Category Archives: legal news

legal news

Resign, Justice Thomas!

I shall say this as many times as it takes to get my message across: Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas needs to resign from the nation’s highest court.

Why? Because his wife, Ginni Thomas, has committed egregious acts that compromise the justice’s ability to adjudicate matters fairly and impartially regarding The Big Lie fomented by Donald J. Trump.

Now we hear that Mrs. Thomas was in frequent email communication with Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, expressing her disgust with the 2020 presidential election result, the one that Trump lost to Joseph Biden.

Are we now going to believe that Ginni Thomas didn’t tell her husband, the justice, of her deepest feelings about the election? And are we now going to believe that Ginni Thomas’s views have no impact on Justice Thomas’s votes favoring Trump in his losing battles to stay in power?

Good grief! Justice Thomas needs to resign from the court. Immediately!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Learning a little about the law

One of the many positive aspects of watching the House select committee hearings on the 1/6 insurrection has been the in-depth discussion of the law and how good lawyering and bad lawyering are in conflict over the conduct of the losing 2020 presidential candidate.

Donald Trump lost the election that year to Joe Biden. He incited the insurrection on 1/6. He got impeached for the second time by the House over that act. Trump continues to foment The Big Lie about the election, alleging widespread voter fraud that did not exist.

The networks that are covering the televised hearings — that’s about all of them — are walking viewers through the aspects of the law that are coming into play.

It fascinates me to no end. I will never pretend to learn enough about the legalities of Trump’s ill-conceived effort to undermine the electoral process to argue the legal facts.

Still, the arguments being made by the commentators are educational to me. I long have said there are many things I don’t know. The legal intricacies of a former POTUS seeking to undermine our democratic process is one of them.

They are coming into sharper focus every day.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

My mind is made up

I don’t want the House hearings to end just yet; I want to hear more from the witnesses summoned by the select 1/6 committee.

This much seems clear to me: My mind is made up. It is settled in my own noggin that Donald J. Trump deserves to be prosecuted for seditious conspiracy, as he plotted to block the “peaceful transition” from his administration to the Joe Biden administration after the 2020 presidential election.

Truth be told, I really don’t need to hear any more from the witnesses. However, I want to hear more.

I must have some sort of political bloodlust coming into play. Well, I don’t care. I have the luxury of passing judgment without hearing all the facts, unlike Attorney General Merrick Garland and his team of prosecutors who are listening to every word during the hearings.

Do I believe AG Garland will do as I wish? I am not going to predict what Garland will do. I know, though, that were I in charge of the Justice Department, I would be drafting criminal complaints to deliver to a grand jury. I then would be preparing my arguments to grand jurors, seeking to persuade them to issue a “true bill” that means an indictment would come forth.

Let’s await the end of this televised portion of the hearings.

I will pray for discernment and wisdom from the Attorney General Garland and hope that it leads him to do what I hope he will do: Indict and then prosecute fully the former president of the United States for seeking inciting an insurrection against the government he swore he would “protect and defend.”

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves

I am beginning to wish that members of the House 1/6 select committee would stop speculating out loud about the “evidence” they say all but guarantees that Donald Trump will be indicted for seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

You see, these folks are getting my hopes fired up.

Reps. Liz Cheney, a Republican, and Adam Schiff, a Democrat, are saying the same thing: the panel has enough evidence to recommend that the Justice Department indict Trump for inciting the insurrection on 1/6.

Then we hear from a former White House lawyer suggesting that Fulton County (Ga.) prosecutors are close to getting an indictment against Trump charging him with coercing Georgia election officials into “finding” enough votes to swing the state’s electoral result from Joe Biden to Trump.

Again … my heart gets to fluttering when I hear such things.

Oh, how I do not want to be let down.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Oh, the irony of racism

Don’t you just marvel at the irony that presents itself at times as we seek to understand our nation’s history?

This particular message showed up on my Facebook feed. It illustrates what happened to a girl named Ruby Bridges, an African American student who sought to enroll in a Louisiana school many decades ago.

She was pelted with rocks, insults and epithets from those who said she didn’t belong in the same classroom with white kids.

Now we have a movement in this country that seeks to keep that historical fact from being taught to today’s youngsters. They fear it would breed “hatred” of their country. Well … no, it wouldn’t. It would seek to connect all the facets of our past and link them to our present day.

What is so wrong with that? Someone will have to explain to me why — as the text notes in the photo — why Grandma and Grandpa want to prevent their grandkids from learning all aspects of this great nation’s history.

Every single great civilization has its blemishes, its dark chapters. We need to pass them on to our children to help them understand fully the path we have taken.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

DOJ getting serious? Well …

The U.S. Justice Department has asked the 1/6 House select committee for transcripts. Lots of transcripts. They are taken from testimony collected by the panel in the search for the truth behind the insurrection and the riot that sought to undercut a free, fair and legal presidential election.

I can hear the progressives jumping for joy even from out here in Flyover Country. Fine. Let ’em jump.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has said time and again that he wouldn’t be bullied, coerced, pushed and prodded into acting prematurely in his search for the truth behind what Donald Trump knew on 1/6 and what he did or didn’t do to stop the rioters.

I am taking the AG at his word, which I consider to be quite honorable.

He also has pledged to follow the law “wherever it leads.” That means if he finds enough to recommend an indictment of the former POTUS, then that’s what he’ll do.

Let’s first try to get our arms around what Garland is trying to do. He is trying to gather information to help him determine what to do with it all. If there’s enough to indict Donald Trump, he’ll proceed. If there isn’t enough to do so, well, he’ll proceed down that particular path.

The progressive wing of the Democratic Party keeps yapping that Garland is moving too slowly. I wish they would keep their traps shut and let the man take care of business in the way that will guarantee a thorough outcome.

I trust the attorney general implicitly to conduct his investigation with due diligence and professionalism. That he is seeking transcripts from the 1/6 committee tells me the AG might be getting closer to making a key decision on the future of the 45th president of the United States.

My hope is that the future forestalls any effort for the ex-POTUS to seek public office ever again. Then again, I am not the individual in charge of making that call. I’ll leave it that matter to Attorney General Merrick Garland.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

GOP embraces judicial activism

Republicans have done what I once thought was virtually impossible, that they would embrace a policy of judicial activism, that they would welcome judges who would, as they used to say, “legislate from the bench.”

We are witnessing — possibly — a case of judicial activism play out as the Supreme Court nears a decision on whether to toss aside what most of the court’s justice have called “settled law.” That would be the Roe v. Wade ruling handed down in 1973 that makes abortion legal in the United States.

Do you see it happening? Of course you do! The whole world is now aware of a draft opinion that suggests that Roe v. Wade isn’t long for this world. If the court follows through on what the draft suggests and tosses Roe into the crapper, then we are going to witness a first-rate case of judicial activism run amok.

The Supreme Court has upheld Roe many times since it became “settled law.” The current court, with its 6-3 super conservative majority, could change all of that.

Let us never forget what Donald Trump pledged when he was elected president in 2016. He said he would “appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade.” In the case of the SCOTUS, he delivered on his promise. Justices Neil Gorsuch, Jeff Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett all must have given Trump some assurance they would follow his lead if he nominated them to the court.

Maureen Dowd: There is just too much church in the state (irishtimes.com)

Didn’t presidents usually refrain from applying these so-called “litmus tests” when looking for federal judges? Imagine the outcry from the right had a president vowed to appoint judges who were avidly pro-choice on abortion.

I guess it’s OK these days to declare your intent and to ensure that judicial candidates would in fact pre-judge cases before hearing the merits.

I won’t ring the death knell for a woman to control her body just yet. Still, I am left to wonder what in the world happened to a political party that once thought that judges shouldn’t “legislate from the bench.” Oh, I know what happened. That party was hijacked and turned into something none of us recognizes.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

SCOTUS loses ‘trust’?

Think of the irony of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggesting that the nation’s highest court has lost “trust” because someone leaked a draft document that hints that the court is poised to overturn a landmark ruling that legalized abortion in this country.

Justice Thomas spoke to a judicial conference in Dallas. “When you lose that trust, especially in the institution that I’m in, it changes the institution fundamentally. You begin to look over your shoulder. It’s like kind of an infidelity that you can explain it, but you can’t undo it,” he said.

Wow!

Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court changed by leak of draft abortion opinion (msn.com)

Excuse me for laughing out loud. The court also lost trust when one of its members, Justice Thomas, chose to take part in a ruling involving Donald Trump’s role in the 1/6 insurrection. Ginni Thomas, wife of the justice, is an avid Trumpkin and took part at the start of the demonstration that turned into an assault on our democracy on 1/6.

I believe Thomas should resign from the court. He won’t do the right thing. The next right thing would be to recuse himself from any court matter related to the former POTUS’s effort to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election. He won’t do that, either.

Oh, no. Instead, he is going to pontificate about the court losing the trust of the people because someone decided to leak a draft opinion that sets up a monumental battle between pro-abortion rights Americans and those who would make it a crime for a woman to decide to terminate a pregnancy.

Trust? Clarence Thomas has no moral standing to talk about whether the Supreme Court has lost it. Whatever loss it has suffered is due largely because of the associate justice himself.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Biden is MIA over protests

President Biden needs to step up and issue some stern words of condemnation for those who are threatening bodily harm to Supreme Court justices over their draft opinion on Roe v. Wade.

You know the story by now. Someone leaked a draft opinion stating that the court could overturn the landmark abortion-rights ruling later this year. It has prompted stern and passionate push back from those who want to see the 1973 ruling stand as written.

They have marched in front of the home of the author of the draft document, Justice Samuel Alito, and some protestors have said out loud that physical harm should come to Alito and other conservatives on the court.

Hold on, here! I join them in their anger over the draft opinion. I part company over the calls for violence. So should President Biden, who sadly hasn’t said anything publicly about language coming from some of the protestors.

As we have learned painfully from the horrific events of 1/6, words do matter.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Don’t pack SCOTUS!

The infamous Roe v. Wade draft opinion that leaked out of the Supreme Court has prompted progressives to call for a SCOTUS “reform” that would add justices to the nine-justice panel.

Let’s take a breath for a moment.

I, too, am appalled at what the draft opinion suggests, that the landmark abortion legalization ruling is likely to be overturned in a formal court opinion to be issued in June or July.

However, I happen to oppose the idea of packing the nation’s highest court more justices. It is a knee-jerk reaction that, in truth, isn’t likely to be approved by the current Congress.

President Franklin Roosevelt floated the idea in the 1930s. Court packing was as unpopular then as it appears to be now.

I am a believer in precedent. Overturning Roe would violate the court’s policy of letting “settled law” stand. Moreover, it would constitute judicial activism that conservatives say they oppose.

But do we really want to take a drastic step such as the one being pitched now to expand the ranks of the SCOTUS? Those who want to pack the court point to the possibility that other rulings — such as the decision to allow same-sex marriage — might be wiped out.

A more rational approach would be to elect congressmen and women more to the liking of those who are appalled at the draft opinion. Over time, there could be sufficient pressure applied to Congress and to the courts to keep their mitts off issues that should be allowed to stand as they were delivered.

Pack the court? Now? No.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com