Category Archives: legal news

legal news

Waiting for phony SCOTUS objections

Let the debate begin now that President Biden has presented us with a historic selection for the U.S. Supreme Court. What will intrigue me for certain are the phony objections that U.S. senators are going to present as they argue against the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to become the latest justice on the nation’s highest court.

The trumped-up objections will come from Republicans in the Senate. They will cling to ridiculous notions that Joe Biden engaged in an “affirmative action” hire in selecting Judge Jackson. Why? Because as a presidential candidate in 2020, Joe Biden promised to nominate a Black woman to the court if he got the chance. Justice Stephen Breyer delivered that chance to President Biden when he declared his intention to retire from the court at the end of its current term.

The president vowed to find a stellar jurist. He found her in the person of Ketanji Brown Jackson. There should be no debate over her qualifications.

I want to make the point that I have sought to make for many years when these nominations come forward. Elections have consequences. I have said so when Republican presidents have made these nominations, as well as when Democrats do so. President Biden’s election in 2020 means that he gets the chance to deliver on his constitutional duty, which he has done.

Judge Jackson by all accounts is a first-rate, top-drawer, stellar jurist. She has a well-rounded background in the law, serving as a public defender as well as a prosecutor.

I am not going to listen to those who gripe about President Biden’s decision to look exclusively for a Black woman to fill this important lifetime post. Ronald Reagan made a similar pledge in in 1980, as did Donald Trump in 2020. They both delivered on their pledges and Republicans said not a single thing to object to their commitments.

Whatever phony excuse they come up with now should be greeted with all the derision they deserve.

Ketanji Brown Jackson deserves to take her seat on the nation’s highest court … period.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Judge Jackson must become Justice Jackson

Prediction time, if you’ll indulge me for a moment or two. Ketanji Brown Jackson is going to get a superior rating from the American Bar Association; her record as a lawyer and a jurist will be pored over by the Senate; and some Republican soreheads in the Senate are going to concoct some phony reasons for opposing confirming her for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Biden made history today by nominating Judge Jackson to fill the seat held by Justice Stephen Breyer, who is retiring at the end of the court’s current term. Biden promised during the 2020 presidential campaign to look for an African American woman to nominate for the high court and today he delivered.

He found a first-rate jurist in Judge Jackson, who currently serves on the D.C. Court of Appeals. She once clerked for Justice Breyer. She had a stellar career in private practice. Moreover, she once served as a public defender, coming to the defense of those who couldn’t afford to pay for legal counsel.

President Biden took specific note of Jackson’s temperament, her outlook on the law and her life experience as the daughter of two educators — one of whom (her father) eventually earning a law degree. Her brothers have served in law enforcement, and she is married to a prominent physician.

She got a law degree from Harvard and possesses a sparkling legal mind.

Look for the pretexts to oppose to come forth. They will come from Senate Republicans who will contend that speciously that they dislike the way Joe Biden narrowed his search to find a competent, front-rank lawyer among the many African American women who fit that bill.

One prominent Senate Republican, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — who lobbied hard for a woman from his home state, Judge Michelle Childs — has stated that the “far left won” with the president’s choice of Judge Jackson. I do hope Sen. Graham will put his hurt feelings aside and look objectively and fairly at Judge Jackson’s background and legal temperament before deciding how he intends to vote.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin promises a swift confirmation process. He wants the committee to make its recommendation no later than Easter. Good!

It is time for the Senate to get busy … and confirm this stellar jurist to the U.S. Supreme Court.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Oh … now for the SCOTUS pick

2 Comments

What? You mean there’s another story brewing far from the battlefield in Ukraine? Oh, yeah! We’ve got this U.S. Supreme Court matter to resolve, which is what President Biden is about to do by naming the first black woman to the nation’s highest court.

Judge Ketanji Brown-Jackson is about to be nominated by Biden to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer. This goes to show that President Biden is able to, shall we say, “compartmentalize” his thought processes. He can levy punishing economic sanctions on Russia for invading Ukraine and in his next move interview qualified candidates for the Supreme Court and then select one of them for the lifetime appointment.

Biden reportedly looked at three finalists for the job. They all are first-rate jurists. Judge Ketanji Brown-Jackson once clerked for Justice Breyer and she sits on the D.C. Circuit Court in the seat once held by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

She has a varied legal background, serving as a public defender and a prosecutor. I like the public defender aspect of her career; it gives her a unique perspective that other justices lack when they ponder criminal appeals that come to the highest court in America.

President Biden hopes his nominee wins some Republican support in the Senate. I believe the judge will be confirmed with a bipartisan vote. She has been confirmed already twice for lower-court appointments.

The president vowed to select an African American woman to the court. He kept his pledge. What’s more, he said the nominee would be highly qualified. He kept that pledge, too.

Judge Jackson-Brown’s confirmation won’t change the ideological balance on the court; it will remain a 6-to-3 conservative majority panel. However, the next Supreme Court official photo will look different, with four women sitting with their five male colleagues on a court that didn’t welcome its first female member until 1981.

Let’s not forget as well that Ronald Reagan made a similar pledge while running for the presidency in 1980 to select a woman to the court.

Let the confirmation process move forward with all deliberate speed.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot, legal news, national news, political news

A lockup in Trump’s future?

I am trying to imagine what I thought not so long ago was an impossible ending to a former president’s legal difficulty, but which is be. ginning to look entirely possible … although not yet probable.

It is that Donald Trump might face a criminal indictment on multiple fronts. For tax fraud. For interfering in a state election. For violating a federal law designed to protect national security. Hmm. I might have missed something, but you get the picture … yes?

Trump’s business already is under indictment for multiple allegations, including tax fraud; the Manhattan (N.Y.) district attorney’s office alleges that his business inflated the cost of real estate to get sweeter loan deals. No can do, folks.

The Fulton County (Ga.) district attorney is examining whether Trump broke the law by pressuring the Georgia secretary of state to “find” enough votes to swing Georgia from the Joe Biden win column to Trump; hey, we have that act on recording.

The latest might be the most serious of all, in that the National Archives has alleged that Trump spirited classified documents from the White House and stashed them in Mar-a-Lago, Fla., where Donald and Melania Trump live; the Presidential Records Act expressly forbids such thievery of national security documents.

All told, if Trump is indicted and convicted of these crimes, he faces a lengthy prison term.

Isn’t that just rich?

And I haven’t mentioned — until this very moment — the House select panel looking into the 1/6 insurrection incited by Trump on that terrible day just two weeks before he left office.

Moreover, we’re beginning to find out that Donald Trump — who boasted of his fantastic business acumen — isn’t nearly as rich as he bragged about being. That, folks, doesn’t surprise me in the least. I always have said — and I have said so here — that people who are rich and smart don’t boast about it. That the ex-POTUS would keep yapping about his wealth and his smarts only tells me he is neither as rich or as smart as he wants to believe.

The most maddening aspect of this moron’s trail of idiocy is that he continues to have this weird hold on Republican Party voters’ skulls.

But … let’s allow the legal process to play out. I can wait.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news, national news, political news

National Archives: Trump broke the law

Whenever I think of organizations prone to be subjected to partisan political pressure, among the last of them I think of is the National Archives, the keeper of all things official that emanate from the federal government.

So … when the National Archives issues a statement that Donald J. Trump broke the law when he hustled classified documents out of the White House and stashed them at his glitzy resort in south Florida, well, that’s a big bit of news.

Furthermore, think of the irony of this revelation. Didn’t the GOP presidential nominee, Trump, accuse Hillary Clinton of similar if not identical crimes while campaigning against her in 2016?

The National Archives has sent the matter to the Department of Justice for review and possible criminal referral.

Hmm. Looks to me like the walls are closing in on the ex-president.

According to The Associated Press:

Federal law bars the removal of classified documents to unauthorized locations, though it is possible that Trump could try to argue that, as president, he was the ultimate declassification authority.

No matter the legal risk, it exposes him to charges of hypocrisy given his relentless attacks during the 2016 presidential campaign on Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server as secretary of state. The FBI investigated but ultimately did not recommend charges.

National Archives: Trump took classified items to Mar-a-Lago (msn.com)

Trump’s carelessness about national security matters have become almost legendary during his time as president and as a candidate for the highest office in the land. Recall, for instance, how he revealed some national secrets to Russians government officials visiting him in the Oval Office.

The former Moron in Chief, though, apparently has invited “Lock him up!” chants if what the National Archives alleges proves true. As for the DOJ probe, my gut tells me that the FBI has plenty of grist on which it can chew.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Here come the epithets

President Biden’s pledge to nominate a black woman to become the next Supreme Court associate justice has produced a highly predictable, and thoroughly reprehensible, round of criticism from those who suggest that Biden is implementing an “affirmative action” policy to fill this key judicial slot.

It’s all pure crap.

Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring soon from the court. President Biden has pledged to find a candidate with impeccable credentials, high ethical standards, legal brilliance and a record of sterling, stellar achievement.

That the individual he selects is an African American woman should be of little consequence with regard to the qualifications required of the next Supreme Court justice.

You can count me as one American patriot who believes the president will have no difficulty finding a supremely qualified candidate among the pool of individuals from whom he will choose.

As for the critics who will question whether the next SCOTUS nominee is smart enough or has the required experience, I also am certain they will be revealed as possessing a racial bias that has no place in determining the fitness of the person to be considered.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Waiting for return of confirmation comity

There once was a time when U.S. Supreme Court nominees sailed blissfully through the confirmation process, with senators giving presidents all the latitude in the world to select the person of their choice. They asked some tough questions, occasionally, but were respectful and a bit deferential to presidential prerogative.

Not … any … longer.

President Biden is going to select a black woman to succeed Stephen Breyer on the court once Breyer retires at the end of the current court term. The president can expect a donnybrook. He might be able to find the most brilliant legal mind this side of the Magna Carta, but that person won’t be confirmed without shedding a good bit of blood as she takes incoming rounds from the Republican obstruction brigade in the Senate.

When did it come to this? I guess you could trace it to 1987, when President Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the SCOTUS. Bork was known to be a strict constitutional constructionist. He was a brilliant legal scholar, but he had some seriously offensive views about the role of women and racial minorities. His nomination went down in flames.

Then came the 1991 nomination of Clarence Thomas, whom President George H.W. Bush called the most brilliant legal mind in America. He sought to succeed the late Thurgood Marshall. Then came allegations of sexual harassment and the testimony of Anita Hill. The debate was ferocious. The Senate confirmed Thomas, but it was a narrow mostly partisan vote.

I am thinking at this moment of a nominee put forth by President Eisenhower in 1953. Earl Warren was governor of California when Ike asked him to join the court. He had never served as a judge. I wonder now how an Earl Warren nomination would fare in today’s climate. Would senators question his qualifications? Would they hold him to the same sort of careful examination that they appear ready to do to whomever Joe Biden presents? If the answer is yes, would Gov. Warren hold up?

For the record, I am glad Earl Warren served as chief justice, given that the court on his watch approved some amazing landmark rulings; e.g., Brown v. Board of Education.

I want President Biden’s first high court nominee to be judged carefully but fairly by senators. I am concerned they will respond with red herrings, specious arguments and phony concerns.

I remain committed, by the way, to presidential prerogative in these cases. Elections, as they say, do have consequences. I have been faithful to that truism with respect to whomever is in office.

So, let the process move forward. I hope for a semblance of judicial comity as the Senate ponders this most important selection.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Hey, Gipper said so first!

President Biden pledged once again today to make an unprecedented appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court. He will find an African American woman to nominate to the court to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer.

OK. That’s unprecedented. I get it. However, he ain’t the first president or candidate for POTUS to make a pledge to find someone of a particular gender to the court.

Ronald Reagan did so while running for the presidency in 1980. He said a few weeks before that election he would nominate the first woman to the court. He won big that year. And in 1981 President Reagan made good on the promise by nominating Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court.

We’re good so far, right?

Conservatives then hailed the choice.

Their reaction to President Biden’s pledge? Why, he’s slamming the door shut on qualified judges; they say he is launching an affirmative action program to the court selection process; we can’t allow the president to pick someone who might not pass judicial muster, as if the person’s racial background by itself is an impediment.

The duplicity is stunning.

I am going to hold onto every confidence on God’s good Earth that President Biden is going to find a top-drawer, first-rate, learned jurist … who just happens to be an African American woman to serve on the nation’s highest court.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Breyer to retire … who will join SCOTUS?

Stephen Breyer today made official what the world has known for, oh, the past 24 hours, that he is retiring from the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of the court’s term.

Now comes yet another stern test for President Biden: finding a nominee who will be seated quickly on the nation’s highest court.

The president has limited his field of choices dramatically by pledging to name an African American woman to succeed Justice Breyer. Allow me this bit of wisdom per the next nominee to join the court.

Of the names I have heard mentioned I am struck by the term “public defender” in the backgrounds of at least two prominent judges. The idea that a legal genius who has served as a public defender could join the nation’s highest appellate court is appealing in the extreme to me. One name appears to be the prohibitive favorite, as an article By Elaine Godfrey in The Atlantic has noted:

We know that his nominee will almost certainly be a woman. In 2020, then-candidate Biden vowed that he would respond to a Supreme Court opening by nominating a Black woman. Dozens of candidates are being talked about, but nearly all of the Court watchers I interviewed for this story have their money on one in particular: Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Biden’s Likeliest Replacement for Justice Breyer: Ketanji Brown Jackson – The Atlantic

I believe someone with public defender experience in her legal background brings a totally new perspective to any judicial conference that would occur when the court is considering, for example, an appeal on a death penalty case; or perhaps an appeal on a conviction that someone believes was incorrectly achieved.

Could a Supreme Court associate justice soften the hard hearts of her colleagues? It’s possible. Then again, it might not. My point though is that a U.S. Supreme Court need not be populated only with jurists who come from, say, civil law or who have experience only as criminal prosecutors.

President Biden seemingly wants to broaden the scope of the Supreme Court’s world view. Go for it, Mr. President.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news, national news

Speed is critical, Senate Democrats

I will be watching with keen interest to see whether U.S. Senate Democrats can move with the speed and precision that their Republican colleagues can when they are given the chance to push a Supreme Court nominee through the body and onto the court.

Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring at the end of the current SCOTUS term. President Biden has promised to name a nominee soon to replace Breyer. He said during the 2020 presidential campaign he would name an African American woman. Remember that he made the same pledge when looking for a vice-presidential nominee. So, he’s a man of his word.

Democrats still control the Senate. But not by much. The body is split 50 to 50. Vice President Kamala Harris would be the tie-breaking vote if she needs to do so. Gawd, I hope it doesn’t come to that when the Senate votes on a Supreme Court nominee.

When Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020, Republicans moved heaven and Earth to get Amy Coney Barrett confirmed just weeks before that year’s election. But … when Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, nearly a year before a presidential election, Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell dug in his heels and denied President Obama the opportunity to nominate a successor to the iconic conservative justice.

We have a midterm election coming up and Republicans could seize control of the Senate when they count the ballots.

So, the speed of this nomination process is critical.

No lollygagging allowed, Mr. President.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience