Category Archives: legal news

legal news, national news, political news

Hillary won’t get reprieve if she escapes indictment

la-1463522501-snap-photo

I think I can predict this with some confidence.

If Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail controversy doesn’t result in a federal indictment, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee won’t get a moment’s reprieve from her critics.

The FBI is examining whether Clinton violated any laws when she used her personal e-mail server while she was secretary of state. An indictment would have to come from a federal grand jury on the recommendation of the FBI prosecutors.

There’s that problem, of course, with former President Bill Clinton’s impromptu meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch the other day in Phoenix. Clinton should have stayed away; Lynch should have shooed him off her plane. Why? The investigation looms as a serious problem for the ex-president’s wife — and he should have known better than to go anywhere near the AG, who oversees the FBI.

Hillary Clinton’s headaches won’t end if the FBI decides there’s nothing for which to indict her.

But the way I look at it now, she’s been through enough hell already from those who hate her that she’s likely immune from too much further damage.

Heck, she’s been hectored and harassed since before her husband ran for president in 1992. She’s been examined, grilled and persecuted ever since.

And spare me the canard that the media have been soft on her.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/07/01/ag_lynch_will_adopt_clinton-probe_recommendations_131081.html

If only the candidate’s husband had stayed away from the attorney general. But he didn’t.

It’s up now to the career prosecutors and investigators at the FBI to do their job. I have confidence they’ll do what they have to do.

I realize the futility of this request, but I’ll make it anyway: Whatever their conclusions, how about we just accept them and move on?

legal news, local news, medical news

‘Cheering’ abortion? Please

Abortion law

The reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that struck down a Texas law regarding abortion has been, shall we say, divided quite sharply.

The court ruled 5 to 3 to overturn a law that justices said gets in the way of a woman’s constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy. It set strict rules for physicians requiring admitting privileges to hospitals and required women to travel great distances to obtain an abortion.

Who, though, is “cheering” the idea of women being able to obtain this procedure? Were the folks “cheering” outside the Supreme Court building exulting in the prospect of abortions becoming easier? Were they cheering the deaths of the unborn? No.

I believe they were “cheering” the notion that a majority of justices understand that the Roe v. Wade ruling in 1973 that made abortion legal was made under the “equal protection clause” of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Some in the media, though, see it differently.

Take the editorial that appeared today in my local newspaper, the Amarillo Globe-News.

The newspaper opined:

“People were celebrating the ruling. People were celebrating abortion — which no matter what form of nonsensical political correctness you apply — is the killing of unborn children.

“Odd. And disturbing.”

Celebrating abortion? That draws an unfair caricature of those who believe a woman’s right to make these critical decisions supersedes legislation that prevents her from doing so.

I understand fully the huge divide that separates Americans of good will on both sides of this debate.

To suggest — as many who oppose the court’s ruling have done — that Americans are celebrating the act of abortion only deepens that divide.

We all understand the intense anguish that accompanies a woman’s decision on this matter. The court simply has reinforced the woman’s right to make that call.

legal news, national news, political news

Memo to former president: Stay away from the action

clintonbillclintonhillary_072815getty

Bill Clinton hasn’t blown his wife’s presidential candidacy apart.

But, oh man, he has stepped right into the middle of a place where he didn’t belong.

For that matter, the U.S. attorney general — Loretta Lynch — didn’t help matters one bit by agreeing to a brief, allegedly strictly “social” chat with the 42nd president of the United States.

The ex-POTUS and the AG met recently aboard Lynch’s airplane at Phoenix’s airport. They had a few laughs and chatted each other up about this and/or that.

But the ex-president has handed Republican candidate Donald J. Trump a gold-plated gift in the form of ammo to fire at Hillary Rodham Clinton. The ammo well might include accusations that her husband sought to “influence” an FBI investigation into that nagging e-mail controversy … the one involving Hillary Clinton’s use of her private e-mail account to send and receive State Department messages while she ran that huge federal agency.

The FBI is probing the matter and is expected to interview Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting Hillary Clinton soon, presumably to get some answers to the Big Question: Did she compromise national security while using that e-mail service?

Lynch said immediately she would accept whatever recommendation the FBI makes regarding Hillary Clinton’s liability in this matter. She has all but recused herself from the investigation, even though the Justice Department still oversees the FBI and that FBI Director James Comey is her direct subordinate.

As for the former president, he needs to take his political antennae into whatever shop there is to fix it.

Until then, he needs to keep as low a profile as possible.

This e-mail mess is muddy enough as it is. The former president needs to — how do I say this clearly? — stay far, far away from it.

legal news, national news, political news

AG to let the FBI do its job … great!

loretta-lynch

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch was party to one of the more, um, awkward political moments in recent memory.

She’s now seeking to remove whatever stain remains from that moment by declaring she intends to let the career legal eagles at the FBI do their job — without interference from her — in their probe of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s e-mail controversy.

Lynch ought to perhaps take it a step further and recuse herself completely from the investigation.

She met recently on an airport tarmac with former President Bill Clinton. They reportedly talked about “social” matters: grandkids, golf, the weather and whatever else. Lynch said the former president didn’t mention the investigation into whether his wife — the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee — did anything wrong while using her private e-mail account while serving as secretary of state.

Still, the encounter was awkward in the extreme. It never should have happened.

President Clinton shouldn’t have gone near the AG while they were in the airport in Phoenix and Lynch never should have allowed the conversation to occur, no matter how innocent it was.

It has fed an ongoing narrative about the former president and Mrs. Clinton, that they are tone-deaf to how their actions appear and that they play by their own set of rules.

It’s good that Lynch has declared her intention to let the FBI pursue the e-mail probe without any interference from her.

As for the former president … stay as far away from the principals in this matter as possible.

legal news, medical news, national news, State news

SCOTUS upholds ‘due process’ in rejecting abortion law

SCOTUS_Abortion_rulingTT_jpg_800x1000_q100

It had been some time since I looked at the constitutional justification for the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion in the United States.

So today, I did in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling that strikes down a Texas law that made it more difficult for women to terminate a pregnancy.

Roe was decided on the “due process clause” of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which the court said in its January 1973 ruling guaranteed a woman’s right to an abortion.

Yes, I am aware that constitutional purists will declare that “abortion” isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution, unlike, say, “the right keep and bear arms.”

But these amendments cover a multitude of rights that aren’t necessarily mentioned by name in the nation’s government framework.

The court today ruled 5-3 that House Bill 2 was too restrictive and that it violated a woman’s right to end a pregnancy. The bill became law in 2013 after that famous filibuster launched by then-state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, who temporarily halted the bill’s progress in the waning hours of the Texas Legislature.

Not to be deterred, then-Gov. Rick Perry called a special session and the Legislature enacted the bill anyway.

According to the Texas Tribune: In a 5-3 vote, the high court overturned restrictions passed as part of House Bill 2 in 2013 that required all Texas facilities performing abortions to meet hospital-like standards — which include minimum sizes for rooms and doorways, pipelines for anesthesia. The court also struck down a separate provision, which had already gone into effect, that requires doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of an abortion clinic.

https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/27/us-supreme-court-rules-texas-abortion-case/

The result of HB 2 was to force clinics that provide abortions to shut down. It made access to the procedure unconstitutionally difficult for women to obtain.

The court decision was swayed by Justice Anthony Kennedy’s siding with the liberals on the court.

Is this a happy ruling? No one should be happy when the issue involves an issue that is as emotionally draining and wrenching as this. Women have been entitled to make these decisions ever since the Roe ruling — which also arose from a Texas case.

I feel the need to add that to be “pro-choice” on this issue should not be construed as being “pro-abortion.” Would I ever counsel a woman to obtain abortion? No. Then again, it’s not my call to make. Nor should it be the government’s role.

Yes, this was a difficult call for the nation’s highest court to make. It was the correct call.

legal news, national news, political news

Tie goes to the GOP with SCOTUS decision

immigration

The U.S. Supreme Court’s non-decision on President Obama’s executive order regarding illegal immigrants just demonstrates the need to get that ninth seat on the court filled.

OK, the president lost this one. The court came down 4 to 4 to uphold a lower court ruling that had set aside the president’s executive order that granted temporary amnesty to around 5 million undocumented immigrants.

His order would have spared millions of families from the fear of deportation, particularly those families with children who were born in the United States and, thus, were American citizens.

Now, their future is a quite a bit more uncertain.

Everyone knows that the court would have ruled 5-4 had Justice Antonin Scalia had been present to decide. He wasn’t. He’s now deceased. The president has nominated a moderate jurist to replace him. Senate Republicans won’t give Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote because they want the next president to make the selection.

So, the tie vote means the Republicans win this round.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “I think the Constitution was upheld and this idea that there is a separation of powers — that no one person gets to make up law — was upheld,” Paxton said. “That’s a great thing for America.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/supreme-court-deadlocks-thwarting-obamas-immigration-actions-224720#ixzz4CS8xrwhm

But is it? Is it a great thing for those families that have come here to carve out a new life and for their children who were born here and who have considered themselves Americans for their entire life?

We can’t change the court’s non-decision now that it has acted — although I remain a bit dubious about how a tie vote actually settles anything. It reminds me a little bit of how court cases are decided on “technicalities.”

Obama and presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton both say the permanent answer must rest with Congress. Clinton vowed to seek congressional action if she’s elected president this fall.

Do I — as a layman — like how the court “decided” this case? Not in the least.

But you play the hand you’re dealt.

It does show quite brightly, though, why it’s important to fill that ninth seat on the Supreme Court — and why Merrick Garland deserves a hearing and a vote of the Senate.

legal news, national news

Ginsburg: 2nd Amendment is ‘outdated’

2 Comments

Some of the weapons collected in Wednesday's Los Angeles Gun Buyback event are showcased Thursday, Dec. 27, 2012 during a news conference at the LAPD headquarters in Los Angeles. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office says the weapons collected Wednesday included 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns and 75 assault weapons. The buyback is usually held in May but was moved up in response to the Dec. 14 massacre of students and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)

This came across my radar screen this afternoon.

I offer it here without comment. The thoughts belong to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, appointed to the court in 1993 by President Clinton.

She said: “The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia … Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. And the states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment.”

Then she said: “When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function, its function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own. So I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So … the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete.”

She said more in an interview:

http://www.wnyc.org/story/second-amendment-outdated-justice-ginsburg-says/

I’m wondering about Justice Ginsburg’s argument on the Second Amendment.

If what she says is true, that the amendment “has become obsolete,” is she making a “strict constructionist” argument for interpreting the U.S. Constitution?

Your thoughts?

legal news, national news, political news

Oh, and then there’s Merrick Garland

garlandmerrick_031716hj3

Merrick Garland has kind of slipped off the media radar.

You’ll recall this fellow. He is the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals who’s been nominated to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. President Obama selected him to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

I’ve got an idea for the probable next president of the United States to consider: In case the U.S. Senate continues to obstruct Garland’s appointment, don’t toss his nomination over once you take the oath of office.

I’m talking to you, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Garland’s nomination ran into a buzzsaw when Obama selected him. Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, declared within hours of Scalia’s death that no Obama appointment would get confirmed. They wanted to wait for the next president to take office.

They accused the president — and this just slays me — of “playing politics” with the appointment by demanding a Senate hearing and a vote on Garland’s nomination.

Kettle, meet pot.

Garland is an eminently qualified jurist. He’s been left — to borrow a phrase — to “twist in the wind” while the Senate dawdles and blocks the president from fulfilling his constitutional duties.

I’m going to suggest that Clinton will win the presidency when the votes are tallied this fall.

If that’s the case, then the Senate GOP leadership might yell “Uncle!” and have the hearing and vote it should have had all along.

But if not, then it would seem appropriate for the president-elect to carry this nomination forward. By everyone’s reckoning, Garland is a judicial moderate, a thoughtful man who was confirmed to the lower court with overwhelming Republican support.

Sure, the next president has the chance to pick someone of her choosing.

But if the Democratic candidate for the highest office is going to talk about fair and humane treatment of people, it would seem quite fair and humane to move Merrick Garland’s nomination forward for the next Senate to consider.

legal news, local news, national news, political news, Uncategorized

Seeing some symmetry between SCOTUS and APD chief picks

14910136_0

Am I hallucinating, or do I see a certain symmetry between two appointments: one at the highest level of government, the other right here at home on the High Plains of Texas?

One of them deserves the opportunity to do his duties as an elected public official. The other one also has earned the right to perform his duty as an appointed one.

Amarillo interim City Manager Terry Childers has selected Ed Drain to be the city’s interim chief of police; Drain is set to succeed retiring Police Chief Robert Taylor on July 1.

There might be a point of contention, though. You see, Childers won’t be city manager for very long. The City Council already has begun looking for a permanent city manager and Childers has declared his intention to retire completely from public life.

The council, though, has given Childers all the authority that the city manager’s position holds. Childers can hire — and fire — senior city administrators. He also is able to enact municipal policy changes when and where he sees fit. What the heck? He was able to bring changes to the city’s emergency communications center because he misplaced his briefcase at an Amarillo hotel, right?

Now, for the other example.

Caplan-Merrick-Garland2-1200

President Barack Obama has named Merrick Garland to a spot on the U.S. Supreme Court to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia. The voters delivered the president all the power he needs to do his duty when they re-elected him to his second and final term in 2012.

Republicans in the U.S. Senate, though, have said: Hold on a minute! The president’s a lame duck. We don’t want him appointing the next justice. We want the next president to do it. They, of course, are hoping that Donald J. Trump takes the oath next January. Good luck with that.

Here’s the question: Should the city manager be allowed to appoint the permanent chief of police, or should the council demand that the decision be left to the permanent city manager?

My own take is this: I’ve railed heavily against the GOP’s obstructing Obama’s ability to do his job. Republicans are wrong to play politics with this process and they are exhibiting a shameless disregard for the authority the president is able to exercise. The president is in the office until next Jan. 20 and he deserves the opportunity to fulfill all of his presidential responsibilities.

Accordingly, the Amarillo city manager will be on the job until the City Council hires someone else and that permanent manager takes over.

Thus, Terry Childers ought to be able to make the call — if the right person emerges quickly — on who should lead the police department … even if he won’t be around to supervise the new chief.

International news, legal news

Ex-SS guard gets five years for atrocities … enough?

hanning

This one is giving me fits and I’m likely to ask for some guidance on what to think about it.

A court in Germany has just sentenced a 94-year-old former SS guard to five years in prison for complicity in the atrocities that occurred at Auschwitz, the infamous Nazi death camp where many thousands of people were sent to their death.

Reinhold Hanning accepted the sentence apparently without emotion.

My questions are many:

Is the sentence long enough for a man nearing 100 years of age? Is it tantamount to life in prison? What has this man done with his life since the end of World War II? Would any contribution to society be enough to erase what he was accused of doing? Has he sought spiritual salvation for what he did?

“This trial is the very least that society can do to give… at least a semblance of justice, even 70 years after and even with a 94-year-old defendant,” chief judge Anke Grudda said.

“The entire complex Auschwitz was like a factory designed to kill people at an industrial level… You were one of those cogs” in the Nazi killing machine, she told the accused on convicting him as an accessory to murder in 170,000 cases.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ex-ss-guard-94-convicted-for-complicity-in-auschwitz-murders/ar-AAhc6I3

auschwitz

As the son of a World War II veteran who saw intense combat against Hitler’s war machine, I grew up believing that the men who carried out the madman’s orders bore a large measure of responsibility in the crimes against humanity they committed in Fuehrer’s name.

My hatred for Hitler over what he did in committing the atrocities hasn’t wavered.

I’m struggling, though, with the punishment being handed out so many decades later to those who were following orders. Did they understand fully — in the moment — that they were committing unspeakable atrocities?

Just seven years ago I had the honor of touring the Yad Vashem memorial and museum near Jerusalem, which chronicles the story of the Holocaust from its victims’ point of view. One cannot come away from seeing that exhibit without feeling the combined sense of horror and shame over what human beings are capable of doing to other human beings.

Therein lies the crux of my conflict.

I am inclined to believe the sentence was as just as one can expect, given the defendant’s age. I also am inclined to hope that his time in prison is made as miserable as is humanly possible. I know, of course, that the German prison system must not inflict on Hanning the same horrors he’s been convicted of inflicting on his victims at Auschwitz.

Your thoughts on this?