In our latest Liberty Update, we highlight the benefits of the Trump Administration's deregulation effort…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Agree with Trump's Pandemic Deregulation Initiative

In our latest Liberty Update, we highlight the benefits of the Trump Administration's deregulation effort, both pre-pandemic and going forward, and how a budding effort among Congressional leftists to impose a moratorium on business mergers would severely undermine that effort.  Rasmussen Reports brings excellent news in that regard, as large majorities of Americans agree with Trump rather than hyper-regulatory leftists:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey shows that 58% of likely U.S. voters approve of Trump's decision to temporarily limit government regulation of small businesses to help them bounce back.  Just 26% are opposed, while 17% are undecided."

Sadly but perhaps predictably, those on the left stubbornly disagree:

The president's action has triggered…[more]

May 26, 2020 • 12:43 PM

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Update on the Anna Nicole Smith Case: the Long, Strange Two-Pronged Trip through Our Legal System Continues Print
By CFIF Staff
Monday, July 06 2009
The fourteen-year jackpot justice abomination that is the Anna Nicole Smith case continues, but may hopefully reach a just conclusion soon.

The fourteen-year jackpot justice abomination that is the Anna Nicole Smith case continues, but may hopefully reach a just conclusion soon.

Although media attention understandably centers upon the tawdry celebrity element of this dispute, it has actually spawned an alarming Supreme Court decision that should trouble all Americans. 

As readers of CFIF’s website may recall, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the 2006 Marshall v. Marshall matter that a duplicative federal bankruptcy court action was somehow not preempted by a preexisting Texas state court lawsuit.  Originally a state probate court matter, overactive lawyers thought they could improve their odds by filing a redundant action in a California federal bankruptcy court.  From there, the case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and then to the United States Supreme Court, which remanded back to the Ninth Circuit following its decision. 

The reason for alarm is that in cases such as this one, which center upon state law questions, federal courts had traditionally deferred to state courts.  By eroding that longstanding deference, the Supreme Court not only exacerbated federal intrusion into traditionally state matters, but also increased trial lawyers’ ability to forum-shop and file multiple lawsuits in alternate jurisdictions in pursuit of a result to their liking. 

Moreover, the Supreme Court’s disturbing ruling undermined estate planning and philanthropic giving across the nation by granting federal judges authority over state inheritance matters with which they’re less familiar. 

In the latest installment of this long, strange road trip through the American legal system, the Ninth Circuit held oral arguments last month on remand.    Hopefully, the Court will reach its previous substantive conclusion, thereby providing the Marshall family with long-overdue justice, and making this the last stop in a regrettable legal saga. 

In addition to the Marshall family, the health of the U.S. legal system and sanity of Americans is also at stake.

Question of the Week   
The largest-ever helicopter evacuation took place during which of the following conflicts?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Everyone is so afraid now. I grew up idolizing Evel Knievel. Kids now idolize Greta Thunberg."…[more]
 
 
—Tweet by Adam Carolla, Host of The Adam Carolla Show on Podcast One and Three Times New York Times Best Selling Author
— Tweet by Adam Carolla, Host of The Adam Carolla Show on Podcast One and Three Times New York Times Best Selling Author
 
Liberty Poll   

Until this week, the U.S. House has required Members to be physically present to vote. Due to coronavirus, "proxy voting," allowing Members to cast votes for absent colleagues, is now being used. Should "proxy voting" be allowed to continue?