Appellate court arguments set for Charleston church shooter

Attorneys for the man sentenced to federal death row for the racist slayings of nine members of a Black South Carolina congregation are set to formally argue that his conviction and death sentence should be overturned. Oral arguments have been set for May 25 before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Dylann Roof, according to federal court records. In 2017, Roof became the first person in the U.S. sentenced to death for a federal hate crime. Authorities have said Roof opened fire during the closing prayer of a 2015 Bible study session at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, raining down dozens of bullets on those assembled. Serving as his own attorney in the sentencing phase of his trial, the self-avowed white supremacist neither fought for his life nor explained his actions, remorse, saying only that “anyone who hates anything in their mind has a good reason for it.” Roof’s 2017 appeal to the 4th Circuit came as no surprise, as transcripts of hearings to determine his trial competency revealed that Roof told his lawyers he’d seek appeals to drag his case out as long as he could. With the passage of time, Roof explained, he expected white supremacists to take over the U.S., pardon him for the killings and make him governor of South Carolina. Following his federal death penalty trial, Roof was given nine consecutive life sentences after he pleaded guilty in 2017 to state murder charges, leaving him to await execution in a federal prison and sparing his victims and their families the burden of a second trial. After that sentencing, Solicitor Scarlett Wilson ? who had also been pursuing the death penalty ? called the deal “an insurance policy for the federal conviction,” ensuring that Roof would spend the rest of his life in prison, should the federal sentence not stand. Wilson also said that she felt more confident a federal death sentence would be carried out under the newly minted Trump administration that it would have been under a Democratic one. At the time, there was anticipation that then-President Donald Trump might swiftly resume federal executions, following cessation of the practice under several several previous administrations. Trump’s decision to reinstate federal executions didn’t come until 2020, however, when his Justice Department ended a 17-year hiatus, going on to oversee a total of 13 federal executions. Due to his remaining appeals, Roof’s case was not eligible for execution at that time.

Sonnet 54 Preserved roses

Preserved roses in Los Angeles, photos of which are presented on our website www.sonnet contribute to the expansion of design opportunities. We create original flower arrangements and decorative elements. In addition, such products will successfully fit into any interior, emphasizing its uniqueness. A delicate rose under a glass flask will serve as an unforgettable gift for relatives or people close to you, delighting with its beauty for more than one year! Our online flower store in Los Angeles offers to buy “eternal roses” at an affordable price. All presented products are certified, so their quality is beyond doubt and reaches the highest mark. If you have any questions, you can always count on the professional help of experienced consultants. All wishes regarding delivery or other important points will certainly be taken into account and will help to improve the quality of service to our customers. To order a product, just fill out an application on the website. Delivery is carried out as soon as possible, without delays. Xoxo

High court rules challenge to Trump census plan is premature

A divided Supreme Court has dismissed as premature a challenge to President Donald Trump’s plan to exclude people living in the country illegally from the population count used to allot states seats in the House of Representatives. The court’s decision Friday, led by its conservative justices, is not a final ruling on the matter and, while it allows Trump to pursue the plan for now, it’s not clear whether he will receive final numbers from the Census Bureau before he leaves office next month. If the president still has not received final census numbers by the time Joe Biden takes office Jan. 20, Trump’s plan will be effectively dead because Biden is extremely unlikely to pursue it. It’s also possible the Biden administration would take steps to try to reverse decisions made under Trump. For now, though, the high court said it was too soon to rule on the legality of Trump’s plan because it’s not yet clear how many people he would seek to exclude and whether the division of House seats would be affected. The court said in an unsigned opinion that “we express no view on the merits of the constitutional and related statutory claims presented. We hold only that they are not suitable for adjudication at this time.” At least five of the court’s six conservative justices had to join the opinion to make a majority on the nine-member court. The three liberal justices dissented, saying the effort to exclude people in the country from the population for divvying up House seats is unlawful. “I believe this Court should say so,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. It’s not clear that Friday’s decision will have much practical effect. Documents leaked to the House committee that oversees the Census Bureau suggest the apportionment numbers won’t be ready until after Jan. 20, when Trump leaves office and Biden becomes president. The Census Bureau has acknowledged the discovery of data irregularities in recent weeks that put the Dec. 31 deadline in federal law for transmitting numbers to the president in jeopardy. Dale Ho, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer who argued the case for the challengers, said the decision was about the timing of the case, not whether the plan complies with federal law. “This ruling does not authorize President Trump’s goal of excluding undocumented immigrants from the census count used to apportion the House of Representatives. The legal mandate is clear — every single person counts in the census, and every single person is represented in Congress. If this policy is ever actually implemented, we’ll be right back in court challenging it,” Ho said. No president has tried to do what Trump outlined in a memo in July — remove millions of noncitizens from the once-a-decade head count of the U.S. population that determines how many seats each state gets in the House of Representatives, as well as the allocation of some federal funding. States with large populations of people who are in the country illegally could lose seats in the House under Trump’s plan, and the president signaled in his memo that punishing states that “encourage illegal aliens” is one reason he issued it. By the administration’s estimate, California could lose two to three House seats if people living in the country illegally were excluded based on what the administration said are more than 2 million such California residents. His administration has defended his authority to exclude at least some people living in the country illegally, including perhaps people who are in immigration detention or those who have been ordered to leave the country. But during arguments last month, acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall, Trump’s top Supreme Court lawyer, would not rule out larger categories of immigrants, including those who have protection from deportation under the DACA program.

Federal judge casts doubt on Trump’s Wisconsin lawsuit

A federal judge Thursday cast doubt on President Donald Trump’s lawsuit that seeks to overturn Joe Biden’s win in Wisconsin, saying siding with Trump would be “the most remarkable ruling in the history of this court or the federal judiciary.” Trump is pursuing extraordinary attempts to overturn Biden’s win with a pair of lawsuits in Wisconsin, in federal and state courts. Hearings on both cases were scheduled for Thursday. In the state case, Trump wants to disqualify more than 221,000 ballots and in the federal case he wants to give the GOP-controlled Legislature the power to name Trump the winner. At the beginning of arguments in the federal case, U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig marveled at Trump’s request. “It’s not lost on me that this is a political case, obviously, and that the relief that’s been requested, if that relief were granted, this would be a most remarkable proceeding and probably the most remarkable ruling in the history of this court or the federal judiciary,” Ludwig said. Ludwig, a Trump appointee, had previously called the Trump request “bizarre” and “very odd.” Trump’s attorney Bill Bock argued that the election wasn’t run properly and that the risks of voter fraud were increased because ballot drop boxes were not staffed, voting by mail was widely used and voters who said they were indefinitely confined were allowed to cast absentee ballots without showing a valid photo ID. “In what what area of American life is it more important that the rules be followed and the playing field be level than in an election for president of the United States?” Bock said. Trump’s attorneys are urging the courts to act quickly so he can appeal any adverse ruling before members of the Electoral College meet on Monday and cast Wisconsin’s 10 votes for Biden. Attorneys for Gov. Tony Evers and the bipartisan state elections commission say the cases are without merit and should be dismissed. On Wednesday, a federal judge in Wisconsin dismissed another lawsuit filed by the chairman of the La Crosse County Republican party that argued there was massive fraud that warranted the court declaring Trump the winner. Similar lawsuits, all filed by Trump’s former campaign attorney Sidney Powell, have been dismissed in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan. Powell appealed the Wisconsin ruling on Thursday to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Trump’s state lawsuit made Wisconsin the only state that missed Tuesday’s safe harbor deadline, which means Congress has to accept the electoral votes that will be cast Monday and sent to the Capitol for counting on Jan. 6. Missing the deadline won’t deprive Wisconsin of its 10 electoral votes.

UAE offers its defense in Qatar lawsuit at UN high court

The United Arab Emirates is defending itself against a lawsuit by Qatar brought before the United Nations' highest court that accuses it of "discrimination against Qatar and Qatari citizens." The UAE began its defense on Thursday before the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Netherlands. It's one of four Arab nations that have been boycotting Qatar since last year as part of a diplomatic dispute. Qatar filed the lawsuit earlier this month and presented its case Wednesday. Those nations announced earlier Wednesday they are filing a separate grievance at the ICJ against Qatar. Cases at the ICJ take months or years to complete. However, requests for provisional measures like those requested by Qatar are dealt with quicker. Rulings by the ICJ are final and binding on those involved.

Supreme Court upholds Trump administration travel ban

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld President Donald Trump’s ban on travel from several mostly Muslim countries, rejecting a challenge that it discriminated against Muslims or exceeded his authority. The 5-4 decision Tuesday is the court’s first substantive ruling on a Trump administration policy. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by his four conservative colleagues. Roberts wrote that presidents have substantial power to regulate immigration. He also rejected the challengers’ claim of anti-Muslim bias. But he was careful not to endorse either Trump’s provocative statements about immigration in general and Muslims in particular. “We express no view on the soundness of the policy,” Roberts wrote. The travel ban has been fully in place since the court declined to block it in December. The justices allowed the policy to take full effect even as the court fight continued and lower courts had ruled it out of bounds. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent that based on the evidence in the case “a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.” She said her colleagues arrived at the opposite result by “ignoring the facts, misconstruing our legal precedent, and turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts upon countless families and individuals, many of whom are United States citizens.” Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan also dissented. The policy applies to travelers from five countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations — Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen. It also affects two non-Muslim countries: blocking travelers from North Korea and some Venezuelan government officials and their families. A sixth majority Muslim country, Chad, was removed from the list in April after improving “its identity-management and information sharing practices,” Trump said in a proclamation. The administration had pointed to the Chad decision to show that the restrictions are premised only on national security concerns. The challengers, though, argued that the court could just ignore all that has happened, beginning with Trump’s campaign tweets to prevent the entry of Muslims into the United States. Just a week after he took office in January 2017, Trump announced his first travel ban aimed at seven countries. That triggered chaos and protests across the U.S. as travelers were stopped from boarding international flights and detained at airports for hours.

Court: S.Korea must allow alternative for military objectors

South Korea's Constitutional Court ruled Thursday that the country must allow alternative social service for people who conscientiously object to military service, which is currently mandatory for able-bodied males. The ruling requires the government to introduce alternative service by the end of 2019. It was hailed by activists as a breakthrough that advances individual rights and freedom of thought. It is also likely to trigger a heated debate in a country which maintains a huge military to counter North Korea threats, and where many have accused conscientious objectors of attempting to evade the draft. Hundreds of conscientious objectors are imprisoned in South Korea each year, serving terms of 18 months or longer. Most are Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse to serve in the military on religious grounds. "Too many people have been forced to choose between prison and the military, and when they choose prison, a term of 1 1/2 years has been almost automatic," said Lim Jae-sung, a human rights lawyer who has represented contentious objectors. "This is great news for those who are currently on trial or will conscientiously object to military service in the future as we probably won't be marching them straight to jail." The court said the current law, which does not permit alternative service, is unconstitutional because it infringes excessively on individual rights. The court acknowledged that conscientious objectors experience "enormous disadvantages" in addition to their prison terms, including restrictions in public sector employment, maintaining business licenses and social stigma.