Category Archives: legal news

legal news

Inquisition begins

Here it comes. U.S. Senate Republicans bent on derailing Judge Ketanji Jackson Brown’s nomination to join the U.S. Supreme Court have begun digging up issues they hope will send President Biden’s historic selection into the ditch.

It won’t happen. Still, beginning next week we’ll get to listen to GOP critics of the judge look for all they’re worth on something, anything that will gum up the works.

Sen. Josh Hawley, the Missouri lawmaker who infamously gave the closed-fist salute to the traitors gathering to storm the Capitol Building on 1/6, has tossed out the first rhetorical grenade. He accuses Judge Jackson of giving child molesters a free pass during her time as a federal public defender.

Interesting, yes? I believe it is. So, I pulled out my pocket version of the U.S. Constitution that sits on my man-cave desk at home and turned to the Sixth Amendment. It says, in part: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial … and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” There are some other things in the middle of that amendment, but I wanted to share the relevant portion of it with you here.

My point is that Judge Jackson was, um, following the law and was obedient to the U.S. Constitution by providing “the Assistance of Counsel” for defendants who couldn’t afford to hire a high-priced lawyer.

This is how the opposition is going to attack Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Foes of hers and of the president will look for segments of her stellar legal background and will twist it beyond anything recognizable under the law.

Joe Biden promised he would find a qualified jurist to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer, who is retiring at the end of the court’s term. The president pledged to nominate the first African American woman to the bench. He succeeded on both counts. Judge Jackson is eminently qualified and, oh yes, she happens to be Black.

Neither truth about this nominee is going to deter the critics from digging up nonsense in their opposition to her nomination. Josh Hawley has paved a fool’s trail for the rest of the GOP critics to follow.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Judge Jackson: get set for grilling

The mood of the times requires — I am sorry to admit — that even highly qualified presidential nominees are going to endure the third, fourth or fifth degrees from the individuals who will pass judgment on whether they should assume the post for which the president has nominated them.

Thus, Ketanji Brown Jackson needs to prepare herself for the grilling of her life as she sits before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will determine whether to move her nomination to the full Senate for confirmation.

Judge Jackson will sit eventually on the U.S. Supreme Court once she goes through the inquisition that awaits her. As near as I can tell, she is supremely qualified to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer, who is retiring when the current SCOTUS term ends. However, that will not stop Republican senators from looking for any excuse to vote “no” on this individual’s nomination. Her stellar legal career be damned! Same for her judicial temperament. Never mind that her knowledge of the law likely eclipses every single senator — Democrat and Republican — who will run her through her paces.

Texas’s two senators, Republicans John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, are likely negative votes regardless of anything Judge Jackson will tell the committee. I expect the Cruz Missile to vote “no”; he couldn’t ever find it within that organ he calls a heart to approve a sterling nominee put forward by a Democratic president. I expected more from Cornyn, but his public comments suggest to me that he leans “no” without hearing a word from Judge Jackson.

I am not going to harp on the obvious knowledge of most Americans that Judge Jackson is an African American woman; President Biden pledged to appoint someone such as Judge Jackson when he ran for the office in 2020.

Her sparkling legal background makes her a stellar nominee, regardless of the president pledged.

It won’t be a smooth ride to the nation’s highest judicial bench … but damn, she needs to get there.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Impeachment ‘ghost’ haunts

Try as I have done to avoid mentioning the impeachments of Donald J. Trump, I have discovered that the first impeachment deserves a mention on this blog. So … please forgive me this brief screed.

The Donald got Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on the phone and said he needed a “favor, though.” The favor The Donald sought was for Zelenskyy to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Joe Biden was considered a likely 2020 presidential candidate and the guy The Donald reportedly feared. In exchange for the dirt, Trump would allow Zelenskyy to receive the military aid package he sought from the United States.

Trump denied the package. Why? Because Zelenskyy wouldn’t do what The Donald wanted.

For that “perfect phone call,” The Donald got impeached by the House of Representatives.

Why mention it here? Because Ukraine once again is trying to obtain military assistance. I cannot stop wondering whether Ukraine would have fared even better against the Russian aggressors had they obtained the missiles and ordnance they were promised by Congress, but denied by The Donald, who sought a bizarre political favor from President Zelenskyy, which I considered at the time to be a criminal act.

The Donald survived both impeachments. Ukraine, though, became a victim of a U.S. president’s insatiable quest for power and is paying the price at this moment.

Shameful.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Trump ‘will be charged’

Let’s stipulate something up front: Glenn Kirschner is no friend of Donald J. Trump. Indeed, Kirschner is a noted critic of the ex-POTUS and someone who speaks frequently and loudly about why he detests the idea of Donald Trump ever holding the office of president.

However … Kirschner is an experienced prosecuting attorney who once served in that capacity for the U.S. Army. He said today that after listening to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s remarks on National Public Radio that The Donald is facing criminal conspiracy charges from the Department of Justice.

Newsweek reported:

“We begin with the cases that are right in front of us with the overt actions and then we build from there,” the attorney general said. “And that is a process that we will continue to build until we hold everyone accountable who committed criminal acts with respect to January 6.”

Hundreds of Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol after the then-president at a nearby rally urged them to march to the federal legislative building and to “fight like hell.” More than 780 of Trump’s supporters have been indicted for their actions that day, with some saying in court that they believed they were carrying out Trump’s orders.

Then Kirschner posted this item via Twitter:  “Accordingly, the only rational conclusion that can be drawn from AG Garland’s promise is that . . . TRUMP. WILL. BE. CHARGED. Because #JusticeMatters.”

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-will-be-charged-kirschner-concludes-after-ag-garland-s-remarks/ar-AAUU2Im?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

I am not a lawyer (duh, obviously!) but I am going to presume that an experienced barrister can detect nuance that goes over the heads of us laypeople.

Garland has promised to follow the law wherever it leads. He also has pledged to never let politics guide any decision he makes on behalf of the federal agency he leads. I believe AG Garland is an honorable man and that he will obey the oath he took and will keep the promise he has made.

If the path he follows leads him to The Donald’s doorstep, then I expect him fully to indict the former president of the United States on a charge of conspiring to overturn the results of a duly constituted presidential election.

Wouldn’t that just be a kick in the rear end?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news, national news

One down, more to go

Guy Reffitt is likely heading to prison, possibly for decades, for his role in the 1/6 insurrection. The native of Texas and resident of Wylie — a town just across Lake Lavon where my wife and I reside — sealed his own fate with his stupidity.

It took a jury three hours to return a five-count guilty verdict against Reffitt, who was ratted out by his 19-year-old son. What was the nimrod doing? He “lit the fire” that ignited inside the Capitol Building on 1/6 and then actually recorded his own fiery rhetoric on social media.

The Hill reported: A jury found the Texas native guilty of attempting to obstruct the certification of the 2020 presidential election, transporting guns from Texas to D.C., bringing a firearm into restricted grounds of the Capitol, interfering with Capitol Police and threatening his son and daughter upon returning from the riot.

It was that compelling evidence that persuaded the jury to ramrod a guilty verdict against the guy who belongs to some nimrod group called the Texas Three Percenters. He went to Washington on 1/6 carrying firearms, such as rifles and handguns. What was he going to do with all that firepower? He was going to storm the Capitol Building and drag politicians out by their hair, or so he said, and do … something to them.

Hey, it’s all recorded for the entire world to hear.

What a dipsh**.

The federal government has arrested more than 700 people in connection with the insurrection. Reffitt is the first of them to be convicted. He will face sentencing on June 8. He could get 60 years in prison.

Whether it’s the max or something less, my strong hope is that he gets put away for a long time.

Then let’s get on with prosecuting the rest of the traitors.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Will they be ‘respectful’?

US. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz will have plenty of explaining to do if they follow their partisan instincts and vote against the historic nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to join the U.S. Supreme Court.

These two are Texas’s senators on Capitol Hill. They both opposed Judge Jackson’s previous appointment to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. They both pledge to give President Biden’s pick for the high court respect, while ensuring a vigorous vetting of her credentials to become the sixth woman and the first Black woman ever to join to the nation’s highest court.

President Biden promised to find a jurist with unassailable legal credentials. By most accounts, he hit a home run with Judge Jackson’s nomination. He also promised to select a Black woman if he got the chance to nominate someone to the court; he got that chance when Justice Stephen Breyer announced he would retire this summer at the end of the court’s term.

If senators are going to judge a nominee on her credentials, on her legal scholarship, on her temperament then Judge Jackson should sail through. That won’t be senators’ measuring stick. They’re going to look for reasons to oppose someone — if we’re truthful — simply because she was selected by a president of the opposing party.

“Ultimately, I will be looking to see whether Judge Jackson will uphold the rule of law and call balls and strikes, or if she will legislate from the bench in pursuit of a specific agenda,” Cornyn said. Well … isn’t that special? The senior U.S. senator from Texas, I presume, would have us believe that judges selected by Republican presidents have no “specific agenda.”

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/25/ted-cruz-john-cornyn-ketanji-brown-jackson/

I guess I need to remind the senator of what Donald Trump promised when he selected Justice Amy Coney Barrett to join the court after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020. Trump promised to select someone who would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion. Isn’t that finding a jurist with a specific agenda? Yes! It most certainly is such a thing!

I also should add that Donald Trump insisted on justices who would “legislate from the bench.” Are you paying attention, Sen. Cruz?

Judge Jackson is a first-rate nominee to join the Supreme Court. Sens. Cornyn and Cruz must be held to their pledges to give her a respectful confirmation hearing.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

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

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience