White House press release issued 11/ 17/ 17
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/11/17/president-donald-j-trump-announces-five-additions-supreme-court-list
One year ago, President Donald J. Trump was elected to restore the rule of law and to Make the Judiciary Great Again. Following the successful confirmation of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States and the nomination of more than seventy Federal judges—including five individuals from his Supreme Court list—President Trump today announced that he is refreshing his Supreme Court list with five additional judges. President Trump will choose a nominee for a future Supreme Court vacancy, should one arise, from this updated list of 25 individuals. The President remains deeply committed to identifying and selecting outstanding jurists in the mold of Justice Gorsuch. These additions, like those on the original list released more than a year ago, were selected with input from respected conservative leaders.
Amy Coney Barrett is a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Prior to her appointment in 2017, Judge Barrett was the Diane and M.O. Miller, II Research Chair in Law and Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School. Judge Barrett also served as a law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court of the United States and to Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Judge Barrett is a magna cum laude graduate of Rhodes College and a summa cum laude graduate of Notre Dame Law School.
Britt C. Grant is a Justice of the Supreme Court of Georgia. Prior to her appointment in 2017, Justice Grant served as the Solicitor General of the State of Georgia and as a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Justice Grant served as law clerk to Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is a summa cum laude graduate of Wake Forest University, and graduated with distinction from Stanford Law School.
Brett M. Kavanaugh is a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Before his appointment in 2006, Judge Kavanaugh was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary, and was a lawyer in the White House Counsel’s Office and in the Solicitor General’s Office. Judge Kavanaugh also served as a law clerk to Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States, to Judge Alex Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and to Judge Walter K. Stapleton of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Kavanaugh is a cum laude graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School.
Kevin C. Newsom is a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Prior to his appointment in 2017, he was a partner and chair of the appellate practice group at Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. He previously served as the Solicitor General of the State of Alabama. Judge Newsom also served as a law clerk to Justice David H. Souter of the Supreme Court of the United States and to Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Judge Newsom is a summa cum laude graduate of Samford University and a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School.
Patrick Wyrick is a Justice of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma. Prior to his appointment in 2017, he served for six years as the Solicitor General of the State of Oklahoma. He also served as a law clerk to Judge James H. Payne of the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Northern Districts of Oklahoma. Justice Wyrick graduated from the University of Oklahoma and from the University of Oklahoma School of Law with distinction.
( Page 2)
Inslee creates work group on poverty reduction
Press release issued 11/ 17/ 17https://medium.com/wagovernor/inslee-creates-work-group-on-economic-security-dcbd77308374
When families are able to meet basic needs, children do better in school, communities flourish and the economy grows. This is the philosophy behind a newly formed interagency group established by Gov. Jay Inslee to reduce poverty in Washington.
“In Washington state, more than a half million children live in families that struggle to make ends meet,” Inslee said. “This is unacceptable anywhere, but especially in a state with so much prosperity. We must do whatever we can to reduce poverty in Washington.”
Currently 37 percent of children in the state live in homes where their families struggle financially. The uncertainty of not knowing if there is enough money to pay the rent, buy groceries or put money into savings causes great stress on families and negatively impacts children.
Inslee has tasked the work group with developing a strategic plan to reduce poverty, improve communities and make needed progress related to housing, health integration, employment and education.
The work group will consist of 10 local and state agencies as well as members of the Legislature, and it will be co-lead by the departments of Social and Health Services, Commerce and Employment Security. The group will rely on the expertise of those most impacted by poverty and other stakeholders, including non-profit, philanthropic and community-based organizations.
The efforts of the work group will lay a strong foundation for achieving better results for children, families and communities.
“We are in the business of transforming lives,” said Cheryl Strange, secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services. “I applaud the governor’s leadership on reducing poverty and believe that the workgroup will help us come together with a plan to get better results for those we serve.”
(PAGE 3)
Statement by FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on efforts to address impact of IV fluid shortages following hurricane destruction and resolve manufacturing shortfalls
Press release issued 11/ 17/ 17
https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm585720.htm
It’s been nine weeks since Hurricane Maria made landfall on Puerto Rico and the island continues to struggle to recover from the devastation brought by this storm, as well as Hurricane Irma.
As I’ve commented on previously, the medical products industry has a significant presence in Puerto Rico, and the disruption to this industry has had ramifications for patients both on the island and throughout the U.S. The FDA has been working closely with federal and Puerto Rican authorities to help stabilize the medical products manufacturing sector. We’re taking steps to mitigate or avert product shortages but we’ve still seen shortages of certain medically important products, some of which are sourced primarily or only in Puerto Rico.
Most significantly to date, hospitals across the country are reporting shortages of IV fluids, particularly sodium chloride 0.9% injection bags – a type of saline bag. Saline IV fluids, which are used to inject drugs intravenously in hospital and outpatient settings, have been intermittently in shortage dating back to 2014. However, despite our best efforts, the situation in Puerto Rico has greatly exacerbated this supply issue. The FDA understands the concerns and impact of the ongoing shortages of IV solutions. These products have been on the list of approximately 90 medical products (which includes biologics, devices and drugs) that the FDA has been monitoring since the storm hit, and the FDA is actively working to address the shortage. Among the steps the FDA is taking, in conjunction with manufacturers of these products:
temporarily allowing the importation of IV saline products from facilities outside of the U.S.;
encouraging the expansion of production at existing facilities to meet shortfalls; and
expediting our review of new product applications that will help address this shortage.
For instance, we’re working with one supplier, Baxter, to help them restore operations in their Puerto Rico facilities and move critical ingredients and products onto and off the island. Additionally, the FDA recently approved IV solution products from Fresenius Kabi and Laboratorios Grifols. Both companies are expected to increase production of saline products in the coming weeks. We believe steps like these will help to improve the shortage situation over time.
Beyond these regulatory measures, given the extraordinary situation in Puerto Rico, we have also been working closely with local and federal authorities, and manufacturers of saline and other products, to help address the needs caused by challenges to the basic infrastructure on Puerto Rico. This includes steps to help a subset of critical production facilities gain access to fuel or generators. We’re also connecting companies to other parts of the federal and local government to help clear roads or secure transport priority to import critical raw ingredients.
Going forward, access to reliable power is integral to ensuring Puerto Rico-based medical product manufacturers return to full production capacity quickly. This is the focus of a lot of effort. Unfortunately, most manufacturers are still relying on generator power, and even those that have returned to the electrical grid continue to face interruptions as the grid is rebuilt.
As part of our efforts to reduce the risk of further shortages, the FDA has been working with federal and local government partners to prioritize a small number of critical facilities based on public health needs, including those plants that manufacture IV saline bags, for consideration or prioritization to gain earlier access to the electrical grid. Federal and local authorities have been very responsive to these requests. We’re hopeful that these companies manufacturing medically important products will see their power needs addressed on an accelerated basis. The FDA continues to encourage the companies with FDA-approved saline products to add capacity to meet U.S. demand. We’re also working to identify additional potential manufacturers.
That said, this shortage will require a sustained effort by industry, the agency and other partners to return to production levels that adequately meet the needs of patients. For our part, the FDA will continue to do all we can to address this shortage. We also want to discourage hoarding of products by some healthcare providers. We’re concerned that shortages of some products may be exacerbated in part because of hoarding behavior.
In the meantime, the FDA encourages hospitals to consider clinical recommendations for managing the shortage of these IV fluids, including recommendations by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) and the University of Utah. The recently released guidance Small-Volume Parenteral Solutions Shortagesdisclaimer icon provides an outline for potential actions for organizations and healthcare professionals to consider in managing the shortage.
The FDA remains committed to fully supporting Puerto Rico’s medical products industry, both as a key aspect of the island’s recovery and in ensuring that Americans continue to have access to the products they need.
(page 4)
Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks at the Federalist Society 2017 National Lawyers Convention
Press release issued 11/ 17/ 17
https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-sessions-delivers-remarks-federalist-society-2017-national-lawyers
Remarks as prepared for delivery
Thank you, General Meese, for those kind words, and thank you for your service to this country. I believe that you are one of the greatest Attorneys General ever to serve. I keep your picture on the wall of our conference room as a reminder of the example that you set for me and for all of your predecessors.
You led the nation’s fight against crime and began the progress that reduced crime by 50 percent. To this day there is nothing I am more proud of than my 14 years as a federal prosecutor.
It is an honor to be back here with you all. I see a lot of familiar faces.
I have admired and appreciated the Federalist Society from the beginning. I remember when the Society was founded back in 1982. Your first two faculty advisers were a pair of DOJ veterans named Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia. I was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama at the time, and I immediately got involved.
Sometimes we felt like a voice in the wilderness. I remember in those early days, originalism and textualism were about as fashionable as disco. But we had a deep belief in our constitutional order and the classical American understanding of the role of a judge.
And largely thanks to you, we are no longer a voice in the wilderness anymore. Today there are some 70,000 Federalist Society members across America. They are in the academy, in the courts, in law offices, in Congress, and—once again—in the White House.
There is no doubt that the Federalist Society has made an enormous and positive difference in our legal system. I cannot name one entity over the last 35 years that has come close to the influence the Federalist Society has achieved. Your work has been the core of our relentless efforts to restore the rule of law in this great nation.
What a difference a year makes. Elections really do have consequences. President Trump is appointing extremely well-qualified, highly respected judges who will be neutral umpires. He is not appointing politicians or activists looking to advance an agenda, but faithful jurists seeking to apply the law.
I know that’s one reason why the American people elected President Trump. Like Ronald Reagan, he ran on a platform of law and order, restoring the rule of law, and appointing originalists to the bench.
The American people well know that activist judges effectively invalidate their votes. Unprincipled ideologues want unelected judges to do for them what they cannot win at the ballot box. This is not a partisan question—it’s a question of fairness and fidelity to the judicial oath and adhere to the constitutional role assigned to the branch.
Judicial activism puts the prejudices and politics of the judge above the law—and makes him into a Constitutional Convention unto himself. An activist judge sits in judgment not of the case—but of the law itself, deciding which laws to apply and which laws to disregard. Whatever it is that activists dispense - it is not law.
Judicial activism is especially disturbing in our country, because we have inherited and advanced the most magnificent legal system in the history of the world.
This is one of the main reasons that America is exceptional. History teaches us that such a system is precious, rare, and fragile. Civilization is difficult to build but easy to destroy.
In his Lyceum Address, Abraham Lincoln said: if we accept small violations of the rule of law, then these violations will only become more frequent, and more serious. And if that happens, it will instill in people contempt for law and eventually for the Republic itself.
At the Department of Justice, we are committed to preserving the people’s respect for the law by carrying out the law fairly and impartially.
I’d like to tell you about some of the work we have done toward that end, including on the topic of this conference—the administrative agencies and the regulatory state.
Last month, the Department finally settled 22 civil cases with 90 plaintiffs regarding the previous administration’s contraception mandate. Their claims were just. The Government constricted their religious liberty.
We have also agreed to settlement terms with nearly 500 plaintiffs in cases brought by groups who were targeted by the IRS when they applied for tax-exempt status based on inappropriate criteria. Criteria like names that used “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” or “9/12” or policy positions concerning government spending or taxes, education of the public to “make America a better place to live,” or statements criticizing how the country was being run. It is also clear these criteria disproportionately impacted conservative groups. Wrongful government policies made these settlements necessary.
The Department also has provided legal counsel to agencies in this administration in favor of ending subsidies to insurance companies that Congress had not appropriated under the Affordable Care Act. I am proud to say President Trump put an end to this unlawful practice. The Executive Branch has no power to spend money not appropriated by Congress.
Similarly, no Cabinet Secretary has the power to wipe entire sections of immigration law off the books. But that’s what the previous administration did with its Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, policy. Under DACA—without the consent of Congress—individuals here illegally who met certain criteria were granted lawful presence in the United States, work authorization, and the right to participate in Social Security. No matter what one thinks about immigration policy, it cannot be reasonably disputed that DACA exceeded law.
Once again, the Department advised and the administration to put an end to it—and it is being ended.
The Department is also restoring the rule of law through litigation. Our Solicitor General has filed an amicus brief in support of a Colorado baker who was sued for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Although public-accommodations laws serve important purposes, they—like other laws—cannot be interpreted to undermine the individual freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. That includes the freedom not to provide creative expression for ceremonies that violate one’s religious beliefs.
Meanwhile, I have changed policies at the Department that support our mission of doing justice by executing the law.
For example, we are no longer allowing so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions to nullify federal immigration law if they want to receive our law enforcement grants. We have placed conditions on these grants to encourage our the elected leaders of these states and cities to help us remove criminal aliens from this country.
In June, I ended the practice of third party settlements. Under the last Administration, the Justice Department often required settling parties to pay settlement funds to third party organizations that were not directly involved in the litigation or harmed by the defendant’s conduct.
We believe that when the federal government settles a case against a corporate wrongdoer, any settlement funds should go first to the victims and then to the U. S. Treasury—not to bankroll third-party special interest groups or the political friends of whoever is in power. Nowhere does the Constitution grant unelected attorneys or political appointees the power to effectively appropriate and distribute funds based on their political alliances.
Neither does it give them the power to issue regulations outside of the process demanded by Congress.
Too often, rather than going through the long, slow regulatory process provided in statute, agencies make new rules through guidance documents —by simply sending a letter.
This cuts off the public from the regulatory process by skipping the required public hearings and comment periods—and it is simply not what these documents are for. Guidance documents should be used to reasonably explain existing law—not to change it.
From now on at the Department of Justice, that’s what they will do. I am announcing today that this practice is over.
We have prohibited all Department of Justice components from issuing any guidance that purports to impose new obligations on any party outside the Executive Branch. We will review and repeal existing guidance documents that violate this common sense principle.
We will also now honor a directive that has been on the books at the Department of Justice since Ed Meese was Attorney General: I am ending regulation-by-litigation. The days of “sue and settle” —when special interests could sue an agency, then get the agency to impose a new regulation in a settlement, often to advance an agenda—are over.
The Department of Justice is duty-bound to defend laws as they are written, regardless of whether or not the government likes the results. Our agencies must follow the law—not make it.
The judges in our courts must apply it. But as we know too well, some judges fail to respect Congress and the Executive Branch. One particularly striking example was the federal judge in Brooklyn who heard argument on a challenge to the federal government’s wind down of DACA.
Rather than address the question, the court said the government “can’t come into court to espouse a position that is so heartless.” Not unlawful, but “heartless.”
With respect: it is the province and duty of courts to say what the law is. They are to apply and follow the law, not advance an ideology or express political beliefs. We cannot allow unelected judges to set policy through an abuse of the adjudicative process.
Comments on policy like these from a judge are offensive. They unfairly criticize an attorney who is doing his job effectively. Judges have the solemn responsibility to examine the law impartially. The Judiciary is a co-equal branch; it is not a superior or a policy-setting branch. Those who ignore this duty and seek to advance their own policy views erode the rule of law, set bad precedents and, importantly, undermine the public respect necessary for the courts to function properly.
An increasing number of district courts are taking the dramatic step of issuing nationwide injunctions—orders that block the entire United States government from enforcing a statute or an executive branch policy nationwide. Scholars have not found a single example of any judge issuing this type of extreme remedy before the 1960s.
But today, in effect, single judges are making themselves super-legislators for the entire United States. We have nearly 600 federal district judges in the United States—each with the ability to issue one of these overreaching nationwide orders.
The Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly made clear that courts should limit relief to the parties before them. So if lower courts continue to ignore that precedent, then the Supreme Court should send that message again.
Enjoining the entire federal government is an extreme step. To take that step because of a political disagreement is unacceptable. The Constitution gives judges no right to veto a President’s actions because they disagree with him on policy grounds.
The media only focuses on decisions that go against us. But we also have important wins. The Supreme Court has vacated both of the appellate court rulings against the President’s travel pause. We also successfully obtained before the Second Circuit a rare mandamus order staying a premature and abusive discovery order in a case to stop the wind-down of the DACA program.
Although some district courts may initially rule against us, I am confident that our positions will be vindicated in the court of appeals and, if necessary, in the Supreme Court.
President Trump has the statutory authority to suspend immigration of any individuals he deems are contrary to the national interest. His rational, narrow proclamation is justified and we are vigorously defending it.
Before I conclude, let me say this. There are those outside this room—and maybe more than a few in this room—who are frustrated right now. I get frustrated too. But the rule of law isn’t about always getting the outcome you want.
It’s using the same, fair process, and pursuing the truth wherever it leads.
We can never allow any part of our legal system—and least of all the Department of Justice—to be reduced to a tool for a political agenda. This Department will not make decisions based on politics, ideology, or bias as long as I am Attorney General. I believe this is what the American people expect and deserve from their Department of Justice. And we will not confirm investigations or leak sensitive law enforcement information to get a few cheap headlines. I am determined to establish the proper discipline in these matters.
In the long run, a failure to do so can only result in a further decline in respect for justice in America.
Whenever anybody asks us to investigate a crime, we take that seriously. We consult with the appropriate law enforcement agency; we evaluate the evidence, and we use our best judgment to make an appropriate decision.
And recusals happen all the time throughout the Department of Justice—because we follow the rules. That furthers confidence in justice.
I believe that when the history is written about this Department of Justice, it will reflect that President Trump appointed one of the finest teams ever assembled in our great Department, and that we remained faithful to our oaths.
I am proud to work with them every day. And I am proud to stand with you as you defend the rule of law.
Thank all of you, Federalist Society leaders and members, for your commitment to that goal. I will work every day to be worthy of your trust.
(PAGE 5)
NEWS STORY COMMENTARY: WILL HIGHER BARRIERS ON BRIDGES HELP?
Suicides have more than doubled in Clallam County so far in 2017 compared to all of 2016, Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney-Coroner Mark Nichols said Tuesday.---Peninsula Daily News article
Quoting the article: " The goal of higher barriers was championed by some residents who attended a vigil for Wishart on the bridges Monday night. I've tracked that dialogue closely, and my belief is that barriers will interfere with certain people intent to take their life, and that the interference might result in time for someone to intercede and stop that moment in time, which is a universal good, Nichols said at the meeting. Whether or not the person is going to loop back around and attempt the same exercise in a different way, that remains to be seen.
In a 2007 study, the journal The Lancet Psychiatry determined that when barriers were constructed at the Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol, deaths from the bridge were reduced by half, and there was no evidence of an increase in jumping from other high-risk sites in the Bristol area. This study provides evidence for the effectiveness of barriers on bridges in preventing site-specific suicides and suicides by jumping overall in the surrounding area, according to the study."
Editorial Comment: Yet another tragic death occurred here in Port Angeles, yet another suicide involving a teenage girl jumping to her death from the 8th street bridges."
First let's take a look at a report from the CDC back in October: Americans in rural areas more likely to die by suicide
The press release was issued 10/ 5/ 17, which this publication shared then, quoting from the article: Rural counties consistently had higher suicide rates than metropolitan counties from 2001-2015, according to data released today in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.
Suicide is the tenth leading cause of death in the United States. There were more than half a million suicides during the 2001–2015 study period.
“While we’ve seen many causes of death come down in recent years, suicide rates have increased more than 20 percent from 2001 to 2015. And this is especially concerning in rural areas,” said CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald, M.D. “We need proven prevention efforts to help stop these deaths and the terrible pain and loss they cause.”
Mortality data from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) include demographic, geographic, and mechanism of death information derived from death certificates filed in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The new report examined annual county level trends in suicide rates during 2001-2015 for rural counties, medium/small metropolitan counties, large metropolitan counties, as well as demographics and mechanism of death. Overall, suicide death rates for rural counties (17.32 per 100,000 people) were higher than medium/small metropolitan counties (14.86) and large metropolitan counties (11.92).
Additional findings from the CDC study:
Across metropolitan and rural areas, suicide rates for males were four to five times higher than for females during the study period.
Suicide rates for Black Non-Hispanics in rural areas were consistently lower than suicide rates for Black Non-Hispanics in urban areas.
White Non-Hispanics have the highest suicide rates in metropolitan counties while American Indian/Alaska Native Non-Hispanics have the highest rates in rural counties.
Findings by age group revealed increases in suicide rates for all ages with the highest rates and greatest rate increases in rural counties.
“The trends in suicide rates by sex, race, ethnicity, age, and mechanism that we see in the general population are magnified in rural areas,” said James A. Mercy, Ph.D., director of CDC’s Division of Violence Prevention. “This report underscores the need for suicide prevention strategies that are tailored specifically for these communities.”
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2017/p1005-rural-suicide-rates.html
Now, building higher barriers may help prevent further jumping may help in preventing someone from jumping off the bridge spans, but people will find another way to gain access to the bluffs, and with the fencing already in place, it would be easy for someone to gain access to the bluffs on either side of the bridges borders, My point is if you are going to build large barriers also include the fencing that suppose to deny access to those bluffs.
OUR WEEKLY BIBLE STUDY
The Origin of Jesus' Church
When did Jesus' church begin? The New Testament often mentions Jesus' church, but when and where did it begin?
Many passages predict the beginning of the church. Daniel 2 predicts a kingdom that God would set up during the Roman Empire. John the Baptist taught that this kingdom was "at hand" (Matthew 3:1,2). Later in Matthew 16:18, Jesus promised, "I will build my church." Notice that all these passages look forward to the beginning of the church. Even during Jesus' lifetime, the church did not exist, but He predicted He would build it.---Gospel Way
https://www.gospelway.com/topics/church/church-origin.art.php
