Category Archives: legal news

legal news

SCOTUS is ‘legislating’

My fellow Americans, I believe we are witnessing in real time the systematic dismantling of a long-standing conservative doctrine that says, in effect, that judges never should “legislate from the bench.”

Because, folks, the U.S. Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative supermajority, is doing precisely what conservatives used to accuse liberal judges of doing. It has turned the judiciary into a legislative vehicle.

I am going to offer a grudging acknowledgment of a pledge that Donald Trump made when he was elected president in 2016. He said he would appoint justices who would change Americans’ lives. He delivered in spades by nominating, in order, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett to the nation’s highest court.

What have they done? They have tossed legalized abortion aside; they have eliminated affirmative action entrance requirements for colleges and universities; they have allowed a wedding designer to discriminate against a gay couple.

You want judicial activism? There it is in plain view!

Chief Justice John Roberts once said while he was being considered for the chief’s job that he only would “call balls strikes” from the bench. Well, he’s changed the strike zone to allow fellow conservatives to toss aside settled law and to re-define “equal protection under the law” to suit conservatives’ view of college admission standards.

The three SCOTUS newbies have been joined by conservative stalwarts Roberts, along with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas in turning the court into an activist panel intent on changing the course of history.

The nation’s highest court, moreover, has become far more political than the founders — I am quite certain — ever imagined it would become. They crafted a government system designed to remove the federal judiciary from the political battles being fought between the legislative and executive branches of government.

I have stated before on this blog that our politics has been turned on its head. Small-government conservatives now favor government intrusion into Americans’ most intimate issues. Those same conservatives now believe it’s OK for the federal judiciary to toss standing law aside while writing news from the bench.

What is happening to my country?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

GOP not more corrupt than Dems, however …

There is not a chance in hell I am going to declare that Republicans as a human subspecies are inherently more corrupt than Democrats.

However … we are seeing a disturbing trend that seems to give substance to that assertion. I refer to the incidents involving GOP-appointed justices who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Rather than recuse themselves from cases involving wealthy benefactors, three justices seem to go on as if, well, there’s not a damn thing wrong with accepting lavish gifts from individuals who have business before the court.

This is a matter of perception. If the public believes a justice is influenced by those gifts, there remains little room for the justice to set the record straight.

Justice Clarence Thomas has accepted lavish vacations from Texas billionaire Harland Crow. He hasn’t recused himself from any decisions involving his big-time pal. Thomas was nominated for the court in 1991 by GOP President George HW Bush.

Justice Samuel Alito has been accepting lavish gifts from an uber-rich Republican activist. No recusal from Alito, either. President George W. Bush nominated Alito in 2005 to the highest court in the land.

Chief Justice John Roberts’s wife has been working as a head-hunter for big-time law firms that have cases before the high court. Oh, Roberts is another G.W. Bush appointee.

OK, enough about the high court. I have witnessed judicial misbehavior in Texas at lower courts. For instance, I offered criticism of a Democratic district judge in Jefferson County who used facsimile letterhead stationery to help him acquire a private business license to operate a restaurant in the county courthouse.

These recent examples of lax ethics standards on the Supreme Court, though, does involve Republican-appointed justices. It is troubling in the extreme to see the court’s public opinion standing plummet in real time.

Americans have every right to demand and expect their justices to adhere to high ethical standards. We aren’t getting it at this time from some members of the high court’s conservative super-majority.

I am, therefore, demanding it from the U.S. Supreme Court.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

What don’t these justices get?

What part of the term “conflict of interest” don’t members of the U.S. Supreme Court understand?

Now it’s Justice Samuel Alito who’s under the lights over his involvement with a wealthy Republican campaign donor.

Good grief, man.

ProPublica is reporting that Alito took a pricey vacation thanks to the generosity of a man whose company had business before the nation’s highest court.

Politico.com reports: According to ProPublica’s investigation, Alito in 2008 flew on billionaire Paul Singer’s private jet on a trip that included room and board at Alaska’s pricey King Salmon Lodge. That was paid for by then-owner Robin Arkley II, who is a prolific donor to conservative legal causes, like Singer, according to the report. Singer had connections with corporate entities who later made cases in front of the Supreme Court and won with Alito’s support.

Holy conflict of interest, Batman!

Justice Clarence Thomas has been pilloried over his relationship with Harlan Crow, the wealthy Texan who bankrolled glitzy vacations for the justice and his wife. That’s bad enough.

Now we hear about Justice Alito doing essentially the same thing.

You know, when I first started covering the justice system as an opinion writer in Oregon, then in Beaumont and Amarillo in Texas, one of the first commandments of judges was that they must steer far away from anyone who is litigating legal matters before the courts on which the judge sits. Any appearance of conflict of interest taints any decision the judge makes and opens him or her up to questions about their fairness, let alone their legal scholarship.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/21/alito-singer-propublica-oped-00102874

What is it going to take for the U.S. Supreme Court to enact some sort ethical rule that prohibits justices from engaging in this kind of cozy cuddling with big donors and/or with those who are trying cases before the judicial panel?

Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to act. So does Congress. Meanwhile, we keep getting reports from legitimate news sources of these kinds of relationships that — at minimum — cast doubt on the fairness of decisions being handed down by the nation’s top judicial court.

Shameful.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Keep your distance, Mr. POTUS

Joe Biden has issued a directive ordering White House staffers to maintain a vow of silence regarding the indictments surrounding his immediate predecessor as president of the United States.

The president did so as a show of respect for the isolation he honors between political matters and those involved with administering the rule of law.

Many Democrats want President Biden to speak out, to take the fight to the Republicans, to — in effect — ignore the isolation.

Wrong! That is a fool’s option.

It is clear that Biden’s predecessor never would honor such a principle. Indeed, he says if he’s elected (God forbid!) in 2024 that he’s going to appoint a special counsel to go after Hunter Biden, Joe Biden and possibly any other Democrat he considers a worthy target.

I will interject that the current special counsel, Jack Smith, was selected by Attorney General Merrick Garland, that the White House had no role in finding this individual. AG Garland felt the need to separate himself from the twin probes into the 1/6 assault on our government and the classified documents caper that has produced a 37-count indictment against the former POTUS.

I believe President Biden’s fealty to the rule of law must stand. He won’t offer personal comment on his predecessor’s plight. Nor should he.

Nor should the White House staff weigh in with cheap shots and innuendo. Let’s just allow the process to do its work … according to the United States Constitution, which all elected public officials take an oath to “defend and protect.”

As for the leading 2024 GOP pretender for the White House, let him yammer on. The more he says the deeper he seems to sink into an abyss from which he might not escape.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

This isn’t a ‘Law and Order’ world

If only we lived in the world portrayed by “Law and Order,” the TV drama that features police work and high-powered lawyering.

We don’t.

Unlike the characters on the TV drama, we’re in for a long and arduous slog awaiting a trial to determine whether the 45th president of the United States is guilty of the multiple crimes for which he has been indicted.

On “Law and Order,” the cops discover that a capital crime has occurred; they arrest a suspect; the district attorney’s office takes over and in a matter of days (or so it seems) the case goes to trial and a jury delivers a verdict.

Donald J. Trump, I am sad to report, is going to be given ample time to disparage the prosecutors, the grand jury, the Justice Department and anyone else who in any form or fashion criticizes him for the hideous conduct for which the grand jury indicted him.

The evidence appears to be overwhelming. A conviction to my eyes seems damn near inevitable. But when does a trial even occur?

Special counsel Jack Smith, who headed the probe into Trump’s squirreling away of classified documents in his posh Florida estate, has promised a “speedy trial.” I am reminded, though, to pull back on the definition of “speedy.” I am inclined to equate the term with the biblical description of Earth’s creation. The Bible tells us God took six “days” to finish the task, but I believe that the biblical definition of “day” doesn’t involve a 24-hour clock.

This case is going to try our patience. I am preparing my own emotional reservoir for a long haul.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, legal news

Special counsel speaks fundamental truth

Jack Smith, with just a single sentence, today laid out the complexities of our criminal justice system and highlighted his personal integrity.

Smith emerged today to reveal the contents of the indictment issued against Donald J. Trump. The cascade of evidence looks — to my untrained eyes — like a slam-dunk case. If I could predict an outcome, it would be that Trump is going down … hard.

Not so fast, the Justice Department’s special counsel, said today.

Trump, Smith said, “is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

So, there you have it summed up neatly in a single phrase uttered by a seasoned prosecutor who had been called to duty by Attorney General Merrick Garland. Smith’s wisdom highlights graphically how complicated our system is and how it must always be.

No matter how persuasive the evidence appears to be — and Smith’s 37-count indictment appears to be irrefutable — we have a judicial process that must run its course. Our Constitution provides a guarantee of the presumption of innocence, to which all U.S. citizens are entitled.

Donald Trump usually expresses outward fearlessness of anyone or anything. My own view of the former POTUS suggests he must be trembling in terror at the prospect of Jack Smith prosecuting this case against him.

Smith showed his ethical chops today by declaring his own understanding that in our system of jurisprudence, everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

The special counsel, therefore, has set a high bar for himself, which tells me he has every intention of clearing it.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, legal news

‘No one is above the law’

Merrick Garland has proven to be a man of his word, which some might suggest is a rare thing to behold in this contemporary world of public service.

The U.S. attorney general has told us time and again — and then some more — that “no one is above the law.” By “no one,” he means what precisely he said. No … one!

Not even a former president of the United States.

It is with that I want to salute the AG for signing off on a matter that indicted Donald J. Trump on seven counts relating to his pilfering of classified documents from the White House.

Garland appointed special counsel Jack Smith to complete the probe into Trump’s taking of those documents. Smith and his team found a treasure trove of evidence, starting with the documents themselves and aided with public statements bellowed from the ex-POTUS himself.

Donald Trump in effect sealed his own fate with his careless blathering about what he said he was “entitled” to take. He was entitled to take nothing from the White House. He did anyway. He also lied to the FBI about what he had returned and lied continually about the significance of the documents he had in his possession.

The attorney general has held the former POTUS accountable for his actions, to which I would add … it is about damn time!

As for his being faithful to his pledge that “no one is above the law,” that is worthy of the highest praise I can muster.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

crime news, legal news, national news

‘No-name’ makes history

I would be willing to pay real American money to someone who could prove to me he or she knew who Jack Smith was when Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed him special counsel to examine the charges leveled against Donald J. Trump.

Well, this no-name “tough and dogged” federal prosecutor has made history in a major way by indicting Trump on seven counts related to the ex-POTUS’s squirreling away of classified documents at the end of his term in office.

Roll this around for just a moment. We now have the former commander in chief, the former head of the U.S. government’s executive branch being charged by that very branch of government on felony charges that could put the ex-POTUS in prison for the rest of his miserable life.

The Justice Department’s charges are serious, man. I have no idea what it all means to the political calculus in play as Trump campaigns for the presidency in 2024. The legality, though, is as clear as it gets.

And for crying out loud, spare me the “politicization” argument that is going to come from the MAGA crowd. Trump is going to make this a political case. He is going to accuse DOJ of “election interference.” Imagine, too, the hideously rich irony of Trump claiming election interference … given that he is the King of Election Interference!

Jack Smith has done precisely what Merrick Garland asked of him. He did it with professionalism, steely resolve and a commitment to the rule of law.

He now has become a household name. Who knew?

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news, local news

Paxton support at home is, um, shaky

What do you know about this? The Texas Tribune reports that all the state legislators who represent portions of Collin County — Attorney General Ken Paxton’s home county — voted to impeach him at the end of the Texas Legislature’s session.

The Tribune reports: But a unanimous vote to impeach Paxton by the five Republican representatives from Collin County — Frederick Frazier of McKinney, Jeff Leach of Plano, Matt Shaheen of Plano, Justin Holland of Rockwall and Candy Noble of Lucas — exposed a statewide rift within the GOP that’s apparently also been playing out in Paxton’s backyard.

Not only that, but Rep. Leach is one of the House impeachment managers who will make the case to the state Senate, which is set to begin trying Paxton for an assortment of allegations no later than Aug. 28.

“It has been true that Paxton had the support of Collin County, but that support has been decreasing over the years, and when the crunch came, it was simply no longer there,” according to Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University and a Collin County resident.

This is fascinating stuff for me, given (a) that I, too, live in Collin County and (b) that I want Paxton to be booted out of office.

We all should have smelled that Paxton was in serious jeopardy when so many GOP House members voted with their Democratic colleague in impeaching Paxton, who becomes the first Texas AG ever impeached.

Ken Paxton’s impeachment hints at shaky support in Collin County, his longtime base of power (msn.com)

There might be a reckoning to be had when the Senate convenes its trial. At least one can hope.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Hoping they’ve had enough

My eternal optimism often gets tested by Texas politicians, so many of whom are motivated by forces with which I disagree vehemently.

But … it is getting a push in the right direction with the impeachment of Attorney General Ken Paxton and his pending trial in the Senate on allegations that he is as crooked as a dog’s hind leg.

Senators will convene a trial no later than Aug. 28. They’re going to hear a chorus of allegations leveled against the AG: that he took a bribe to help a campaign donor, that he cheated on his wife (one of the senators who might get to decide his guilt or innocence), that he fired whistleblowers for making complaints about his behavior.

The House General Investigating Committee referred the impeachment in the House. It was a unanimous vote. The House impeached the Republican AG by an overwhelming vote of 121-25. House members showed considerable backbone in condemning the AG.

Oh, and then we hear about political threats he made to House Republicans if they voted to impeach him.

And why? My hope — if not yet my sense — is that Republicans are fed up to here with the constant drumbeat of allegations of misbehavior by the state’s top law enforcement officer.

It seems to me that whenever Paxton’s name shows up in the news it has something to do with someone complaining about the manner in which he is doing his job.

We need an attorney general who can make news simply by performing the tasks of his office.

Thus, I will hope that Texas senators can borrow from the spunk shown by the House colleagues. My eternal optimism needs a kick.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com