Tag Archives: NY Times

legal news, national news, political news

Judiciary is non-political, right? Uh, no

1 Comment

judges

It can be declared categorically — perhaps it should have been long ago — that the judicial branch of government is as political as the executive and the legislative branches.

The U.S. Senate is playing politics with President Obama’s selection of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

Now there’s this, in Kansas.

The state legislature is considering a bill that would call for the impeachment of state supreme court justices if they seek to “usurp” the power of the legislature or the governor.

In other words, if the state’s highest court rules differently from what the legislature or the governor believes, the justices are subject to being kicked off the bench.

What an extraordinary — and ham-handed — approach to governing.

Kansas judges are appointed and then are subject to retention elections during their tenure on the bench. Conservative activists and politicians want voters to reshape the court by kicking four justices out who they believe have ruled the wrong way on key issues. Therefore, voters have the power already to decide which justices should stay and which ones should go.

The Republican-controlled Kansas legislature is hoping voters this fall will tilt the court more toward the majority of lawmakers’ liking. So, why seek to enact this measure that liberalizes impeachment proceedings against the state’s judicial branch?

As the New York Times reported: “Gov. Sam Brownback and other conservative Republicans have expressed outrage over State Supreme Court decisions that overturned death penalty verdicts, blocked anti-abortion laws and hampered Mr. Brownback’s efforts to slash taxes and spending, and they are seeking to reshape a body they call unaccountable to the right-tilting public.”

It’s no longer left to the state’s highest judicial authority to interpret the state’s constitution as it sees fit. It now has an extra layer of oversight coming from the legislative and executive branches to ensure that the court rules “correctly.”

This is political conservatism? It sounds and looks much more like activism in the extreme.

 

national news, political news

Wondering if Trump will bolt the party

donald-trump-speech-promo-getty-491877616

Peter Wehner doesn’t strike me as a wacked-out Republican loon.

He writes pretty well, if the essay in today’s New York Times is an indication.

The man is frightened at the prospect of Donald J. Trump becoming his party’s next presidential nominee. And he expresses that fear — right along with a lot of other Republican wise men and women — with profound eloquence.

Check out his essay here.

He says the Founders were afraid of people such as Trump. They feared strongmen rising to the top of the political heap. As he says in his NYT essay:

“The founders, knowing history and human nature, took great care to devise a system that would prevent demagogues and those with authoritarian tendencies from rising up in America. That system has been extraordinarily successful. We have never before faced the prospect of a political strongman becoming president.

“Until now.”

I’ve been reading and listening to a lot of commentary in recent weeks about the Republican strategies being devised to deny Trump the party nomination. And as I take it all in I remind myself of things Trump said earlier in this campaign about how he would respond if he’s treated badly at the GOP convention this summer.

He’s suggested, then recanted, and then suggested again that he might launch an independent bid for president if Republicans aren’t nice to him. He wants to be treated “fairly,” he has said.

If I were advising Trump, I’d be examining all these efforts to wrest the nomination from my guy and I would conclude: Hey, these guys flat-out don’t like Trump; they aren’t being nice, fair, even-handed … none of it.

If Trump is true to his word, that he wants fair treatment and would resort to other means to win the White House if he’s mistreated by his party moguls, then my strong hunch is that he might be cooking some plans to strike back at those Republican honchos.

After all, he’s already exhibited a serious mean streak all along the campaign trail so far.

Does anyone really think this fellow is incapable of creating maximum chaos?

And if you do believe he never in a million years would do anything to stick it in the GOP’s eye, check this out.

Then … get back to me.

national news

Most county clerks are going to follow the law

Well, it turns out Texas’s county courthouses aren’t occupied by defiant rebels intent on ignoring state and federal law.

According to the Texas Tribune, most county clerks — and I presume that to mean more than 127 of them — are going to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that legalizes gay marriage across the nation.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/07/10/lawsuits-needed-holdout-counties-gay-marriage/?goal=0_141c96f7df-5c77452cb0-99785833&mc_cid=5c77452cb0&mc_eid=c01508274f

Those who don’t will face lawsuits from couples seeking marriage licenses.

I was intrigued by the story that included statements from way up yonder, in tiny Roberts County, that officials there will issue licenses to same-sex couples when they apply for them.

Randall and Potter clerks said from the outset of the ruling that they would issue the licenses, even though Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton decreed it was all right with him if counties declined to do so.

The Tribune reports: “Hartley County Clerk Melissa Mead said her office won’t issue same-sex marriage licenses until the clock runs out on the 25 days that parties in the Supreme Court case have to ask for a rehearing of the case.”

A handful of the state’s 254 counties are bucking the highest court in the land — not to mention ignoring the oath that county clerks take that require them to uphold federal law.

A handful of clerks in other states have declined to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — and have resigned their public offices in protest. I’m OK with those who quit rather than flout their oath. Those who resign are far more principled, in my view, than those who simply refuse to do their duty based on religious principles. Their oaths don’t allow for that, as I read the oath they all must take.

A friend posted this portion of a New York Times editorial on the subject:

“Some same-sex marriage opponents argue that under state religious-freedom laws, a government employee’s beliefs should be accommodated so long as another official is available to carry out the task. But government employees do not have a constitutionally protected right to pick and choose which members of the public they will serve, no matter their religious beliefs. Not so long ago, of course, government officials invoked religious beliefs to justify all manner of racial segregation and discrimination, including laws banning interracial marriage. The Supreme Court struck down that marriage ban in 1967 in Loving v. Virginia. It is impossible to imagine any county clerk or judge now claiming a right not to marry an interracial couple based on religious beliefs. And yet, that would be analogous to what these public employees are doing in refusing to serve same-sex couples. The Constitution’s protection of religious freedom simply does not include the right to discriminate against others in the public sphere.”

As I see it, there you have it.