Monthly Archives: March 2022

legal news

The system is broken

This is no great flash, but I feel obligated to say it anyway: The confirmation hearing for Ketanji Brown Jackson shows that the U.S. political system is broken and it needs immediate urgent care.

What also is not exactly news is that the system has been broken for too long and it has needed repair for as long as we have witnessed the system’s fraying.

Judge Jackson wants to join the U.S. Supreme Court, succeeding the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer. She is eminently qualified and she deserves to take her place with the rest of the court.

She will get there, or so it appears. Democrats have enough Senate votes to confirm her. The Senate Democratic caucus likely will hold together to confirm this excellent nominee. Indeed, when a president exercises the prerogative given by the public that elected him, it falls on the president to find the most qualified nominee for this critical post. President Biden has delivered the goods by nominating Judge Jackson.

Senate Republicans, though, have spent the past two days dredging up phony excuses to oppose Jackson’s nomination. Their scurrilous misrepresentation of Jackson’s stellar record only demonstrates the broken political system that needs repair.

I long have adhered to the notion that presidential prerogative should grant presidents the right to make recommendations to these critical posts, even lifetime jobs to the federal judiciary. Yes, the Senate has the right granted by the Constitution to offer “advice and consent” on nominees. However, Judge Jackson’s nomination has been twisted and perverted into a form that needs to be straightened out.

The system that has created the great partisan divide in Congress is the culprit. Ketanji Brown Jackson deserves far better than what she endured.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Stupidity abounds!

Of all the questions I have heard over many decades listening to Senate and House hearings, I believe I have listened — hands down — to the stupidest question ever uttered by a U.S. senator directed at a witness before the committee on which she sits.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, actually asked Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson — President Biden’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court — to “define a woman.” I will admit that I wasn’t entirely dialed into the topic on which Blackburn was seeking an answer.

However, I watched Judge Jackson’s frozen facial expression after she heard it and was stunned beyond belief that she didn’t bust out laughing at the absurdity of the question.

I am not at all clear how Blackburn intended for Judge Jackson to answer that idiotic query. Does she offer a detailed description of the female anatomy? Blackburn also asked Jackson to “define a man.” Again, does she offer detail on the, um, characteristics that comprise the male anatomy?

When Jackson did not answer Blackburn’s question, the senator then sought to suggest that the jurist was intimidated by the inquiry.

Oh, brother. What I witnessed was a know-nothing politician seeking to embarrass a top-tier jurist. All the pol did was heap ridicule on herself.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Graham just pisses me off

OK, I gotta get this off my chest: There is just something about Sen. Lindsey Graham that pisses me off. The South Carolina Republican demonstrated his petulance once again while questioning a highly qualified nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Graham cannot get past the notion that President Biden — the man he once hailed as one of his best friends in public life — selected Judge Jackson over the woman Graham preferred, fellow South Carolinian Judge Michelle Childs.

His pique was on full display yet again today as he interrupted Judge Jackson as she sought to answer his questions. He refused to let her complete answering a question about sentencing practices and insisted on directing the line of questioning to sex offenders; Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin interceded to allow Jackson to finish her answer.

Graham insists he hasn’t decided how he will vote on Judge Jackson’s nomination. That, of course, is nonsense. He is going to vote against Jackson’s nomination, joining most — if not all — of the Republican Senate caucus in opposing her selection to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer. I can make that determination, as can anyone with half a brain in their noggin.

I just am flabbergasted at the rudeness he has exhibited while questioning a superb choice to join the nation’s highest court.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Why the ‘faith’ question?

Ketanji Brown Jackson felt compelled Tuesday to remind Lindsey Graham that Article VI of the US Constitution prohibits any “religious test” for anyone seeking public office, to which Graham responded that he agreed and that he wouldn’t apply any test.

Why, then, did the South Carolina Republican ask Judge Jackson about her “faith,” and why did he ask her how often she attends church? Jackson, nominated by President Biden to the Supreme Court, chose to avoid answering the question about her worship frequency.

I am puzzled and concerned, though, by the direction and the tone of the question that Graham asked of the SCOTUS nominee. If he intends to apply no religious test, then what in the name of holy Scripture is the reason for the questioning about the Judge Jackson’s faith?

It was a concerning line of inquiry and one that I hope no one follows down some judicial blind alley.

That kind of question had no place during the Senate committee confirmation hearing.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

‘No religious test’

Lindsey Graham today asked what in another era would have been considered a question worthy of scorn and instant rebuke. The Republican U.S. senator asked a nominee for the Supreme Court, “What is your faith?”

Ketanji Brown Jackson answered “Protestant.”

OK, why should Sen. Graham have been slapped down? Because of Article VI in the U.S. Constitution, which reads, in part: ” … no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

I watched Graham ask the question today in real time. I was troubled at the moment I heard it. Then it dawned on me. The Constitution disallows any sort of religious test for “any Office or public Trust.”

That includes the United States Supreme Court!

We witnessed today a remarkably ignorant performance by a member of the U.S. Senate who, had he understood the Constitution he took an oath to “protect and defend,” never would have asked a Supreme Court nominee a question that clearly violates the rules set down by the nation’s governing document.

Despicable.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Hearing previews 2024 campaign

Ladies and gentlemen, I am prepared to declare that we are witnessing with the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on whether Ketanji Brown Jackson should join the Supreme Court a preview of the 2024 Republican Party presidential primary.

It’s an unattractive spectacle and I detest the notion that a respected jurist is being used as a political football by senators who might seek their party’s presidential nomination in 2024.

I’m talking about Ted Cruz of Texas, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Josh Hawley of Missouri.

They are trying to push hot-button issues dealing with race and abortion and trying to appease the nut-job “base” of the GOP voting bloc while they grill Judge Jackson.

To the nominee’s great credit, she is holding up well under the onslaught.

President Biden promised to present a highly qualified nominee to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer. He delivered when he nominated Judge Jackson.

I continue to salute Jackson’s former role as a public defender. The Supreme Court hasn’t yet welcomed a jurist with that kind of background. Jackson has talked about understanding a defendant’s mindset and the value that understanding has brought to her experience for the past decade as a judge. That aspect of her background alone would bring remarkable and laudatory diversity to the nation’s highest court.

That, of course, won’t stop the GOP presidential hopefuls from parsing her past comments and seeking to damage her reputation by suggesting things about Judge Jackson that do not exist.

From my vantage point, they are embarrassing themselves and have been unable to lay a hand on the nominee’s stellar standing.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

International news

Putin: ‘war criminal’

Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin are not going to exchange Christmas cards this year, or probably for as long as either of them is alive.

The president of the United States has accused the Russian thug/strongman/despot/dictator of being a “war criminal” on the basis of his armed forces’ indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine.

Yep. Vladimir Putin fits the description that President Biden has hung around his neck.

The man has committed crimes against humanity. He has killed children in his effort to pummel Ukraine into submission. Putin’s artillery and air force have bombed schools, a maternity hospital, churches, shopping malls, apartment complexes. These all are places where children hide to get away from the carnage that is befallen them.

Donald Trump once proclaimed his desire to make nice with Putin and with Russia. The Russians led by Putin have destroyed any possible warming of relations with the United States, not to mention with the rest of the world through their unprovoked and brutal invasion of Ukraine, a sovereign nation.

For his part, Joe Biden is punishing Putin with economic sanctions that threaten to relegate Russia to Third World status. Keep applying the pressure, Mr. President.

Oh, and be sure you take Vladimir Putin off your Christmas card list.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

environmental news, local news

Weather changes … rapidly!

You know how it goes if you live in Texas; if you don’t like the weather, just wait a few minutes … it’ll change.

Man, oh man. Did it ever change Monday!

We had been battling dry wind. Well, last night the dry wind turned wet and really violent! Twisters destroyed schools in Jacksboro and homes there and in Bowie. The rain pummeled us in Collin County and in all points throughout the Metroplex.

We are hearing this morning about stricken communities digging themselves out of the rubble and lending a hand to help those in trouble. That became an old story long ago around here, but it’s always one worth re-telling.

Spring arrived this past weekend and it got here with a vengeance.

We are counting our blessings today and we are wishing, hoping and praying for all the very best for our stricken neighbors.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Will judge stand up to pols? Umm, yep!

One of the more fascinating aspects of congressional confirmation hearings is listening to politicians quiz nominees on issues of which the nominee is an expert but which the politician knows next to nothing.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is now set to face what I have called an “inquisition” from members of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. It comprises individuals who have a passing knowledge of what it takes to be a top-drawer jurist. Judge Jackson, though, is the real deal. Which is my way of supposing that she knows much more about the law and how judges are supposed to interpret the law than the individuals who will sit in judgment of her qualifications.

President Biden made history when he nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to the U.S. Supreme Court; she is the first African American woman ever nominated to the nation’s highest court. This blog post, though, isn’t about the color of her skin; it is about her knowledge of the law. From what I have been able to determine, Judge Jackson’s legal skill is beyond reproach.

She possesses an Ivy League education. She comes from a stellar family of educators and law enforcement officers. Judge Jackson clerked for the man she hopes to succeed on the court, Justice Stephen Breyer.

And yet …

Politicians on the Senate judiciary panel are going to presume to be experts on how a judge is supposed to administer justice. Some of them are going to twist the nominee’s prior rulings and turn them into unrecognizable facsimiles of what went down.

It’s part of the process. I get that.

Still, it infuriates me to see pols pretend to be experts on matters on which they have only a passing acquaintance.

With that, I am going to wish Ketanji Brown Jackson all the very best as she seeks to tell these pols that she’s the expert and they … are not.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

State news

Guns do have their place … really

As much as I have railed and ranted over many years about gun violence and the nutty notion that says that “more guns make us safer,” I want to acknowledge one positive element concerning laws that allow people to carry concealed handguns.

It’s really about the only positive thing I can say about this, so here goes.

I am a more polite driver, more circumspect at others who cut me off, or who nearly back into me in parking lots, or who otherwise drive recklessly, putting me and others at risk of serious physical harm.

Why? It’s simple. I do not want to antagonize a motorist who might be packing a pistol in his glove compartment, or under his seat, or who might be wearing a holster containing a six-shooter.

The problem with that niceness, though, is that I am reluctant to tell the driver in some fashion that he or she is putting me in danger. I am unaware of a way to do so while sitting in a motor vehicle yelling at someone else without pi**ing the other person off enough to do something foolish … such as shoot me!

OK, so I called this a “positive” aspect of gun ownership. On reflection of what I have just written, perhaps I should walk some of that back just a little. It’s not entirely positive, but it does create possibly a slightly more polite driving public.

To be clear, I am still frightened by the prospect of more guns on the streets, with more people being allowed to carry guns openly without having to take a rudimentary class to prove they know how to handle them.

I also accept that concealed-carry laws in Texas haven’t resulted in commonplace shootouts in the streets.

If these firearms make us a bit more reticent and polite, then that’s not a bad thing.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com