Category Archives: legal news

legal news, national news

A new fight in store for SCOTUS seat?

Here we go again, maybe, perhaps … but I surely hope not.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer announced today his intention to retire from the court at the end of the court’s term. He is paving the way for President Biden to nominate a successor.

Is this a big deal? You bet it is! Presidents have a chance to make a lasting impact on our judicial system that will remain far longer than their terms in office. However, let’s consider some key elements.

Breyer is one of three “liberal” justices serving on the court. A Biden appointment isn’t going to change the nine-member court’s ideological balance. Donald Trump nominated three justices during his term on the court, the last one of whom delivered the strong conservative majority that now sits on the nation’s highest court.

Progressives have been hollering for Breyer to step down for a long time. They want a woman to join the court, along with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Amy Coney Barrett. President Biden already has pledged to nominate a woman, and she likely will be a Black woman. As NBC News reports: Biden has pledged to make just such an appointment. Among likely contenders are federal Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, former Breyer law clerk, and Leondra Kruger, a justice on California’s Supreme Court.

Is all of this a done deal? Well, consider that recent judicial appointments have been subjected to harsh partisan disagreements between Republicans and Democrats in the Senate, which has confirmation authority.

President Biden is going to move rapidly to nominate someone. Indeed, time is not his friend. The midterm election is coming up this fall, the court’s new term begins in early October and the president will need to get someone seated with whom he feels comfortable.

It’ll be a fight but let us hope is not the kind of bloodbath to which we have grown accustomed.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Impeach the justice!

Here’s a thought for you to ponder. It doesn’t come from me exclusively, but I read about it and have embraced it as a potential game-changer for the American judicial system.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas could be impeached by Congress because of his wife’s right-wing activism and the justice’s refusal to recuse himself from cases in which she is involved directly.

Ginni Thomas is a right-wing zealot. She has written scathing essays excoriating the 1/6 House committee examining the insurrection that sought to block the certification of the 2020 presidential election.

She and her hubby talk openly with each other about their jobs and their duties. So, how in the world does Justice Thomas vote on matters involving Ginni Thomas’s political activism?

Case in point: The court voted recently 8-1 to require Donald Trump to turn over documents to the House select committee looking into Trump’s role in inciting the riot. The lone dissent? It came from Clarence Thomas.

Good grief, man. Justice Thomas has no business sitting in on arguments involving anything regarding this issue. His wife has disqualified him in the eyes of many millions of Americans, including mine.

https://newrepublic.com/article/165118/clarence-thomas-impeachment-case-democrats

Michael Tomasky, editor of The New Republic, makes the case that Clarence Thomas is ripe for an impeachment action. What’s more, there needs to be ethical rules set up to govern the Supreme Court, the only court in America that doesn’t have any such regulatory authority watching over its conduct.

I happen to agree with him, that Clarence Thomas has disgraced himself and the nation’s highest court.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Verdict: Maxwell is a sex trafficker too!

1 Comment

Just about the time you think we might have a hung jury unable to deliver a verdict in a high-profile trial … we get a verdict in a high-profile trial.

Ghislaine Maxwell, the one-time girlfriend and accomplice to the late millionaire sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, is now a convicted sex trafficker herself.

A jury delivered the news to Maxwell today after five days of deliberation.

Is this the right verdict? Based on what I know — which admittedly isn’t much — it looks as though justice has been delivered. Jurors accepted the testimony that Maxwell assisted Epstein in his quest for young girls with whom he had sex or who he peddled for sex with others.

It was ghastly and gruesome testimony to be sure. As USA Today reported: The verdict capped a monthlong trial featuring sordid accounts of the sexual exploitation of girls as young as 14, told by four women who described being abused as teens in the 1990s and early 2000s at Epstein’s palatial homes in Florida, New York and New Mexico.

Epstein, who was jailed a couple of years ago on sex charges, hanged himself in his New York City jail cell. The world is better off without him staining it with his presence.

Maxwell faces a lengthy prison sentence. My hope is that she gets the maximum.

Oh, and unlike the reaction delivered by Donald Trump when he heard about her arrest in 2019, I do not “wish her well.” I wish her nothing but misery.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

DC riot, legal news

What will SCOTUS reveal?

Well now, my fellow Americans, it looks as though the U.S. Supreme Court might get to reveal to us whether it believes in the rule of law or whether most of its justices believe in covering the backside of a cult leader who masquerades as a former president of the United States.

Donald Trump has asked the court to block the release of White House documents related to the 1/6 riot/insurrection. It seems that the ex-POTUS believes he has an actual legal leg on which to stand by declaring some form of executive privilege.

Lower courts have ruled already he doesn’t have such standing. They point out that only current POTUSes can exert executive privilege, not those who longer are in office.

That won’t dissuade the former POTUS from trying a sort of legal mumbo-jumbo to persuade the high court that he actually can block Congress from doing its due diligence in seeking the truth behind the 1/6 insurrection. The House select committee is legally constituted and is acting within its jurisdiction and legal authority to seek White House records. It is charged with finding the whole truth behind the riot, learning who caused it and coming to some solutions on how to prevent such a dastardly thing from recurring.

Trump, though, bellows out of both sides of his pie hole. He says he did nothing wrong; yet he wants to block anyone from the records that — if we are to believe the former Liar in Chief — would prove what he alleges, that he is free and clear of wrongdoing. Am I missing something? I think not.

If the court, even with its solid conservative majority, has a shred of legal integrity, it will rule that Trump must turn the records over and must allow Congress to do the job it is entitled to do.

Many of us are waiting.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news, local news, State news

Paxton should pay a big price

What do you know about this? It appears that the Texas Republican Party primary race for attorney general is shaping as a fight over the incumbent’s self-inflicted legal difficulties … not to mention the shame he has brought to the high office he occupies.

AG Ken Paxton has it coming to him.

Paxton was elected attorney general in 2014. The very next year he got indicted by a grand jury right here in Collin County on allegations of securities fraud. He continues to await trial in state court. He also has been chastised by the Securities and Exchange Commission; the FBI has launched a probe into complaints from former senior legal assistants at the AG’s office that Paxton has been behaving illegally; then he got that idiotic lawsuit tossed by the Supreme Court in which he sought to overturn the presidential election returns in several other states that voted for Joe Biden.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton facing challenges from all fronts | The Texas Tribune

Three Republicans have filed to run against Paxton: Land Commissioner George P. Bush, former Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman and U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert. They’re all singing off the same song sheet, which is that Paxton’s legal troubles are enough to get him booted out of office.

I am glad to hear it. Yes, even from Rep. Gohmert, a fellow for whom I have zero respect.

Whatever does the job. Paxton is a joke, an embarrassment, a disgrace.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Yes, try the kid as an adult

It boggles my mind at times why officials have to haggle for a long time about whether to try a juvenile as an adult when he allegedly commits the kind of crime that occurred the other day in Oxford, Mich.

Four people are dead after a high school student opened fire. The student is in custody. Three of the fatal victims dies on the day of the shooting; the fourth one died just today. Many more victims were injured.

I get that the suspect is a juvenile, but damn, the boy is charged with committing a grievous act of violence on other students.

Authorities are keeping him segregated from the adults in jail. I am OK with that. I also am OK with keeping underage convicts who are tried as adults away from the grownups in the slammer.

However, the penalty for a conviction on the crime that this individual is alleged to have committed should be the maximum provided to adults, not to minors. He is accused of committing a heinous act and if he is convicted, he needs to do the time required under the law … as an adult.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Roe v. Wade in trouble?

My gut is rumbling, my trick knee is throbbing and I don’t like the feel of any of it as I ponder what might occur down the road with the U.S. Supreme Court’s pending decision on whether to restrict abortion.

Justices have heard from both sides in a Mississippi case involving a law that bans abortion after 15 weeks or pregnancy. It’s not as strict as Texas’s ban after six weeks, but is way more restrictive than the Roe vs. Wade decision that is at the heart of all this talk.

Roe is the case involving a Texas woman who filed suit in 1973 over abortion. The SCOTUS then issued its landmark ruling that legalized abortion, saying it is protected under the U.S. Constitution’s right of privacy provision.

Roe is being challenged directly and the chatter today suggests that the high court, with its 6 to 3 conservative majority is poised to limit abortion — if not make it illegal.

Oh, brother. No matter what the court decides, I am going to proclaim that it won’t end abortion. Women will continue to get them by any means necessary, which makes a potential ban on the practice so dangerous.

I consider myself to be pro-life, which I don’t believe supersedes my equally held belief that government should not dictate how a woman can manage her body. Could I counsel a woman to get an abortion? Absolutely, categorically and unquestionably no! However, nor do I believe that anyone in government has any right to tell a woman she must carry a baby to full term.

The Texas law makes no exception for a woman impregnated by a rapist or during an incestuous encounter. If there is anything more cruel and inhumane than that, I have trouble determining what that would be.

Well, the SCOTUS justices now are going to keep their own counsel on this matter. I want them to uphold Roe vs. Wade. I do not expect them to do so. If they allow Roe to be dismantled, then my fellow Americans, we’d all better prepare ourselves for many stories of utter misery, pain and heartache as women end their pregnancies through means that can do them irreparable harm.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news, national news

Racial justice: Has it arrived?

One jury verdict does not necessarily signal a trend, although some thinkers and analysts are trying to ascribe a trend to the Georgia jury that convicted three white men of murdering a black man.

The trend that some are asking: Does this verdict signal the arrival of racial justice in America?

Let’s hold on here. Ahmad Arbery was jogging through a white neighborhood when he was accosted by three men who seemingly though that Arbery, who was black, didn’t belong there. One of the men shot Arbery to death and that individual, Travis McMichael, was convicted of all the charges associated with the killing.

The jury, comprising 11 white people and one black individual, delivered a stern warning to anyone thinking they can hide behind a “self-defense law.”

What about the racial justice question? If it spells the end of verdicts that acquit white people of killing a black person on flimsy evidence, the answer is “no,” we don’t have racial justice. Nor do we have it if a jury acquits a black individual if he kills white victims, such as what occurred in 1995 when a mostly black jury acquitted O.J. Simpson of murdering his former wife and her friend.

I am not going to ascribe an abundance of significance to the Georgia jury’s verdict. I welcome it, but let’s wait a long while before we attach any historical significance to what the jury has ruled.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Who killed JFK?

Many mainstream media observers have talked over the past couple of days while commemorating the 58th year since President Kennedy’s murder in Dallas about the right-wing conspiracy theories that permeate our politics to this day.

They have noted the John Birch Society’s brochures printed at the time of JFK’s visit to Dallas that accused the president of surrendering U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations, of appointing “anti-Christians” to government posts. It’s pretty standard right-wing wacko stuff.

Indeed, in the time leading up to the visit to Texas in 1963, there was considerable concern expressed by those close to the president about the perceived threats to him from the far-right wing of political thought.

However, let’s hold on and take a brief look at what happened on that day.

Who killed the president on that glorious Dallas day as he rode in the motorcade through downtown en route to the Dallas Trade Mart where he was to deliver a speech that afternoon?

The cops arrested a card-carrying Marxist named Lee Harvey Oswald. He was seen in the book depository building and captured later at the Texas Theater after he killed a Dallas police officer, J.D. Tippitt.

It seems, to me at least, that the authorities were looking the other way when this loser Oswald managed to change the course of world history with three rifle shots from the sixth floor of the Dallas office structure.

Why don’t the media talk about that tragic twist of fate?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

SCOTUS to get kicked around?

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Mitch McConnell has demonstrated a clear ability — and a tendency — to play hardball politics whenever the need arises in his own pointed head.

Think about how the Senate Republican leader can manipulate things in the event the GOP takes control of the U.S. Senate after the 2022 midterm election.

Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer might retire from the court. Say, he does so at the end of the current term, which arrives in late June or early July 2022. President Biden has to select a nominee immediately after such a retirement occurs. McConnell well might decide to throw up roadblocks anticipating a GOP takeover of the Senate in November 2022.

What might occur, then, if the GOP wins a Senate majority, seats a new Senate in January 2023 and Biden’s SCOTUS nominee still hasn’t had a hearing, let alone a vote? I’ll tell you what’ll happen. The GOP-led Senate could scuttle a Biden choice and then McConnell could decide to replay the tactic he used in 2016 when Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly. President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the court, but McConnell torpedoed the nomination, refusing to grant Garland a hearing. Why? Because we had an election months away and McConnell said the next president deserved the right to select someone. The next president happened to be Donald J. Trump and, well, you know the rest of it.

This all seems to give a Breyer decision on whether he stays on the court a good bit more of a time urgency. I don’t expect Justice Breyer to act on the wishes of others around him. He is entitled to walk away on his own terms and on his own schedule.

The nation’s highest court, though, does not need or deserve to be kicked around like the political football some in the Senate have made it out to be.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com