Category Archives: 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

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

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

Have we awakened?

Hands down, there can be no doubt that abortion is the most contentious issue of our time, which makes me wonder whether the infamous leaked draft opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court has awakened Americans to the right of women to control their bodies.

The draft document recommends that Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 court ruling that legalized abortion, be overturned.

The question is worth asking. Does this draft energize Americans? Does it make them force Congress to enact a law that codifies abortion, giving the procedure federal protection? Does it prod Americans to act in a way that countless lives lost to gun violence couldn’t?

I admit to having a sliver of doubt. My hope, though, is that Americans — namely women across the land — will stand and fight for their right to determine whether to carry a pregnancy to birth.

They are rallying all over the nation. In Dallas tonight, thousands of Texas residents are marching downtown to protest the draft opinion. The draft document is not law. We won’t know how the court rules until the summer, when the court term ends.

The draft opinion, written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, gives us a clear and present hint on how the court is tilting.

I want to add as well that every public opinion poll I’ve seen tells us that a solid majority of Americans believe that women deserve the right to make these gut-wrenching decisions for themselves, that they oppose (mostly male) legislators making them.

Let the alarm bells keep ringing.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Who leaked it? Who cares?

Now that the world has gotten a probable first look at what the U.S. Supreme Court will do to a landmark ruling on abortion, I want to declare that I am far more concerned about what the draft opinion states than I am about who might have leaked it to Politico.

The 98-page draft opinion written by conservative Associate Justice Samuel Alito declares that Roe v. Wade is “egregiously wrong” and should be overturned. The draft opinion, which is far from the final ruling, has sent shock waves through the nation. States such as Texas are likely to enact what they call “trigger laws” making abortion illegal if the high court follows through on the draft opinion later this year.

Texas would make abortion a felony and would punish a woman who received an abortion with time in prison, along with the doctor who provided the service. That is disgraceful on its face.

Here is a thought for us to ponder. If the state is going to send women and doctors to prison for terminating a pregnancy caused by a rapist or a lecherous uncle who committed an incestuous act, then we need to seriously stiffen the penalties for the men who commit those acts. The Texas abortion ban wouldn’t take rape or incest into account.

How does life without parole sound?

As for the leak that came from the court, I agree it is unprecedented. For my money, it doesn’t seem all that difficult to determine who did the deed. My hunch is that it came from a clerk who works for one of the three liberal justices on the court. If we’re going to sic the FBI on them, then grill the clerks and their assistants first to get to the bottom of it. There ain’t that many of them on the court staff, so it shouldn’t take too long.

However, as I stated already, the contents of the draft document are alarming in the extreme. I am not looking forward to what the SCOTUS has to say on this matter when they ring the bell for the end of the current court term.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

SCOTUS set to overturn Roe?

Someone at the U.S. Supreme Court building reportedly has spilled the beans on what the justices are going to do when their term ends this summer.

It is, if you believe reports of a leaked draft opinion, that they will overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling handed down in 1973 that legalized abortion in the United States.

Are you surprised at what appears to be setting up? Well … neither am I, not with the court’s 6-3 super conservative majority.

They haven’t yet ruled officially on a Mississippi case that came before justices earlier this year. The message is clear, though, in what has been leaked from the SCOTUS building: Roe was flawed from the beginning, according to a draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, one of the conservatives.

This is a bad development for American women. They appear to be set to lose the option of terminating a pregnancy. So, just who will pay the biggest price? Poor women, not the wealthy women are going to suffer if the court ends the practice of obtaining an abortion legally.

Let me be crystal clear once again. Any effort to mandate an end to abortion will fail. Women will continue to obtain them, no matter what, which is what they have been doing since human beings first set foot on the good Earth.

A dark day looms.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Is there an indictment in Trump’s future?

If we are to believe the New York Times reporting on this matter — and I do, generally — then it appears that Donald J. Trump will dodge the indictment bullet in the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

The newly installed DA, Aaron Bragg, appears to be closing up shop in his investigation into the Trump Organization’s business dealings. Many of his chief assistant prosecutors have quit the office. Bragg isn’t inclined to pursue the former POTUS any further.

Now, does that forestall a probe being conducted by New York Attorney General Letitia James? Hah! Hardly.

However, it could be argued that without the NYC prosecutor’s office going full tilt on its investigation, the AG’s office might be caught with fewer evidence-gathering tools at its disposal.

Nor does this mean that the 1/6 investigation ongoing in the U.S. House of Representatives is going to flicker out and die. House intel committee chairman Bennie Thompson plans to commence public hearings in June on his panel’s probe into the insurrection. U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland is standing by with possible plans to take legal action against all sorts of players from the Trump administration. Hmm, maybe even against The Donald himself?

Oh, one more thing. We have that probe going on down yonder in Fulton County, Ga., where legal eagles are investigating whether Trump broke state law by demanding election officials to “find” enough votes to turn that state’s 2020 presidential electoral result from Joe Biden to Trump.

The plot is still pretty damn thick, even if the Manhattan DA is bowing out.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Democracy under attack

Democracy is facing an existential threat in the very nation that holds itself up as the model for democratic freedom, liberty and the rule of law.

That would be the United States of America.

I keep reading about The Big Lie and the effort to launch what amounts to a coup against the government that the great Winston Churchill once called “the worst form of government ever created” but is better than anything else ever tried.

I continue to maintain faith that our democratic process will withstand the assault being launched by the far-right wing of the spectrum, led by the most recent former president. His legal team (and I use that term with extreme caution) has tried to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The court system, though, is doing its job by acting as a shield against such lawlessness.

It hasn’t stopped the former POTUS or his minions. They are continuing their assault.

As the nation and the world watches Ukraine defend itself against the bullets and bombs thrown at it by Russia, we are witnessing another sort of struggle in this country. It’s been bloodless — more or less — until now.

I do not expect blood to flow. However, I worry about whether our democratic process will be able to recover fully from the wounds being inflicted by the former POTUS and his cabal of cultists.

I am going to keep the faith that our democratic process is strong enough. Hey, we once fought a civil war and it survived.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Election consequence plays out

I cannot let this item go without a brief comment.

Federal Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle ruled this past week that President Biden’s mask mandate violated the Constitution. Then the Transportation Security Administration decided to forgo its mask mandate — related to the COVID pandemic — on public transportation, such as airplanes, trains and buses.

So, who is Judge Mizelle? She is a judge whom Donald J. Trump nominated to the federal bench after losing the 2020 election and after he began challenging the veracity of that result with his baseless claims of voter fraud. You know … The Big Lie!

Mizelle also is just 33 years of age; I have no problem with her youth. However, she graduated from law school just eight years before becoming a judge.

Furthermore, the American Bar Association determined that Mizelle is “not qualified” to adjudicate from the federal bench.

Let that sink in for a moment: not qualified, according to the ABA.

Sheesh!

To think, therefore, that critics of Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee — Ketanji Brown Jackson — were quick to label a stellar jurist as somehow unfit for the nation’s highest court are now standing behind someone who tossed out a mask mandate while COVID infection rates are increasing in most of the states of this vast nation.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Back and forth on marijuana

Man, I cannot make up my mind on the issue of whether we ought to legalize marijuana.

I have commented in the past on this blog about my “open mind” on the issue. It’s still open, but it closes from time to time.

At the moment, my mind hasn’t slammed the proverbial door shut, but I am wavering.

States are decriminalizing marijuana use. Oregon, the state of my birth, was among the first to do so. It’s two Pacific Cost neighboring states — Washington and California — have done the same. We moved away from Oregon in 1984, so I am not entirely well-versed on the effect that decriminalization has had on my home state.

I am not prepared to endorse the idea of decriminalization. Nor am I ready to condemn it. So, I guess my mind is open.

There might be a middle ground I can endorse: turning it into a civil penalty, sort of like a traffic ticket. You pay the fine and go about your business.

Some progressive members of Congress are talking openly about legalizing marijuana use. I’ll have to get back to you on that one.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com