Latest news with #D.C.CourtofAppeals
The Hill
06-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
The real ‘DEI hire' was Clarence Thomas
Was Amy Coney Barrett a 'DEI hire' to the Supreme Court? That's what President Trump's MAGA acolytes have been saying since his State of the Union Address last March, when Barrett allegedly glared at him as he walked down the aisle. The next day, she sided with the court's liberal justices in rejecting the Trump administration's bid to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid. 'She is evil, chosen solely because she checked identity politics boxes,' right-wing activist Mike Cernovich posted on X. 'Another DEI hire. It always ends badly.' But the real DEI hire on the Supreme Court — chosen solely because of identity politics — isn't Barrett. It's Clarence Thomas. There, I said it. But so did every honest observer back in 1991, when George H. W. Bush nominated Thomas for the court. Bush claimed that Thomas was the 'best qualified' candidate for the seat vacated by Thurgood Marshall. But the real reason Bush selected him was that Thomas, like Marshall, is Black. Thomas knew it, too. Ten years before he joined the court, while serving as assistant secretary for civil rights in the Department of Education, he reportedly told a colleague that he had set his sights on Marshall's seat. In 1981, the Yale-educated Thomas was already the highest-ranking Black attorney in the federal government. Marshall 'wouldn't last forever,' Thomas said, and no one was in 'as good a position' to replace him as Thomas was. The year after that, President Ronald Reagan appointed Thomas to chair the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission. He won accolades from conservatives for condemning affirmative action, which he called 'belittling to minorities.' At Yale, he said, everyone assumed he was admitted because of his race rather than his merit. So long as Black people received special consideration, Thomas argued, they would be dismissed as 'second rate.' Behind the scenes, that's exactly what White House officials said about him. He was passed over for a judgeship on the D.C. Court of Appeals because the Justice Department said his legal scholarship was weak. But when George H. W. Bush replaced Reagan, things changed. A country-club Republican, Bush was eager to burnish his reputation among the right-wing rank-and-file. So he appointed Thomas to the D.C. Court of Appeals and even considered nominating him for the Supreme Court when liberal lion William J. Brennan stepped down. Don't do it, Bush's advisers counseled. Thomas had never litigated a case before a jury, they noted, and he hadn't issued any substantive constitutional opinions during his brief stint on the appeals court. Bush instead chose David Souter, who disappointed conservatives. But when Marshall announced his retirement the following year, Thomas got the nod. He had the requisite right-wing credentials. And he would become the next African American justice, which would insulate him from criticism on the left. The strategy worked. Democrats were afraid to attack Thomas' legal philosophy too harshly, lest they be perceived as racist. And when Thomas faced sexual harassment accusations from his former aide, Anita Hill, he famously denounced his confirmation hearing as a 'high-tech lynching.' That worked, too. America has an ugly history of violence against African American men, often triggered by false reports of sexual misconduct. Although Hill's charges were entirely credible, nobody wanted to be seen as dragging another Black man through the mud. No matter what Thomas says about race, then, it clearly helped him secure a place on the Supreme Court. And it's fair to say that gender gave Barrett an advantage, too. Just as Thomas replaced an African-American on the court, Barrett followed Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And even before he nominated Barrett, Trump announced that he would appoint a woman to Ginsburg's seat. But unlike Thomas, Barrett was a legal superstar. She graduated first in her class at Notre Dame Law School and clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, whose other clerks routinely describe her as the sharpest of the bunch. She is also conservative, of course. Barrett voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, reverse affirmative action and expand gun rights. And let's not forget that she signed on to an opinion granting Trump immunity for official acts he takes as president. But she has also crossed Trump several times this term, which makes her a turncoat in the eyes of his disciples. In addition to bucking his freeze on foreign aid, Barrett joined an opinion that said Trump couldn't deport Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. That led one right-wing activist to denounce her as — wait for it — 'Amy Commie Barrett.' That's an absurd moniker for someone so obviously conservative. So is the idea of Barrett as a 'DEI hire,' if that means someone who used identity — not merit — to get to the top. Yes, her gender might have helped her along the way, but her legal skills are beyond doubt, no matter what you think of her decisions. And nobody on the Supreme Court got a bigger boost from identity than Thomas. If you don't believe me, simply listen to the man who chaired his Senate confirmation hearing: 'Had Thomas been white, he never would have been nominated,' declared Joe Biden, who would later displace Trump from the White House. 'The only reason he is on the court is because he is Black.' Sounds like another DEI hire, chosen to check the right boxes. But it's so much easier to ignore that fact and flay Barrett. It will end badly for her two-faced critics — it always does.
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Hunter Biden agrees to be stripped of license to practice law in DC: court records
Former first son and convicted felon Hunter Biden agreed to be disbarred from practicing law in Washington, D.C., court records show. Hunter Biden filed an affidavit under seal on Tuesday acknowledging his "consent to disbarment," D.C. Court of Appeals records show. Biden was "suspended immediately from the practice of law" in Washington, D.C., in June 2024 following his felony conviction in a Delaware federal court. Hunter Biden will officially be disbarred if the D.C. Court of Appeals accepts a disciplinary agency's recommendation – and his own consent – for disbarment, according to the New York Post. The former first son's Washington, D.C., bar member standing currently reads that he is under "Temp Disciplinary Suspension," Fox News Digital found on Wednesday morning. Hunter Biden has been licensed to practice law in the nation's capital since 2007. Trump Pardons Former Hunter Biden Business Associate Devon Archer Fox News Digital reached out to Hunter Biden's attorney regarding the disbarment, but did not immediately receive a reply. Read On The Fox News App Hunter Biden was found guilty in June 2024 of lying about his drug use when purchasing a firearm in 2018. The former first son has a long history of drug abuse, which was documented in his 2021 memoir, "Beautiful Things." The book was repeatedly referenced by both prosecutors and Biden's defense team throughout the nearly seven-day trial. The memoir walks readers through Biden's highs and lows with addiction to crack cocaine and attempts to get sober. Weiss Report: Hunter's Drug Use Can't Explain Away Not Paying Taxes On Money Earned By 'Last Name' He was found guilty on three charges: making a false statement on a purchase application of a gun, making a false statement related to information required to be kept by a federally licensed gun dealer, and possession of a gun by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty in the case. Biden's legal team did not dispute the former first son's long history with substance abuse during the trial, instead arguing that on the day Biden bought the Cobra Colt .38, he did not consider himself an active drug user. Hunter Biden: A Look At How The Saga Spanning Over Six Years Unfolded Prosecutors, however, argued Biden was addicted to crack cocaine before, during and after he bought the handgun. In addition to citing Biden's memoir, the prosecution team also presented the jury with text messages Biden shared with family and apparent drug dealers to prove his addiction around the time period he purchased the firearm. Biden Pardons Son Hunter Biden Ahead Of Exit From Oval Office After President Joe Biden dropped out of his presidential race in July amid mounting concerns over his mental acuity and age, Hunter Biden faced another trial regarding three felony tax offenses and six misdemeanor tax offenses regarding the failure to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. He entered a surprise guilty plea in that case as jury selection was set to kick off in September 2024. Hunter Biden's legal troubles, however, were aided in December by his father, who granted his son a sweeping pardon that applies to offenses against the U.S. that Hunter Biden "has committed or may have committed" from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 1, article source: Hunter Biden agrees to be stripped of license to practice law in DC: court records
Fox News
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Hunter Biden agrees to be stripped of license to practice law in DC: court records
Former first son and convicted felon Hunter Biden agreed to be disbarred from practicing law in Washington, D.C., court records show. Hunter Biden filed an affidavit under seal on Tuesday acknowledging his "consent to disbarment," D.C. Court of Appeals records show. Biden was "suspended immediately from the practice of law" in Washington, D.C., in June 2024 following his felony conviction in a Delaware federal court. Hunter Biden will officially be disbarred if the D.C. Court of Appeals accepts a disciplinary agency's recommendation – and his own consent – for disbarment, according to the New York Post. The former first son's Washington, D.C., bar member standing currently reads that he is under "Temp Disciplinary Suspension," Fox News Digital found on Wednesday morning. Hunter Biden has been licensed to practice law in the nation's capital since 2007. Fox News Digital reached out to Hunter Biden's attorney regarding the disbarment, but did not immediately receive a reply. Hunter Biden was found guilty in June 2024 of lying about his drug use when purchasing a firearm in 2018. The former first son has a long history of drug abuse, which was documented in his 2021 memoir, "Beautiful Things." The book was repeatedly referenced by both prosecutors and Biden's defense team throughout the nearly seven-day trial. The memoir walks readers through Biden's highs and lows with addiction to crack cocaine and attempts to get sober. He was found guilty on three charges: making a false statement on a purchase application of a gun, making a false statement related to information required to be kept by a federally licensed gun dealer, and possession of a gun by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. Hunter Biden pleaded not guilty in the case. Biden's legal team did not dispute the former first son's long history with substance abuse during the trial, instead arguing that on the day Biden bought the Cobra Colt .38, he did not consider himself an active drug user. Prosecutors, however, argued Biden was addicted to crack cocaine before, during and after he bought the handgun. In addition to citing Biden's memoir, the prosecution team also presented the jury with text messages Biden shared with family and apparent drug dealers to prove his addiction around the time period he purchased the firearm. After President Joe Biden dropped out of his presidential race in July amid mounting concerns over his mental acuity and age, Hunter Biden faced another trial regarding three felony tax offenses and six misdemeanor tax offenses regarding the failure to pay at least $1.4 million in taxes. He entered a surprise guilty plea in that case as jury selection was set to kick off in September 2024. Hunter Biden's legal troubles, however, were aided in December by his father, who granted his son a sweeping pardon that applies to offenses against the U.S. that Hunter Biden "has committed or may have committed" from Jan. 1, 2014, to Dec. 1, 2024.
Washington Post
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
EPA pauses Biden's new chemical disaster protections
The Environmental Protection Agency is rewriting a rule providing safeguards to prevent accidents at chemical plants, according to a motion filed on Thursday in federal court, a move that would affect nearly 12,000 chemical facilities around the country. The EPA asked the D.C. Court of Appeals to pause legal challenges to safety regulations introduced during the Biden administration while it 'undertakes a new rulemaking,' without specifying how it would change them. The stricter standards established under the Biden administration were set to go into effect next year, and be fully implemented by May 2027. The new updates to the federal 'Risk Management Program,' first reported by the Hill, would force operations with the most hazardous substances to evaluate and implement safer technologies, and require all facilities to account for how to respond to natural disasters in their emergency plans. It also required companies to provide more transparency about the chemicals they store with local communities and first responders, and to offer greater employee protections. The agency did not respond to questions Friday, referring to the court filing, which said the new rule will be written 'in light of the new Administration's policy priorities.' The first Trump administration weakened the rule, which was established under the Obama administration, allowing companies to store chemicals on-site without having to inform the public and letting facilities operate without undertaking measures aimed at preventing accidents. The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group that challenged the rule, did not provide direct comment, instead referring to a joint letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin in January. 'The 2024 rule imposes misguided and illegal new requirements that fail to make facilities safer,' the letter said. 'Urgent action is needed to address these problems before industry must make costly investments in preparation for the looming compliance deadline.' In addition, the letter called on the EPA to shut down a public tool that allows communities to look up details about chemical facilities across the country, including information on past chemical accidents, arguing that the 'disclosure of this sensitive security information to anyone with an internet connection creates additional security risks.' Environmental advocates criticized the EPA's move, arguing that weakening the rules will put communities at risk of more incidents. 'We've been here before, and the losers are always the families, workers and first responders,' said Adam Kron, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, an environmental law firm. 'The EPA should be implementing its chemical disaster safety, not rolling it back.' Despite safety rules, dangerous accidents occur regularly at U.S. chemical plants. According to the most recent EPA data, some 177 million Americans could be affected by chemical disasters under worst-case scenarios.
NBC News
06-03-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Government ethics watchdog removed from post amid legal fight with Trump administration
A federal appeals court Wednesday said President Donald Trump can fire a top government watchdog in the latest round of a legal fight over the authority to dismiss federal officials. The D.C. Court of Appeals put on hold on a lower court's ruling that found Hampton Dellinger's termination at the Office of Special Counsel was 'unlawful.' The court said it would expedite its review of that ruling, but in the meantime Dellinger can be removed from his post. The White House and Dellinger did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday night. The ruling is a temporary win for Trump as his administration seeks to carry out mass firings of federal workers, including nearly two dozen government watchdog officials. Dellinger, who served as special counsel of the Office of Special Counsel, filed a lawsuit last month against several Trump administration officials challenging his dismissal. He argued it violated a federal law that states special counsels can only be removed by the president for "inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.' The email outlining his termination did not cite any of the those as the reason for his firing, Dellinger said in his lawsuit. 'That email made no attempt to comply with the Special Counsel's for-cause removal protection,' Dellinger's lawsuit said. 'It stated simply: 'On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as Special Counsel of the US Office of Special Counsel is terminated, effective immediately.'' Dellinger began his post in March 2024 after being appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term. As head of the Office of Special Counsel, Dellinger was tasked with shielding federal employees from prohibited personnel practices, including retaliation for whistleblowing. The work of his office was unrelated to the investigations into Trump led by Jack Smith, who was appointed to serve as a special counsel by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022. Last week, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson halted Trump's effort to remove Dellinger and ordered he be allowed to serve until the end of his term barring inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. She had previously allowed Dellinger to remain in his post while the case moved through the courts. Jackson appeared to agree with Dellinger's argument that allowing his termination without cause would incite a chilling effect among federal workers seeking to lodge complaints through the Office of Special Counsel. 'The Special Counsel's job is to look into and expose unethical or unlawful practices directed at federal civil servants, and to help ensure that whistleblowers who disclose fraud, waste, and abuse on the part of government agencies can do so without suffering reprisals,' Jackson wrote in her Saturday ruling. 'It would be ironic, to say the least, and inimical to the ends furthered by the statute if the Special Counsel himself could be chilled in his work by fear of arbitrary or partisan removal.' The Justice Department had previously petitioned the Supreme Court to affirm what it called Trump's right to fire Dellinger, arguing that anything less would infringe on the president's power to manage the executive branch "in the earliest days of his Administration.'
