Category Archives: legal news

legal news

Blunt said this about KBJ?

Roy Blunt, the lame-duck Republican U.S. senator from Missouri, said some strange things about Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson today while being interviewed on ABC News.

Blunt said Jackson’s expected confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court will be a “high point” in U.S. history; he said she is well qualified; that she has a good educational background; that it is past time for the SCOTUS to have an African American woman among its ranks; that she has a good legal mind.

Then he said he will vote “no” on her confirmation. Why? Because of her judicial philosophy.

Good grief!

It was a bizarre recitation that exhibited Blunt’s political cowardice as he prepares to retire from the Senate at the end of the year.

I cannot recall ever hearing someone say so many positive things about a political appointee before declaring he wouldn’t support that person to the seat to which she has been nominated.

Weird. Simply weird.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

GOP senators sought Fox air time

Leave it to the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee to seemingly own up to the truth about his GOP colleagues’ questioning of Ketanji Brown Jackson during her confirmation hearing on her nomination to join the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ranking Republican Chuck Grassley of Iowa all but admitted to a constituent that the GOP line of questioning was intended mainly to put the senators’ faces and voices on the Fox News Channel.

Do you think, Sen. Grassley?

A woman on TikTok told Grassley that was her opinion, that Sens. Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton and Marsha Blackburn were seeking face time on Fox. “I don’t dispute that,” Grassley responded.

Well … what’s done is done. The senators got their wish.

However, many millions of Americans — such as yours truly — came away from the hearing thinking far better of Judge Jackson for the poise and stamina she exhibited and far less of the senators who exposed their ignorance and boorishness.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

GOP concocts reasons to oppose SCOTUS pick

1 Comment

Dang, I hate to say “I told you so” … but I told you Senate Republicans were going to make up reasons to oppose the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The latest made-up reason comes from GOP U.S. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, who said he opposes Judge Jackson because of her position on “court packing,” a move progressives favor to expand the Supreme Court from nine members to 13 or 15.

For the record, I don’t favor court-packing, either. So there. I have cleared the air on that matter.

Still, a Supreme Court justice has no say on the composition of the court. That matter is decided by Congress. Justices don’t vote on it. It’s a purely legislative matter. So, why does Sen. Burr oppose Judge Jackson ascending to the nation’s highest court? Beats the devil out of me, except that he’s a Republican senator and the man who nominated Jackson to the SCOTUS, President Biden, is a Democrat.

That’s it! Or so it seems!

Judge Jackson is “well qualified,” according to the American Bar Association, which also gave its highest rating to Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, all of whom received Burr’s endorsement. Oh, wait! A Republican president, a guy named Trump, nominated them.

The good news? Judge Jackson is a heavy favorite to be confirmed by the Senate.

The phony reasons for opposing her … be damned!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

SCOTUS needs ethics rules

The United States Supreme Court has existed since the founding of the Republic and it has functioned — more or less seamlessly — without needing a policy that lays down ethics requirements for the individuals who interpret the constitutionality of our federal laws.

It damn sure needs one. Justice Clarence Thomas clear and unequivocal conflict of interest involving his participation in decisions involving the 1/6 insurrection have demonstrated the need for the high court to set forth ethics boundaries that justices should never cross.

The Supreme Court is the only federal judicial panel that doesn’t have an ethics policy on the books.

Thomas’s wife, Virginia, is a right-wing political activist who reportedly lobbied the White House chief of staff to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. Mrs. Thomas believes the election was “stolen” from Donald J. Trump and has made no effort to conceal her belief in the nut-job conspiracies that continue to thrash around over The Big Lie.

Justice Thomas, meanwhile, has continued to hear cases involving The Big Lie, refusing to recuse himself from any discussion, deliberation and decision-making involving 1/6.

The SCOTUS has no rule prohibiting the justice — the longest-serving member of the court — from taking part. Good grief, man! Is there no clearer demonstration of Justice Thomas’s bias on this matter? The court voted 8 to 1 to require The Donald to turn his presidential papers over to the 1/6 House committee; Justice Thomas cast the only vote in dissent.

Justice Thomas simply needs to resign. Short of a resignation, he needs to recuse himself from anything to do with the insurrection.

And the court should establish a hard-and-fast policy regarding ethical conduct. It can start by demanding that no justice can participate in decisions on cases involving their spouse!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

GOP senators show ugly side

Ketanji Brown Jackson is going to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate and will take her seat soon on the U.S. Supreme Court. I feel comfortable making that presumption. However, I cannot let go of what we all witnessed from the Republican Party side of the dais at the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing.

What did we see? We saw senators parse and nitpick their way through the judge’s stellar judicial record and question her on issues that have next to nothing to do with the cases that will come before the nation’s highest court.

Sens. Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley, Tom Cotton and Marsha Blackburn were especially reprehensible in their conduct as they grilled President Biden’s nominee to the court, where she will succeed Justice Stephen Breyer at the end of the court’s current term.

What stood out to me first and foremost was the poise that Judge Jackson exhibited as these senators took turns interrupting her while she sought to answer the questions they threw at her. I sat in my North Texas home watching this spectacle unfold and I actually thought: How in the world would I handle this kind of hectoring, haranguing and harassment? My answer? I couldn’t! I would storm out of the hearing room!

Thus, I would hand Judge Jackson the highest praise I can muster for the way she exhibited the poise and grace that her questioners all lacked. Indeed, it was Sen. Graham who huffed and puffed his way out of the hearing twice after completing his interrogation of Judge Jackson, who remained seated for hours on end, answering ridiculous question after ridiculous question.

It is clear that the GOP Senate caucus was aiming at a constituency beyond the room, the QAnon-loving cabal of voters who embrace notions of child molestation and pornography among politicians. Hence, we saw senators asking Judge Jackson to speak to sentencing practices involving criminal defendants accused of child porn crimes, which the judge referred to as a “small subset” of her entire legal career.

The GOP caucus behaved disgracefully. The target of their vile behavior, though, will take her place among the ranks of justices who interpret the Constitution. She made history already by being the first Black woman ever nominated to ascend to this high court. I remain confident Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s history-making career only will glorify her … and the nation she serves.

I also am quite sure history will be unkind to those who sought to besmirch her.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Recusal or resignation?

Oh, how I wish U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas would just leave the nation’s highest court and let others on the panel with a semblance of ethics and an understanding of the law make these critical decisions.

He likely won’t, given that he is defiant in the extreme to concerns about whether he is guilty of grievous conflicts of interest. That leaves recusal. Justice Clarence Thomas needs to declare right now — at this very minute — that he will not take part in any deliberation or decision involving the 1/6 insurrection.

Thomas’s wife, Ginni, is a right-wing political activist who reportedly lobbied the White House to do whatever it could to overturn the 2020 presidential election, which Donald Trump lost to Joseph Biden. Justice Thomas has failed to recuse himself. He has failed to recognize the obvious conflict of interest in his participation in anything to do with the 1/6 insurrection, which involved his wife in a direct manner.

Justice Thomas already has revealed his bias by casting the lone vote to allow The Donald to block sending presidential papers to the 1/6 House committee.

I cannot think of a more obvious conflict of interest than what we are witnessing in real time with Justice and Mrs. Thomas.

If he won’t quit the court, then for God’s sake he needs to recuse himself from any deliberation involving the insurrection. Or … Chief Justice John Roberts needs to tell him, “Clarence, we have a serious problem … ” and then suggest to him that he recuse himself.

The Supreme Court is the only federal court that lacks a code of ethics. It is a self-policing body.

I still want Clarence Thomas to resign from the nation’s highest court. If he won’t, then by all means — if you “love the law” as you say you do — then just stay the hell away from these decisions involving the insurrection.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

SCOTUS fight could get more toxic

So, you might think the fight over whether to approve President Biden’s selection of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court is as toxic as it gets. Guess again.

You see, Jackson’s addition to the court doesn’t change the ideological balance on the body. It remains a 6-3 conservative majority court. Yet, Senate Republicans have chosen to demonize her in ways that I find repugnant.

The fecal matter will really hit the fan if this president gets to select a court nominee to replace one of the conservative justices serving on the nation’s highest court. Yes, I have Justice Clarence Thomas — one of the right wing’s favorite judges — in mind as I suggest that.

Just suppose Justice Thomas resigns as the heat comes to a full boil over his wife’s far-right-wing political activism. Suppose that Biden gets to select a nominee to succeed Thomas. Whoever the president chooses will be of a more liberal/progressive slant. Correct?

Senate Republicans will go ballistic, just as they did in 2016 when Justice Antonin Scalia died and President Obama sought to replace him with a moderate judge named Merrick Garland.

All of this is my way of condemning the toxicity that infects every single decision these days in Washington, D.C., a place that once sought to pride itself on bipartisan collegiality.

It now relishes its new role as a snake pit. I am not predicting any of this will occur. I merely am preparing everyone for the bloodbath that could occur if it does.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

How about impeachment?

Now that I am on the record calling for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign, let’s look briefly at another option available to those of us who value judicial integrity: impeachment.

I fear impeaching the justice would produce the same result as the two impeachments of Donald Trump: He would escape conviction by a U.S. Senate that lacks sufficient Republican belief in doing the right thing.

A brief review: Thomas’s wife, Ginni, is a political activist who allegedly sent numerous text messages to the White House chief of staff urging him to overturn the 2020 presidential election result that elected Joe Biden. Trump has fought against Biden’s free, fair and legal election by fomenting The Big Lie about phony “widespread voter fraud.” Ginni Thomas in league with Trump, who lost a Supreme Court vote on whether he could claim “executive privilege” by denying the House committee looking into the 1/6 insurrection access to his presidential documents. The court voted 8-1 against Trump; the lone dissent came from Clarence Thomas.

Do you get where I’m going here?

If he won’t quit, then perhaps the House could impeach him and bring a torrent of publicity on how Thomas’s lack of integrity has compromised the SCOTUS. The Senate won’t convict him, but the bad pub might be sufficient for Thomas to call it quits and perhaps spare the court on which he is now its senior member additional embarrassment and shame.

Hey, it’s just a thought.

I still believe Justice Thomas needs to resign.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Resign, Justice Thomas!

All right, enough is enough! I have seen and heard all I need to see and hear about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s obvious conflicts of interest involving Donald J. Trump, his own wife Ginni and The Big Lie that Trump has pitched contending there was “widespread voter fraud” during the 2020 presidential election.

Justice Thomas needs to resign from the Supreme Court if only to enable his wife to continue her political activism and to avoid further damaging the integrity of the court on which he has served for more than three decades.

Go home, Mr. Justice!

I say this without any reservation. It is clear to me that Ginni Thomas’s activism has compromised her husband’s role as a supposed “impartial” arbiter of cases that come before the court. Some of them have involved The Donald’s preposterous claims of executive privilege. Justice Thomas, I need to remind everyone, was the lone dissenting vote against The Donald’s claim of executive privilege as he sought to prevent the National Archives from handing over presidential documents to the House select committee examining the 1/6 insurrection/riot. Why is that significant? Because Ginni Thomas attended the damn rally on The Ellipse on that day, but left before it got totally out of hand.

Now we hear from credible media reports that Ginni Thomas pushed, prodded and pressured White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to do all he could to overturn the results of the 2020 election, which The Donald lost to Joseph R. Biden Jr.

She did all this and then went home at night to the same residence she shares with an associate Supreme Court justice. How in the name of juris prudence can this be dismissed? How is that not a direct conflict of interest? How does Justice Thomas explain his ghastly vote to grant executive privilege to Trump when every lower court has ruled against it — along with all eight of his SCOTUS colleagues?

I have had enough of this charade being perpetrated on Americans by the most senior member of the nation’s highest court.

Get the hell out of office, Justice Thomas!

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Mitch says ‘no’ on KBJ

Let’s put Mitch McConnell’s announcement today that he would vote “no” on Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court into some perspective. So, bear with me for a moment.

The Senate Republican leader can’t support Judge Jackson because she declined to say whether she supports progressives’ call to expand the high court from nine members to, say, 15. McConnell said Judge Jackson should have offered an opinion, even though the jurist erred on the side of remaining impartial or, shall we say, above the battle that surely would erupt if such a notion were to gather momentum.

Let’s examine briefly McConnell’s recent political history, too.

This man obstructed President Barack Obama’s effort to name a successor to Justice Antonin Scalia, who died suddenly in early 2016. McConnell said that because a presidential election would occur 10 months later, we needed to wait to see which candidate would win and then allow that person to make the nomination. Obama selected Judge Merrick Garland, but Garland never got a hearing … thanks to McConnell’s obstruction and raw political power grab.

McConnell also blamed Donald J. Trump for the insurrection that erupted on 1/6. He said in a Senate speech that The Donald was “singularly” responsible for “provoking” the riot that sought to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump lost! Then he voted against convicting The Donald on the impeachment article that came from the House as a direct result of the riot that McConnell said Trump instigated. Go figure.

So, for this obstructionist and coward to offer a negative critique of a stellar jurist such as Ketanji Brown Jackson is simply, to be candid, not credible.

He sickens me.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com