THREAD: market shock judges ruling against visa

SUPREME COURT Shocker: Emergency Abortions Allowed in Idaho

26 June 2024 — The Supreme Court is set to permit emergency abortions in Idaho when a pregnant patient’s health is at serious risk. A draft opinion briefly posted on the court’s website indicates a 6-3 vote to reinstate a lower court order allowing such procedures. Conservative Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that this decision does not resolve the core issues of Idaho’s strict abortion ban. She emphasized that today’s ruling is merely a delay, not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. The case will continue at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court and may return to the Supreme Court later.

The Supreme Court acknowledged an inadvertent posting of the document and stated that an official opinion would be issued “in due course.” This development leaves many key questions unanswered, prolonging uncertainty around Idaho’s abortion laws.

JUDGEMENT HOUR: Assange’s Future Teeters as UK Judges Decide on US Extradition

26 March 2024 — Today, two esteemed judges from the British High Court will determine the destiny of Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks. The verdict, slated for 10:30 a.m. GMT (6:30 a.m. ET), will decide if Assange can contest his extradition to the U.S.

At age 52, Assange is up against espionage charges in America for disclosing classified military documents over ten years ago. Despite this, he has not yet faced trial in an American court due to his escape from the country.

This decision comes on the heels of last month’s two-day hearing which might have been Assange’s final bid to thwart his extradition. If denied a comprehensive appeal by the High Court, Assange could make one last plea before the European Court of Human Rights.

Supporters of Assange are apprehensive that an unfavorable ruling could expedite his extradition. His spouse Stella underscored this critical juncture with her message yesterday stating “This is it. DECISION TOMORROW.”

UK Courts ISSUE Stark WARNING: The Dangers of AI in Legal Analysis

09 January 2024 — The UK’s Courts and Tribunals Judiciary recently sounded an alarm over the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in legal research and analysis. They pointed out potential pitfalls such as misinformation, bias, and inaccuracies. Master of the Rolls Geoffrey Vos stressed that judges should continue to take personal responsibility for their decisions, while not completely rejecting AI.

This caution comes at a time when conversations are heating up about the future role of AI in law. Possibilities range from replacing lawyers to making case decisions. The judiciary’s careful approach is seen as forward-thinking for a profession usually slow to embrace technology. Ryan Abbott, a law professor at the University of Surrey, highlighted that there is currently an intense debate about how to regulate AI.

Legal experts have applauded this move by the judiciary as it addresses recent advancements in AI technology head-on. England and Wales are now among leading courts worldwide tackling this issue proactively. Half a decade ago, the European Commission for Efficiency of Justice released an ethical charter on using AI in court systems which focused on principles like accountability and risk management.

ISIS PROPAGANDIST Scores UK Citizenship: A Shocking Blow to National Security

01 January 2024 — In a controversial move, UK judges have granted citizenship to a Sudanese migrant, known as “S3”. This individual entered the UK illegally in 2005 and 2018. Despite clear evidence of his involvement in spreading ISIS propaganda, he has been awarded lifelong anonymity and British citizenship.

This decision was made under the premise that deporting S3 would infringe upon his human rights. The argument is that he could face detention and torture if returned to Sudan. However, this reasoning overlooks S3’s multiple trips back to his home country without any reported persecution.

During one of these visits in December 2016, MI5 security service alleges that S3 actively spread ISIS propaganda on social media platforms. The government has voiced concerns about the potential national security threat posed by S3 due to his extremist activities.

The case has sparked further debate about border control and national security implications. Earlier this year, it was revealed that at least 53 convicted terrorists were shielded from deportation due to justifications provided by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Critics like Nigel Farage argue for leaving ECHR as a means of regaining control over national borders.

UK Judges DISMISS Security Threats, HAND Citizenship to Isis Propagandist

01 January 2024 — British judges have recently overlooked concerns raised by the Home Office regarding a Sudanese migrant, referred to as “S3”. This individual entered the UK illegally in 2005 and again in 2018. Despite having his British passport revoked due to active dissemination of ISIS propaganda, he has now been granted UK citizenship and permanent anonymity.

S3’s legal representation argued that his deportation would infringe upon his human rights. They cited potential detention and torture risks in Sudan as reasons for him to remain in the UK. This argument swayed the justices, even though S3 has made multiple trips back to Sudan without facing any form of persecution. During one such visit in December 2016, he allegedly used social media platforms to spread ISIS propaganda.

The government presented a case suggesting that S3 is a threat to national security. MI5 claimed that he showed unwavering commitment towards extremist ideologies propagated by ISIS and could potentially influence others towards radicalization. However, his lawyers successfully invoked provisions from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) preventing his deportation.

Prominent Brexiteers like Nigel Farage believe that Rishi Sunak’s government must withdraw from ECHR for regaining control over Britain’s borders. The ECHR has been previously used as a shield against deportation for at least 53 convicted terrorists.