Category Archives: legal news

legal news

Flaws run deep in Trump doctrine

Donald Trump and his gullible gang of MAGA goofballs are operating on a faulty assumption that the nation’s Constitution protects them against protests over the extreme overreach in which they are engaged.

They purport to be true-blue conservatives who are led by a president who is claiming that the office he occupies grants him authority essentially to break the law … as long as he is performing an official act.

Let’s see about that.

The reality, as I interpret it, is that the nation’s founders created a relatively weak executive branch of government. They invested equal amounts of power in Congress and the courts and charged them with the responsibility of exercising appropriate “checks and balances” against executive overreach. One of those branches, the legislative branch comprising Congress, essentially has rolled over for Trump. The Republicans who control both congressional chambers act as if it’s OK for the president to usurp their constitutional authority. Their acquiesence has emboldened Trump to keep reaching beyond his governmental grasp. So far so good, or so it seems.

That leaves the courts as the last man standing in Trump’s way. And we are beginning to see some signs of backbone among federal judges. Trump’s legal challenges are being swatted away by judges … some of whom appointed by Trump himself. That kind of independence is precisely what the founders intended when they created a system that grants judges lifetime appointments to the federal bench.

Yeah, that kind of judicial independence just pisses Trump and his MAGA minions off. Too damn bad!

The founders did not intend to build a government that invested limitless power in one individual. If Trump had any understanding at all of our democratic process, he would know that.

But he doesn’t. Nor do the 30% to 35% of the nation’s voters who adhere to the idiocy that flows from their leader’s mouth.

legal news

Loathing is alive and well in DC

Oh, boy … I just hate watching spectacles like the one I watched unfold today in a US Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

However, given the loathsome attitude that permeates the nation’s capital, it’s not surprising and it isn’t likely to be nearly the last such demonstration.

Committee Democrats stormed out of the hearing today because the Republican leadership on the panel wouldn’t allow further debate on a truly horrible appointment to the 3rd U.S. District Court of Appeals. Donald Trump has selected his former personal counsel, Emil Bove, to a lifetime post on the federal bench. Committee Democrats wanted to debate Bove’s appointment further. GOP Chairman Charles Grassley of Iowa said “no.” He ordered that the appointment proceed to a committee vote.

Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey pleaded with Grassley, who he praised as a man of decency and character, to grant the extra time for debate. Grassley was having none of it. Booker wanted to know what kind of control Trump had used to coerce Grassley into denying the debate.

Bove is a patently preposterous choice to become a federal judge. This is the guy who once said it was OK to tell a court to “fu** you” while disobeying a court order. He represented Trump in his case against the woman who won a court judgment that held Trump liable for sexual abuse. He also has said it might be possible for Trump to seek a third term as president, even though the Constitution limits presidents to two elected terms. Roll that around a while … eh?

Never in my entire life have I seen relationships between the legislative and executive branches of government degenerate to the level where it sits today. I have implored all the parties concerned to seek common ground. They need to return to an era where political rivals can disagree on policy but retain a certain level of personal decorum.

It’s all shattered. I fear it is gone forever.

crime news, legal news

He still did the crime … why let up?

Once in a blue moon some aspects of criminal law make me scratch my noggin till it bleeds.

Take the case of Bryan Kohlberger, a young man charged with the brutal murder of four college students in Moscow, Idaho. Kohlberger was set to stand trial for the brutal stabbing deaths. He had said initially he didn’t do it.

Now he has changed his tune. He pleaded guilty today to doing the crime that caused a nationwide manhunt in 2022. The cops found Kohlberger holed up in Pennsylvania. They brought him back to Idaho to stand trial. If convicted he faced the death penalty; I don’t know they do it in Idaho … but that’s beside the point now.

You see, by entering the guilty plea in a deal worked out with prosecutors, Kohlberger is going to avoid the ultimate punishment for the ultimate crime.

Here’s where the head-scratching commences. How do defendants accused of such horrifying crimes skate clear of the executioner simply by admitting they did the deed for which they would have stood trial?

I’ll have to stipulate that I am not a death penalty proponent. I am glad Kohlberger now will spend what’s left of his life in prison. My philosophical opposition to state-sponsored killing of defendants, though, is beside the point I am seeking to make with this post.

If someone admits to committing a crime as horrifying as what Kohlberger has admitted to committing, then why lessen the penalty the law requires him to pay?

I’ve heard official reasons. A guilty plea saves a state a lot of money. He won’t have any avenues for appeal. It costs the state a lot of money to put defendants to death.

However, I am still puzzled by the notion that admitting to a crime as horrifying as what Kohlberger did saves him from paying the ultimate price.

legal news

Why issue pardons?

Let us examine the issue of presidential pardons, which have risen in the public’s consciousness lately.

Donald J. Trump is issuing pardons to convicted felons, some of whom have committed violent crimes against law enforcement officers. He also is acting totally within his powers as president, as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution.

The founders granted the president virtually unlimited power to pardon anyone of a crime. Trump has been signing pardon documents left and right lately. The most recent pardon of some controversy involves a reality TV couple convicted of tax evasion and fraud against the U.S. government. The husband was sentenced to 12 years in the slammer; the wife got seven years. Trump set them free today.

What I want to examine briefly is the ramification of pardons such as this one, which undermines a jury verdict reached in a fair trial. Trump said the couple — convicted felons, mind you — are “fine people” and they deserve the chance to restart their lives.

No they don’t. They were convicted in a court of law.

I don’t want to expend a lot of emotional capital on this pardon. I do want to make what I think is a critical point. A pardon expunges the record. It removes conviction from a criminal’s past … officially. It does not wipe out the memories of those who were damaged by whatever crime is committed. Nor does it expunge from the memories of those of us who watch these matters with a degree of interest.

I became aware of presidential pardons in September 1974 when President Ford issued a full and complee pardon to his predecessor, Richard Nixon. Nixon had resigned the presidency but had not been convicted of any crime. He was about to be impeached by the House and would be assuredly convicted in a Senate trial for crimes related to the Watergate scandal. Ford’s decision, though, looked at the larger issue of the impact a continued pursuit of Nixon would have on the nation.

President Ford paid a political price for the pardon, losing his bid for election in 1976, largely it is believed because voters thought at the time he acted prematurely. The pardon, though, did not remove the stigma of Nixon’s resignation. Nor did it wipe away the public perception of the disgraced former president as someone who sought to cover up the wrongdoing done in his name.

If only the current president could understand what he’s doing to this enormous power he has at his disposal. He is making himself, his office and our government a laughingstock.

legal news

Would he dare seek a third term?

A member of my family, a fellow I consider to be a smart fellow, says he is concerned that Donald J. Trump will be able to finagle his way into a third term as POTUS.

He knows the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment limits the president to two elected terms. He knows that Trump has been elected twice.

I reminded my relative that Trump cannot do anything single-handedly. He needs Congress to amend the 22nd Amendment. Then he would need three-quarters of the 50 states to ratify it.

“It won’t happen,” I beseeched him. “Ohhhh, I don’t know,” came his reply.

The nation’s founders didn’t write a perfect governing document. It has been amended 27 times since its ratificationn in 1789. The founders, though, did set the bar quite high for those who want to change the framework of our democratic republic. They set strict legislative requirements and set a high standard for the number of state legislators needed to ratify an amendment.

Donald Trump, it seems to many of us, would like to be able to seek a third term as POTUS. But, he’ll be 83 years of age when his current term ends. The founders made it clear that to change the Constitutiion, pro-amendment fanatics need to jump through a lot of hoops to make it happen.

Trump and his moronic MAGA minions might think they hold all the cards to change the Constitution. They don’t. The founders made damn sure of the document’s strength by building in “checks and balances” to keep presidents in check.

It has worked so far. It will continue to do its job.

legal news

SCOTUS chief pushes back … a bit

Media reports saiy that U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts is pushing back on Donald Trump’s call to impeach federal judges who rule against him.

I consider the chief’s response to be a tepid rejoinder. Then again, the chief justice of the nation’s highest court need not scream and bellow in a manner resembling what Trump demonstrates.

Roberts said that impeaching a judge is an “inappropriate” form of protesting a court ruling. He said the appeals process has worked for two centuries and that should be the way to respond to a ruling one dislikes.

Fine. I get the message. I fear it will be lost on the Maniac in Chief.

What fascinates me, though, as I watch Trump bloviate about all the revenge he intends to seek is that the courts do remain reasonably solid in the checks and balances realm of our federal government. Trump’s moronic staffers suggest that certain judges lack jurisdictiion or standing to rule as they do.

That’s pure crap. The only body that makes that call is the nine-member Supreme Court, whose chief has laid out what the Constitution allows.

Judicial impeachment is off the table!

crime news, legal news

Patel to take FBI reins … God help us!

The Federal Bureau of Investigation, once revered and venerated for its professionalism, is now being run by a guy who thinks the agency has become a clown show staffed by crooks, charlatans and crackpots.

Kash Patel won Senate confirmation today by a 51-49 vote, hardly the type of mandate that previous FBI directors have traditionally received. The past three FBI directors were confirmed with at least 92 Senate votes.

Patel is about as unqualified and unfit as anyone I’ve ever seen for the job as head of the nation’s premier crime-fighting outfit. It is staffed with thousands of public servants who are dedicated to doing their job and fulfilling their mission to keep us safe from those who wish to do us harm.

Patel once said he intended to close the Hoover FBI Building and turn it into a museum of the “deep state.” He vows to hunt down and prosecute anyone who opposes Donald Trump. What the hell? He has declared war on the media, the only privately held institution in this country granted protection from government influence and interference in the U.S. Constitution.

And this is the dipsh** Trump selected to lead the FBI?

Of the handful of troublesome Trump picks to lead the executive branch, I declared Kash Patel to be the worst of the bunch. I stand by my earlier assessment of this moron’s world view.

Now I will merely pray he chickens out on his threats to weaponize his department.

legal news

Another public task snatched away

Another opportunity to serve my community has been taken away from me … not by a government denying me the right to serve, but the lack of need for the service I intended to provide.

I waited all day to learn whether I needed to report for jury duty Wednesday morning at the Collin County Courthouse jury room over yonder in McKInney.

Then came the message. My services aren’t needed. There will be no need for a jury.

I’ll be frank. The news disappoints me. I want to serve on a trial jury. I realize it’s the luck of the draw that determines whether I get the chance. Every time I have received a jury summons in Texas — whether in Jefferson or Randall counties, and now in Collin County — district clerk staff has waved me off.

I know none of this really is huge news to those who are reading this post. I want to share with you, however, that I keep reading reports from district and county clerks that they often cannot seat enough people for juries when the need arises.

Texas offers a variety of reasons for people to excuse themselves from jury duty. One of them provides a permanent recusal for old folks like me. I reckon the state figures that some of us might not live long enough to report for duty once we get the summons.

I am 75 years of age. My hope that a permanent recusal would not be because I wouldn’t live long enough to serve. One of my life’s goals has been to serve on a trial jury. We all think we know what goes on when 12 people deliberate over a verdict in a case … but we don’t know until we’ve been in the room. I want to learn what happens when they shut the door.

It won’t happen this time. Maybe it will the next time I get the call to serve the cause of delivering justice.

legal news

Judiciary under attack

9 Comments

Our nation’s founders had this notion that today seems rather quaint that lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary would shield judges from the kind of political pressure that dogs members of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

The concept worked quite well. Then came the MAGA movement, Donald Trump and now the actual threat of impeachment of federal judges who rule against the Trumpian view of the world.

Holy crap!

A federal judge in Rhode Island has ruled that Trump must unfreeze federal money appropriated by Congress. His actions to stop payments violate the U.S. Constitution, said the judge. The MAGA response? Well, we’ll just see about that, they say. MAGA morons are reportedly lobbying their allies in Congress to impeach the judge because he had the stones to speak truth to the morons who think they can ignore the Constitution at will.

The first three articles in the Constitution dealt, in order, with legislative power, executive power and judicial power. The founders seemingly believed that Congress deserved top billing, thus delineating its authority in Article I. Therefore, when Congress authorizes the expenditure of public money, that authority cannot be challenged by tinhorn politicians.

Trump is seeking to rewrite the Constitution by flouting the authority it grants to Congress … and to the courts. The Rhode Island judge noted specifically that Trump has ignored earlier court rulings and said point-blank that he must be found in contempt of the court. Indeed, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his year-end review of the court said that any effort to defy the courts must be stopped.

You want a constitutional crisis? I believe we might have them on several fronts, each of which would make Watergate and the Trump-incited insurrection look like a game of horseshoes.

crime news, legal news

No moral equivalence here

Right-wing MAGA fanatics need to take great care when attaching moral equivalence to two vastly different actions taken by two equally vastly different men.

In one of his final acts as president, Joe Biden issued pre-emptive pardons to members of his family, believing they would spare them from the hassles of being harassed by federal officials loyal to the incoming POTUS.

Those pardons were, shall we say, weird and kind of bizarre. As it has been said many times, innocent people do not need to be pardoned. The family members pardoned by President Biden hadn’t even been charged with any crimes.

Then came the horrendous blanket pardons issued by Donald Trump, freeing about 1,500 traitorous mobsters from punishment for their role in the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection against the government. They sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election results and attacked with all-due violence the Capitol cops seeking to protect members of Congress from the hysterical mob.

Some right-wingers have sought to attach the Biden pardons with the Trump pardons. Not a chance! There isn’t a scintilla of moral equivalence to be found!

One of the pardoned traitors, by the way, got into an altercation with Indiana police over the weekend and was shot to death by the cops. History seeking to repeat itself? Well … go figure.

What Trump did in pardoning all the convicted mobsters was send a clear signal that the president had their back in the event they might try to do something similar in the future. The president also gave the middle finger to cops who had suffered grievous injury in defense of our government.

Trump has taken the same oath twice to “protect and defend the Constitution.” He tossed that oath into the crapper the first time and there’s not a thing that I can detect that will prevent him from doing it again.

Therefore, let us end the idiotic attempt to equate the pardons issued by the departing president with those given by the individual who succeeded him.