Category Archives: legal news

Campus-carry takes effect … very soon!

CampusCarry-PencilBullets_jpg_800x1000_q100

Monday will be a big day in Texas.

Fifty years ago, a gunman climbed to the top of the Texas Tower at the University of Texas campus in Austin and opened fire with his high-powered rifle.

Sixteen people died that day before the cops got to the gunman and shot him dead .

Aug. 1, 1966 is one of the state’s most infamous days.

Texas is going to mark that date by allowing people to carry guns on college campuses.

Ironic, yes? Tragically so? Yes again.

It’s interesting to me — and to a lot of others — that educators oppose this notion. Only one private university is allowing guns on its campus; the rest of them have said “no thanks.” Public universities are required under the law to allow students to carry guns into classrooms.

UT Chancellor William McRaven — the former Navy SEAL and special forces commander — is one of those who opposes campus-carry. But, what the hey? What does he know?

I’ll stipulate that I have come to accept concealed-handgun-carry as a way of life in Texas. I don’t necessarily endorse it.

Allowing guns on campuses, though, does present a unique set of concerns. What if a professor hands out a failing grade to a student who, um, might have a short fuse that could be lit with a dose of bad news? Does that student then pose an extra threat to the prof if he’s packing heat under his jacket?

Well, Texas is about to enter another era on its college and university campuses.

I’m going to hope for the best.

If only the state could have picked another date to allow guns on our campuses.

Tim Kaine: serious about the oath he takes

24KAINE1-master768

Tim Kaine’s selection as Hillary Clinton’s vice-presidential running mate is bringing forth the expected public vetting of the U.S. senator’s public policy record.

One item that’s been drawing some attention has involved capital punishment.

A New York Times story Sunday notes that although Kaine is vehemently opposed to executing people for capital crimes he was able to carry out executions while serving as governor of Virginia.

My reaction: Well, duuuhhh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/24/us/politics/tim-kaine-death-penalty.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Felection-2016&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=14&pgtype=collection&_r=0

Kaine has moved on to the Senate, where he gets to vote on laws that affect all Americans. But while serving as governor, he took a solemn oath to do one thing essentially: to follow the law as prescribed and written by the legislative assembly of his state.

Governors really have little leeway as it regards capital punishment. Sure, they can commute sentences, which Kaine did while serving as Virginia governor, and which he was empowered to do under the state constitution.

However, if the state executed someone who had been sentenced to death by a jury, then it follows that the governor — barring some extraordinary circumstance — is obligated to do what the law tells him to do.

Virginia is No.2 in the nation in executing capital criminals. No. 1? Oh, yeah … that would be Texas!

The two hats Kaine wears — as one who opposes certain public policy but who must adhere to the law –aren’t the least bit confusing, to me at least.

He struggles as well with abortion. Kaine is a devoted Catholic who believes in the doctrine of his church, which opposes abortion for any reason. However, abortion is legal in this country and, therefore, Kaine must follow the law.

Indeed, he also remains pro-choice on that issue, regardless of his personal opposition to the practice based on his own moral compass and the teachings of his church — believing, apparently, that the government should allow women to make that gut-wrenching decision for themselves.

Sen. Kaine is a serious man who now has been given a serious task, which is to run alongside the Democrats’ presidential candidate. His executive government experience owing to his days as a governor demonstrates he also is a serious public servant.

 

Justice Ginsburg seeks to make it right

BBuiRBp

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg now says she regrets those negative things she said about Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump.

Does she no longer believe what she said? Hardly. She just regrets saying those things out loud.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-apologizes-for-trump-remarks/ar-BBukt9C?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

I’m going to give the Supreme Court justice high marks for saying she plans to be “more circumspect” in the future.

She had said Trump’s election as president would be disastrous for the country and joked she might move to New Zealand if Trump is elected.

I am one of those who have said she shouldn’t have made those statements. It is true that there’s nothing written or codified about what Supreme Court justices can say. It’s been a long-standing tradition that justices steer clear of partisan politics.

Ginsburg lost control of her verbal steering wheel when she popped off about Trump, who not surprisingly responded in his typically crude manner, suggesting the justice had lost some of her mental acuity. He demanded her resignation.

As Reuters reported: “On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” she said in a statement issued by the court. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect,” Ginsburg added.

That’s good enough for me. Is it good enough for her critics? I’m thinking umm … no.

Small-government conservatives?

08-dallas-shooting.w529.h352

I’ve already commented on a bill authored by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn that would federalize the crime of killing a police officer.

I’m against it. States that have the death penalty — such as Texas (Boy, howdy! Do we ever!) — already make cop-killing a capital punishment offense.

Cornyn’s bill is a reaction to the deaths of the five police officers in Dallas this past week.

A friend of mine reminds me, though, that he opposes Cornyn’s legislation, too, for another reason. It flies in the face of conservatives’ usual mantra that calls for “limited federal government.”

He wonders why GOP lawmakers react with this expansion of federal authority.

I think I know. They do it because it’s politically popular. Quite naturally, Democrats do the same thing when the issue suits their philosophical bent.

In this case, Americans are outraged over the officers’ death. So, in swoops Sen. Cornyn — a true-blue GOP conservative — to propose a bill that deals directly with that outrage. He wants to add another federal law to the books.

But what has happened, though, to the conservative view that less federal authority is better for everyone?

Killing a cop need not become a federal issue

cornyn

John Cornyn is angry about the deaths of those five Dallas police officers.

So am I. So are millions of other Americans.

Is that reason enough to create a new federal law, as Sen. Cornyn, is proposing? No. The states have it covered.

Cornyn, the Republican senior U.S. senator from Texas, wants to make killing police officers a federal crime. He’s gotten some co-sponsors for his bill, including his fellow Texan, Republican Ted Cruz.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/07/13/Cornyn-Bill-Makes-Killing-Police-Federal-Crime/

My hunch is that Cornyn’s bill is meant to toughen penalties in states that do not now impose the death penalty for any capital crime.

I understand Cornyn’s interest in this issue. He’s a former Bexar County trial judge and a former Texas attorney general.

Texas, though, already makes killing cops an automatic death penalty prosecution, as do most states in the country.

According to the Texas Tribune: “Law enforcement officers selflessly put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities, and in return they deserve our unparalleled support for the irreplaceable role they serve,” Cornyn said in a statement. “The Back the Blue Act sends a clear message that our criminal justice system simply will not tolerate those who viciously and deliberately target our law enforcement. As our country continues to grieve following last week’s tragedy in Dallas, we must come together in support of those who risk everything to keep us safe.”

My goodness, we can support our officers in many tangible ways. Texas already has enacted strict punishment for those convicted of killing officers.

Cities can support their police departments by ensuring they have adequate resources, staffing, up-to-date equipment and training. Legislatures can buttress local governments with sufficient grant funds that they can funnel to communities to assist in providing the best law enforcement that money can buy.

Millions of Americans are justifiably outraged over the attack that occurred in Dallas. Do we need another federal law that proves how mad we are? No.

Let’s stop the ‘consequences’ talk

ginsburgruth_012814getty

How about settling down just a bit, Republican members of Congress?

They’re all up in arms over remarks Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made about presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, about how she cannot imagine a country with Trump as president.

Rep. Randy Weber of Texas said Ginsburg ought to resign. Trump said the same thing. As the Hill reported: “The recent comments of Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg on Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump are the antithesis of Lady Justice and in direct violation for what the highest court in the land stands,” he said. “Justice Ginsburg’s actions must be met with consequences. I agree with Donald Trump that she should resign.”

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/287537-house-republican-ginsburgs-actions-must-be-met-with-consequences

While I agree that Ginsburg crossed a line, violated an unwritten rule about justices getting too politically partisan, let’s take heed of what the framers did when they wrote the U.S. Constitution.

They created an independent branch of government called the “judicial branch.” Judges get lifetime appointments to their posts. The idea was to enable them to be free of political pressure brought by the executive or legislative branches of government.

The founders got it right.

Ginsburg didn’t need to pop off as she did about Trump. But she isn’t the first justice to get involved in politics. In the earliest years of the Republic, justices ran for political office while sitting on the Supreme Court.

That kind of overt politicking, of course, hasn’t occurred in many years.

I don’t expect the Supreme Court to hear cases involving Trump while Ginsburg is sitting on that bench. However, I don’t doubt the justice’s ability to judge any case involving Trump fairly.

Although the framers had the right idea when they created an independent judiciary, they could not possibly remove politics from its actions.

I bring you Bush v. Gore in 2000, in which five Republican-appointed justices stopped the ballot-counting in Florida with GOP candidate George W. Bush leading Democratic opponent Al Gore by 537 votes out of more than 5 million cast in that state. Bush won Florida’s electoral votes and became president by the narrowest of margins.

Do you think politics played any role in that decision?

Well, that’s how the system worked.

As for the present-day dustup over Justice Ginsburg’s remarks, she made them, but let’s quell the talk about “consequences.”

Ginsburg was entitled to say what she said.

Yes, Justice Ginsburg crossed that ‘line’

ginsburg

When judges get appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, they usually follow a set of certain practices.

One of them is to keep their partisan political views to themselves.

Sure, their judicial philosophy often reveals their political leanings, but that’s for others to assume.

With that said, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has crossed a line separating the judicial branch from the rest of the federal government structure.

She said the following: “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg told the New York Times’s Adam Liptak. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-bashing-donald-trump-some-say-ruth-bader-ginsburg-just-crossed-a-very-important-line/ar-BBucVZt?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Ginsburg’s reference is to presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump.

Very bad call, Mme. Justice.

It’s OK for justices to think certain things about politicians. It’s quite inappropriate for them to say it out loud. Judicial decorum dictates that they stay above the political fray. These individuals aren’t politicians. Presidents nominate them and the Senate confirms them on the basis of how they determine the constitutionality of federal law.

Justice Ginsburg, selected for the high court in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, would seem to have an axe to grind given her statements criticizing Trump’s candidacy. Trump, after all, is running against the wife of the man who selected her to the Supreme Court.

Don’t misunderstand me on this point: I have trouble contemplating a Trump presidency, too.

I, though, am not a member of the highest court in the nation. I can say these things out loud. Justice Ginsburg needed to keep her mouth shut.

Clinton need not be shut out of classified access

BBrGg2n

Let’s settle down just a bit, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan.

The Wisconsin Republican said Wednesday that Hillary Rodham Clinton should be denied access to “classified material” after she becomes the Democratic Party’s nominee for president of the United States.

Why? Because of her handling of the e-mails while she was secretary of state and because, according to the speaker, it “looks like” the FBI gave her preferential treatment in its yearlong investigation into her use of a personal e-mail server while she led the State Department.

It’s been customary for decades to allow presidential and vice-presidential nominees access to national security briefings while they campaign for the White House. Ryan got it when he ran for VP four years ago along with GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

I thought the best response to this statement of outrage from Ryan came from famed defense lawyer and constitutional law professor Alan Dershowitz. He said on CNN Wednesday that — in light of FBI Director James Comey’s stern tongue-lashing in announcing he would recommend no criminal charges be brought against Clinton — that the former secretary of state would be careful in the extreme in reviewing this classified material.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ryan-block-clintons-access-to-classified-materials/ar-BBu0Vt8?li=BBmkt5R

Ryan, of course, won’t be called off. Quite naturally — and expectedly — he’s angry that the FBI and the Justice Department have decided that Clinton didn’t commit any crimes. He’s going to proceed with a Republican investigation into the FBI probe to determine whether Comey and his staff of career prosecutors did their job fairly, without bias and without outside influence.

It’s quite obvious to me that Ryan’s mind is made up, that the FBI was in the tank for the Democratic presidential candidate. This GOP investigation won’t answer any questions.

For her part, Clinton needs to face the partisan outrage head-on. I hope she does so. Will she be able to quell the partisan anger? No.

In the meantime, Clinton she should be able — as a candidate for president — to receive the national security briefings that has gone to previous nominees.

Public mistrust casts pall over FBI’s findings

06comeytranscript-master768

This is what it’s come to in this country.

The head of the nation’s leading federal investigative agency offers a compelling argument for why he isn’t recommending a criminal indictment against a candidate for president.

And yet there remains doubt over whether the FBI did its job with integrity and professionalism.

FBI Director James Comey offered a detail explanation of his agency’s findings today in determining that it wouldn’t recommend seeking an indictment against Hillary Clinton over her use of a personal e-mail server while she served as secretary of state.

Here’s his statement in full. It’s worth reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/transcript-james-comey-hillary-clinton-emails.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=1

Sure, he has scolded Clinton for being “careless” in her handling of e-mail messages sent from her server. But in his careful language, Comey assures us that no prosecutor worth a damn would find any reasonable cause to seek criminal charges over what transpired during Clinton’s tenure at the State Department.

Moreover, I also accept the declaration that the FBI director did his job with integrity.

As Comey said this morning: “I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.”

I accept those findings.

No indictment over e-mails

hillary

Hillary Rodham Clinton won’t be indicted for her use of a private e-mail server while she was secretary of state.

That’s the conclusion of the pros, the career prosecutors and investigators at the FBI.

So, that’s the end of the controversy, correct? Clinton now can campaign for president of the United States without the sniping, carping and conspiracy-minded criticism leveled by her foes?

Excuse me while I bust a gut.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fbi-recommends-no-charges-for-clinton-over-email-system-at-state-department/ar-AAi7Py6?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartanntp

No, FBI Director James Comey’s own words today have given the anti-Clinton cadre plenty of ammo to sling at the Democratic candidate for president.

He called her “extremely careless” in her use of the private server. He said he found no “clear evidence” of criminality.

Right there, you’ll see foes translate “careless” into words like “incompetent” and “inept.” No “clear evidence” will be parsed to mean that there’s something smelly, but that the feds just couldn’t find anything with which to hang a criminal charge.

The Clinton campaign, of course, will spin these findings differently. They’ll congratulate the FBI for its professionalism. Indeed, James Comey remains high on most observers’ lists of impartial, hard-nosed and fair-minded law enforcement authorities.

Hillary Clinton no doubt will have steeled herself for the onslaught that awaits. Her enemies will quite naturally suggest or imply that her husband Bill’s meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch in Phoenix played some sort of role in the FBI’s decision to forgo seeking an indictment. That’s how conspiracy theorists work.

What the heck? Hillary and Bill Clinton ought to have developed rhino-hide by now, given all the hideous accusations they have faced dating back to when Bill Clinton was Arkansas governor.

From my perch, I believe James Comey is a pro and that the FBI did its job with due diligence.

He did, though, toss out a couple of red-meat morsels for Clinton’s enemies to chew on — which I believe they’ll do with great gusto.