Category Archives: legal news

legal news

‘Yes’ on judicial election reform

3 Comments

Nathan Hecht has called it a career, stepping down from his post as chief justice of the Texas Supreme Court.

He didn’t exactly leave completely on his own terms. State law forced him. to retire at age 75. So, he did.

I want to join others who have saluted his 35 years on the state’s highest civil appellate court and his lengthy legal career.

Hecht is a reformer. He sought to make the legal system more accessible to lower-income Texans. It’s a fascinating goal for a man thought to be a rock-ribbed conservative Republican jurist. Which brings me to a fundamental point I want to echo.

Judge Hecht also favors judicial election reform. He doesn’t like the way Texas chooses its judges. We elect them on partisan ballots. In this day, if you’re a Republican, you have a built-in advantage simply because you belong to the predominant political party. It used to be that Democrats held that kind of power.

Hecht doesn’t like the current system. He wants to see judges elected as non-partisans. As the Dallas Morning News noted in an editorial saluting Hecht’s tenure: “He also wisely used his high-profile and strong reputation in Austin to push the Legislature for a new system for selecting judges. Partisan elections, he said, put judges in the unfortunate position of becoming political. He famously told the Legislature in 2019: ‘A judicial selection system that continues to sow the political wind will reap the whirlwind.'”

And it has. I have seen too many good judges turned away — at the state and county levels — simply because they belong to the party out of power.

The current system too often turns jurists into potential political hacks.

I hope Judge Hecht continues to use his voice to seek needed change in Texas’s political system … by removing judges and judicial candidates from the partisan cesspool.

legal news

Wray quits FBI, bring on the goons!

FBI director Christopher Wray’s resignation from his supposedly “non-political” post signals most clearly — as if we needed any more signals — what Donald Trump intends to do to the nation’s top police agency.

He intends to turn it into a cudgel with which he will beat his political foes into submission.

Wray’s resignation, which takes effect on President Biden’s last day in office, is a clear indication that Trump — who selected Wray for the FBI after he fired James Comey in 2017 — has no intention of following the law.

Comey got the boot because he wouldn’t profess blind loyalty to Trump. Wray pursued his job with the same dedication to the rule of law as other FBI leaders have done. The deal breaker for Trump was when Wray asked the former president to turn over classified documents he had taken from the White House and when Trump refused, Wray sought a court order to seize the documents at Mar-a-Lago. Again, he followed the law.

The nimrod Trump wants to take over as FBI boss, Kash Patel, has declared his intention to sic the FBI on Trump’s political foes. He has said he wants to close the Hoover FBI Building and turn it into a museum of the Deep State.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a dark day in the transition from one administration to the next one. However, it is appearing that the next one is shaping precisely as the new president said it would.

Shame on us.

crime news, legal news, national news

Trump: Slipperiest man alive

Donald J. Trump has just earned a new title that smacks of royalty.

I hereby crown this guy King Donald, The Slipperiest Man Alive. The dude received this unofficial title when special counsel Jack Smith announced today he would move to dismiss all the federal charges leveled against Trump.

They include his role in the Jan. 6, 2021 assault on our government as well as his keeping of classified documents at his Florida estate.

What happened to force Smith to make this decision? Near as I can tell, it was the Supreme Court ruling that granted Trump immunity from prosecution while he sits in the Oval Office.

So, the two federal charges appear headed for the dustbin. All that’s left to prosecute is the Georgia case alleging that Trump sought to pressure state officials to “find” enough votes in Georgia to swing that state’s total in 2020 to Trump’s column.

The feds have no authority over DA Fani Willis’s right to prosecute that case as an elected state official. Then again, that case appears to be sucking wind at this stage.

Here we stand. A man who was impeached twice during his first term in office, convicted of 34 felony counts in New York on a hush-money payment to an adult film actress and then was charged in multiple cases on state and federal felonies has been re-elected to the nation’s highest office.

He now wears the crown awarded to the Slipperiest Man Alive.

Stunning … simply stunning.

legal news

Gaetz is gone; good riddance!

1 Comment

Matt Gaetz spared himself the embarrassment of being denied a seat in the Trump administration Cabinet by pulling his name out of consideration to be the next attorney general.

I would offer a word of praise to Gaetz … except he doesn’t deserve any good word from me.

Gaetz had no business being considered for a post that demands extreme moral rectitude from the individual who occupies it. Gaetz had been investigated for sex trafficking, for having sex with an underage girl and for use of illicit drugs. The House ethics committee compiled a report that allegedly contains a ton of sordid details.

Now, he wasn’t ever charged with a crime. The report is still out there. House Republicans have blocked its release so far. Gaetz’s decision to back out of the AG search likely will diminish the public’s chances of seeing the report.

I will argue that the public still needs to see what it contains. To what end? To determine the nature of the character of an individual that the incoming president would nominate to become attorney general of the United States.

It appears to me that learning about the former AG candidate’s (lack of) character would speak volumes as well about the guy who selected him.

Matt Gaetz is gone … but we still have Donald Trump.

legal news, national news

McConnell leaves cheap legacy

3 Comments

I won’t think often of Mitch McConnell once he leaves his post as US Senate Republican leader.

But when I do …

I will remember the cheap partisan game he played by blocking President Obama’s decision to name a justice to the U.S. Supreme Court.

You remember, right. Justice Antonin Scalia was vacationing in Texas when he died suddenly in February 2016. Scalia was the intellectual leader of the conservatives who sat on the high court. A brilliant jurist to be sure. Obama had a right under the Constitution to select a successor.

President Obama paid his respects to Justice Scalia and then turned to the D.C. appellate court and nominated Judge Merrick Garland to succeed Scalia. Garland, by all accounts, was a serious judge, fair-minded and scholarly and, yes, a good bit more liberal in his judicial philosophy than Justice Scalia.

Not so fast, said McConnell, who then led the GOP majority in the Senate. The president shouldn’t be allowed to make an appointment in an election year. He said there would be no confirmation hearing for Garland. The Senate would wait for the election results, McConnell said.  He took a huge gamble, as Donald Trump was a decided underdog in early 2016 in his race against Democratic Party nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

What happened? Donald Trump got elected, took the oath in January 2017 and then selected conservative judge Neil Gorsuch to succeed Scalia.

I shall be clear.  McConnell acted legally. He had the right as Senate majority leader to block the president’s nomination.

However, McConnell’s stiff of a president from doing his constitutional duty still doesn’t pass this blogger’s smell test.

The tactic stunk to the highest of the heavens and that should stand as this partisan hack’s most enduring legacy.

crime news, legal news

No one is above the law?

5 Comments

Supreme Court decisions notwithstanding, most of us have operated under the believe that the laws apply to everyone, regardless of occupation, wealth or social standing.

Have laid down that predicate, let’s suppose Kamala Harris is elected president in November, defeating a former POTUS who faces numerous criminal indictments for actions he allegedly committed to overturn the results of the previous presidential election.

Does the president-elect call off the dogs, ordering the Justice Department to cease and desist in its probe of the former president?

Abso(freaking)lutely not!

Donald Trump has accused DOJ of hunting him down because they want him out of office.  That, of course, is nonsense, covered in self-aggrandizing narcissism.

The high court earlier this year ruled that presidents are entitled to immunity from prosecution if the crime they commit falls in line with his action as president. Special counsel Jack Smith then reindicted Trump, resurrecting the indictments that were effectively rendered moot by the SCOTUS.

No self-respecting prosecutor is going to say his or her sole intent in pursuing a legal matter is to rid the world of a politician. I believe Jack Smith and Attorney General Merrick Garland are far more than merely self-respecting lawyers.

If this election turns out the right way in November, we will have a president-elect who once served as a district attorney, a state prosecutor and a state attorney general. Something tells me she won’t let up on the gas for a moment in bringing Donald Trump to justice.

Nor should she.

legal news

SCOTUS trashes another established notion

1 Comment

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has laid waste to another established legal tenet, let us look briefly at what might lie ahead.

The court, ruling 6 to 3, has decided that presidents do have presumed immunity from prosecution if they commit wrongdoing while sitting in the office. The court let stand the notion that a president can be prosecuted for acts he committed after he leaves office.

We all thought that “no one is above the law.” Well … that’s not quite true. It means, in this matter specifically, that Donald Trump was within legal authority to provoke the Jan. 6 onslaught on the Capitol and then do nothing to stop it while mobsters assaulted the cops, crashed through windows, defecated on the floor of our Capitol and threatened to execute the VP if he didn’t obey Trump’s command to overturn the result of the 2020 election … which Trump lost to Joe Biden!

Does this mean, therefore, that Joe Biden could send a special forces sniper team to assassinate his opponents before he leaves office? Of. course not … except that the court ruled that illegal acts might be protected.

When I served in the US Army long ago, I was told that we didn’t have to obey unlawful orders. We were instructed to resist them. Vice President Mike Pence received what to my mind was an unlawful order from Trump to “do the right thing” by stopping the certification of the 2020 election result. Pence has said all along he didn’t have the authority to act.

He followed the law and the US Constitution. Trump should be tried for issuing that order. SCOTUS, again in my view, got this ruling wrong.

legal news

No one is above the law? Pfffttt!

1 Comment

If you thought for a nanosecond — as I did — that “no one is above the law,” then what we have received today from the U.S. Supreme Court is a decision that dispels such foolishness.

The court, ruling 6 to 3, has decided that Donald J. Trump is granted “presumptive immunity” from prosecution for acts committed while he was still in office. That includes pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The six votes all came from Republican-appointed justices; the three dissenting justices all were selected by Democratic presidents. Who knew … right?

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. According to The Hill: Roberts wrote that whenever the president and vice president are discussing official responsibilities, they are engaging in official conduct — and, presiding over the certification of the 2020 presidential election results is a constitutional and statutory duty of the vice president.

“The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct,” Roberts wrote.

The indictments of Trump presumed what Attorney General Merrick Garland has preached, that “no one is above the law.” Not true, according to the SCOTUS. The court’s logic applies even to discussion that involve knowingly conspiring to break the law.

SCOTUS did kick some of the indictments back to a lower court. More delay is coming up. The case involving the Jan. 6 assault on the government likely won’t go to trial until after the election.

Then, if — God forbid! — Trump wins, well … you know how that ends.

legal news

Will nominee show up at RNC?

1 Comment

Given what I believe is happening with regard to convicted felon Donald Trump’s post-conviction antics, it is fair to wonder about this possibility.

It is that the 45th POTUS might be unable to attend the Republican Party nominating convention that will launch his candidacy against President Joe Biden.

Trump is going to be sentenced for the conviction handed down by the jury in NYC on 34 counts relating to an illegal hush money payment to an adult film actress, Stephanie Clifford, aka Stormy Daniels.

Sentencing occurs July 11. Four days later, GOP convention delegates will meet in Milwaukee to nominate Trump for another run for the White House.

Judge Juan Merchan has wide latitude here. He could sentence Trump to jail time; he could sentence him to probation. He could impose an immediate jail term; he could say Trump can wait several weeks before reporting to the slammer.

Suppose he gets jail time. Suppose the judge orders the 45th POTUS to report immediately to the hoosegow.

That means the GOP convention will nominate an individual who is in jail, serving time for felonies committed that sought to hide an extramarital tryst. Trump denies even knowing Clifford, let alone having sex with her in the hotel room years before running for POTUS in 2016.

He paid her 130 grand anyway. Go figure.

Oh, and he’s now been calling the judge a crook, the jury was rigged, the prosecutor was biased against him.

A judge usually looks for signs of contrition in criminal defendants. He is not getting a hint of it from this defendant.

Republican convention delegates, though, are blind to the reality that they are facing … that their next presidential nominee is a felon.

legal news

What happened to SCOTUS?

For as long as I have been covering and commenting on our court system, I have followed a few basic tenets of what I consider to be fair and impartial justice.

One of them is simple and straightforward. It states that judges must always be fair, impartial and objective when interpreting the law. They cannot possibly accept gifts from litigants or potential litigants. Period. End of story.

What in the hell, then, has become of that tenet? US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas finally has owned up to the revelation that over the years, he has accepted more than $4 million in travel and other assorted gifts from wealthy contributors. One of notably is Texas gazillionaire Harlan Crow, who has given Clarence and Virginia Thomas cruise trips, first-class jetliner rides, rooms at posh hotels and Lord knows what else.

Thomas only recently reported it. He’s not required to do so under SCOTUS rules. The nation’s highest court is the single judicial institution that does not police itself … but it damn sure keeps a close eye on the conduct of other federal judges serving on lower courts.

Thomas, appointed to the high court in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, has assumed the unofficial title of chief grifter on the nation’s federal judiciary.

This is simply beyond belief. Oh, and get a load of this: Justice Thomas once told a TV documentary filmmaker that he prefers stay at Walmart parking lots in his recreational vehicle because that’s how “normal” people choose to relax.

It’s not clear when this scandal will expire. It seems we keep hearing of new gifts being lavished on the Thomases from their wealthy friends, some of whom actually have legal matters pending on the highest court in the land.

I am left only to lament the presence on this court of a justice who doesn’t grasp the gravity of his acceptance of these gifts … and to call on him once again to resign!