Tag Archives: SCOTUS

DC riot

Conflict of interest?

Imagine for a moment a conversation that might have occurred in the home of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Virginia.

Justice Thomas: Hi, Ginni. How did your day go?

Ginni Thomas: Oh, fine, Clarence. I attended a Donald Trump rally today on the Ellipse. I left early before the crap hit the fan.

CT: Oh, really? What happened?

GT: The president told the crowd to “fight like hell” to “take back the government.” The crowd got excited and stormed the Capitol Building. It did all kinds of damage.

CT: Oh, yeah. I heard about that. I also heard something about the president seeking to claim he had “executive privilege,” and that it’s OK for him to do such a thing because, after all, he’s the president.

GT: You bet he does! Furthermore, I believe the privilege claim extends beyond the time he’s in office. I am sure you agree.

CT: Absolutely, I agree, honey. Anything you say is OK with me.

GT: Oh, and how would you vote if the issue were to come before the court? Would you stand with me … and with the president?

CT: Of course I would! No problem there.

***

Therein might lie a problem for Justice Thomas, who eventually did cast the lone vote upholding Donald Trump’s specious claim of executive privilege in his failed fight to prevent the National Archives from releasing his presidential papers to the 1/6 House committee that demanded them.

Do I know such a conversation took place in the Thomas home? Absolutely not! However, it doesn’t stretch anything beyond all reasonable doubt that something akin to that chat might have occurred.

And to think that Justice Thomas recently lamented that the Supreme Court is becoming “too political.” Yeah, no kiddin’.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

 

national news

Conflict of interest? Hmm?

Good, ever-lovin’ grief. What in the world does one make of this acknowledgement from the wife of a sitting associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, that she attended a Donald Trump rally on 1/6 before rally attendees decided to storm Capitol Hill in that insane insurrection against the federal government?

I believe we have a serious breach of ethics steeped in conflict of interest.

The admission comes from Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas. Mrs. Thomas stood in the crowd on the Ellipse that day prior to The Donald’s speech. She said she left because she got cold. Then all hell broke loose.

Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, says she went to January 6 rally before Capitol assault – CBS News

Thomas’s political activism is well-known. She is a far-right believer in causes. She is an ardent political supporter of The Donald.

She also is married to one of the nine justices who voted 8-1 to disallow The Donald’s claim of executive privilege in an effort to keep him from releasing documents to the House committee examining the 1/6 riot; the document release was ordered by the National Archives.

Who cast the dissenting vote? None other than Justice Thomas?

I am putting together 2 plus 2 and I keep coming with up 4. Which is my way of saying that Ginni Thomas’s involvement with the 1/6 mob must have something to do with the way her husband came down on a key judicial decision.

This dot-connection stinks. It wreaks.

If I were speaker of the House of Representatives, I likely would be considering articles of impeachment against Justice Thomas. Not that they would result in his being removed from the nation’s highest court.

Too many Republican members of Congress have lost their spine.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Judge Jackson: get set for grilling

The mood of the times requires — I am sorry to admit — that even highly qualified presidential nominees are going to endure the third, fourth or fifth degrees from the individuals who will pass judgment on whether they should assume the post for which the president has nominated them.

Thus, Ketanji Brown Jackson needs to prepare herself for the grilling of her life as she sits before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will determine whether to move her nomination to the full Senate for confirmation.

Judge Jackson will sit eventually on the U.S. Supreme Court once she goes through the inquisition that awaits her. As near as I can tell, she is supremely qualified to succeed Justice Stephen Breyer, who is retiring when the current SCOTUS term ends. However, that will not stop Republican senators from looking for any excuse to vote “no” on this individual’s nomination. Her stellar legal career be damned! Same for her judicial temperament. Never mind that her knowledge of the law likely eclipses every single senator — Democrat and Republican — who will run her through her paces.

Texas’s two senators, Republicans John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, are likely negative votes regardless of anything Judge Jackson will tell the committee. I expect the Cruz Missile to vote “no”; he couldn’t ever find it within that organ he calls a heart to approve a sterling nominee put forward by a Democratic president. I expected more from Cornyn, but his public comments suggest to me that he leans “no” without hearing a word from Judge Jackson.

I am not going to harp on the obvious knowledge of most Americans that Judge Jackson is an African American woman; President Biden pledged to appoint someone such as Judge Jackson when he ran for the office in 2020.

Her sparkling legal background makes her a stellar nominee, regardless of the president pledged.

It won’t be a smooth ride to the nation’s highest judicial bench … but damn, she needs to get there.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Will they be ‘respectful’?

US. Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz will have plenty of explaining to do if they follow their partisan instincts and vote against the historic nomination of Ketanji Brown Jackson to join the U.S. Supreme Court.

These two are Texas’s senators on Capitol Hill. They both opposed Judge Jackson’s previous appointment to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. They both pledge to give President Biden’s pick for the high court respect, while ensuring a vigorous vetting of her credentials to become the sixth woman and the first Black woman ever to join to the nation’s highest court.

President Biden promised to find a jurist with unassailable legal credentials. By most accounts, he hit a home run with Judge Jackson’s nomination. He also promised to select a Black woman if he got the chance to nominate someone to the court; he got that chance when Justice Stephen Breyer announced he would retire this summer at the end of the court’s term.

If senators are going to judge a nominee on her credentials, on her legal scholarship, on her temperament then Judge Jackson should sail through. That won’t be senators’ measuring stick. They’re going to look for reasons to oppose someone — if we’re truthful — simply because she was selected by a president of the opposing party.

“Ultimately, I will be looking to see whether Judge Jackson will uphold the rule of law and call balls and strikes, or if she will legislate from the bench in pursuit of a specific agenda,” Cornyn said. Well … isn’t that special? The senior U.S. senator from Texas, I presume, would have us believe that judges selected by Republican presidents have no “specific agenda.”

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/25/ted-cruz-john-cornyn-ketanji-brown-jackson/

I guess I need to remind the senator of what Donald Trump promised when he selected Justice Amy Coney Barrett to join the court after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in 2020. Trump promised to select someone who would overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion. Isn’t that finding a jurist with a specific agenda? Yes! It most certainly is such a thing!

I also should add that Donald Trump insisted on justices who would “legislate from the bench.” Are you paying attention, Sen. Cruz?

Judge Jackson is a first-rate nominee to join the Supreme Court. Sens. Cornyn and Cruz must be held to their pledges to give her a respectful confirmation hearing.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Waiting for phony SCOTUS objections

Let the debate begin now that President Biden has presented us with a historic selection for the U.S. Supreme Court. What will intrigue me for certain are the phony objections that U.S. senators are going to present as they argue against the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to become the latest justice on the nation’s highest court.

The trumped-up objections will come from Republicans in the Senate. They will cling to ridiculous notions that Joe Biden engaged in an “affirmative action” hire in selecting Judge Jackson. Why? Because as a presidential candidate in 2020, Joe Biden promised to nominate a Black woman to the court if he got the chance. Justice Stephen Breyer delivered that chance to President Biden when he declared his intention to retire from the court at the end of its current term.

The president vowed to find a stellar jurist. He found her in the person of Ketanji Brown Jackson. There should be no debate over her qualifications.

I want to make the point that I have sought to make for many years when these nominations come forward. Elections have consequences. I have said so when Republican presidents have made these nominations, as well as when Democrats do so. President Biden’s election in 2020 means that he gets the chance to deliver on his constitutional duty, which he has done.

Judge Jackson by all accounts is a first-rate, top-drawer, stellar jurist. She has a well-rounded background in the law, serving as a public defender as well as a prosecutor.

I am not going to listen to those who gripe about President Biden’s decision to look exclusively for a Black woman to fill this important lifetime post. Ronald Reagan made a similar pledge in in 1980, as did Donald Trump in 2020. They both delivered on their pledges and Republicans said not a single thing to object to their commitments.

Whatever phony excuse they come up with now should be greeted with all the derision they deserve.

Ketanji Brown Jackson deserves to take her seat on the nation’s highest court … period.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Judge Jackson must become Justice Jackson

Prediction time, if you’ll indulge me for a moment or two. Ketanji Brown Jackson is going to get a superior rating from the American Bar Association; her record as a lawyer and a jurist will be pored over by the Senate; and some Republican soreheads in the Senate are going to concoct some phony reasons for opposing confirming her for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Biden made history today by nominating Judge Jackson to fill the seat held by Justice Stephen Breyer, who is retiring at the end of the court’s current term. Biden promised during the 2020 presidential campaign to look for an African American woman to nominate for the high court and today he delivered.

He found a first-rate jurist in Judge Jackson, who currently serves on the D.C. Court of Appeals. She once clerked for Justice Breyer. She had a stellar career in private practice. Moreover, she once served as a public defender, coming to the defense of those who couldn’t afford to pay for legal counsel.

President Biden took specific note of Jackson’s temperament, her outlook on the law and her life experience as the daughter of two educators — one of whom (her father) eventually earning a law degree. Her brothers have served in law enforcement, and she is married to a prominent physician.

She got a law degree from Harvard and possesses a sparkling legal mind.

Look for the pretexts to oppose to come forth. They will come from Senate Republicans who will contend that speciously that they dislike the way Joe Biden narrowed his search to find a competent, front-rank lawyer among the many African American women who fit that bill.

One prominent Senate Republican, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina — who lobbied hard for a woman from his home state, Judge Michelle Childs — has stated that the “far left won” with the president’s choice of Judge Jackson. I do hope Sen. Graham will put his hurt feelings aside and look objectively and fairly at Judge Jackson’s background and legal temperament before deciding how he intends to vote.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin promises a swift confirmation process. He wants the committee to make its recommendation no later than Easter. Good!

It is time for the Senate to get busy … and confirm this stellar jurist to the U.S. Supreme Court.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Oh … now for the SCOTUS pick

2 Comments

What? You mean there’s another story brewing far from the battlefield in Ukraine? Oh, yeah! We’ve got this U.S. Supreme Court matter to resolve, which is what President Biden is about to do by naming the first black woman to the nation’s highest court.

Judge Ketanji Brown-Jackson is about to be nominated by Biden to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer. This goes to show that President Biden is able to, shall we say, “compartmentalize” his thought processes. He can levy punishing economic sanctions on Russia for invading Ukraine and in his next move interview qualified candidates for the Supreme Court and then select one of them for the lifetime appointment.

Biden reportedly looked at three finalists for the job. They all are first-rate jurists. Judge Ketanji Brown-Jackson once clerked for Justice Breyer and she sits on the D.C. Circuit Court in the seat once held by Attorney General Merrick Garland.

She has a varied legal background, serving as a public defender and a prosecutor. I like the public defender aspect of her career; it gives her a unique perspective that other justices lack when they ponder criminal appeals that come to the highest court in America.

President Biden hopes his nominee wins some Republican support in the Senate. I believe the judge will be confirmed with a bipartisan vote. She has been confirmed already twice for lower-court appointments.

The president vowed to select an African American woman to the court. He kept his pledge. What’s more, he said the nominee would be highly qualified. He kept that pledge, too.

Judge Jackson-Brown’s confirmation won’t change the ideological balance on the court; it will remain a 6-to-3 conservative majority panel. However, the next Supreme Court official photo will look different, with four women sitting with their five male colleagues on a court that didn’t welcome its first female member until 1981.

Let’s not forget as well that Ronald Reagan made a similar pledge while running for the presidency in 1980 to select a woman to the court.

Let the confirmation process move forward with all deliberate speed.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

national news

Cruz embarrasses me

(Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)

Ted Cruz just continues to pi**me off. I mean, the guy just cannot say a single, solitary sentence without sticking both of his boots squarely into his pie hole.

The junior U.S. senator from Texas, a Republican (naturally), said that President Biden’s decision to look only for a black woman to nominate for the Supreme Court “insults” other black Americans and also insults the senator.

He just cannot fathom that Biden wants to put someone on the court who embodies a greater swath of the American public. So he has chosen to look for an African American woman to fill that slot.

Cruz’s response seems to presume that Biden won’t find a qualified candidate to sit on the nation’s highest court.

I am wondering, as are others of my ilk: Why didn’t Cruz feel “insulted” when Donald Trump made the same pledge after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. Didn’t the then-president say he would look for a woman to replace the iconic liberal justice?

Give me a break … Ted! Let the process play out and let the president make his decision. I am one of the senator’s constituents who wishes the junior GOP loudmouth would pipe down and stop pre-judging these matters.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Here come the epithets

President Biden’s pledge to nominate a black woman to become the next Supreme Court associate justice has produced a highly predictable, and thoroughly reprehensible, round of criticism from those who suggest that Biden is implementing an “affirmative action” policy to fill this key judicial slot.

It’s all pure crap.

Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring soon from the court. President Biden has pledged to find a candidate with impeccable credentials, high ethical standards, legal brilliance and a record of sterling, stellar achievement.

That the individual he selects is an African American woman should be of little consequence with regard to the qualifications required of the next Supreme Court justice.

You can count me as one American patriot who believes the president will have no difficulty finding a supremely qualified candidate among the pool of individuals from whom he will choose.

As for the critics who will question whether the next SCOTUS nominee is smart enough or has the required experience, I also am certain they will be revealed as possessing a racial bias that has no place in determining the fitness of the person to be considered.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

legal news

Waiting for return of confirmation comity

There once was a time when U.S. Supreme Court nominees sailed blissfully through the confirmation process, with senators giving presidents all the latitude in the world to select the person of their choice. They asked some tough questions, occasionally, but were respectful and a bit deferential to presidential prerogative.

Not … any … longer.

President Biden is going to select a black woman to succeed Stephen Breyer on the court once Breyer retires at the end of the current court term. The president can expect a donnybrook. He might be able to find the most brilliant legal mind this side of the Magna Carta, but that person won’t be confirmed without shedding a good bit of blood as she takes incoming rounds from the Republican obstruction brigade in the Senate.

When did it come to this? I guess you could trace it to 1987, when President Reagan nominated Robert Bork to the SCOTUS. Bork was known to be a strict constitutional constructionist. He was a brilliant legal scholar, but he had some seriously offensive views about the role of women and racial minorities. His nomination went down in flames.

Then came the 1991 nomination of Clarence Thomas, whom President George H.W. Bush called the most brilliant legal mind in America. He sought to succeed the late Thurgood Marshall. Then came allegations of sexual harassment and the testimony of Anita Hill. The debate was ferocious. The Senate confirmed Thomas, but it was a narrow mostly partisan vote.

I am thinking at this moment of a nominee put forth by President Eisenhower in 1953. Earl Warren was governor of California when Ike asked him to join the court. He had never served as a judge. I wonder now how an Earl Warren nomination would fare in today’s climate. Would senators question his qualifications? Would they hold him to the same sort of careful examination that they appear ready to do to whomever Joe Biden presents? If the answer is yes, would Gov. Warren hold up?

For the record, I am glad Earl Warren served as chief justice, given that the court on his watch approved some amazing landmark rulings; e.g., Brown v. Board of Education.

I want President Biden’s first high court nominee to be judged carefully but fairly by senators. I am concerned they will respond with red herrings, specious arguments and phony concerns.

I remain committed, by the way, to presidential prerogative in these cases. Elections, as they say, do have consequences. I have been faithful to that truism with respect to whomever is in office.

So, let the process move forward. I hope for a semblance of judicial comity as the Senate ponders this most important selection.

johnkanelis_92@hotmail.com

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience