Palestinians rally against Kushner's economic peace plan

GAZA/RAMALLAH (Reuters) - Palestinians burned portraits of President Donald Trump as they protested in both the Gaza Strip and the Israeli-occupied West Bank on Monday against U.S.-led plans for a conference on their economy in Bahrain. Many Palestinian business groups have said they will boycott the June 25-26 event, billed as part of Washington’s long-awaited Israeli-Palestinian peace plan and spearheaded by Trump’s adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner. “Down with Bahrain, down with Trump, down with the Manama conference,” chanted crowds in Gaza, which is ruled by the armed Islamist group Hamas. Some burned large paintings of Trump marked with the words: “Deal of the devil” Leaders in both territories have accused Washington of pro-Israel bias and railed against the conference’s focus on economics, rather than their aspirations for an independent state. Kushner told Reuters on Saturday the plan would create a million jobs, halve Palestinian poverty and double the Palestinians’ GDP.

In the West Bank, hundreds marched through Ramallah’s main squares, waving posters in support of President Mahmoud Abbas, whose Western-backed Palestinian Authority exercises limited self-rule in the territory. Protesters there burned posters of both Trump and Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa. The rallies marked a moment of political unity against the Bahrain conference, despite a 12-year political feud between Abbas’s Fatah party and Hamas.

“A WEDDING WITHOUT THE BRIDE” “The Manama conference is a comedy show, a wedding without the bride (the Palestinians) … it will not succeed,” said a protester who gave her name as Siham in Gaza City. The Bahrain conference will be attended by Gulf Arab states as well as Jordan and Egypt. Israel is expected to send a business delegation but no government officials.

Mahmoud Barhoush, 25, said he didn’t know whether to laugh or cry at what he called Arab states’ “treasonous” participation. “Enough of your running into the arms of Trump and (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu,” he said at the Ramallah protest. Other demonstrators criticized the lone Palestinian businessman named as an expected attendee in Bahrain, Ashraf Jabari. A U.S. official told Reuters that at least 15 Palestinians were expected to attend. “Whoever attends is not a Palestinian and is not welcomed in Palestine. There should be measures taken against them,” said Maisoon Alqadoomi, 32, a Fatah activist from Ramallah.

Palestinian leaders on Monday renewed their calls for a boycott of the conference. “This workshop is simply a political laundry for settlements and a legitimization of occupation,” Palestinian Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh told journalists ahead of a cabinet meeting. In Gaza, Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassem said: “They (Palestinians) will not sell out their rights for all treasures on earth”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-palestinians-plan-protests/palestinians-rally-against-kushners-economic-peace-plan-idUSKCN1TP1OF?il=0

Kagan Seethes As High Court Conservatives Deliver Property Rights Win

An ideologically divided Supreme Court delivered a victory for property owners Friday, over a vigorous dissent from Justice Elena Kagan that accused the conservative majority of smashing “a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens.” The dissent noted Friday’s case was the second time this term that the conservative justices have overturned a controlling precedent, prompting Kagan to ask, forebodingly, which precedent the high court will overrule next. “Just last month, when the Court overturned another longstanding precedent, Justice [Stephen] Breyer penned a dissent,” Kagan wrote. “He wrote of the dangers of reversing legal course ‘only because five members of a later Court’ decide that an earlier ruling was incorrect. He concluded: ‘Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next.'” “Well, that didn’t take long,” Kagan added. “Now one may wonder yet again.” Kagan was referencing Breyer’s May dissent in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which asked whether states are immune from lawsuits in the courts of other states. In Hyatt, the five-justice conservative majority overturned a 1979 decision and said the states do indeed have sovereign immunity in the courts of their sister states.

Friday’s property rights dispute arose when a small town in Pennsylvania adopted an ordinance requiring that cemeteries “be kept open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours.” The town told Rose Mary Knick, whose 90-acre property includes a small family cemetery, that she must comply with the rule. Knick sued, saying the ordinance violates the takings clause of the Constitution. The takings clause says the government must compensate property owners for any land seized for public use. A 1985 Supreme Court case called Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank required Knick to seek compensation at the state level before going to federal court. Indeed, that ruling required Knick and plaintiffs like her to exhaust all possible state compensation remedies before turning to the federal judiciary.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Williamson County decision was wrong and Knick can go to a federal judge right away. “Williamson County was not just wrong,” the chief wrote. “Its reasoning was exceptionally ill founded and conflicted with much of our takings jurisprudence.” The Williamson County ruling, Roberts said elsewhere, imposes “an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled. A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it.”

The chief justice noted the Court considers several factors when deciding to overrule a prior decision. In that connection, he cited the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, which said government unions cannot force non-members to pay so-called agency fees. The citation to Janus drew a sharp rebuke from Kagan. “If that is the way the majority means to proceed — relying on one subversion of stare decisis to support another — we may as well not have principles about precedents at all,” Kagan wrote. “Stare decisis” is a Latin legal term meaning “to stand by things decided.” Janus overturned the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education ruling. Friday’s case is No. 17-647, Knick v. Township of Scott.

https://www.dailycaller.com/2019/06/22/kagan-precedent-knick-ruling/

U.S. Supreme Court turns away challenge to Trump steel tariffs

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariffs on imported steel brought by an industry group that argued that a key part of the law under which he imposed the duties violates the U.S. Constitution. The justices declined to hear the American Institute for International Steel’s appeal of a March ruling by the U.S. Court of International Trade that rejected the group’s lawsuit. The institute is a pro-free trade group that represents steel importers and users of imported steel.

Trump imposed 25% tariffs on imported steel and 10% tariffs on imported aluminum in March 2018 based on national security grounds. Exemptions have been granted to Argentina, Australia, Brazil and South Korea in exchange for quotas. Canada and Mexico were exempted in May. In response, both countries lifted their retaliatory tariffs on the United States. The institute brought its lawsuit in June 2018, arguing that a section of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which allows presidents to impose tariffs based on national security, is unconstitutional because it delegates too much discretion to the president at the expense of Congress.

When the lower court rejected the challenge, the steel group chose to appeal directly to the Supreme Court instead of taking the case to a regional federal appeals court first. Two companies, steel trader Kurt Orban Partners and Sim-Tex LP, a oil pipe supplier, also joined the lawsuit.

Trump has rattled the world trade order by imposing unilateral tariffs to combat what he calls unfair trade practices by China, the European Union and other major trading partners of the United States. The bulk of Trump’s tariffs have been aimed at China, covering $250 billion worth of Chinese goods so far. China and other countries have retaliated by imposing their own tariffs on U.S. goods.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-steel/u-s-supreme-court-turns-away-challenge-to-trump-steel-tariffs-idUSKCN1TP1PZ?il=0

>>6830349

>this is pretty common knowledge anon. if you still want me to add to the bun, I will. what the author is still unaware of, is that firefox is comp'd too.

I believe the distinction here is that Firefox is not in the position of "too big too fail" their foot print across the internet is much smaller, while Goog is WW.

>>6830380

Can you point me to the notable, please, not seeing it..

BAKER, Notable?

>>6830338 (You) Kagan Seethes As High Court Conservatives Deliver Property Rights Win

>>6830485

>>6830489

>>6830502

okay, thanks

>>6830509

Indeed!

>>6830505

Photo Shooped.. Here is tineyehttps://tineye.com/search/074ad5057083f59ecf9924f670943372902aeff8?page=1