Category Archives: legal news

It’s all about ‘equal protection’

Let’s set the record straight on a key constitutional point: the nation’s founders didn’t get it entirely correct when they drafted the U.S. Constitution in the late 18th century; it has needed amendments designed to provide for a “more perfect Union.”

The 14th Amendment, enacted in 1868, states, “nor shall any State … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The Equal Protection Clause contained in the first part of that amendment, therefore, means that no one shall be denied the right to marry the person they love. Period. Full stop.

That also means the U.S. Senate acted correctly this week when it cast a bipartisan vote to codify that same-sex and interracial marriage shall be part of the federal statutes.

The Supreme Court agreed with the Equal Protection Clause when it endorsed same-sex marriage in 2015. That protection, though, is in jeopardy, given the court’s recent ruling to strike down Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion. Conservative justices have hinted they might be inclined to strike down the Equal Protection Clause, too, the benchmark for the ruling that allowed same-sex and interracial marriage.

That cannot be allowed to happen.

It’s also instructive that two of the “no” votes in the Senate came from Texas’s two Republican senators, John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, both of whom profess to be legal scholars. They, instead, are revealing their partisan stripes, appealing to the wild-eyed base within the GOP’s lunatic voters.

I could have predicted that Ted Cruz would have voted that way. Cornyn’s “no” vote is deeply disappointing. At least, though, they’re both on the record saying that they are unwilling to offer protection to all Americans, giving them the constitutional right to marry the person they love.

Next comes the House of Representatives. May that body show the wisdom demonstrated by most of their Senate colleagues and then send this legislation to President Biden’s desk for his signature that makes it the law of this great land.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Don’t take it personally, Donald

Donald J. Trump needs yet another lesson in civics … so here goes.

The ex-POTUS reacted quite predictably to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that cleared the way for the House Ways and Committee to see his tax returns, the ones he withheld from public view for the past six years.

He said the court’s decision was “no surprise” that it “ruled against me.” Wait a second, Donald.

The court didn’t rule against you. It studied the law and determined that there was no legal basis to keep the records away from Congress. It wasn’t a decision based on any antipathy toward the ex-president.

I should remind The Donald that three of the court justices were nominated by him and that the 6-3 conservative majority on the court is presumed to look favorably on right-wing arguments that come before the panel.

It’s about the law, Donald, not about you.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Why target FBI?

Republicans are preparing to wage war on several fronts against the government they proclaim they want to protect

They have several targets in their sights but for the moment I want to focus on just one of them: the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The FBI used to be considered a sacred cow in GOP political circles. They dared not criticize the elite federal law enforcement agency for fear of being labeled “soft on crime,” or being a squishy liberal.

No more, man.

The FBI is now Public Enemy No. 1 among many Republicans for doing its job legally and by the book. What did the FBI do to incur the GOP wrath?

It acted on orders from the Department of Justice, the attorney general and entered the home of a former president to look for evidence of a possible (or probable) crime. The ex-POTUS took several boxes full of classified documents with him from the White House to his glitzy estate in Florida. AG Merrick Garland sought a federal judge’s permission — also by the book — to search the ex-POTUS’s estate for evidence. The judge granted it and so he sent the agents to the house to conduct the search.

That’s a no-no, according to the GOP stalwarts who defend the ex-POTUS to the hilt. How dare the feds do their job?

They are gunning for the attorney general and — get a load of this! — for the FBI director, Christopher Wray, who was appointed to his post by Donald Trump, the aforementioned ex-POTUS.

Let’s understand a couple of key points.

One is that the attorney general did nothing out of the ordinary. He ran all the necessary traps before authorizing the search at Trump’s estate. He acted within the law. Accordingly, AG Garland has declared that “no one is above the law,” and by “no one,” he means not a single American citizen … and that includes former presidents of the United States.

The FBI has not been “weaponized.” The AG has utilized the law enforcement agency totally within its scope of authority and for Republicans to declare their intention to “defund the FBI” makes a mockery of their criticism of progressives who said the same thing about local police agencies.

The world has been turned upside-down. We need to regain our balance.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Special counsel looking better

Merrick Garland’s decision to appoint a special counsel to lead the investigation into the 1/6 insurrection and the pilfering of classified documents by the former POTUS is looking better all the time.

The counsel is John L. “Jack” Smith, a career prosecutor, a registered independent and a no-nonsense public servant. The attorney general saw a potential conflict of interest in prosecuting Donald J. Trump while the former president campaigns for the office. The conflict would arrive if Trump gets nominated by Republicans and runs against Joe Biden, the president who selected Garland to run the Justice Department.

So he’s backing away from active participation. Why is that such a bad thing?

I see few downsides to it. Smith will get to work immediately and will guide the prosecutorial team already assembled to its conclusion in both of these cases.

My hunch follows the lead already expressed, which is that Smith will get to the end of it all in fairly short order. Then we’ll get a decision on whether Donald Trump is indicted for the crimes I believe he committed.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

It’s no ‘invasion’!

Let’s examine the word “invasion,” which has become the favorite term Republicans use to describe what is occurring along our southern border.

My trusty, dog-eared American Heritage Dictionary describes it this way: “The act of invading, especially entrance by force; a large-scale onset of something harmful, such as a disease; an intrusion or encroachment.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sent President Biden and Texas county judges a letter recently in which he sprinkled the term in his note seeking federal assistance in coping with the border crisis.

Abbott ramps up “invasion” rhetoric, a reminder of El Paso mass shooting | The Texas Tribune

I detest the word used in this context. It conjures up to many Latinos living in, say, El Paso, the message in a hateful manifesto written by a lunatic who opened fire in a shopping complex in 2019, killing 23 people.

What is occurring along our southern border can be described in a lot of ways. Yes, it is a crisis. I do not believe it is right to describe a procession of people seeking refuge from tyranny in their home countries as an invasion force.

An invasion is the kind of action that nations take against each other. You know, kinda like when Nazi Germany invaded Poland in September 1939 to trigger the start of World War II.

What is occurring these days does not qualify as an invasion. It is a humanitarian crisis of the first order. Gov. Abbott is feeling mighty frisky coming off his big re-election victory.

He also is assuming the role of cruel demagogue.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Judiciary wins in midterm

Among the many winners who are basking in the glory of the 2022 midterm election result must be those who work within the federal judiciary.

Had the Republicans been able to seize control of the U.S. Senate, GOP leader Mitch McConnell had all but guaranteed that President Biden would have to endure a massive legislative blockade of all his judicial nominees.

Democrats will be in control of the Senate for at least the next two years. That means Biden will be able to fill the 50-some judicial vacancies that have stayed vacant.

Should a vacancy occur on the Supreme Court, the president will be able to nominate someone, who then will be subjected to the senatorial scrutiny required of all such nominees. Remember what McConnell did to President Obama when a vacancy occurred in early 2016 upon the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, He played a crass game of partisan politics and blocked the man Obama wanted to sit on the court — Merrick Garland — from ever getting a hearing.

That kind of chicanery won’t happen now that Democrats have secured at least 50 seats in the Senate.

Yes, the judiciary emerges as one of the winners of the midterm election.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Trump the crook to run again? Hah!

Donald J. Trump keeps dropping hints along the trail, kinda like breadcrumbs, that he is “strongly considering” a third campaign for the presidency.

I don’t think so.

He might announce his intention to run. He might go through the motions. He might act as if he’s in the hunt for the White House.

I just continue to believe that another U.S. citizen is going to have plenty to say about whether The Donald runs again.

That would be Attorney General Merrick Garland, who I continue to believe is preparing to indict the former one-term, twice-impeached POTUS of multiple felonies.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Garza is not Paxton

I couldn’t help but chuckle under my breath when I read the opening two sentences of a recent Dallas Morning News editorial.

The paper stated: There is little we can find to recommend Rochelle Garza for attorney general except that she is not Ken Paxton.

Frankly, that’s enough. 

I suppose you could say the DMN was set to damn Garza with faint praise as it recommended her for election next week as Texas attorney general.

So, it did that with its editorial that spent most of its space condemning the lunacy that has accompanied Paxton’s two terms as the state’s chief law enforcement officer.

The Republican AG has been on the hot seat ever since he took the oath of office in January 2015.

A Collin County grand jury indicted Paxton in 2015 on a charge of securities fraud; he has yet to stand trial. Seven of his top deputies resigned and then blew the whistle contending that Paxton is guilty of felonious criminal conduct; the FBI is investigating the complaint. The Securities and Exchange Commission announced it was conducting an independent probe into the securities fraud matter; no decision has come down. Paxton has filed specious lawsuits contending that the 2020 presidential election was infected with widespread voter fraud; he has been laughed out of many courtrooms.

This guy wants another four years as attorney general, an office that requires its occupant to be squeaky clean. Paxton falls far short of that reasonable requirement.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

When will indictment arrive?

All the smart money — and even some of the dumber dough — believes that Attorney General Merrick Garland is going to indict Donald J. Trump … for something!

So many questions lurk on the edges and even some in the guts of the issue.

When will the indictment(s) come? How far will the AG go in charging the former president of the U.S.A. with committing a criminal act? How does an indictment affect the former POTUS’s plans for running for the presidency again, if he’s indeed going to do so? What will be the response of Trump’s diminishing — but still frothing rabid — base of supporters?

I happen to believe that Garland could indict Trump on obstruction of justice, on violating his oath of office, potentially on contempt of Congress, on conspiracy to commit sedition.

It all turns on the events of 1/6. Trump incited the insurrection and no one on Earth is going to persuade me he didn’t do it.

However, Merrick Garland is nothing if not a realist. He knows the stakes are huge. If Republicans gain control of Congress after the midterm election, he faces the prospect of impeachment by Republicans still steamed over Democrats’ decision to impeach Trump twice.

The biggest obstacle to impeaching the AG, though, is that he is doing his job. Unlike the “high crimes” that produced two impeachments against Trump — seeking political favors from a foreign government and inciting the attack on the Capitol — Garland merely would be doing his job in accordance with the law.

That likely wouldn’t stop the GOP from seeking to make Garland “pay” for the impeachment of the former POTUS.

This is all part of the drama that awaits as Merrick Garland ponders what appears to be an inevitable action. I am waiting to see how this drama ends.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Rule of law set for challenge

Here it comes: We’re going to see, more than likely, a supreme test of the notion that “no one is above the law” that Attorney General Merrick Garland keeps reminding us.

The House select 1/6 committee has subpoenaed Donald J. Trump to talk to the committee about all he knows about what happened before, during and after the insurrection. Trump has issued a 14-page response that doesn’t way whether he will honor the summons and talk to the committee.

Congress could cite the ex-president of contempt of Congress. He could be indicted for that. Trump could go to trial. A jury could convict him … all of which happened to former Trump adviser/toadie Steve Bannon, who now is facing a two-year term in a federal prison.

Is Trump on the same plain as the rest of us? Must he face the consequence of prison time if he refuses honor the demands of a duly constituted congressional committee?

Merrick Garland says he must. I believe we are to learn in due course whether The Donald actually dodges this bullet.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com