Category Archives: legal news

legal news

Bring the AGs to Congress

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Former attorneys general Jeff Sessions and William Barr say they were “unaware” of any effort by the Justice Department to snoop into the records of key congressional Democrats during the administration of the individual they both served.

Hmm. I believe they need to be summoned to Capitol Hill and forced to testify under oath that they are telling the truth.

We have a case here of a president flouting the rule of law, of ignoring the separation of powers, of intimidating his political adversaries. Sessions and Barr contend they weren’t party to anything of the sort.

I do not believe them. Nor do I discount the reporting of major media outlets that the ex-president ordered the Justice Department to dig up dirt on House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and his Democratic colleague Eric Swalwell.

We have a reprehensible example of a president not caring one damn bit about the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution.

There needs to be a full accounting of who know what and when.

Bring the ex-attorneys general to Capitol Hill and make ’em tell the truth about what the heck happened during their time on duty.

legal news

AG Garland makes critical vow

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Attorney General Merrick Garland has given good-government adherents something to cheer.

He spoke at length today vowing to do all he can to protect the rights of all Americans to vote, to take part in the democratic process. Moreover, he pledged to dramatically increase the civil-rights division staff of lawyers to guard against efforts to disenfranchise American voters.

“There are plenty of things up for debate in America, but the right of all eligible Americans to vote is not one of them,” Garland said.

Do ya think?

Garland appeared today to draw a bead on Republican-led efforts in  legislatures across the land — and that certainly includes Texas — to make voting a good bit more arduous for many Americans than it ever should be. As NBC News reported: The staffing surge would occur over the next the next 30 days, he said, and the beefed-up unit will use all laws at its disposal “to ensure that we protect every qualified American seeking to participate in our democracy.”

Garland says Justice Department will scrutinize new GOP-led voting restrictions (nbcnews.com)

Merrick Garland came to the Justice Department after a stellar career as a federal judge. He knows the Constitution and has spent a good bit of his professional life interpreting what issues pass constitutional muster. Accordingly, he asserted today that the DOJ will investigate effort whether statewide efforts cross a constitutional line they shouldn’t cross.

The 2020 election had many important features. One of them was the remarkable spike in the number of ballots that were cast. All told, nearly 160 million Americans voted for president. The most important feature, of course, was that Americans elected Joe Biden as president, who in turn nominated a towering judicial figure — Merrick Garland — to lead the Justice Department.

Today, the nation got a glimpse of the wisdom of President Biden’s choice of the nation’s top legal eagle.

“So far this year, at least 14 states have passed new laws that make it harder to vote,” Garland said.

“We are scrutinizing new laws that seek to curb voter access and where we see violations, we will not hesitate to act. We are also scrutinizing current laws and practices in order to determine whether they discriminate against Black voters and other voters of color,” Garland said.

Yes, Mr. Attorney General. You have the floor.

legal news, State news

Justice Guzman to seek AG’s office? Hmm

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

It might be time for a mea culpa from your friendly blogger.

I might have spoken a bit too soon in lamenting the lack of legal standing among politicians seeking to become Texas attorney general.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Eva Guzman is about to become a former justice … with an eye toward running for Texas AG in the 2022 Republican Party primary. Her last day on the state’s highest civil appellate court is Friday. Then what?

Eva Guzman – Wikipedia

Justice Guzman represents a tremendous boost in the legal credentials of a political candidate seeking to become the state’s top law enforcement officer.

The incumbent Ken Paxton wants a third term. Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush has declared he wants to defeat Paxton in the 2022 GOP primary. Both men have, shall we say, sparse legal cred. Paxton has been indicted for securities fraud and is awaiting trial; he also is the subject of a FBI probe into allegations of criminal wrongdoing in his office. Bush has a limited legal career under his belt, but has served as land commissioner for the past six years.

Now we have Guzman. She is the daughter of immigrants from Mexico. She grew up in Houston. She attended the University of Houston and got her law degree from Duke University. She has served on the state court of appeals and has been named appellate judge of the year.

Guzman has built a stellar legal career.

To be clear, she hasn’t declared her attorney general candidacy.

At least not yet. Stay tuned.

legal news, national news

Get to work, grand jury

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

The grand jury has been seated, sworn in and given its task.

It works for the Manhattan, N.Y., district attorney’s office and is being asked to determine whether to indict Donald Trump, the company he owns, anyone who works for him and perhaps even members of the ex-president’s family.

The grand jury is looking for criminal misbehavior.

Hmm. Now I don’t how you look at this, but I would consider this to be a serious wakeup call for Donald Trump that the Manhattan DA’s legal eagles are in hot pursuit of criminality involving the the former POTUS.

To be sure, Trump calls it all “political” and part of what he calls the “greatest witch hunt” in human history … or words to that effect.

He offers no evidence of pure partisanship other than just to call it what he alleges it to be.

I feel the need to remind readers of this blog that grand jurors swear to look objectively at evidence presented to them. Failure to be impartial carries criminal penalties of their own. What sane individual would take such an oath with no intention of being faithful to it?

Oh, wait! Trump took an oath, too,  to defend the Constitution and to serve the country with honor and honesty. Do you think he was faithful to his oath? Well, me neither.

Which suggests to me that the grand jury is going to take great care in its pursuit of potential criminal liability in Trump’s business dealings.

So, with that … time to get busy, grand jurors.

legal news

What will AG find?

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

My curiosity is killing me.

U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has announced a Justice Department investigation into the Minneapolis, Minn., police practices. Garland wants to get to the bottom of policies that resulted in George Floyd’s death a year ago when former cop Derek Chauvin suffocated him while arresting Floyd on a charge of passing counterfeit currency.

I am left to wonder: Why?

Police Chief Medaria Arradondo testified during Chauvin’s trial that what he did was not in keeping with the PD’s policy. He said that Chauvin violated the police department’s policy and standard when he pressed his knee against Floyd’s neck for more than nine minutes.

So what is the AG intending to determine?

I happen to support Merrick Garland’s position as the nation’s top law enforcement official. I supported President Biden’s decision to nominate him to be the next AG.

I just am wondering out loud whether this investigation is as much for show as it is for actually finding policies that routinely result in the ghastly event that the whole world witnessed on that Minneapolis street.

Is there systemic racism within the PD? Is the department training its officers adequately?

I hope the attorney general’s probe produces legitimate findings.

legal news

The world is watching

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

How in the name of fair and impartial justice would you like to be one of the 12 men and women who at this moment are deliberating whether a former police officer should go to prison for killing a man he arrested for passing counterfeit currency?

Hmm. Count me out!

Derek Chauvin is on trial for killing George Floyd in Minneapolis this past year. The interest in this trial goes far beyond our national borders. Much of the rest of the world is waiting now with bated breath while the jurors ponder whether to convict Chauvin of second-degree murder, third-degree murder or second-degree manslaughter … or all of the above. Or — and this one is hard to swallow — whether to acquit Chauvin of what the whole world witnessed on video, which was Chauvin snuffing the life out of Floyd by placing his knee on back of Floyd’s neck for more than minutes, while Floyd was lying on the pavement handcuffed.

The drama of this moment is almost too much to bear.

However, I am going to join other human beings around the world and just wait for what the jurors have determined.

legal news

‘Older liberal justices?’ Seriously?

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

It’s rare that I would challenge the reporting of a major news outlet, but I cannot let this item go without offering a tart response.

The Business Insider reports that U.S. Rep. Mondaire Jones, a Democrat, wants Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire at the end of the court’s current term. He also favors expanding the ranks of justices from nine to 13, filling the four additional seats with liberal justices.

I oppose Rep. Jones’s notion of packing the court, even though he calls it a longstanding “court tradition.” Which it isn’t.

OK, then the Business Insider reports this: Many Democrats, still smarting over Donald Trump’s installation of three jurists to the Supreme Court, want to avoid the court becoming even more conservative due to older liberal justices declining to step down during Democratic presidencies, which Jones alluded to in his interview.

Democratic Rep. Mondaire Jones calls on Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to retire (msn.com)

What? Three justices comprise the liberal wing of the court. Breyer is 82 years of age. He’s an “older” justice. The other two are Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan; Sotomayor was born in 1954, Kagan was born in 1960. Sotomayor is 68 years of age; Kagan is 61. I do not consider them to be “older” or “elderly.”

Justice Breyer will retire when he believes the time is right. President Biden is not about to nudge him toward the Back Forty. Neither should other Democrats in public life.

As for the Business Insider’s description of “older liberal justices,” the organization must be populated by Gen-Xers.

legal news

Don’t add to SCOTUS

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Listen up, my progressive friends. I am going to say something that will pi** you off.

U..S. Senate Democrats are seeking to do something that I fundamentally oppose. They want to add four seats to the U.S. Supreme Court, packing it with justices more to their liking.  That is a bad call.

What we have here is a slippery slope that can do as much harm over the longer haul than any “repair” that Democrats think will occur were Congress to actually agree with packing the court.

I now feel compelled to stipulate that I do not like the philosophical composition of the Supreme Court. It comprises six conservative justices and three liberals. Donald J. Trump nominated three of the justices and got them approved during his term in office. Did it infuriate me? Yes. It did, particularly after Senate Republicans denied President Obama the opportunity to have a justice seated after the sudden death in early 2016 of conservative icon Antonin Scalia.

As they say, elections have consequences. Trump was elected in 2016 and then Republicans who ran the Senate were able to confirm three Trump SCOTUS nominees.

But is the proper response now to expand the court, allowing President Biden to nominate justices who would grant liberals the judicial edge on the Supreme Court? No. It must not happen.

Why not? Because such a dramatic notion gives conservatives an opening to respond in kind were they to regain the White House and regain control of the Senate. Might they want to add another two seats, expanding the court to, say, 15 justices, allowing a GOP president and Senate to construct a conservative majority?

Let’s be real. The Constitution does not specify how many justices should sit on the high court. Indeed, the number has changed over the two centuries of our republic. Nine of them have presided for many decades. The number of justices is sufficient.

As for the court’s philosophical makeup, elections and attrition ought to be allowed to determine the SCOTUS composition.

President Biden is on record opposing court packing. He wants a commission to study high court procedures. Biden plans to set a 180-day period for a panel to make its recommendations on how we might reform the court.

Let’s tinker around the edges of that process. Packing the court with four new seats, though, is the wrong path to take.

business news, legal news

Good riddance, Bernie Madoff

By John Kanelis / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

You know how it goes … that you shouldn’t speak ill of the dead.

Hmm. Bernie Madoff is dead. He was 82 years of age. Madoff was the perpetrator of one of the world’s most notorious Ponzi schemes. He bilked Americans out of billions of dollars.

Madoff got caught. He was sent to prison. That’s where he died.

What, then, does one say about this truly nasty individual if we are going to avoid speaking ill of the dead?

Not a damn thing.

legal news

Don’t expand SCOTUS ranks

By JOHN KANELIS / johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

All right, President Biden.

You said during the 2020 presidential campaign that you opposed expanding the number of justices serving on the Supreme Court. I am going to hold you to that notion as you launch the formation of a bipartisan commission to study SCOTUS “reform.”

Mr. President, the court functions just fine with nine justices. You are getting pressure from the left to expand the court to select more justices who fit your philosophical world view. That’s a bad idea.

Is the court composed of a majority of jurists I favor? No, but you know the saying about how “elections have consequences.” The 2016 election delivered serious consequences, indeed, when Donald Trump was elected president and he was able to get three justices confirmed in his single term in office.

Biden Commission Would Study Possible Supreme Court Reforms : NPR

I don’t like the court’s solid conservative majority any more than the lefties do. However, packing the court with more justices and then finding the “correct” jurists to fill those seats plays fast and loose with the founders’ efforts to de-politicize the federal judiciary.

I accept the White House statement on the commission: “The Commission’s purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals,” the White House said in a statement. “The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices.”

While we’re at it, Mr. President, let’s not limit the terms of the justices, either. There is no compelling need to usher them out the door after they reach a certain age. As long as they are able to do the job, they should be allowed to stay on the court and play a role in determining the constitutionality of federal law.

That all said, good luck with the commission. Just don’t go too far.