This campaign of pressure is no doubt motivated both by Democrats' exaggerated fears of what the Court's post-Kennedy center-right majority will do and by the relatively large number of hot-button cases before the Supreme Court this term. Among the most important such cases are the New York gun case and today's employment cases.

Emanating from another Eastern District of New York prosecution, an octogenarian Mafioso, Vincent Asaro, who may or may not have been involved with the famous Lufthansa heist so epically depicted in Martin Scorsese’s classic Goodfellas, has filed a cert petition with the Supreme Court, requesting it resolve: “Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prohibit a federal court from basing a criminal defendant’s sentence on conduct underlying a charge for which the defendant was acquitted by a jury.”

It seems Zuckerberg was attempting to boost company morale in light of a the recent 'techlash,' suggested Ashley Baker, director of public policy for the Committee for Justice. The company suffered a massive defeat after months of negotiations with a politically motivated FTC, she said. Further, the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have been leveraging the outrage over 'big tech' in their campaigns.

NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny held that courts should apply narrow tailoring to violations of the freedom of association. Has that requirement been overruled such that the right to associate privately does not enjoy the strong protective standard that applies to other First Amendment rights, which this Court has held requires narrow tailoring regardless of the level of scrutiny?

The Court should also grant review to revisit the concept of deference and the scope of deference granted to an executive agency. The power to determine the meaning of a law is vested in the judiciary. Judicial deference raises questions of separation of powers – especially where it results in authorizing an agency to formulate law, interpret law, and enforce that law.

The advocacy group The Committee for Justice on Monday denounced The New York Times for its story on allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Jaws dropped last March when a Texas jury awarded HouseCanary, a Silicon Valley company specializing in residential real estate data and analytics, more than $700 million in compensatory and punitive damages after accepting its claims that it possessed AVM-related trade secrets that were allegedly misappropriated by Amrock (formerly Title Source), one of the nation’s largest appraisal and title service companies.

Their embarrassing overreach could have been avoided had they bothered to read the Times piece, which openly relied on hearsay provided by anonymous sources concerning a supposed witness who just happened to be an adversary of Kavanaugh during the Ken Starr investigation. Likewise if the would-be presidents had, like others, requested an advance copy of the book on which the story is based. The book reveals that the alleged victim has no memory of the incident.

Please join the Arlington/Falls Church Young Republicans on Monday, September 16th, at Summers Restaurant in Courthouse. Our guest speaker will be Ashley Baker, policy director at the Committee for Justice. Ashley will discuss the Supreme Court’s last term and offer a preview of the term that begins in October, as well as current topics related to the federal judiciary.