Tag Archives: SCOTUS

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

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

legal news

Now, for the inquisition

Ketanji Brown Jackson promised to “uphold and defend the Constitution” if she is confirmed to a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, that’s what they all say.

In her case, I believe her. I believe that President Biden’s nominee to replace the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer is a woman of her word. She oozes integrity and decorum.

However, none of this is likely to curb the criticism of her record that is sure to come from Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans who will look for any reason — even made-up reasons — to oppose her confirmation to the nation’s highest court.

Judge Jackson, who has appeared before the Senate panel already while being confirmed to lower court posts, is a history-making jurist. She is the first African American woman ever nominated to the high court; Biden pledged to find a highly qualified Black woman to sit on the court. He delivered big time!

I believe she will be confirmed. It will be a bloodbath, more than likely. Then again, that’s become the norm for virtually every Supreme Court nominee since the early 2000s.

Yes, Judge Jackson will uphold and defend the Constitution. She knows the lines she cannot cross.

The judge will make a stellar SCOTUS justice.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

‘Well-qualified,’ says ABA

The American Bar Association has given its official blessing to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s appointment to take her seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ABA calls the judge “well-qualified” to sit on the nation’s highest court and interpret the U.S. Constitution’s role in pending cases.

Now, is that it? Does that end the debate that is sure to erupt when Judge Jackson starts answering questions from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, which begins confirmation hearings on Monday?

Hah! Not even close!

To be fair, I should point out that all three of Donald Trump’s nominees to the court received well-qualified ratings from the ABA. That didn’t stop the fierce debate that accompanied their eventual confirmations.

American Bar Assoc Says Judge Jackson ‘Well Qualified’ to Serve on SCOTUS (msn.com)

President Biden’s selection of Ketanji Brown Jackson brings a historic significance that the three previous picks lacked. Judge Jackson is the first African American woman to be nominated. Joe Biden pledged during the 2020 presidential campaign to find a highly qualified Black woman to serve … and he delivered on that pledge in a big way by nominating Judge Jackson.

Her sparkling credentials and the ABA’s highest blessing won’t stop Republican senators from looking for reasons to oppose her. Josh Hawley of Missouri, for instance, castigated her for going soft on child molesters. Hawley, though, needs to re-read the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which declares that all criminal defendants are entitled to legal counsel; Jackson served as a public defender for a time before becoming a judge, thus, she was doing what the Constitution requires.

I look forward to the Senate confirmation hearing and am hopeful — although I know it’s a stretch — that a significant number of Senate Republicans will realize that she deserves to join the rest of the Supreme Court.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Inquisition begins

Here it comes. U.S. Senate Republicans bent on derailing Judge Ketanji Jackson Brown’s nomination to join the U.S. Supreme Court have begun digging up issues they hope will send President Biden’s historic selection into the ditch.

It won’t happen. Still, beginning next week we’ll get to listen to GOP critics of the judge look for all they’re worth on something, anything that will gum up the works.

Sen. Josh Hawley, the Missouri lawmaker who infamously gave the closed-fist salute to the traitors gathering to storm the Capitol Building on 1/6, has tossed out the first rhetorical grenade. He accuses Judge Jackson of giving child molesters a free pass during her time as a federal public defender.

Interesting, yes? I believe it is. So, I pulled out my pocket version of the U.S. Constitution that sits on my man-cave desk at home and turned to the Sixth Amendment. It says, in part: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial … and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” There are some other things in the middle of that amendment, but I wanted to share the relevant portion of it with you here.

My point is that Judge Jackson was, um, following the law and was obedient to the U.S. Constitution by providing “the Assistance of Counsel” for defendants who couldn’t afford to hire a high-priced lawyer.

This is how the opposition is going to attack Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Foes of hers and of the president will look for segments of her stellar legal background and will twist it beyond anything recognizable under the law.

Joe Biden promised he would find a qualified jurist to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer, who is retiring at the end of the court’s term. The president pledged to nominate the first African American woman to the bench. He succeeded on both counts. Judge Jackson is eminently qualified and, oh yes, she happens to be Black.

Neither truth about this nominee is going to deter the critics from digging up nonsense in their opposition to her nomination. Josh Hawley has paved a fool’s trail for the rest of the GOP critics to follow.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com