Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people

 

Our family wishes you a very merry, peaceful, and spiritually meaningful Christmas and best wishes for 2026.

As The Gospel According to Luke, Chapter Two, tells us:

And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
And the angel said unto them, 

Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

 
We will return to posting after the 12 days of Christmas.

 

 
 

California Supreme Court Update for 2026

 

 

 California Supreme Court 2026

 

With the next year approaching, we should take a look at upcoming issues before the California Supreme Court in 2026.  Upcoming civil cases are summarized at the Supreme Court's website at:

 

https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/supremecourt/default/2025-12/pendingissues-civil%20-%20121225_0.pdf 

 

What is interesting is the lack of blockbuster cases, at least as opposed to past years.  Of course, there are some issues of consequence, such as an insurance coverage case about insurer liability for water damage when water enters the building following wind damage and occurs during a roof repair. (11640 Woodbridge Condominium Homeowners’ Assn. v. Farmers Ins. Exchange
S290750.)

 

However, the scope of issues before the California Supreme Court pale in comparison to Federal Court cases involving California.  Chief among these is the Department of Justice' challenge to California's Congressional redistricting plan on Constitutional grounds:

 

https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1417291/dl?inline=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

 

But in California there appear to be no cases of such historic proportion.  Perhaps this is because California is a one-party state.  The Democrat party has the lion's share of influence, it not outright supremacy, in all three branches of government, making it unlikely the state's highest court will be called upon to decide crucial issues.

 

 

Follow me on LinkedIn  

 

Update - While the First Amendment May Protect Statements Urging Soldiers to Disobey Orders, this Protection May Not Apply to Such Statements Made by Persons in Uniform

 

 

Update to our prior post about the constitutional and statutory definition of "treason"

 

In our prior post we discussed shocking statements by elected members of a particular political party that members of the United States military should  disobey the orders of the President of the United States.  Our conclusion was that the definition of "treason" may be implicated by such statements, but the Constitutional and statutory definition of treason is constrained by the free speech protections of the First Amendment.

 

This article did not take into account the fact that two of the individuals making these statements are potentially subject military law, which does not permit those in uniform the same level of free speech protection as is afforded others.  Let us take the example of two senators. Senator Duckworth is one of the authors of these remarkable statements, is currently a member of the Army reserve and the National Guard.  Senator Kelley is retired military and continues to display his uniform. We thank them for their service made prior to their recent statements.

 

The simple fact is that statements urging our military to ignore the chain of command made by these persons potentially violates military law, notwithstanding the First Amendment.

 

 

Follow me on LinkedIn   

 

Potential Appellate Issue: The Validity of Judicial or Other Appointments Made by President Biden's "Autopen"

 

 

Does Biden's use of an "autopen" to make judicial appointments comport with Federal statute?

 

The President, with approval from the Senate, has the authority under Article III of the United States Constitution to appoint Judicial Officers "for life."  How this appointment is actually made official by a "seal" upon a "commission" is set forth in Title 5 United States Code section 2902, which reads in part:

 

(a) Except as provided by subsections (b) and (c) of this section, the Secretary of State shall make out and record, and affix the seal of the United States to, the commission of an officer appointed by the President. The seal of the United States may not be affixed to the commission before the commission has been signed by the President. (Emphasis added.)

 

Note that the subsequent subsections make no mention of an autopen or, for that matter, any digital signature.  For example, section 2902(b) provides the seal may be affixed "before" the commision is signed by the President, once again requiring the President sign the commission. The question therefore becomes whether use of an autopen meets the required act, i.e., that the commission related to the appointment be "signed by the President."

Of course, the initial question is whether Biden's inner circle used an autopen for judicial appointments as those around him did in so many other contexts.  However, if even one judicial appointment used an autopen, this becomes a potential appellate issue that may ultimately need to be decided by the United States Supreme Court. 

 

Follow me on LinkedIn