The Supreme Court Should Overturn Roe v.
Wade
The rule of law and our constitutional
system was undermined by the Roe v. Wade decision that led to the
legalization of abortion on demand.
In this regard, Judicial Watch filed an amicus
curiae brief in the Supreme Court in favor of
overturning Roe v. Wade. Our brief in support of the constitutionality
of Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act argues that states have
the right under the Constitution to regulate abortion and protect unborn
life. (Dobbs
v. Jackson (No. 19-1392)).
Our brief argues that
the Supreme Court should overturn Roe and restore the regulation
of abortion to the states:
Despite creative judicial legislating, it is crystal clear that abortion
does not involve war, peace, negotiation, foreign commerce, or taxation.
Abortion fits squarely into the states’ sphere of objects that concern
the “lives, liberties, and properties of the people.” Not being an
enumerated power, the Roe Court did not have the
authority to overturn the abortion laws of the states.
Additionally, our brief notes that Roe
v. Wade didn’t provide clarity, but instead muddied the
waters:
Far from creating a national consensus, Roe threw the states into
a 48-year contentious legal battle. Even some abortion advocates eschew the
injudicious method of federalizing abortion as short-circuiting a naturally
evolving jurisprudence under state laws. As federal and state judges
attempt to apply this Court’s precedents, a national landscape of
inconsistent, inconclusive, and untenable rules have emerged. As a national
policy, abortion jurisprudence is, in a word, a mess. Stubbornly holding on
to unconstitutional precedent will never have a positive outcome. It is
time to return abortion policy to the states where it belongs and where the
democratic process can effectively work.
States must be able to defend life, and the
disastrous Roe decision has upended our constitutional order. The
Supreme Court has a chance to right a constitutional wrong in a way that
will allow Americans again to protect the right to life.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule by June of next year…
Why No One Is Surprised Hillary Clinton’s Influence-Peddling
Foundation Collapsed
Per usual, Judicial Watch took the lead in exposing Bill and Hillary
Clinton’s shady dealings inside their “foundation,” especially in the
way they used it to sell influence. Now their foundation’s fundraising is
collapsing, which isn’t a surprise, as I detail in this op-ed
for Daily Caller:
When one of the most recognizable nonprofits in the world loses 75% of
its contributions over a four-year period, there are typically
investigatory reports written into what has gone wrong. That isn’t the
case with the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation received $62.9
million in 2016 but only $16.3 million in 2020, and very few people seem to
have noticed.
That is because most Beltway insiders know the Clinton Foundation’s
primary purpose: to serve as a platform for Hillary Clinton’s political
operation while lining the Clintons’ pockets by trading influence for
money. That is why donations spiked when
Hillary was secretary of state and most of the world thought she was
destined to become president — and why they cratered after she lost.
Kevin Thurm, the CEO of the Clinton
Foundation, tried to play off the 2020 decline off as pandemic-related. In
a letter, he wrote that
2020 “was a difficult year for philanthropy. Across the sector, resources
were stretched thinly and fundraising activities were impacted.” This
argument doesn’t explain the tens of millions the Foundation lost between
2016 and 2019 and ignores that charitable giving was up by 5.1% in
America last year.
Of course, an objective observer easily understands the real reason the
Clinton Foundation experienced such a sharp decline in contributions since
2016. The Foundation is an influence-peddling scheme, and the Clintons’
influence has waned. Even Obama understood the scheme. When President Obama
nominated Hillary Clinton in 2009 to serve as secretary of state, she
agreed to a strict memorandum
of understanding to wall off the Foundation from conflicts of
interest with the State Department. As Judicial Watch uncovered, the
Clinton team immediately
violated this agreement by using the Clinton State Department to
help Clinton Foundation donors.
The Clintons also agreed that
the State Department would approve Bill Clinton’s speeches. Judicial
Watch investigations (in partnership with the Daily
Caller) uncovered that
this agreement translated into the Clinton State Department rubber-stamping
virtually all of Bill Clinton’s 215 speeches, which raked in $48 million
in speaking fees while his wife was secretary of state. These speeches
included government-controlled entities in China, Russia and Saudi Arabia.
State Department memos approving his speeches were routinely sent to Cheryl
Mills, who was Hillary Clinton’s senior counsel and chief of staff –
and a former Foundation board member!
The former president blurred ethical lines, routinely mixing diplomacy and
Clinton Foundation fundraising. He praised Colombian
President Manuel Santos’s efforts to reach out to terrorist group FARC
shortly after playing
golf with the president as part of a fundraising effort. In
another email exchange, a Clinton Foundation official briefed the
State Department on Clinton’s trip to Myanmar and his efforts to promote
the Clinton Foundation.
If this wasn’t sleazy enough, emails reveal that the Clinton Foundation
was influencing State Department decisions. Records show that
Huma Abedin, Secretary Clinton’s close friend and State Department
official, often served as a conduit between Secretary Clinton and top
donors. In one case, Clinton declined to meet with Crown Prince Salman of
Bahrain, but after Doug Band from the Clinton Foundation emailed Abedin,
the Crown Prince ended up on Clinton’s schedule. Band also attempted to
get a visa for an English soccer player with a criminal charge because
Casey Wasserman, a major Foundation donor, wanted the visa approved.
Similarly, Band pushed Foggy Bottom to help Nigerian billionaire Gilbert
Chagoury, because Chagoury, who had donated millions to the Clinton
Foundation, was “key guy there [Lebanon] and to us.”
In another instance, Band pushed Abedin to make a particular hire, arguing that
it was “important to take care of [Redacted].” Abedin assured Band that
“Personnel has been sending him options.” This revelation of an outside
donor pushing for a political appointment through a nonprofit might seem
shocking, but the Justice Department had little interest in this influence
peddling scheme.
Maybe the most egregious instance of Clinton corruption is the Uranium
One deal. Bill Clinton reportedly helped his billionaire pal Frank
Giustra acquire uranium mining rights from the Kazakhstani dictator in the
mid-2000s. Giustra then gave tens of millions to the Clinton Foundation. In
2009, when it appeared the Kazakhstani government might seize the uranium,
Secretary Clinton helped approve a deal that allowed a Russian state-owned
company to take over part of the company, even though she had previously
opposed foreign companies controlling vital U.S. resources. Unsurprisingly,
those involved in this deal donated millions to the Clinton Foundation,
which tried
to hide the donations.
The collapse of the Clinton Foundation might shock outsiders, but it is no
surprise to those who have watched the Clintons’ machinations for years.
The Foundation existed as a way for the Clintons to peddle their
connections and power in exchange for money. When it became clear they’d
never hold power again, donors predictably turned off the cash
spigot.
Documents Reveal Bill Clinton’s Trip with Ghislaine
Maxwell
We have been investigating
former President Bill Clinton’s involvement with Jeffrey Epstein for
years, and we now have more insight.
We received four
pages of records from the Secret Service revealing that Bill Clinton
took a trip with Ghislaine Maxwell to India. Maxwell, a longtime associate
of Jeffrey Epstein, is now on trial for sex trafficking and other
charges.
We obtained the documents through a FOIA request to the Secret Service
for information about any trips Bill Clinton took with Ghislaine
Maxwell.
The records include exchanges between Secret Service officers about a trip
Maxwell took with President Clinton. In a November 20, 2003, email
exchange, a Secret Service official advises a colleague, “The LA lead is
[redacted]. Manifest to Osaka and LA (has not been confirmed but this
should not deviate too much). FPOTUS Clinton [redacted] Ghislaine Maxwell
[redacted]. Crew [redacted].”
The colleague replied, “Thanks [redacted] info helps. I’ll have the
prelim sent to my office by this evening so the twx [teletype] can go out
tomorrow [redacted].”
On November 22, 2003, a Secret Service agent responded to the same
chain, writing, “[Redacted] I have just received an updated manifest for
the trip to LA. The additional names are [redacted]. Hope this doesn’t
create too many issues for you. I’ve attached the passport list. Thanks
[redacted]; Agra, India to Los Angeles, CA (via Japan for fuel
stop)”.
An official replies, “Thanks [redacted] I met with the [redacted] today
and they had given me that info along with [redacted] (another addition),
so we have 4 crew members and 12 staff and [redacted] USSS [redacted]
total. Not sure if they are feeding our [redacted] USSS, so I’ll have
food and drinks waiting for them. Cheers”.
Another agent responded, “as far as crew and usss are concerned then that
is correct – staff/guest list could change – as you see [redacted] but
I don’t think drastically. I just heard about [redacted] from my saic
[Special Agent-in-Charge]. If you are able to get my guys food then it is
greatly appreciated – evn [sic] an attempt. All you guys in Honolulu have
made my job much less difficult. Thank you for all your help.”
Finally, an agent wrote “[Redacted] no problem. We’re here to help and
happy to do so. I know your guys have been run through the ringer and I
think everyone wants to see this trip get over, so if I can help make their
trip a little nicer, that’s the least we can do. I heard that when they
flew from Oslo to Hong Kong via Russia fuel stop, they had nothing to eat
that entire trip, so I don’t want that to happen again.”
Obviously, this new information raises more questions about the extent and
nature of the relationship between Bill Clinton, Ghislaine Maxwell and
Jeffrey Epstein.
TRIAL UPDATE: Judicial Watch Lawyers in Court Trial against
California’s Gender Quotas for Corporate Boards
Judicial Watch lawyers are now in a California Superior Court trial in a
taxpayer lawsuit challenging constitutionality of California’s gender
quotas for corporate boards of directors. The trial is expected to last
three weeks and is taking place in a Los Angeles courtroom (Robin
Crest et al. v. Alex Padilla (No.19STCV27561)).
We filed the lawsuit
in Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2019, on behalf of California
taxpayers Robin Crest, Earl De Vries and Judy De Vries. The lawsuit
challenges a 2018 law, known as Senate Bill 826, which requires every
publicly held corporation headquartered in California to have at least one
director “who self-identifies her gender as a woman” on its board of
directors by December 31, 2019. The law also requires corporations to have
up to three such persons on their boards by December 31, 2021, depending on
the size of the board.
We argue
that California’s quotas for women on corporate boards violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the California Constitution, among other provisions,
and we ask the court to permanently enjoin any expenditure of taxpayer
funds to implement the quotas.
In our brief prepared
for the trial we point out:
Even time spent by public officials carrying out an unlawful law can be
enjoined…. Application of the law as written will result in a state
official expending taxpayer funds on an unlawful law unless the
expenditures are enjoined.
***
California’s equal protection clause – is clear and well settled:
“When the challenged statutory scheme employs express gender
classifications, a plaintiff meets his or her burden [of establishing
unconstitutionality] by pointing that out.”
It is undeniable that SB 826 expressly employs a gender-based
classification. The law requires a pre-determined number of board seats be
set aside exclusively for women (or females as defined). Accordingly,
Plaintiffs will have satisfied the fourth and final element of their
article I, section 7 claim based on the statute itself. The burden of
justifying SB 826’s express gender classification (i.e., satisfying all
elements of strict scrutiny analysis) shifts to Defendant …
A new
study, published on
November 18, found “a robust and significantly negative stock market
reaction” to California's gender quota mandate.
Before the quota bill passed, a California Assembly floor analysis
identified a “significant risk of legal challenges” to SB 826. It
characterized the legislation as creating a “quota-like system” and
noted, “[T]his bill, if enacted into law, would likely be challenged on
equal protection grounds … The use of a quota-like system, as proposed by
this bill, to remedy past discrimination and differences in opportunity may
be difficult to defend.”
In signing SB 826 in September 2018, then-Governor Brown wrote that
“serious legal concerns have been raised” to the legislation. “I
don’t minimize the potential flaws that indeed may prove fatal to its
ultimate implementation.” He signed the bill anyway, noting
“Nevertheless, recent events in Washington, D.C. – and beyond – make
it crystal clear that many are not getting the message.”
This trial essentially puts ‘Critical Theory’ on the dock for a
discriminatory gender quota mandate that is blatantly unlawful and
unconstitutional. SB826 would upend decades of settled constitutional law
that prohibits discrimination based on sex. Even Gov. Brown, in signing the
law, worried that it is unconstitutional. We hope this trial will vindicate
the rule of law.
In a previous filing in this case, we included expert
analysis from Jonathan Klick, Ph.D., J.D., an expert in
econometrics, statistics, and corporate law, who concluded:
In my opinion, the evidence offered in [the] declarations supporting
Secretary Padilla’s motion for each of these points (underrepresentation
of women on boards, discrimination as the cause of this
underrepresentation, and that research shows a differential benefit of
appointing women, as opposed to men, in terms of firm performance) is
deficient and unreliable.
In September 2020, we also filed a taxpayer lawsuit to
prevent California from enforcing Assembly Bill 979, which requires the
same corporation subject to the gender-based quota also to satisfy racial,
ethnic, sexual preference and transgender status quotas by the end of the
2021 calendar year.
In January 2021, we filed a public
comment with the Securities and Exchange Commission in response to
a proposed rule change requiring race and gender quotas on the boards of
corporations listed on the Nasdaq exchange.
Of course, we’ll be sure to let you know what the Los Angeles court
ultimately decides!
Judicial Watch Seeks to Depose Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot about
Her Racist Interview Policy
Your relentless Judicial Watch just filed a motion for
court authorization to depose Mayor Lori Lightfoot in our civil rights
lawsuit on behalf of Thomas Catenacci and the Daily Caller News
Foundation regarding her policy of only granting interviews to
“journalists of color.”
On May 18, 2021, Mayor Lightfoot’s office informed multiple reporters
that she would grant one-on-one interviews, “only
to Black or Brown journalists.” The next day, the mayor
released a
letter confirming her discriminatory policy.
On May 27, 2021, we filed the lawsuit on
behalf of the Daily Caller News Foundation and reporter Thomas Catenacci
against Lightfoot for violating their First Amendment Rights and
Catenacci’s right to equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment (Catenacci
et al. v. Lightfoot (No. 1:21-cv-02852)). Christine Svenson
of Svenson Law Offices in Palatine, Illinois, is assisting us with the
lawsuit.
Catenacci, a white male, emailed Mayor Lightfoot’s office requesting a
one-on-one interview with the mayor. The office never replied to the
request or to multiple follow up emails from Catenacci.
In August, the court ordered the
deposition of a representative of Lightfoot’s office.
In our new motion,
we point out:
Defendant Lori Lightfoot breached her obligation … to designate a person
or persons to testify on her behalf concerning topics authorized by the
Court. From the earliest moments of the deposition, it was beyond clear
that Mayor Lightfoot failed to produce a witness who could testify to the
factual issues raised in her motion to dismiss and within the scope of the
Court’s order. Specifically, Kathleen LeFurgy, Mayor Lightfoot’s
designee … was grossly ill prepared to testify as Mayor
Lightfoot’s designee.
We are now asking the court to order the deposition of Lightfoot herself
“on oral examination ...”
In a separate motion,
we also ask the court to order the mayor’s office to answer 19 questions
and any reasonable follow-up questions that LeFurgy had refused to answer
during the deposition.
Testimony in this lawsuit confirms Lightfoot is responsible for her racist
interview policy and is therefore a necessary witness in this civil rights
lawsuit.
“Based on the court proceedings to date it sure seems like Mayor
Lightfoot is trying to dodge responsibility for her racist interview
policy. We hope the court does not let this happen,” Daily Caller News
Foundation President Neil Patel said.
“It’s high time Mayor Lightfoot answered directly for denying my
interview request. The mayor must be held responsible for her blatantly
racist interview policy,” Thomas Catenacci said.
Judicial Watch Sues on Behalf of Massachusetts Teacher Fired for
Opposing Critical Race Theory
Critical Race Theory abuse is rising schools across the country, and
we’re fighting back.
In our latest effort, we filed a federal civil rights lawsuit on behalf of
Kari MacRae, a Massachusetts high school teacher who was fired in
retaliation for posts on social media objecting to the inclusion of
critical race theory in schools (MacRae
vs. Matthew Mattos and Matthew A. Ferron (No.
1:21-cv-11917).
The lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, asks for damages against Hanover School
Superintendent Matthew Ferron and Hanover High School Principal Matthew
Mattos for retaliating against MacRae, a math/business teacher at Hanover
High School, for exercising her First Amendment rights.
The lawsuit details that MacRae, who was hired as a Hanover High School
teacher on August 31, 2021, was fired over several TikTok video posts that
were made months prior to her hiring at the school. MacRae, who in May of
2021 was elected to the Bourne School Committee, said she made the posts in
her personal capacity as a citizen and candidate for public office.
MacRae was fired on September 29, 2021.
“I got fired specifically for a social media post I made,” she
said. “That’s a violation of free speech,” MacRae told the Cape
Cod Times in an interview published on October 13,
2021.
The lawsuit details that Mattos met with MacRae on September 24, 2021 to
inform her that he was investigating the impact of six memes and two TikTok
videos that MacRae posted which were referenced in a September 22,
2021, Boston Globe article.
On May 18, 2021, as part of her campaign for school committee member,
MacRae posted a
TikTok video which stated, in part:
So pretty much the reason I ran for school board and the reason I’m
taking on this responsibility is to ensure that students, at least in our
town, are not being taught critical race theory. That they’re not being
taught that the country was built on racism. So they’re not being taught
that they can choose whether or not they want to be a girl or a boy. It’s
one thing to include and it’s one thing to be inclusive. And it’s one
thing to educate everybody about everything. It’s completely another
thing to push your agenda. And, with me on the school board, that won’t
happen in our town.
In a letter dated September 29, 2021, Mattos fired MacRae from her position
at Hanover High School, stating, “I have determined that continuing your
employment in light of your social media posts would have a significant
impact on student learning at HHS.” Ferron reviewed and approved
Mattos’ decision to fire MacRae.
The lawsuit details that no Hanover High School parent or student had
raised concerns about MacRae’s employment at Hanover High School because
of the social media posts.
Kari MacRae was viciously targeted and unlawfully fired as a teacher
because she exercised her First Amendment rights to criticize critical race
theory. This civil rights lawsuit aims to hold accountable school district
officials who are so desperate to push critical race theory that they will
trample the civil rights of our client, Ms. MacRae.
Until next week …
|