Category Archives: 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

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

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

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