Army deserter Bowe
Bergdahl anguishes over the "'Crusade' paradigm" which he says
"will never be forgotten in this part of the world."
An email from former Ambassador Joe Wilson to Clinton
expresses his concern about "Christian Dominionists who seek to turn [the
military] into an instrument of their religious zealotry."
Other emails show approval (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-blumenthal-bergdahl-wilson-01511-pg-3/) of an effort to blame an Internet video on the Benghazi
attack that aired on the Al Jazeera network. (This email is worth looking at,
as it succinctly demonstrates how the Obama gang wanted more to ban criticism
of "Islam" than to confront its terrorist adherents. (Is it any
wonder that a neighbor of the California terrorists didn't speak up about their
unusual activity for fear of being called a racist (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/12/03/neighbor-didnt-report-suspicious-activity-of-san-bernardino-killers-for-fear-of-being-called-racist-n2088543)!)
The new emails were obtained by Judicial Watch as a result
of several court orders in two separate Judicial Watch Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) lawsuits (here (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/09-09-14-jw-v-state-01511-clinton-notes-benghazi/) and here (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-00692-clinton-benghazi-emails/)) for Clinton/Benghazi material. (The court orders are dated
July 31, 2015 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-july-31-order-00692/), October 9, 2015 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-oct-9-order-00692-2-2/), and October 20, 2015 (http://www.judicialwatch.org/document-archive/jw-v-state-oct-20-order-01511/).) The documents have been made public only because (http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-litigation-forced-production-of-key-email-showing-hillary-clinton-blamed-benghazi-assault-on-al-qaeda-like-group-in-email-sent-to-daughter-on-night-of-september-11-att/) Judicial Watch's litigation has forced the State Department
(http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/11/judge-wont-speed-releases-of-clinton-benghazi-emails-215850) to conduct additional searches.
No comments:
Post a Comment