A nation of judges, not of law

/

Obama judge overrules Congress, blocks defunding Planned Parenthood facilities

A judge in Massachusetts temporarily enjoined the Trump administration from stripping some Medicaid funds from the nation's largest abortion provider

The press coverage describes the judge as having blocked the Trump administration’s actions here, but in fact the defunding was part of the rescissions bill that clawed back $9 billion in previously approved spending, a bill enacted by the Legislative Branch: Congress, so she isn’t blocking Trump, she’s denying the power of t\\Congress to control spending, control that is granted to the legislative branch by our Constitution.

Readers with a memory capable of stretching back several months will recall that previous District Courts’ injunctions forbidding cuts were based on the theory that the Executive branch lacks the power to rescind Congressional authorizations of spending; so Congress acted, and reversed those authorizations. Now our judicial leftists claim that even that isn’t enough: the judges themselves must approve.

The judge who has issued this injunction is Obama-appointed Indira Talwani, the same one whose earlier stay forbidding Trump’s executive order that had rescinded Biden’s executive order on the granting of humanitarian parole program for refugees was overruled by the Supreme Court last May. Judge Talwani continues to defy higher judicial, binding authority.

Not to be outdone, yesterday two additional judges purported to have the authority to overrule the constitution’s grant to the Executive Branch the power and the duty to enforce the nation’s immigration laws:

Obama Judges Set Abrego Garcia Free and Protect Him From ICE

…. [B]ack-to-back rulings from U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw in Nashville, Tennessee, and Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland ... ordered Abrego's release and blocked his detention by immigration authorities in Tennessee.

Who’s the threat to democracy that the Democrats and their media monkeys claim to see? The threat can be found on the bench, not in the White House.

Unfund the UN

/

“Hello? Hello? wake up in there, it’s time to leave” *

Top UN court says countries can sue each other over climate change

A landmark decision by a top UN court has cleared the way for countries to sue each other over climate change, including over historic emissions of planet-warming gases.

The ruling is non-binding but legal experts say it could have wide-ranging consequences.

…. The unprecedented case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was the brainchild of a group of young law students from low-lying Pacific islands on the frontlines of climate change, who came up with the idea in 2019.

…. The ICJ is considered the world's highest court and it has global jurisdiction. Lawyers have told BBC News that the opinion could be used as early as next week, including in national courts outside of the ICJ. 

Campaigners and climate lawyers hope the landmark decision will now pave the way for compensation from countries that have historically burned the most fossil fuels and are therefore the most responsible for global warming.

…. Judge Iwasawa Yuji also said that if countries do not develop the most ambitious possible plans to tackle climate change this would constitute a breach of their promises in the Paris Agreement.

He added that broader international law applies, which means that countries which are not signed up to the Paris Agreement - or want to leave, like the US - are still required to protect the environment, including the climate system.

The court's opinion is advisory, but previous ICJ decisions have been implemented by governments, including when the UK agreed to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year.

…. The court ruled that developing nations have a right to seek damages for the impacts of climate change such as destroyed buildings and infrastructure. 

…. It is not clear how much an individual country could have to pay in damages if any claim was successful. 

But previous analysis published in Nature, estimated that between 2000 and 2019 there were $2.8 trillion losses from climate change - or $16 million per hour.

As well as compensation, the court also ruled that governments were responsible for the climate impact of companies operating in their countries.

It said specifically that subsidising the fossil fuel industry or approving new oil and gas licenses could be in breach of a country's obligations. 

Developing countries are already exploring bringing new cases seeking compensation for historic contributions to climate change against richer, high emitting nations citing the ICJ opinion, according to lawyers the BBC spoke to.

If a country wants to bring a case back to the ICJ to make a ruling on compensation then it can only do so against countries which have agreed to its jurisdiction, which includes the likes of the UK, but not US or China.

But a case can be brought in any court globally, whether that be domestic or international, citing the ICJ opinion, explained Joie Chowdhury from CIEL.

So instead a country may choose to take their case not to the ICJ but a court where those countries are bound e.g. federal courts in the US.

But the question remains whether the ICJ opinion will be respected.

Trump to UN: “Sod off, Swampy”.

When asked about the decision, a White House spokesperson told BBC News:

"As always, President Trump and the entire Administration is committed to putting America first and prioritising the interests of everyday Americans."

Obviously, Two-New-Coal-Plants a Week-China will pay no heed to this, but U.S. corporations have to deal with U.S. Courts and their lawless judges, and that’s a danger.

* (Jesus has nothing to do with this story, but I’ve always been amused by the picture of him visiting the UN back in 1961)

Someone's bound to want this one, I suppose

/

382 North Street, up the hill and across from North Street School originally hosted a very nice 1956 house of 3,615 sq. ft., and in 2022 its owners tried for a price that reflected what they thought was the value of the house, $4.1 million. Alas, it was its 2.39-acres in the R-1 zone that held value, not the house itself, and it finally sold to a builder in 2024 for $2.950 and was immediately razed and replaced.

That replacement has now been completed and listed for sale at $17,875,000. 13,326 sq. ft. in the main house (pool house, etc excluded from that calculation), 6 bedrooms, 8.3 baths, and “garaging” for 7. No word of how many Tesla chargers are in that garage, but I think we can assume at least 5 or 6.

The house’s style is described as “transitional”, which seems to mean a bridge from the traditional architecture of Greenwich to last year’s retro-framhouse look, to this year’s industrial warehouse/professional building, with a heavy tilt towards the commercial end of that scale.

Fascinating to watch.

Rebound on Richmond Hill

/

85 Richmond Hill, listed at $6.75 million, has sold for $6.7; that’s quite an improvement from its previous appearances on the market, as I wrote back in March when this listing came on:

New again on Richmond Hill

85 Richmond Hill Road, 10,000 sq.ft., 9 bedrooms, $6.795 million. Constructed in 2004, this property’s had a checkered sales history:

  • 2006 $7.1 million

  • 2007 tried for $8.9 million, no go

  • 2013 sold $4.825

  • 2020 sold $3.550

The market’s improved since 2007-2020, so things will probably go better this time.

And so they did.

Best done in one swell foop

/

Why take tiny, incremental price cuts when a bold stroke will immediately bring it closer to where it should be? After a bit of dithering — $7.495 million to $7.250, 2 Winding Lane took a real price cut yesterday dropping from that $7.250 million to $6.395.

I’ve always thought it was a pretty house, and it’s far enough off Lake Avenue to mitigate traffic noise, but this property’s always been a bit of difficult sell. Purchased for $4.3 million in 2002, those buyers put it back up for sale in Marchg 2013 for $5.195, but eventually capitulated to the market and sold it at a loss to the present owners a year later for $4.075. It will be interesting to see if this latest price cut produces a buyer: I’m betting it will.

A couple of sales worth noting

/

406 Stanwich Road, $10.5 million. Purchased partially completed from the original builder for $7.998 million in May 2023; the nuyers finished it and put it back up for sale last September for $13.9 million. The house is still ugly, but at least the price improved.

502 Indian Field Road $5.125 million on an ask of $5.995. Not too much of a house but it’s Mead Point. The sellers paid $4 million in 2005.

Biting the hand(s) that feed you

/

Most aspiring 1L law students would give an arm and a leg to gain an internship at a firm like Sidley Austin: this girl took‘em

Summer intern fired from white-shoe NYC law firm for biting multiple co-workers: ‘Nibble is . . . too tame a word’

A twisted Big Law summer intern was reportedly tossed from an elite Manhattan law firm after repeatedly baring the tooth, the whole tooth and nothing but the tooth.

A summer associate at white-shoe firm Sidley Austin began biting colleagues and roaring at them on her first day — and by the time she was canned, her body count had reached double digits, insiders told the legal news site Above the Law. 

The bites were not “in an aggressive, ‘we’re beefing’ way” – but rather, “a faux-quirky manic pixie dream girl crossed with the Donner party vibe,” the outlet reported.

Bridgeport's convicted felon of a mayor is upset about a Biden pardon, and he should be

/

did I do that?

Bridgeport mayor slams Biden’s pardon in 1999 murder case, as Adrian Peeler released

Adrian Peeler, the man convicted of conspiracy in the 1999 killings of a mother and her eight-year-old son in Bridgeport, has been released from federal prison. His clemency was granted by former President Joe Biden (D) in his final days in office.

On Thursday, Mayor Joe Ganim (D) and Police Chief Roderick Porter were at BJ Brown Memorial Park, which is named for Leroy “BJ” Brown Jr. BJ was the eight-year-old murdered alongside his mom, Karen Clarke. They were in disbelief that Peeler had been released, and that they had no information about his whereabouts or plans.

At the time of the murder, an eyewitness identified Peeler as the gunman, but he was only convicted of conspiracy.

Ganim said the release of now 49-year-old Peeler has his city on edge.

“We’ve heard from victims’ advocates, people who know the family,” Ganim said. “And let’s say that there is not only outrage, but certainly concern. You can just imagine. I’m concerned. The chief’s concerned. Anybody who calls Bridgeport home, and beyond, should be concerned.”

Ganim said the details surrounding his clemency and release have been kept from city officials.

“Is there supervised release? Is there parole? Is there probation? Is there somebody to report to, or does this fall in the lap of the city of Bridgeport to deal with?” Ganim said. “Someone who was a hired killer, who killed an eight-year-old child and his mother, and says, ‘Here, Bridgeport, this is what we’re giving you back.’ Thank you, Joe Biden.”

Before he was killed, BJ was set to testify in a case against Peeler’s brother, Russell Peeler Jr. The murders led to the state’s creation of a witness protection program.

Peeler was sentenced to 25 years in prison, but was expected to serve longer on federal drug charges. Biden granted him clemency on those, so his time was considered served.

Connecticut politicians on both sides of the aisle have been critical of Biden’s decision, including whether or not he used the autopen. The autopen is a device that previous presidents have used, but critics argue it suggests Biden did not consider his pardons enough.

“How could this happen? How could the former president, with a clear mind, actually sign this type of pardon for this individual? Unspeakable,” Ganim said. “And then to look at what may have happened. Did he sign away the authority for this? So that needs to be looked at.”

“If Joe Biden wants to release this individual, let him take him to Delaware and let him be released there if he thinks he should be returned to society,” Ganim continued. “But not in Bridgeport.”

Ganim, nicknamed the “second chance mayor” because he was incarcerated between terms, said he believes in second chances.

In this case, perhaps not.

“I can’t see a path, I don’t have any information that leads me to understand how someone who was a hired murderer … is all of a sudden, by the stroke of a pen, put back into the community,” Ganim said.

Heck, even Dick Blumenthal has said he’s “disgusted” by the pardon. CT’s other senator is too busy visiting illegal aliens in Gatorland to comment on this case.