Tag Archives: US Supreme Court

‘Ideological balance’ not a SCOTUS issue

March 19, 2017 kanelis2012

Reuters News Agency has declared in a headline that Neil Gorsuch’s selection to the U.S. Supreme Court means the court’s “ideological balance” is at stake.

Excuse me for a moment while I clear my throat.

Cough, cough …

Um, no. It isn’t.

Judge Gorsuch has been tapped by Donald J. Trump to succeed the late Justice Antonin Scalia. As my dear old Dad would say, “It’s six to one, half-dozen to the other.”

Gorsuch is a conservative. So was Scalia. And yet, progressive thinkers are all a-flutter because Gorsuch, they say, according to Reuters, “that he is a pro-business, social conservative insufficiently independent of the president.”

Do they think Scalia would have been any different had he not died before Trump took office? Do they think Gorsuch is going to somehow become so persuasive in his opinions and writings that he is going to bring some progressive court justices to his side of an argument?

Let’s get a grip here.

Scalia was an iconic figure among judicial conservatives. It’s not yet clear whether Gorsuch will attain that kind of status if he gets confirmed to the Supreme Court.

My advice to Senate Democrats and their progressive allies in the judicial community is this: Save your ammunition for the day one of the high court’s liberal justices takes a hike.

Although I agree fully that Trump never should have been given the chance to replace Scalia. That task should have been fulfilled by his presidential predecessor, Barack Obama, who nominated an equally qualified jurist, Merrick Garland, to take his place on the high court. Senate Republicans played bald-faced politics, declaring that Obama didn’t have the right to appoint someone to the court; that task, they argued, belonged to the next president.

That’s utter horse manure. The GOP’s tactic worked. Trump got elected and now he has appointed a judicial conservative to the court — just as he pledged he would do.

As one who stands foursquare behind presidential prerogative on issues such as this, I recognize that elections have consequences.

One “consequence” of the 2016 election is that Trump has chosen a “well-qualified” jurist — in the words of the American Bar Association — to become the next Supreme Court justice. There is no “ideological balance” to discuss with this selection.

What about the next one? And what if it involves the departure of a liberal justice?

Well, that’s a different matter altogether.

legal news

Big week awaits the president

March 19, 2017 kanelis2012

Donald “Smart Person” Trump is going to have a big week.

Part of it might bode well for the president. The rest of it, well, possibly not so well.

* Neil Gorsuch takes the stand this coming week as the Senate Judiciary Committee grills him on why he should take a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gorsuch is Trump’s choice to fill the seat vacated by the sudden death of conservative icon Justice Antonin Scalia — more than a year ago! The seat should have been filled by President Obama, who picked Merrick Garland, but the Republicans who control the Senate stonewalled the president and blocked Garland’s confirmation.

Now we have Gorsuch. He’s a solid jurist. He’s a bit too conservative for my taste, but hey, Trump’s the president, not me. He gets to pick someone for the high court. The American Bar Association has declared Gorsuch to be “well qualified.”

* Then we get to hear from FBI Director James Comey, who’s going to have a thing or three to say about wiretapping and whether Trump has the goods on whether President Obama ordered the bugging of Trump’s offices in New York.

Comey has hinted broadly that Trump has fabricated the assertion that Obama committed a felony, which to my way of thinking is a defamatory accusation. Senators will get to grill Comey heavily on all of that.

It’s ironic in the extreme that Comey would turn on Trump, given the manner in which he torpedoed Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign 11 days prior to Election Day with that letter to Congress announcing he was taking a fresh look at those “damn e-mails” that dogged Hillary’s campaign from its outset. Trump was ecstatic about the disclosure of the letter and just couldn’t say enough positive things about the FBI director.

I wonder what he’s going to say if and/or when Comey debunks this ridiculous notion that President Obama bugged Trump Tower.

Let’s all stay tuned. Get the popcorn ready.

legal news

SCOTUS pick gets major boost from ABA

March 11, 2017 kanelis2012

As a firm believer in presidential prerogative, I feel compelled to say that the American Bar Association likely has given Donald J. Trump’s pick for the U.S. Supreme Court the boost he needs to take his seat.

The ABA has declared that U.S. District Judge Neil Gorsuch is “well qualified” to take his seat on the nation’s highest court.

Does this guarantee Gorsuch’s confirmation by the U.S. Senate? No, of course not. The Senate Judiciary Committee has to recommend his approval and the entire Senate has to vote to confirm the judge.

Gorsuch’s nomination is important for a couple of reasons.

First, he would take the seat vacated by the death one year ago of conservative judicial icon Antonin Scalia. The president told us he would select a conservative to the court if he were elected; Trump did what he pledged to do.

Is he my favorite judge? Would I have selected Gorsuch? No. But I am not the president. Neither is anyone else. That title belongs to Donald Trump.

He is qualified, though, to become a member of the Supreme Court.

Second, a Justice Gorsuch would not change the ideological balance on the court — presuming he follows through on his reputation as a “conservative jurist.” The court’s slim conservative majority remains intact with Gorsuch’s confirmation.

“The ABA’s ringing endorsement is no surprise given Judge Gorsuch’s sterling credentials and his distinguished decade-long record on the Tenth Circuit,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley said. “Former Chairman [Patrick] Leahy and Minority Leader [Chuck] Schumer have called the ABA’s assessment the ‘gold standard’ in evaluating federal judicial nominations. In light of Judge Gorsuch’s impeccable record, it’s hard to imagine any other result from the ABA’s consideration.”

Every reader of this blog knows how much I detest Donald J. Trump. I cannot stand the sound of his voice, nor can I stand to watch him perform the duties of the office for which I continue to believe he is unfit to occupy. High Plains Blogger readers also know that I was enraged at Senate Republicans’ decision to block Barack Obama’s selection of Merrick Garland to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat.

But Donald Trump is the president of the United States. Just as I have argued for decades in favor of presidential prerogative, I also believe he has made a predictable choice to fill the nation’s high court.

Judge Gorsuch also is well-qualified. If the ABA provides such a decision, that’s good enough for me.

Now, as for Senate critics of Gorsuch, my advice would be for them to save their ammo for the fight that is sure to erupt when one of the liberal justices leaves the Supreme Court.

national news, political news

Get ready for Trump’s ‘coming-out’ speech

February 28, 2017 kanelis2012

No, I don’t mean that kind of “coming out.”

However, I do mean that the president of the United States will step onto a significantly larger stage than ever before. The podium will be of, oh, standard size, I guess. He’ll be standing tonight in front of a joint congressional session. The vice president and the speaker of the House of Representatives will sit behind him.

The speaker will declare that “it is my high honor and privilege to introduce the president of the United States.”

Applause will fill the room. Donald J. Trump will begin his speech.

That’s when the pomp and pageantry ends and when we get a look at just how much he’s been able to “unify” the body to which he is speaking, let alone the country.

I don’t know about you but I’m going to look at a few external factors as Trump speaks … assuming, of course, that I can power through the entire event.

The Supreme Court justices will be there. Who among them will sit this one out? When Trump’s immediate predecessor spoke to these joint sessions, a couple of the court’s conservative justices — the late Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — famously were no-shows. One or both of them said they disliked having to sit there while everyone around them were clapping and cheering.

President Obama famously scolded the court for its 2010 ruling enabling corporations to give unlimited amounts of money to political candidates. The justices had to take it. Personally, I thought the president was wrong to do so in that venue and it surely rankled the court majority that decided the infamous Citizens United case.

Who’s going to stay away from Trump’s speech? Will it be, say, one or two of the court’s liberal justices?

Who stands and claps and who sits? This is a fairly normal occurrence. Lawmakers of the president’s party usually clap and cheer at everything that comes out of the president’s mouth; those on the other side don’t.

Republicans didn’t much cheering for Barack Obama during the eight years he spoke to joint sessions. I rather doubt Democrats will, either, when Trump stands before them.

His defense-spending boost will be a big topic. He wants to spend $54 billion more on defense, ostensibly to “rebuild our military.” At what cost? Which domestic programs get the axe? Which Americans will feel the pain? Maintaining military strength usually is a non-partisan/bipartisan issue. Something tells me when the president gets around to that one, we won’t see much cheering from Democrats.

Will the president veer off topic? He’ll have a Teleprompter in front of him. He’ll be reading a prepared text. I have to wonder if Trump is going to be tempted to take off on one of his vaunted campaign-style riffs and rants about, oh, the size of his Electoral College victory, or about the “fake news” he says is being peddled by the “mainstream media.”

I don’t expect to hear the names “Michael Flynn” or “Vladimir Putin” come from the president’s mouth. I don’t expect either to hear him say the word “Russia.” Nor do I expect him to talk about things such as the difficulty he is having assembling his government; key appointees keep dropping out for one reason or another.

But let’s get ready — ladies and gents, boys and girls — for an interesting show this evening, shall we?

Pass the popcorn … and the Pepto.

local news, national news, political news

Wedding plans prove to be, um, breathtaking

February 22, 2017 kanelis2012

I am trying to catch my breath as I write these next few words.

Richard Ware, the high-powered Amarillo banker, is getting married this weekend. That isn’t news all by itself, except perhaps for Ware’s family and closest friends.

His fiancée, though, deserves special attention. Her name is Katherine Harris, whose name is quite familiar to the most avid political junkies.

Harris served as Florida secretary of state in 2000, when that year’s presidential election hung in the balance over the counting of ballots in the Sunshine State. Harris was the chief elections officer in Florida and she finally certified — after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Texas Gov. George W. Bush’s favor — that Bush would win Florida’s electoral votes.

The wedding will occur in Texas. I hear that Mr. and Mrs. Ware will live some of the time in the Lone Star State.

I’m not quite sure what to say about this. I am left to offer only that during her 15 minutes at the center of the political stage, Katherine Harris became one of the more polarizing figures in recent U.S. political history. Suffice to say she made plenty of foes as well as friends as she operated in the middle of a tremendous national political swirl.

I’m still breathless.

International news

Hey … what happened to the Russian hacking story?

February 11, 2017 kanelis2012

Events often overtake other events. News gets shoved aside when events bury them.

Such appears to be the case with the Russian hacking controversy.

Remember that one?

Donald J. Trump got elected president of the United States amid reports/rumors/allegations that Russian government computer geeks hacked into our electoral system in an attempt to aid Trump’s campaign.

The president has dismissed any kind of link. He has disparaged our intelligence agencies, which have concluded that the Russians played a role in hacking into our electoral process.

Isn’t it a big deal to have a foreign power — Russia, no less! — involved in such activity?

Well, it turns out that Trump has a way of changing the subject: executive order banning travel into the country from several Muslim-majority nations; strange confirmations of Cabinet officials; questions about his daughter’s line of clothing; his continual tweets criticizing federal judges; a Supreme Court nominee telling senators the president’s tweets are “disheartening” and “demoralizing.”

All the while, the Russian hacking story has been tossed aside. It’s been pushed to the back of the bottom shelf, way behind the other stuff.

We still need some definitive answers about the Russians supposedly did and how they might have affected the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

national news

President gets real-time lesson on government limits

February 10, 2017 kanelis2012

Donald Trump had zero government experience when he became president of the United States.

He seemed to think he could step into the presidency, assume the role of CEO and everyone would do his bidding.

He is now finding out that it doesn’t work quite that way. He is learning in real time that the founders established a government that limits presidential power. They created a government that allows two other branches to rein in an executive branch that could overstep its authority.

Congress is controlled by men and women who belong to the same political party as the president. Thus, the legislative branch might roll over. This leaves the final check to the judicial branch, which is flexing its muscles in this struggle over Trump’s executive order that restricts travel to the United States from those who hail from seven Muslim-majority nations.

The struggle now seems headed to the Supreme Court. The nation’s highest court likely will get to decide whether to uphold two lower-court rulings that have stalled the execution of Trump’s executive order.

If the Supremes uphold the earlier rulings — either with an actual ruling or a tie vote created by the unfilled vacancy — then the president will have to consider another way to “make America safe again.”

Perhaps the next tactic he employs will be considered more carefully and executed with more thought than the cluster-fudge he rolled out with this refugee ban.

Will any of this humble the president? Will it give him pause to consider his next action? Probably not, but it still gives me some comfort to know that the founders knew how to create a government that works.

And just for the record, if the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor and overrules the lower courts, then I’ll consider that — as well — to be a demonstration of a functioning federal government.

However, my concern were that to occur would be that it would embolden a president to misread the limitations on power that the founders wrote into the framework that built this nation.

International news, legal news, national news

Mammoth court fight awaits Trump

February 10, 2017 kanelis2012

Here is where we stand regarding that ill-considered ban on refugees.

It appears headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to a unanimous ruling this afternoon by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a lower court’s suspension of Donald Trump’s executive order banning refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

Clear as mud, yes?

The 9th Court ruled 3-0 to uphold the suspension ordered by U.S. District Judge James Robart, whom Trump called a “so-called judge” in criticizing his decision.

What about the politics of the court? Judge Robart is a George W. Bush appointee; the three appellate court judges were picked by Presidents Carter, Bush 43 and Obama. It looks like a bipartisan rejection to me.

Now the highest court stands ready to ponder this controversial executive order. It has a vacancy, meaning that eight justices are on the job. Four conservatives and four liberals. What happens if the Supremes issue a tie vote? The 9th Court ruling stands. Trump’s executive order is negated.

The 9th Court ruling takes aim at the provision in the order that bars people with visas from re-entering the United States, which the judges ruled is unconstitutional.

According to The Associated Press: “The appeals panel said the government presented no evidence to explain the urgent need for the executive order to take effect immediately. The judges noted compelling public interests on both sides.

“‘On the one hand, the public has a powerful interest in national security and in the ability of an elected president to enact policies. And on the other, the public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.'”

Trump, of course, responded with a tweet. “SEE YOU IN COURT,” the president said via Twitter.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, whose state has sued the president over his executive order, responded: “Mr. President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you.”

The fight has just begun.

legal news

Founders got it right, as Trump is demonstrating

February 8, 2017 kanelis2012

Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison … wherever they are, must be enjoying what they are witnessing in the country they helped create.

They are possibly witnessing a supreme test of checks and balances as they intended for them to be used.

Donald J. Trump, the nation’s 45th president, is setting up a yuuuge fight with the federal judiciary. That would pit two of the three co-equal branches of government against each other.

Trump issued an executive order that bans refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries. He cited national security as his reason. He seemingly wants to ban Muslims from entering the country and is using “extreme vetting” procedures to find the bad guys among the refugees who are fleeing their native lands for the Land of Opportunity and Freedom.

A federal judge has ruled that the executive order is discriminatory on its face. A federal appeals court is considering whether to uphold the ban or side with the judge.

Trump, meanwhile, is embarking on a social media campaign to blast the judge who issued the order staying the president’s order, thus possibly enraging other federal judges — namely the eight individuals who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court who might be asked to issue the final ruling on the president’s order.

Thus, a showdown may be born.

The founders established an “independent judiciary” for the best reason possible: to protect federal judges from political coercion. They serve as judges for life. They are supposed to interpret the U.S. Constitution without pressure or coercion from politicians.

But wait! Trump is seeking to apply that very pressure by badgering the judges. He called the federal jurist who struck down the ban a “so-called judge”; he said the nation should “blame” him and the federal court system if a bad guy sneaks into the nation.

Trump is using Twitter to make his specious case against the federal judiciary.

All the while, the founders are looking down while patting each other on the back. “Yep,” they might say to each other, “this is precisely what we had in mind.”

Commentary on politics, current events and life experience