Category Archives: legal news

legal news, national news

Elections do matter

You have heard it said that “elections have consequences.” I have stated as much many times on this blog platform and I still believe it to be so very true.

We are seeing how those consequences are playing out in President Biden’s nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court. Biden won the 2020 presidential election and, thus, has been granted the opportunity to find a qualified jurist to take her seat on the nation’s highest court.

This process plays into the notion of “presidential prerogative,” meaning that presidents earn the right to select whomever they desire simply by winning the most recent election.

What you might not remember, though, is that I have carried my belief in presidential prerogative across party lines. I am a dedicated supporter of Democratic Party ideals, but I also recognize that elections that produce Republican presidents also have consequences equal to those that produce Democratic presidents. Accordingly, I recognize that Donald Trump’s election in 2016 entitled him to select the three individuals who currently serve on the SCOTUS.

When President George H.W. Bush selected Clarence Thomas in 1991 to succeed Thurgood Marshall on the high court, I said the same thing. Same with President George W. Bush, when he chose John Roberts to become chief justice and Samuel Alito to an associate justice position.

All of these individuals are technically qualified to serve and the presidents who nominated them were entitled under the Constitution to select them.

I want to revisit this notion because of the hassles that President Biden is getting over his choice of Judge Jackson to join the court. Senate Republicans are digging in for a fight. They belong to a government branch that is entitled under the Constitution to reject or approve any nomination that comes before them. They are fighting Judge Jackson for reasons that escape me.

Joe Biden’s standing as president allows him to find a qualified candidate for a lifetime appointment. He has done so and therefore he deserves to have the individual he has chosen approved by the Senate and then be allowed to take her place on the Supreme Court.

One of the harshest challenges to this prerogative occurred in 2016 when Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly. President Obama selected Judge Merrick Garland to succeed Scalia. Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell then decided to play political hardball by denying Garland any confirmation hearing, saying that because it was an election year that the winner of the next election deserved to select the individual he or she wanted for the court.

The winner turned out to be Trump. McConnell’s strong-arming of the constitutional process was a hideous display of politicking and I am one American who never will forgive him for denying a sitting president the chance to seat a qualified jurist on the Supreme Court.

Juxtapose that with the speedy confirmation process that McConnell allowed when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died just weeks before the 2020 election; Amy Coney Barrett received Senate confirmation in a record-setting fashion. Any sign of hypocrisy there? Oh, yes! Absolutely!

Elections always have consequences, indeed … and they should.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

She’s become ‘KBJ’!

2 Comments

This is excellent news! I just read — or maybe I heard it in the background noise of the TV set — that someone has referred to Ketanji Brown Jackson, the next justice to be seated on the Supreme Court, as “KBJ.”

Why is that cool? It’s because the media along with the public usually reserve those identifications by name initials to those who are held in generally high esteem.

You know: JFK, LBJ, RFK, MLK Jr., FDR. I have taken to referring to other more contemporary individuals as well by their initials: Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, aka AOC is one and, yes, I have referred to the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene as MTG and Donald Trump as DJT.

It is a strange phenomenon that not all public figures get that designation as a matter of regular practice. BHO is one of those who’s been left out of the initial-ID name club. George W. Bush is known as just plain W., or Dubya.

So … welcome to the newly formed Club of Iconic Figures, Judge Jack … er, KBJ.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

The system is broken

This is no great flash, but I feel obligated to say it anyway: The confirmation hearing for Ketanji Brown Jackson shows that the U.S. political system is broken and it needs immediate urgent care.

What also is not exactly news is that the system has been broken for too long and it has needed repair for as long as we have witnessed the system’s fraying.

Judge Jackson wants to join the U.S. Supreme Court, succeeding the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. She is eminently qualified and she deserves to take her place with the rest of the court.

She will get there, or so it appears. Democrats have enough Senate votes to confirm her. The Senate Democratic caucus likely will hold together to confirm this excellent nominee. Indeed, when a president exercises the prerogative given by the public that elected him, it falls on the president to find the most qualified nominee for this critical post. President Biden has delivered the goods by nominating Judge Jackson.

Senate Republicans, though, have spent the past two days dredging up phony excuses to oppose Jackson’s nomination. Their scurrilous misrepresentation of Jackson’s stellar record only demonstrates the broken political system that needs repair.

I long have adhered to the notion that presidential prerogative should grant presidents the right to make recommendations to these critical posts, even lifetime jobs to the federal judiciary. Yes, the Senate has the right granted by the Constitution to offer “advice and consent” on nominees. However, Judge Jackson’s nomination has been twisted and perverted into a form that needs to be straightened out.

The system that has created the great partisan divide in Congress is the culprit. Ketanji Brown Jackson deserves far better than what she endured.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Stupidity abounds!

Of all the questions I have heard over many decades listening to Senate and House hearings, I believe I have listened — hands down — to the stupidest question ever uttered by a U.S. senator directed at a witness before the committee on which she sits.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, actually asked Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson — President Biden’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court — to “define a woman.” I will admit that I wasn’t entirely dialed into the topic on which Blackburn was seeking an answer.

However, I watched Judge Jackson’s frozen facial expression after she heard it and was stunned beyond belief that she didn’t bust out laughing at the absurdity of the question.

I am not at all clear how Blackburn intended for Judge Jackson to answer that idiotic query. Does she offer a detailed description of the female anatomy? Blackburn also asked Jackson to “define a man.” Again, does she offer detail on the, um, characteristics that comprise the male anatomy?

When Jackson did not answer Blackburn’s question, the senator then sought to suggest that the jurist was intimidated by the inquiry.

Oh, brother. What I witnessed was a know-nothing politician seeking to embarrass a top-tier jurist. All the pol did was heap ridicule on herself.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Graham just pisses me off

OK, I gotta get this off my chest: There is just something about Sen. Lindsey Graham that pisses me off. The South Carolina Republican demonstrated his petulance once again while questioning a highly qualified nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Graham cannot get past the notion that President Biden — the man he once hailed as one of his best friends in public life — selected Judge Jackson over the woman Graham preferred, fellow South Carolinian Judge Michelle Childs.

His pique was on full display yet again today as he interrupted Judge Jackson as she sought to answer his questions. He refused to let her complete answering a question about sentencing practices and insisted on directing the line of questioning to sex offenders; Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin interceded to allow Jackson to finish her answer.

Graham insists he hasn’t decided how he will vote on Judge Jackson’s nomination. That, of course, is nonsense. He is going to vote against Jackson’s nomination, joining most — if not all — of the Republican Senate caucus in opposing her selection to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer. I can make that determination, as can anyone with half a brain in their noggin.

I just am flabbergasted at the rudeness he has exhibited while questioning a superb choice to join the nation’s highest court.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Why the ‘faith’ question?

Ketanji Brown Jackson felt compelled Tuesday to remind Lindsey Graham that Article VI of the US Constitution prohibits any “religious test” for anyone seeking public office, to which Graham responded that he agreed and that he wouldn’t apply any test.

Why, then, did the South Carolina Republican ask Judge Jackson about her “faith,” and why did he ask her how often she attends church? Jackson, nominated by President Biden to the Supreme Court, chose to avoid answering the question about her worship frequency.

I am puzzled and concerned, though, by the direction and the tone of the question that Graham asked of the SCOTUS nominee. If he intends to apply no religious test, then what in the name of holy Scripture is the reason for the questioning about the Judge Jackson’s faith?

It was a concerning line of inquiry and one that I hope no one follows down some judicial blind alley.

That kind of question had no place during the Senate committee confirmation hearing.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Hearing previews 2024 campaign

Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to declare that we are witnessing with the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on whether Ketanji Brown Jackson should join the Supreme Court a preview of the 2024 Republican Party presidential primary.

It’s an unattractive spectacle and I detest the notion that a respected jurist is being used as a political football by senators who might seek their party’s presidential nomination in 2024.

I’m talking about Ted Cruz of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Josh Hawley of Missouri.

They are trying to push hot-button issues dealing with race and abortion and trying to appease the nut-job “base” of the GOP voting bloc while they grill Judge Jackson.

To the nominee’s great credit, she is holding up well under the onslaught.

President Biden promised to present a highly qualified nominee to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer. He delivered when he nominated Judge Jackson.

I continue to salute Jackson’s former role as a public defender. The Supreme Court hasn’t yet welcomed a jurist with that kind of background. Jackson has talked about understanding a defendant’s mindset and the value that understanding has brought to her experience for the past decade as a judge. That aspect of her background alone would bring remarkable and laudatory diversity to the nation’s highest court.

That, of course, won’t stop the GOP presidential hopefuls from parsing her past comments and seeking to damage her reputation by suggesting things about Judge Jackson that do not exist.

From my vantage point, they are embarrassing themselves and have been unable to lay a hand on the nominee’s stellar standing.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Will judge stand up to pols? Umm, yep!

One of the more fascinating aspects of congressional confirmation hearings is listening to politicians quiz nominees on issues of which the nominee is an expert but which the politician knows next to nothing.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is now set to face what I have called an “inquisition” from members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. It comprises individuals who have a passing knowledge of what it takes to be a top-drawer jurist. Judge Jackson, though, is the real deal. Which is my way of supposing that she knows much more about the law and how judges are supposed to interpret the law than the individuals who will sit in judgment of her qualifications.

President Biden made history when he nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court; she is the first African American woman ever nominated to the nation’s highest court. This blog post, though, isn’t about the color of her skin; it is about her knowledge of the law. From what I have been able to determine, Judge Jackson’s legal skill is beyond reproach.

She possesses an Ivy League education. She comes from a stellar family of educators and law enforcement officers. Judge Jackson clerked for the man she hopes to succeed on the court, Justice Stephen Breyer.

And yet …

Politicians on the Senate judiciary panel are going to presume to be experts on how a judge is supposed to administer justice. Some of them are going to twist the nominee’s prior rulings and turn them into unrecognizable facsimiles of what went down.

It’s part of the process. I get that.

Still, it infuriates me to see pols pretend to be experts on matters on which they have only a passing acquaintance.

With that, I am going to wish Ketanji Brown Jackson all the very best as she seeks to tell these pols that she’s the expert and they … are not.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Now, for the inquisition

Ketanji Brown Jackson promised to “uphold and defend the Constitution” if she is confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, that’s what they all say.

In her case, I believe her. I believe that President Biden’s nominee to replace the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer is a woman of her word. She oozes integrity and decorum.

However, none of this is likely to curb the criticism of her record that is sure to come from Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans who will look for any reason — even made-up reasons — to oppose her confirmation to the nation’s highest court.

Judge Jackson, who has appeared before the Senate panel already while being confirmed to lower court posts, is a history-making jurist. She is the first African American woman ever nominated to the high court; Biden pledged to find a highly qualified Black woman to sit on the court. He delivered big time!

I believe she will be confirmed. It will be a bloodbath, more than likely. Then again, that’s become the norm for virtually every Supreme Court nominee since the early 2000s.

Yes, Judge Jackson will uphold and defend the Constitution. She knows the lines she cannot cross.

The judge will make a stellar SCOTUS justice.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

‘Well-qualified,’ says ABA

The American Bar Association has given its official blessing to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s appointment to take her seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ABA calls the judge “well-qualified” to sit on the nation’s highest court and interpret the U.S. Constitution’s role in pending cases.

Now, is that it? Does that end the debate that is sure to erupt when Judge Jackson starts answering questions from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, which begins confirmation hearings on Monday?

Hah! Not even close!

To be fair, I should point out that all three of Donald Trump’s nominees to the court received well-qualified ratings from the ABA. That didn’t stop the fierce debate that accompanied their eventual confirmations.

American Bar Assoc Says Judge Jackson ‘Well Qualified’ to Serve on SCOTUS (msn.com)

President Biden’s selection of Ketanji Brown Jackson brings a historic significance that the three previous picks lacked. Judge Jackson is the first African American woman to be nominated. Joe Biden pledged during the 2020 presidential campaign to find a highly qualified Black woman to serve … and he delivered on that pledge in a big way by nominating Judge Jackson.

Her sparkling credentials and the ABA’s highest blessing won’t stop Republican senators from looking for reasons to oppose her. Josh Hawley of Missouri, for instance, castigated her for going soft on child molesters. Hawley, though, needs to re-read the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which declares that all criminal defendants are entitled to legal counsel; Jackson served as a public defender for a time before becoming a judge, thus, she was doing what the Constitution requires.

I look forward to the Senate confirmation hearing and am hopeful — although I know it’s a stretch — that a significant number of Senate Republicans will realize that she deserves to join the rest of the Supreme Court.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com