Category Archives: legal news

GOP looking to make Hillary’s service difficult

cruz

Ted Cruz has joined his Senate Republican colleague John McCain in declaring war on a potential — if not probable — new president’s appointment powers.

Cruz, the former GOP presidential candidate, says there is “precedent” for the Supreme Court to operate with only eight members. That is a form of code for saying that it it’s OK for the Senate to block anyone that a President Hillary Clinton would nominate to fill the vacant ninth seat on the nation’s highest court.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/27/cruz-says-theres-precedent-keeping-ninth-supreme-c/

McCain was wrong to say such a thing.  Cruz is equally wrong.

Assuming that Clinton wins the presidency in eight days, the Senate Republicans are digging in as they seek to block any appointment the Democratic president might make.

President Obama already has felt the sting of raw politics in that process. Antonin Scalia died eight months ago while vacationing in Texas. Obama selected federal judge Merrick Garland to replace the late Supreme Court justice — one of the conservative titans on the narrowly divided court.

The reaction from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was shameful in its political nature. Within hours of Scalia’s death, he declared that the Senate would block anyone President Obama would nominate; he declared that the nomination should be handled by the next president.

Well, Mr. Majority Leader, the next president is likely to be a Democrat, too. That has prompted Sens. McCain and Cruz to suggest that the next president won’t be able to nominate anyone, either.

Who’s playing politics with the U.S. Constitution? Republicans keep insisting that Democrats are doing it. They are shamefully lacking in self-awareness … as the continuing vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated all too graphically.

Don’t let the e-mail mystery build, Mr. FBI Director

comey

The question of the moment — if you’re Hillary Rodham Clinton — is this: Do the recently uncovered e-mails contain damaging information or are they, well, harmless?

Clinton doesn’t know what FBI Director James Comey has uncovered.

Neither do the rest of us. Not me, or you, or Donald J. Trump — Clinton’s opponent in this race for the presidency of the United States.

That, of course, hasn’t stopped Trump from asserting — without a shred of proof, Clinton has committed a crime while using her personal e-mail server while she was secretary of state.

Comey, though, has fed the rumor-mongers among us to pre-suppose and pre-judge what’s in those supposedly “missing” e-mail messages.

And that brings me to the point I’ve made already, but which needs to be made once more.

Comey needs to release the details of those e-mails immediately — if not sooner.

Moreover, it now becomes apparent that U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch — Comey’s boss — said the FBI director’s decision to announce some mysterious findings are not in keeping with Justice Department policy.

This e-mail controversy — and it is not a “scandal” — has become (and pardon the sanitized version of this term) a big-league cluster-fudge.

It is of James Comey’s making. He needs to clean it up.

Come clean, now, on e-mail issue

FBI Director James Comey has told only part of an on-going story regarding Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

He has left the most important part of it out. Comey very well might be keeping secrets from the public. He needs — immediately! — to finish telling this tale.

Comey announced today that he has uncovered more e-mails that Clinton sent out on her personal server while she was secretary of state. Perhaps you’ve heard about these e-mails.

Comey then said they might amount to nothing, or they might be important.

Which is it, Mr. Director?

Eleven days before a presidential election, Comey has tossed a serious pile of goo into this contest.

Clinton happens to be correct to demand that he let the public know all the facts regarding the e-mails. No delay. No hanging cloud. No suspicion.

He has determined once already that he had no grounds to seek a criminal indictment. Now this?

Let’s clear the air. Now.

On to securities fraud trial for Texas AG

paxton_060916_002_jpg_800x1000_q100

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton took office under a serious cloud.

Allegations had been leveled at him for securities fraud. Then came a criminal indictment from a Collin County grand jury, comprising individuals Paxton used to represent in the Legislature. Indeed, it’s a good bet many of the grand jurors had voted for him when he ran for AG in 2014.

They indicted him for failing to report that he had benefited from investment advice he had given to clients. This couldn’t be construed seriously as a political witch hunt, given that the indictment came from Paxton’s home county.

He has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Today, though, the state’s highest criminal appellate court — the Court of Criminal Appeals — decided against hearing Paxton’s appeal. The ruling, thus, clears the way for Paxton’s case to head to trial.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/10/12/court-criminal-appeals-declines-hear-paxton-case/

A federal judge earlier had tossed a Securities and Exchange Commission complaint against Paxton.

So, let’s decide this matter once and for all.

According to the Texas Tribune: “Last summer, a Collin County grand jury indicted Paxton on criminal charges of securities fraud and failure to register with the state securities board. He is accused of misleading investors in a company from before he took office as Texas’ top lawyer.”

This isn’t a penny ante case. It involves an individual, Paxton, whose reputation is supposed to be above reproach. It’s the position he holds. As the state’s top lawyer, he shouldn’t have this cloud hovering over him. Neither should the state AG’s office, which is really more important to the rest of us than a single politician’s reputation.

The Tribune reports that a trial could start as early as next spring. If Paxton is convicted, he faces a possible prison term of 99 years.

My own hope is that a court convene a trial as soon as possible so we can put this issue aside — one way or another.

Judge removed — with cause — from state’s highest court

bbwqbr7

Roy Moore took an oath when he became chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court.

The oath required him to follow the law, to adhere to the U.S. Constitution.

Then the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gay people have the right — under the Constitution’s 14th Amendment equal protection clause — to marry others of the same gender.

Moore disagreed with that ruling. So he ruled that county clerks and other duly empowered local officials should adhere instead to a state law that denied marriage to gay people.

Well, Judge Moore’s days as head of the state’s highest court are over. The Alabama Court of the Judiciary has suspended Moore for the remainder of his term, declaring that he violated state and federal law by denying gay Alabamans the right to marry.

This isn’t the first time Moore has gotten into trouble over his refusal to abide by federal law. He was removed earlier for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the courthouse grounds in Montgomery, Ala. That act of defiance didn’t bother me nearly as much as this one does.

The nation’s highest court is empowered to interpret the Constitution. It ruled that the 14th Amendment provides equal protection to all Americans under the law and that the amendment doesn’t allow for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Moore has no authority to flout that ruling, the state’s Court of the Judiciary has ruled.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/alabama-justice-off-bench-for-defying-feds-on-gay-marriage/ar-BBwQ2VL?ocid=st

When will it sink in to this fellow’s apparently thick skull that when he takes an oath to follow the law and obey the U.S. Constitution, that there’s no wiggle room.

None.

Adhere to your oath or else step aside.

Go for the override, Congress, of 9/11 lawsuit veto

obama-veto

It’s rare, indeed, these days to see liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans agree on much of anything.

However, we have bipartisan agreement on a veto by President Obama on a bill that would have allowed victims of the 9/11 attacks to sue Saudi Arabia.

The president said “no” to the bill. Congress is vowing to override the veto.

I believe members of Congress are right about this one.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/lawmakers-vow-to-override-obamas-veto-of-sept-11-bill/ar-BBwzrJK?li=BBnb7Kz

According to the Associated Press: “This is a disappointing decision that will be swiftly and soundly overturned in Congress,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., who sponsored the bill. “If the Saudis did nothing wrong, they should not fear this legislation. If they were culpable in 9/11, they should be held accountable.”

There’s your comment from a liberal Democrat. Then there’s this, from a leading Republican, again from the AP: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, another of the bill’s sponsor, criticized Obama for failing to listen to the families of the victims and said he looked forward to the opportunity for Congress to override the veto.

Proponents of the bill say it is tailored narrowly and that it allows plaintiffs to sue only on matters relating to acts of terror. The president said it might cause other governments to take action against U.S. personnel stationed abroad and warned of consequences if the Saudis are actually sued.

I like Schumer’s rationale for overriding the veto.

The Saudis have said they had nothing to do with the terrorists — many of whom were Saudi citizens — who flew those jetliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Fine … let them deny it.

As Schumer has said, if they are not complicit, then they shouldn’t worry.

The 9/11 attacks will cause pain and misery for as long as Americans are alive who remember that day. Many thousands of them suffered incalculable loss at the hands of deranged terrorist monsters.

If another government — a supposed ally of the United States — at the very least looked the other way, then it should have to pay for the unspeakable grief it allowed to occur.

Stop and frisk: let’s hold on

90

Donald J. Trump wants American police officers to institute the “stop-and-frisk” policies that a judge has ruled to be unconstitutional.

That doesn’t matter to the Republican presidential nominee.

He’s the “law and order candidate” for president … he says.

We’ve entered another difficult time. Police shot an unarmed man to death in Tulsa, Okla. Charlotte, N.C., residents are protesting tonight in the wake of another fatal incident involving police officers. And yes, the shooting victims were black; the officers are white.

We’re on edge once again.

Trump’s response is to double down on that “stop-and-frisk” idea.

A judge in New York said the practice appears to discriminate against Americans based on the color of their skin. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch weighed in, contending that the practice wasn’t an effective law enforcement tool.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/09/loretta-lynch-trump-stop-and-frisk-228533

Yes, some communities are experiencing terrible spikes in violent crime. GOP partisans not surprisingly are blaming Democratic municipal administrations for incompetence and for adhering to policies that create such an environment.

C’mon, folks. Let’s be rational and reasonable.

As Politico reports: “Lynch, who spent two stints as chief federal prosecutor in Brooklyn before being nominated as attorney general, said she wasn’t opposed to stop-and-frisk techniques under certain circumstances.

“‘As with every police procedure we want to empower law enforcement to be responsive to community needs. We want to empower them to protect the community. We want to give them the training they need in order to do it in a way that is constitutional, safe and effective and promotes trust,’ Lynch said. ‘It’s not really a yes or no answer.'”

The concern about stop and frisk is its widespread use. Trump, as is his tendency, wants to bring the policy to bear across the board.

I’m going to stick with the AG’s more reasonable and rational approach.

How many more instances of Trump ignorance are there?

2d-amendment

This graphic showed up on my Facebook news feed, so I thought I’d share it here … and offer a quick comment.

The item here illustrates a fundamental failure of the Republican Party nominee for president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.

He has said at various times that Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to abolish the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. What that blanket comment made on the campaign stump reveals is the candidate’s utter ignorance of the power invested in the presidency.

The president cannot abolish a constitutional amendment.

Congress has to have a say. So do the states. As the graphic illustrates, it takes a super-majority in both cases for an amendment to be added — or rescinded.

None of that stops Trump from fomenting fear.

The man has no clue about the limits of presidential power.

Judge Garland’s future hangs in election balance

FILE - In this May 1, 2008, file photo, Judge Merrick B. Garland is seen at the federal courthouse in Washington. President Obama is expected to nominate Federal Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)

Merrick Garland isn’t allowed to campaign actively for partisan political candidates.

You see, he must follow certain judicial canons that prohibit him from such activity.

I’m betting he’s chomping at the bit nonetheless.

Garland is the federal judge who has been nominated for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. President Obama made the nomination, only to run straight into a Republican roadblock erected by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who said the president shouldn’t get to fill the ninth seat on the court; that task should belong to the next president.

McConnell made that demand believing the next president would be a Republican. Then the GOP nominated Donald J. Trump. My gut tells me now that McConnell isn’t too keen on Trump, who I believe is going to lose the presidential election to Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That eventuality puts Garland back in the driver’s seat.

If Clinton wins, then McConnell well might feel the necessity to proceed with Judiciary Committee hearings and then a floor vote on Garland’s nomination during a lame-duck congressional session.

If Hillary Clinton is the next president, then it’s almost certain that she will nominate someone who is more to the left than the centrist Garland, who Obama chose because of his superb judicial temperament — and the fact that the Senate approved him overwhelmingly to a seat on the D.C. District Court in 1997.

There’s another calculation McConnell needs to make: Clinton’s victory well could swing the Senate’s balance of power back to the Democrats. And that makes it even more critical for the Republicans — who would run the Senate until the new folks take office in January — to at least exert some measure of control over the proceeding.

Yes, this election is important. Don’t you think?

Flash, GOP: Hillary didn’t commit any crimes

FILE-In this Jan. 24, 2014 file photo, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus is seen at the RNC winter meeting in Washington. Having fallen short twice recently, Ohio is making a big push to land the 2016 Republican National Convention with three cities bidding as finalists, eager to reassert its Midwestern political clout to a party that may be slowly moving away from it. In interviews, RNC chairman Reince Priebus and members of the selection committee including chairwoman Enid Mickelsen downplayed swing state status as a top factor in their decision, emphasizing that having at least $55 million in private fundraising, as well as hotel space and creating a good "delegate experience" were more important. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said it again this morning.

Hillary Rodham Clinton committed crimes while she was secretary of state, he told Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press.” The Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, he said, is a criminal over her use of a personal e-mail server. He said Clinton sent “highly classified” material out on that server, implying I guess that the material could have fallen into enemy hands.

I expressed long ago some concern over the use of the personal server. Secretaries of state or anyone charged with handling top-secret material need to ensure it’s distributed along highly encrypted channels.

Now, did she commit a crime?

Let’s see. The FBI investigated this matter thoroughly. The agency is run by a Republican, a guy named James Comey, who is as thorough an investigator as they come. He’s also a former federal prosecutor. The man knows the law.

Comey completed his probe and delivered a scathing rebuke of what Clinton did, how she handled the material through the personal server. Comey didn’t like what he found — and he said so! He described Clinton’s use of the personal server as “reckless.”

Then he also said that Clinton didn’t commit an offense for which she could be prosecuted.

End … of … story.

But wait!

Comey also gave the Republican Party a bottomless supply of ammo to fire at Clinton. He’s given the GOP plenty of grounds — or pretexts, if you will — to keep harping about the e-mail issue.

The GOP chairman this morning continued his party’s political attack.

Hillary Clinton, though, is not a criminal.