Category Archives: legal news

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

Where do we go post-Roe?

Abortion isn’t an issue that occupies much of my conscious thought, but occasionally I do wonder about the future of a woman’s world if (and likely when) the U.S. Supreme Court finds a way to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the landmark ruling that made abortion legal in this country.

The court will issue a ruling before the end of its current term that appears — by all that I heard and read so far — spell the end of Roe as we have known it since the court issued its ruling in January 1973.

The SCOTUS declared that the U.S. Constitution gave women the right to govern their bodies. That they had the right under the Constitution to terminate a pregnancy. Anti-abortion activists have been fighting like crazy ever since to overturn the ruling.

They now appear to have enough of a majority on the high court to end it. States, such as Texas, have taken it on their own to seriously restrict women’s right to obtain an abortion. Texas has made it illegal for a woman to end a pregnancy at the six-week mark … before many women even know they are pregnant. Now comes Oklahoma, our northern neighbor, to make it a crime for someone to obtain an abortion.

Think of the irony here. Conservatives who used to bristle at what they determined to be “too much government interference” now embrace the notion of government interfering with women’s most painful decision.

I believe it was President Bill Clinton who once said his intent was to make abortion “legal but rare.” I share that goal.

As for the future of abortion, I just need to reiterate a point I long have made. I cannot advise a woman to obtain an abortion. Why? That isn’t my call. Nor is it the call of any legislator, or member of Congress, or president or judge. It belongs to the woman most intimately affected.

That is where the decision should remain.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Call her ‘justice-designate’

Ketanji Brown Jackson now can be called a U.S. Supreme Court associate justice-designate, given that the Senate has confirmed her nomination to the nation’s highest court in a 53-47 bipartisan vote.

This is a stellar day in the history of this great country, with Justice-designate Jackson becoming the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

Her confirmation was a foregone conclusion, with three Republican senators — Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah and Susan Collins of Maine — joining their Democratic colleagues in sending the newest justice to the court, where she will take her seat when its new term begins in October.

President Biden made a double-sided pledge during the 2020 presidential campaign: that he would nominate an African American woman to the court if he got the chance and that the nominee would be a supremely qualified jurist.

The president delivered the goods on both counts.

President Biden has earned applause for delivering on this key campaign promise. And the newest justice — who will succeed Justice Stephen Breyer — has earned the nation’s good wishes as she prepares for the job of a lifetime.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Tom Cotton: demagogue

Tom Cotton this week did the seemingly impossible. He spoke in terms that would embarrass even the most shameful demagogues.

The Arkansas Republican U.S. senator actually said out loud in a Senate floor speech that Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson — a former public defender who is about to be confirmed to a seat on the Supreme Court — would rise to the defense of Nazi war criminals and would want them released rather than being held accountable for their crimes against humanity.

Wow! I am not sure how to respond to that bit of character assassination other than to say that Tom Cotton has provided a shameful example of the depths to which he and other demagogues will stoop to score cheap political points with the far-right-wing base of a once-great political party.

I thought Cotton’s behavior during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing of Judge Jackson’s nomination was loathsome enough. Silly me. He outdid himself by offering that despicable example of demagoguery.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com