legal news

Justices vent their anger, show their fangs

What? Do you mean to say that the U.S. Supreme Court justices are human beings, with actual tempers?

I guess so, if the story attached to this post is any indicator.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/supreme-court-justices-antonin-scalia-samuel-alito-119486.html?ml=po

The two huge rulings this week — affirming the Affordable Care Act and legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states — reportedly has revealed a growing schism between the two wings of the court.

Conservative justices don’t like the liberal tilt the court showed in the two rulings.

And at least one of them, Justice Antonin Scalia, said as much in his dissenting opinions.

Scalia and fellow Justice Samuel Alito appear to be angriest at Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined the liberal justices on both rulings. Kennedy was picked for the court by a conservative president, Ronald Reagan, as was Scalia; Alito was picked by President George W. Bush.

I happen to believe that Scalia and Alito need to settle down. It seems a stretch for me to believe that a high court headed by yet another Bush selection, Chief Justice John Roberts, is going to become a bastion of liberal constitutional interpretation.

OK, so the liberals won two gigantic victories. Obamacare stands and gay marriage is now legal.

There will be plenty of other fights along the way.

What’s more, the fact that Scalia wrote such scathing dissents shouldn’t surprise anyone. He’s known for using colorful language and is fearless in stating his case.

As for the court’s fifth conservative justice, Clarence Thomas, well … he’s always silent during oral arguments before the court. The day Justice Thomas erupts in a fit of rage might be cause for concern.

legal news

The court’s logic on gay marriage makes sense

1 Comment

I’ve never claimed to be — nor will I ever make such a claim to be — the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

At times I can be slow on the uptake. I occasionally lack intuition.

But the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing gay marriage makes crystal clear sense to me. It’s about the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law. That is it — as near as I can tell.

Thus, the hysteria being expressed by Texas Republican leaders — along with other GOP honchos across this great country — is boggling my mind.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/26/cruz-perry-react-gay-marriage-ruling/

Of all the things I’ve heard from the opponents of the ruling, the most hysterical response belongs — and this is zero surprise to many of us — Sen. Ted Cruz, one of a thundering herd of candidates running for the GOP nomination in 2016.

As the Texas Tribune reports: “U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, the first candidate for the GOP nomination for president, said the gay marriage ruling puts religious liberty ‘front and center in the target of the federal government.’ He called it the ‘very definition of lawlessness. It is naked and unadulterated judicial activism.'”

Sheesh. Judicial activism? I wonder how he ranks the Citizens United ruling of 2010, which declared that corporations and rich fat cats could give unlimited amounts of campaign money, tilting the political playing field to the distinct advantage of those with the most money. Oh, but that’s another story.

The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says this, in part: “… nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

You know what that means to me? It means that states cannot deny someone the ability to marry whomever they love. It means to me that the U.S. Constitution, the one that all politicians swear to “protect and defend” is the law of the land. It means that all citizens shall not be denied “equal protection of the laws.”

Can it be any clearer than that?

The Supreme Court upheld the U.S. Constitution in a tightly worded majority opinion. It said that states cannot bar people from marrying someone if that someone happens to be of the same gender.

Judicial activism?

If I can understand what the court said and meant, why can’t The Cruz Missile? He’s the one with the Harvard law degree.

legal news

Kennedy channels Blackmun and makes history

It’s always risky to put too fine a point on some historical events, but today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states tells me that the court has issued a ruling that is going to change the nation’s landscape … forever.

We can give credit — although some will assess blame — on one justice. That would be Anthony Kennedy, a normally conservative justice who sided with the liberals on the court and wrote the 5-4 majority opinion legalizing gay marriage.

Game, set and match? Not by a long shot.

Kennedy’s role, though, does have an interesting parallel with another justice from another time — with whom he served for five years on the same Supreme Court.

Harry Blackmun was selected to the court in 1971 by a conservative president, Richard Nixon; Kennedy joined the court in 1988 when another conservative president, Ronald Reagan, nominated him.

Blackmun eventually would veer far from where President Nixon thought he’d travel as he served on the highest court in the land. Blackmun became one of the court’s more liberal members.

In January 1973, he authored a landmark ruling that made abortion legal in the United States. Roe v. Wade was a case out of Texas in which the court overturned a Texas law that made getting an abortion a felony offense. Blackmun’s opinion stated that women essentially were entitled to control their own reproductive capacity. The 7-2 ruling set the stage for a debate that hasn’t let up over the course of the past 42 years, but it was a huge decision.

The man on the hot seat now is Kennedy, who remains a conservative jurist. But on this issue, gay marriage, he has decided — along with the court’s liberal wing — that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, with its equal protection clause, trumps states’ reluctance to allow gay couples to marry.

I doubt strongly we’re going to see Justice Kennedy become a flaming liberal in the wake of this ruling. He just happens to be right — and courageous — in making this decision.

Just as Roe v. Wade changed the landscape in early 1973, today’s ruling on gay marriage sets the stage for another gigantic sea change across the nation.

I wish I was a fly on Justice Kennedy’s wall when he talked this over with his court colleagues and his staff as he pondered how he would write this Earth-shattering opinion. Something tells me he heard the late Justice Blackmun’s voice.

 

legal news

14th Amendment means what it says

Well, it’s been an Earth-shaking couple of days at the Supreme Court of the United States, don’t you think?

First, the court upholds the Affordable Care Act, guaranteeing health insurance for all Americans.

Then today comes a ruling that makes gay marriage legal in every state in the Union.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/246249-scalia-gay-marriage-decision-shows-americas-ruler-is-supreme

Today’s ruling is going to cause considerable apoplexy among political conservatives, some of whom now are saying the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds. Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the dissenters in today’s ruling, said the nation is now being governed by a majority of justices.

Let’s hold on here.

The ruling tosses out statewide bans on gay marriage on the basis of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the document we use to establish a governing framework for the entire nation.

States’ rights? I believe the federal Constitution trumps those rights. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment means what it says, that all citizens are guaranteed the right to “equal protection under the law,” which means that if gay citizens want to marry someone of the same gender, they are entitled under the law to do exactly that.

Is the battle over? Not even close.

It’s going to shift to the issue of religious liberty, where individuals will argue that their faith and their religious opposition to same-sex marriage also is guaranteed under the First Amendment. Some Republican candidates for president are calling for a constitutional amendment to make same-sex marriage illegal; good luck with that, as the 14th Amendment stands as the protector of all Americans’ rights to equal treatment under the law.

The court has done what it had to do. It has affirmed what the U.S. Constitution declares in guaranteeing every American the right to marry who they love — no matter what.

 

national news

This wasn’t a parody

The Onion takes great pleasure in offering parodies of news events.

The link attached here talks about a black man who supports flying the Confederate flag — and who has just tripled his media appearance rates to tell  his story.

http://www.theonion.com/article/black-man-support-confederate-flag-triples-his-med-50727

It’s a hilarious send-up of a current news story.

However, it brings to mind a woman I met many years ago while covering a governor’s race in Louisiana. If only she had been pulling my leg at the time. She wasn’t.

The year was 1991. I was working in Beaumont, in the southeastern corner of Texas, about 25 miles from the Louisiana border. The Beaumont Enterprise was covering “regional news” back then, and still sold newspapers all the way to Lake Charles, La. I thought I could get an interesting commentary out of the governor’s race in the state next door, so I ventured across the Sabine River and went to Vinton, La., where voters were casting ballots.

The two candidates were the Democrat, former Gov. Edwin Edwards and the Republican, David Duke — yes, that David Duke, the Ku Klux Klansman.

I went to a polling place and talked to voters walking away. I approached a middle-aged African-American woman and asked her about the race — expecting fully to get the kind of response I’d heard from other African-Americans about a contest between a colorful former governor and the intensely controversial opponent, Duke.

What I got damn near bowled me over.

The woman said she voted for Duke!

The KKK stuff didn’t bother her, she said. His white supremacist views weren’t the deal-breaker, she explained.

Why did you vote for him? I asked. It was his stand on welfare, she said.

I truly thought she was kidding. I pressed her some more about her political leanings and she insisted that she was sincere. David Duke was her man because he wanted to get people off welfare, that she was tired of paying for other people’s food and housing. If they really wanted to work, she said, they could find a job.

Wow! Who knew?

Looking back on 24 years on that amazing encounter, I can read The Onion parody and wonder: Is it really a joke?

Hmmm. Yeah. It is.

 

legal news

Next up for Supremes? Gay marriage

Given that the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act, with two conservative justices joining the liberals to form a majority coalition, it is fair to speculate about the gay marriage ruling that’s coming up.

My trick knee is throbbing and it’s telling me the court is going to declare that gay couples can legally be married.

What’s more, if conservatives think they’re angry now at Chief Justice John Roberts’s ruling in favor of the ACA, wait to see the reaction if he decides that the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause applies to gay couples.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/06/18/cruz-courts-evangelical-voters/

Republicans, such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, say that religious liberty is under attack. Cruz, who’s running for the GOP presidential nomination, told the Faith and Freedom Coalition: “I would encourage everyone here to be lifting up in prayer the court that they not engage in an act of naked and lawless judicial activism, tearing down the marriage laws adopted pursuant to the Constitution.”

There he goes again, using that word “lawless.”

The case under consideration deals with whether a gay couple can be married legally in one state and have it recognized in another. Federal judges have overturned state bans on gay marriage, declaring that such bans violate the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. Gay people are citizens, too.

The court surprised a lot of Americans — including me — by upholding the ACA.

I’m sensing a less-surprising outcome on the gay marriage issue.

The reaction, though, could be ferocious.

Uncategorized

Six Flags to become Five Flags? Please, no

1 Comment

Here’s a thought that will could drive us all just a bit crazy.

The momentum against the Confederate flag in this country could force one of the nation’s most well-known theme parks to change its name from “Six Flags” to “Five Flags.”

To which I say, “Please, please, no! Don’t do that!”

We have the Six Flags Over Texas theme park in Arlington. The name of the park is meant to pay some tribute to the flags that have flown over the Lone Star State. One of them, of course, was the Confederate flag back when Texas seceded from the Union and fought on the losing side in the American Civil War.

The flags aren’t necessarily a part of the park, although if memory serves they fly atop flag poles at the main entrance of the park.

Oh, and think about this one. The acclaimed musical “Texas,” the one at Palo Duro Canyon, also features riders carrying flags that have flown over the state. Yep, one of ’em is the rebel flag. Do we want to get rid of that flag as well at the end of the musical? A part of me understands why it’s offensive.

But let’s leave the musical alone.

legal news

Three cheers for appointed federal judges

supreme court

Take a good look at this picture. It shows the nine men and women who have upheld the Affordable Care Act’s federal subsidy provision.

The U.S. Supreme Court has protected health insurance for an estimated 6.5 million Americans.

But to hear the criticism from the right in this country, you would think these individuals have just destroyed the U.S. Constitution they took an oath to uphold and to interpret fairly and without bias.

Thank goodness for the constitutional provision that allows these individuals to hold lifetime jobs, free of the kind of political pressure that forces elected judges at times to tilt in favor of interests whose job is to put heat on politicians.

The 6-3 ruling crossed ideological lines. Two conservatives — Chief Justice John Roberts and Associated Justice Anthony Kennedy — ruled with the majority. The three dissenters — Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito — held firm in their belief that the ACA violates the Constitution.

Six justices voted for the ACA; three of them voted against it.

Majority rule wins, yes?

Republican presidential candidates went ballistic. Mike Huckabee called the court majority “judicial tyrants.” Ted Cruz threw the “lawless” adjective out there — again.

The founders got it right when they made the federal judiciary an unelected branch of government. They intended for federal judges to be free of the pressure that can overwhelm elected politicians. Presidents feel it. Legislators feel it. They are elected to represent us all. We might not like all the decisions they make, but we have recourse: we can vote them out when the next election rolls around.

Not so with federal judges. They are appointed to lifetime jobs. Yes, they are appointed by politicians with particular biases and philosophies. The judges then are subjected to sometimes grueling hearings before the Senate, which has the authority to approve or reject their appointments.

Once they take their seat on the bench, though, all bets are off.

Occasionally, these appointees evolve into judges that their benefactors — the presidents who appoint them — might not like.

That’s part of the process the founders established.

And the irony of all the outrage being expressed by those who oppose the Supremes’ support of the ACA is that many of those on the right proclaim themselves to be “strict constructionists” of the Constitution. The way I read the Constitution, it states with crystal clarity that federal judges serve for as long as they want — or are able — to do the job.

 

national news

Let’s get to the hard task of tackling racism

I follow a blog that has produced a most interesting essay.

It comes from Adele Stan, writing in the American Prospect.

The essay says, in summary, that removal of the Confederate flag and other symbols of a dark time in our nation’s history, is worthwhile and necessary. But it’s the easy part. The hard part is tackling the issue it represents: insidious racism.

Here it is:

“We Must Examine Our Own Prejudices”: Removing The Confederate Flag Is Easy; Fixing Racism Is Hard

The essay concludes with this: “So, yes, remove the Confederate flag — that standard of dehumanization, treason, and murder — from our sight. But proof of our intention demands great change in the way in which we lead, the way in which we live, the way in which we think; we must be willing to truly open the riches of progressive society and culture to all. To do that, we must — each and every one of us — examine our own prejudice, and be determined to transcend it. Then the real work of a just society can begin.”

It’s good that we’re having this discussion in the wake of the Charleston tragedy. I’m glad to see public opinion overwhelming the minority that still seeks to find legitimacy in symbols of hate and bigotry.

But as it is noted in the essay attached here, we need to look within to rid ourselves of “our own prejudice.”

 

legal news, medical news

Obamacare upheld … once again

Federal court rulings aren’t supposed to be viewed as bipartisan or partisan, given that federal judges technically aren’t politicians.

They hold these jobs for life and, thus, are able to rule without regard to party affiliation. That’s how it’s supposed to go, if I’m to assume correctly.

However, today’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the federal subsidies that were one of the keys to the Affordable Care Act, must be seen as a bipartisan victory for the ACA, aka Obamacare.

The ruling was a 6-3 affirmation of the act, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the court’s liberal wing. Roberts was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush; Kennedy was selected by the late President Reagan, the patron saint of the modern conservative movement.

So, there you have it. The ACA remains intact. The Supreme Court, which the Constitution established as the final ruling on the constitutionality of federal law, has upheld the subsidies.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-upholds-nationwide-health-care-law-subsidies/ar-AAc77eU

It’s a huge victory for President Obama. As The Associated Press reported: “Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Obama health overhaul. That includes the 8.7 million people who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their insurance premiums.”

Denying the subsidies would have cost millions of Americans their health insurance obtained under the ACA. Roberts wrote in his majority opinion: “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.”

It is my sincere hope that we can end this foolish effort to overturn, revoke, discard or otherwise gut what’s now becoming — with each court decision — established law.

Tinker with it? Make it better? Sure. There have been few, if any, landmark laws that have been perfect from the moment they receive the president’s signature.

Enough, already, with these court challenges!

 

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience