Monthly Archives: February 2016

legal news, national news, political news

Justice Biden? Maybe?

biden

I’ll toss a name out there for President Obama to consider for the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Joseph Biden.

The vice president told Rachel Maddow last night that he has “no interest” in serving on the court. The MSNBC host had asked him directly if he’d consider the appointment if it were offered. He has “no interest.”

Is that a blanket, categorical refusal to serve? No. It isn’t. It means, more or less, the same thing as when a politician says he has “no intention of running” for a particular office.

“No intention” can be parsed to mean that “no intention … at this moment.” So, when a politician says he or she has “no interest” in a particular job, one can possibly suggest that the pol is speaking in the present tense.

Biden predicted that Obama will pick a centrist. He said the president won’t likely pick a flaming liberal jurist in the mold of William Brennan to fill the seat vacated by shocking death of archconservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

He’s also said that a nominee should have GOP support.

Hmmm. Let me think. Who might that be?

Oh, how about the vice president? He’s got many Republican friends in the Senate. He’s proven his ability to work well with GOP lawmakers. He once chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee.

My hunch is that he’d be more of a moderate than a flamer.

OK, he’s also pretty long in the tooth. He might not want to stay in the public eye. The vice president has had a long public service career — and he’s just lost his beloved son, Beau, to cancer. Not only that, the president has given him a task to lead the effort to find a cure for the killer disease.

However, as a fan of the vice president, I happen to think he might be one court candidate who could pass senatorial muster.

 

International news, national news, political news, religious news

Pope’s statement careless, wise all at once

B-5

Pope Francis was correct to suggest that nations shouldn’t build walls, but should instead erect bridges.

That’s as far as his wisdom extends.

The pontiff demonstrated a remarkably tin political ear when he suggested that “anyone who builds walls” isn’t a Christian, which a clear shot at Republican presidential frontrunner Donald J. Trump.

The pope should have known that Trump would respond as he has done. He should have anticipated the firestorm he would create when he weighed in on the American presidential campaign.

He didn’t do that. Yes, the pope tried to take back some of what he said initially. It was too late to tamp down Trump’s anger — not to mention the anger of those who are supporting his presidential candidacy.

The Washington Post does take note of the fundamental message the pope sought to deliver, which is that we should treat each other with more humanity. We shouldn’t fall into the trap of demonization.

Of course the pope’s comments drew a sharp response from those who have noted the Vatican — where the pope lives — also is surrounded by walls. Hmmm. Well, I would simply add that the comparison isn’t entirely an accurate one, given the security concerns that the pontiff, whoever he is, has faced for centuries from those who would seek to do harm to him and the Catholic Church.

Whatever his noble intentions, the pope — if you’ll pardon the indelicate language — has managed to step in it.

 

national news, political news

Court to rule on Cruz’s eligibility to run

IMG_0631_JPG_312x1000_q100

It won’t be the “big court” that will decide it, but a judge in Illinois has agreed to hear a case that’s been dogging a major Republican presidential candidate ever since he entered the race.

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas was born in Canada; his mother is American, a U.S. citizen. His father is Cuban.

Cruz has maintained that because Mom is an American, he was a U.S. citizen the instant he was born. Thus, says the candidate,  he is eligible to run for president as a “natural born citizen.”

But a fellow who happens to support Ben Carson, another GOP presidential candidate, has filed a lawsuit to challenge Cruz’s assertion.

Of course, we have Donald J. Trump continuing to threaten to sue.

The Circuit Court of Cook County, Ill., has agreed to hear the case. I wish the U.S. Supreme Court would hear it; perhaps it will … eventually.

To be honest, I am tired of this kind of hatchet-job politicking on candidates. I do not want Cruz to become president of the United States. However, I believe he is right to say that he is fully eligible to run for the office.

Let the judge decide.

I’m not a legal or constitutional scholar, but the way I read U.S. law as it refers to citizenship, the senator has made his case.

I doubt a lower court decision is going to provide any closure. Still, I am glad that someone with legal authority — and presumably the educational background — to make an informed decision will take us closer to ending this ridiculous discussion.

 

State news

Baylor joins universities to ban guns on campus

gunviolence

Another private institution of higher learning has made the correct call.

No guns will be allowed on our campus, according to the folks who run Baylor University.

Baylor President Ken Starr has announced that the school he leads won’t allow students or faculty to pack heat on the Waco campus.

It’s interesting to me that so many private schools have opted out of allowing open-carry of firearms. The law — which takes effect Aug. 1 — pertains to public colleges and universities, although the chancellor of the University of Texas System isn’t exactly a fan of open-carry legislation.

Baylor acts wisely

The private schools are lining up clearly against the law.

I understood the prevailing attitude among Texas legislators who voted to allow firearms to be carried openly in this state. I don’t have serious objection to the open carry law. I’m only a little bit queasy about it.

The college campus provision, though, does give me more serious pause.

The law allows Texans who are certified to carry concealed weapons to pack them in the open. Some foes of campus carry, though, have raised fair concerns: What about the student who gets a grade with which he or she disagrees — vehemently? Would that student react so badly as to do serious harm to the professor while carrying a firearm?

Baylor University has joined the list of private schools that have opted out of allowing guns to be carried openly on campus.

Good.

 

national news, political news, religious news

Weirdness overtakes reason on campaign trail

sophiepope

It’s been like this for some time now.

Probably since the day in June 2015 when Donald J. Trump — the one-time reality TV celebrity and real estate mogul — entered the Republican Party presidential primary campaign.

Events of the past 24 hours, though, have brought about a level of weirdness that I don’t think many of us ever saw coming.

It involves Trump and — of all people — his Holiness, Pope Francis I, the head of the Catholic Church.

The pontiff is touring Mexico and he said that anyone who wants to build a wall to bar immigrants is “not Christian.” He said Scripture doesn’t condone such a thing. I should note that Pope Francis made his remarks in Spanish and they have been interpreted into English; I trust the translation is accurate.

Trump fired back, calling the pope’s criticism of an American politician’s faith “disgraceful.”

Trump kept up his criticism of the pope. To my knowledge, the pope hasn’t yet answered the GOP frontrunner’s criticism of him.

I am just not certain now where this campaign goes from here. Nor do I have a clue as to how it could get even stranger.

But you know what? Given that I never thought it would devolve to this level — with the pope and a leading American politician at odds over a proposal to build a wall — I am preparing myself for the weirdness level to keep escalating.

 

national news, political news, religious news

Religion collides with politics

B-5

Didn’t someone once suggest that you shouldn’t ever discuss religion and politics?

Here we are, then. Talking about both things in the same sentence.

Pope Francis I decided to weigh in with remarks about Republican presidential frontrunner Donald J. Trump’s proposal to build a wall across our southern border to keep illegal immigrants from entering the United States.

Anyone who’d propose such a thing, the pontiff, said isn’t a Christian.

Trump fired back. Trump called the pope’s view “disgraceful” and said, by golly, he’s a devout Christian.

Others on the right are criticizing the pope for engaging in this political discussion in the first place. Who is this guy? they wonder. What qualifies him to comment on the American political system?

Let’s take a breath.

Maybe the pope made his statement in Spanish, or Italian, or Latin and it got mistranslated.

Surely, too, he isn’t the first public figure — American or otherwise — to drag religion into a campaign for a secular political office. U.S. Sen. John F. Kennedy faced intense suspicion over his Catholic faith in the 1960 campaign and he ended up dispelling much of it with a speech in Houston in which he said he’d follow the Constitution and would not — contrary to allegations — be a puppet for the Vatican.

And there have been others as well.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the pope — a renowned international public figure — to weigh in on a U.S. public policy discussion. He’s entitled to his view.

It’s that it has ignited a firestorm that makes me uncomfortable when I hear politicians feeling forced to defend their religious beliefs while seeking an office to which they will take an oath to protect and defend a wholly secular document.

That would be the Constitution of the United States.

 

national news, political news

‘Decency’ got lost amid the politics

la-na-scalia-race-20151210

This blog provokes its share of scolding from critics.

A scolding came in overnight that I want to share here. It comes from a High Plains Blogger critic who revealed something to me I should have known was there all along: Politics can blind people. It blinded me.

I wrote an earlier blog post suggesting that President Obama made the wrong call in declining to attend the funeral of Justice Antonin Scalia. I cited all kinds of “political” reasons for his decision. I looked past the obvious one.

Here’s part of what my critic noted:

“Could I add another reason or two to go? How about decency? How about respect for a high-ranking member of your government? How about to show support for the family and unity to the country in a time of loss? I guess all of those pale in comparison to the politics of it all.”

Well …

I suppose I could say that “None of us is perfect” and go on to the next topic. That would tend to lessen the sting of criticism. I won’t go there.

The individual’s comment goes on to suggest that the toxic atmosphere in Washington — and, indeed, all across the land — has tainted many people’s view of things.

I am no exception.

 

legal news, national news, political news

Obama should have decided to attend funeral

4 Comments

chapman.0830 - 08/29/05 - A Supreme Court headed by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has questions for Chapman University Law School professor John Eastman as he and California Attorney General Bill Lockyer argue the 1905 ''Lochner v. State of New York'' case during a re-enactment Monday afternoon at Chapman University. (Credit: Mark Avery/Orange County Register/ZUMA Press)

No one asked me for advice on this, but I’ll offer it unsolicited — and without reservation.

President Obama should have decided to attend the funeral this weekend for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

To me, it’s a no-brainer.

The president will not attend. Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, are going to attend, as they share Scalia’s Catholic faith.

But look at it this way. The optics of seeing the president of the United States paying his respects at the funeral of someone with whom he had profound political and judicial disagreements are invaluable.

Yes, the president will attend a ceremony at the Supreme Court building to honor the late justice. He also has been quite gracious in his public comments in reaction to the shocking news of Scalia’s death while on a hunting trip in West Texas.

Indeed, some on the right have given Obama a pass on attending. Scalia’s own son even has suggested that the president made the right call by deciding against attending the justice’s funeral.

However, Obama has given his fierce critics in the conservative media ammunition now to fire at him for declining to attend the funeral. White House press officials haven’t disclosed how the president will spend Saturday while much of official Washington and the nation’s legal community is honoring the memory of Justice Scalia. My hope is that he lays low and spends it quietly.

He’s got a huge decision to make — possibly within the next few days. It involves his choice to succeed Scalia — a gigantic and booming voice for conservatives on the court. Senate Republicans don’t even want to consider an appointment. Others insist that the president make the choice. I am one of those who believes the president should fulfill his duties by selecting a nominee for the high court.

OK, so no one asked me for my opinion about the funeral. Why should they? I’m way out yonder in the political peanut gallery far from the government epicenter.

It’s just that as someone noted in the link attached to this blog post indicated, if you’re questioning whether you should go to the funeral … go to the funeral.

legal news, national news, political news

‘Lame duck’ needs finer point . . . perhaps

Lame-Duck-Congress-a

An acquaintance of mine asked an interesting question regarding President Obama’s upcoming battle over how he intends to fill a key vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

He wondered how one should define the term “lame duck”?

His understanding of the term meant that an officeholder became a lame duck when his or her successor in office had been determined.

Here’s how the American Heritage Dictionary defines the term: “An elected officeholder continuing in office during the period between and election and inauguration of a successor.”

My reaction was that the definition of the term has become a bit more “fluid” these days.

Senate Republicans say they don’t want Obama to fill the vacancy created by the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia because he’s a “lame duck” president. They want the next president to make the call.

I tend to have a broader view of the term “lame duck.” I suppose one could argue that any president who wins a second term becomes a lame duck the moment the election returns are finalized. The Constitution prohibits the president from running again, so the clock begins ticking on the president’s term. If that reasoning holds up, then the American Heritage dictionary definition could be interpreted as being germane.

Whatever the case, or however one defines the term, there remains an indisputable truth. The president is in office until the very moment the successor takes the oath of office.

Therefore, the president is entitled — lame duck or not — to all the perks, privileges and power that the office commands.

President Obama is entitled to appoint someone to fill the late Justice Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court. The Senate, thus, is entitled — and obligated, in my view — to consider that appointment in a timely manner and then vote on whether to approve it.

The president’s lame-duck status should not be an issue.

But it has become one, thanks to the obstructionists who are now in charge of the U.S. Senate.

 

national news, political news

Likability vs. irascibility

hillaryclintonselfie_021416getty

The Hill is reporting a story that seems to define — for me, at least — just how confusing and confounding this election cycle has become.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is trying to enhance her likability. She’s taking selfies with voters and celebrities. Remember when Sen. Barack Obama told her during a 2008 campaign debate that “You’re likable enough, Hillary”? Apparently not this time around.

She’s fighting image woes that seem to suggest she isn’t authentic, let alone likable.

Do her Democratic primary voters want her to become warm and fuzzy? Do they insist that she show her grandmotherly side more often? I have no clue.

Read the link.

Now, for the Republicans.

Likability isn’t part of the formula that’s propelled Donald J. Trump to the top of the GOP presidential candidate heap.

He’s not likable. Frankly, for my taste, he’s not a lot of things: He’s not presidential; he’s not sophisticated; he’s not grounded in a philosophy other than, say, narcissism.

But there he is. He’s leading South Carolina’s GOP primary polls after threatening to sue Ted Cruz over whether he’s qualified to run for office; after saying President Bush “lied” to get us into the Iraq War; after insulting candidates, a bona fide war hero, disabled people, voters, media types . . . anyone within earshot.

I’m not sure what this might say about any possible differences between Democratic and Republican “base” voters. I hope it doesn’t reveal that Democrats inherently are softer and that Republicans just as inherently love nastiness.

But now I’m beginning to wonder.