[VIDEO] Stone-Faced During Trial, Boston Bomber Tsarnaev Invokes Allah, Says He's 'Sorry' As He's Sentenced to Death

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was sentenced to death for his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, told a federal court Wednesday that he is sorry for those he killed in the attack and the suffering he caused.

Though Tsarnaev, who sat stone-faced during his trial, was given the option to address the court at the formal sentencing, legal experts initially did not expect him to because he had little to gain since the judge was required to impose the jury's death sentence.

Tsarnaev admitted that he was guilty in the bombing and told the court that he prays to Allah about the victims and that they are able to heal. He also told the court that he asks Allah to have mercy on him and his brother.

"All those who got up on that witness stand and that podium relayed to us, to me — I was listening — the suffering that was and the hardship that still is, with strength, with patience, with dignity," he 

Via Fox News

Continue Reading....

Banning the American Flag and Reconquista

A federal court has ruled that an American school student has a right to free expression -- unless that American might be threatened for that expression by others, in which case state officials have the right to quash the offending expression to appease potential aggressors. 

Which, ipso facto, means Americans have no right to free expression at all.  For if it’s not the government’s role to protect expression that is thought to be offensive by a vicious mob, what purpose does the First Amendment have?  “Safe” expression needs no protection, after all.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled upon the constitutionality of a decision by the administration at Live Oak High School in 2010.  On May 5th of that year, student Daniel Galli and his friends had the unmitigated gall to wear shirts emblazoned with that offensive symbol that we call the American flag.  Fearing that the unruly ex-denizens of another country would be infuriated at the mere sight of it on a day they hold in reverence, the vice principal asked him and his friends to turn their shirts inside out.  

May 5th, of course, is the holiday more commonly referred to as Cinco de Mayo.  And apparently, Mexican-Americans would be prone to engage in a bit of the old ultra-violence if some haughty American had the audacity to brandish the American flag in America on a day in which Mexico won a victory in a battle against the French way back when.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading.....

Federal Court Upholds School Ban on American Flag T-Shirts

Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a California high school’s prohibition on American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. The case is Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District, and while it might get the law right, it certainly highlights a worrying trend in American schools: the inability or unwillingness to protect students whose speech is unpopular.

On Cinco de Mayo, May 5, 2010, three students wore American flag t-shirts to Live Oak High School. Live Oak, according to the Ninth Circuit, had a history of gang and racial violence. The students who wore the American flag t-shirts were threatened with physical violence. Rather than discipline the students who made the threats, the school decided to tell the American flag t-shirt-wearing students that they could either turn their shirts inside-out, or go home. Two of the students went home, and the students collectively sued the school district in federal district court, claiming that the school violated their First Amendment rights.

Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the students’ claim, on the grounds that school officials “anticipated violence or substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and their response was tailored to the circumstances.”

In the landmark 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the First Amendment right of students to peacefully protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. In a famous passage, the Court opined that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Via: The Foundry

Continue Reading.....

A Teachable Moment on Recess Appointments

Obama's brazen attempt to nullify the separation of powers has been slapped down by yet a third federal court. The 4th Circuit held in National Labor Relations Board v. Enterprise Leasing Company Southeast, LLC that orders compelling two companies to recognize unions as their employees' bargaining agents cannot be enforced because the NLRB lacked a quorum when the orders were issued. The reason no quorum existed: Obama evaded the Senate's power of advice and consent by making recess appointments while Congress was in session. And that, the court said, is unconstitutional.

The decision was not exactly groundbreaking, since the 4th Circuit was following in the footsteps of the DC Circuit (Noel Canning v. NLRB) and the 3rd Circuit (NLRB v. New Vista Nursing). But although Enterprise Leasing closely adheres to Noel Canning, it offers a teachable moment all its own about the arrogance of Obama and his water-carriers in robes. Once the three-judge panel agreed that the NLRB rulings were correct, the question ofthe constitutionality of Obama's recess appointments took center stage. What ensued was a lively three-way debate over the meaning of the recess appointments clause. (The three arguments on the constitutionality of recess appointments can be read here: Hamilton at 56, with a rebuttal of the dissent at 104; Duncan at 126; and Diaz at 130.)

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading:

Claim: Elizabeth Warren doesn't need Massachusetts law license

Legal Insurrection's William Jacobson questioned the legality of Elizabeth Warren's engaging in legal practice from her office at Harvard Law School without having gotten a license to practice law in that state. Now a counter-argument has been offered. Mark Thompson writes:

 most importantly, Professor Jacobson ignores Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5(d), which states that:

"A lawyer admitted in another United States jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal services in this jurisdiction that...are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal law or other law of this jurisdiction."

The Official Comments to Rule 5.5(d) further elaborate to make explicit that 5.5(d) permits such an attorney to have even a "systematic and continuous presence in [Massachusetts] for the practice of law as well as provide legal services on a temporary basis."

As the cases to which Professor Jacobson has drawn our attention are entirely cases from the federal courts, and indeed appear to be cases lying even outside the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts federal courts, and as there seems to be no allegation that Professor Warren was unauthorized to appear in those cases, the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct appear to explicitly exempt Professor Warren's actions in those cases from the prohibitions on the unauthorized practice of law.

Although it is true that Rule 5.5(d) does "not authorize communications advertising legal services to prospective clients in [Massachusetts] by lawyers who are admitted to practice in other jurisdictions," merely listing the location of one's office in an official court filing in which one is properly authorized to appear cannot possibly be construed as a "communication advertising legal services."  

Via: The American Thinker

Continue Reading... 

Immigration agents sue to stop Obama’s non-deportation policy

Saying they're fed up with being told they can't do their jobs, 10 immigration agents on Thursday sued the Obama administration to try to halt the president's new non-deportation policy and an earlier memo instructing them not to go after rank-and-file illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Texas, adds a legal controversy to the political fight that has been brewing over President Obama's immigration policies, which have steadily narrowed the range of immigrants the government is targeting for deportation.

The 10 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and deportation officers said Mr. Obama's policies force them to choose between enforcing the law and being reprimanded by superiors, or listening to superiors and violating their own oaths of office and a 1996 law that requires them to put those who entered the country illegally into deportation proceedings.

Upping the ante, the agents are being represented by a high-profile lawyer, Kris W. Kobach, secretary of state in Kansas and the chief promoter of state immigration crackdowns such as Arizona's tough law.

"ICE is at a point now where agents are being told to break federal law, they're pretty much told that any illegal alien under age of 31 is going to be let go. You can imagine, these law enforcement officers are being put in a horrible position," Mr. Kobach said.

Last week, at Mr. Obama's direction, the Homeland Security Department began taking applications from those 30 years of age or younger who came to the U.S. as children and who have kept a fairly clean criminal record. They are being granted "deferred action," which is an official notice they are not to be deported, and will be allowed to obtain work permits to stay and get jobs legally in the United States.

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading...