Tag Archives: SCOTUS

national news

Trump: luckiest pol … ever!

1 Comment

Donald J. Trump is vying for the unofficial title of luckiest politician of all time.

Ponder this for a moment. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in early 2016 and President Obama sought to nominate Merrick Garland to the SCOTUS vacancy. The Senate’s premier obstructionist, GOP leader Mitch McConnell, intervened, saying that Obama didn’t have the right to nominate anyone in an election year. McConnell blocked Garland’s nomination hoping that Trump would win in 2016. Trump won in what will go down as the greatest political fluke in US history.

Then the new POTUS named three justices to the court.

Together, along with three other right-wing justices, they have determined that POTJSes have immunity against prosecution for crimes committed while performing their official duties. Trump already has been convicted of 34 felony counts, but that doesn’t stop him from running again.

Trial judges down the line are now hamstrung by the high court’s immunity ruling, possibly enabling Trump to run out the clock and hope — and man, this pains me to write this — that he wins the 2024 election … which would doom any chance of any conviction on any of the remaining trials.

That the presumptive GOP nominee is even in a position to win the next election baffles me beyond all measure. It is stunning in the extreme. This guy is without question the most immoral reprobate ever to seek high political office.

Yet there he is, riding this god-awful wave of good luck possibly right back into the White House, the one place on Earth where he never should be seen again.

Go … figure!

legal news

SCOTUS trashes another established notion

1 Comment

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has laid waste to another established legal tenet, let us look briefly at what might lie ahead.

The court, ruling 6 to 3, has decided that presidents do have presumed immunity from prosecution if they commit wrongdoing while sitting in the office. The court let stand the notion that a president can be prosecuted for acts he committed after he leaves office.

We all thought that “no one is above the law.” Well … that’s not quite true. It means, in this matter specifically, that Donald Trump was within legal authority to provoke the Jan. 6 onslaught on the Capitol and then do nothing to stop it while mobsters assaulted the cops, crashed through windows, defecated on the floor of our Capitol and threatened to execute the VP if he didn’t obey Trump’s command to overturn the result of the 2020 election … which Trump lost to Joe Biden!

Does this mean, therefore, that Joe Biden could send a special forces sniper team to assassinate his opponents before he leaves office? Of. course not … except that the court ruled that illegal acts might be protected.

When I served in the US Army long ago, I was told that we didn’t have to obey unlawful orders. We were instructed to resist them. Vice President Mike Pence received what to my mind was an unlawful order from Trump to “do the right thing” by stopping the certification of the 2020 election result. Pence has said all along he didn’t have the authority to act.

He followed the law and the US Constitution. Trump should be tried for issuing that order. SCOTUS, again in my view, got this ruling wrong.

legal news

No one is above the law? Pfffttt!

1 Comment

If you thought for a nanosecond — as I did — that “no one is above the law,” then what we have received today from the U.S. Supreme Court is a decision that dispels such foolishness.

The court, ruling 6 to 3, has decided that Donald J. Trump is granted “presumptive immunity” from prosecution for acts committed while he was still in office. That includes pressuring Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

The six votes all came from Republican-appointed justices; the three dissenting justices all were selected by Democratic presidents. Who knew … right?

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. According to The Hill: Roberts wrote that whenever the president and vice president are discussing official responsibilities, they are engaging in official conduct — and, presiding over the certification of the 2020 presidential election results is a constitutional and statutory duty of the vice president.

“The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct,” Roberts wrote.

The indictments of Trump presumed what Attorney General Merrick Garland has preached, that “no one is above the law.” Not true, according to the SCOTUS. The court’s logic applies even to discussion that involve knowingly conspiring to break the law.

SCOTUS did kick some of the indictments back to a lower court. More delay is coming up. The case involving the Jan. 6 assault on the government likely won’t go to trial until after the election.

Then, if — God forbid! — Trump wins, well … you know how that ends.

medical news

Pro-birth … not pro-life

2 Comments

I am on the verge of abandoning the long-held term used to identify those who oppose a woman’s reproductive rights.

They call themselves “pro-life.” The reality is that they instead are “pro-birth,”

Why the change? It stems from the draconian measures enacted to restrict abortion in many states, including Texas. Here, legislators approved a ban on any abortion when a woman has been pregnant for six weeks or longer.

It makes no exception for the health of the unborn babies. Consider what happened to a Dallas woman who had to go out of state to obtain an abortion because one of the twins she was carrying had no chance of survival. She obtained the abortion.

Legislators are requiring women to give birth to children even when that act would jeopardize the health of the child and possibly destroy a woman’s ability to give birth in the future.

That is not a pro-life position. It promotes birth …. and it is a lie!

Should the 2024 election turn on this issue? Damn straight it should!

The Republican nominee in waiting has bragged about how he “single-handedly” deprived women of their right to govern their own bodies. The Democratic nominee, President Joe Biden, cannot let his opponent get away with that idiotic boast.

legal news

What happened to SCOTUS?

For as long as I have been covering and commenting on our court system, I have followed a few basic tenets of what I consider to be fair and impartial justice.

One of them is simple and straightforward. It states that judges must always be fair, impartial and objective when interpreting the law. They cannot possibly accept gifts from litigants or potential litigants. Period. End of story.

What in the hell, then, has become of that tenet? US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas finally has owned up to the revelation that over the years, he has accepted more than $4 million in travel and other assorted gifts from wealthy contributors. One of notably is Texas gazillionaire Harlan Crow, who has given Clarence and Virginia Thomas cruise trips, first-class jetliner rides, rooms at posh hotels and Lord knows what else.

Thomas only recently reported it. He’s not required to do so under SCOTUS rules. The nation’s highest court is the single judicial institution that does not police itself … but it damn sure keeps a close eye on the conduct of other federal judges serving on lower courts.

Thomas, appointed to the high court in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush, has assumed the unofficial title of chief grifter on the nation’s federal judiciary.

This is simply beyond belief. Oh, and get a load of this: Justice Thomas once told a TV documentary filmmaker that he prefers stay at Walmart parking lots in his recreational vehicle because that’s how “normal” people choose to relax.

It’s not clear when this scandal will expire. It seems we keep hearing of new gifts being lavished on the Thomases from their wealthy friends, some of whom actually have legal matters pending on the highest court in the land.

I am left only to lament the presence on this court of a justice who doesn’t grasp the gravity of his acceptance of these gifts … and to call on him once again to resign!

legal news

Alito’s wife is the boss?

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has acknowledged that he flies an upside-down Old Glory at his home. It’s an international symbol of distress.

Under normal circumstances, I wouldn’t mind one little bit about the flag. However, and this is important: Alito sits on the nation’s highest court that might have to decide whether POTUS No. 45 is immune from prosecution or whether he broke the law by pilfering classified documents away from the White House.

What we have here is a perception problem.

Alito said he and his wife co-own the house they share and that he cannot dictate to her whether she can fly the flag in that manner. He said he told her to take it down, but she refused. Really?

Why in the name of good husbandship doesn’t he just take the damn thing down himself? I guess the rules in the Alito household prohibit such ballsy behavior.

To be fair, I have to hand it to Justice Alito at least for recognizing there could be a perception problem, given that he asked his wife to remove the flag. What astounds me to no end, though, is why he didn’t act on it in a more, um forceful manner.

As for Mrs. Alito, she is making a political statement that has a direct impact on how her husband might be asked to do his job.

Chief Justice John Roberts has refused to meet with congressional Democrats to discuss the matter. Alito says he won’t recuse himself from any future action involving POTUS No. 45.

And as a friend of mine said in a social media meme earlier today, it’s more than a little weird that a man who cannot control what his wife does in his house feels compelled to dictate to millions of women how they must handle reproductive rights.

We live in a bizarre political environment.

legal news

SCOTUS justice blames wife for the flag

3 Comments

Associate US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has fallen back on the “blame my wife” defense in a case involving an upside-down flag flying at his home.

Alito has refused to recuse himself from any cases involving the former POTUS’s legal troubles involving his loyalty to the Constitution and to the nation.

He has been flying an upside-down flag at his home. The upside-down flag, of course, is the international symbol of a nation in distress.

According to The Hill: “I had nothing whatsoever to do with the flying of that flag. I was not even aware of the upside-down flag until it was called to my attention. As soon as I saw it, I asked my wife to take it down, but for several days, she refused,” Alito wrote, noting that they own their home “jointly” and that she has a “legal right to use the property as she sees fit.” 

Alito is now perceived as a justice who cannot remain impartial regarding cases involving the ex-POTUS. As they about perception, it’s the same thing as reality.

Alito rejects calls to recuse himself from Jan. 6 cases over upside-down flag issue (thehill.com)

The man shouldn’t be deciding these cases. Justice Alito has laid his bias out there for the whole world to see.

national news, political news

Listen to my friend, Mr. POTUS

2 Comments

I have a friend with whom I share an interest in politics and public policy. She is well-read and is a student of the process that delivers policy decisions to us … for better or worse.

She believes President Biden is trailing the presumptive GOP presidential nominee because he has become tone-deaf to the current reality. Which is that not all Americans are feeling as good about the economy as the president thinks they are.

Thus, my friend surmises, he should stop crowing about the economy and appeal directly to the fear that many of us have about the possibility that the former Sexual Assailant in Chief just might win the presidency once again.

Biden needs to talk directly and incessantly about the threat to our democratic system that the wannabe dictator poses to our system.

Americans are historically proud of the liberty we enjoy. The GOP nominee-to-be is stated categorically that he intends to impose a dictatorship “for one day only” if he becomes POTUS. One day? Really? Do you think the former Liar in Chief will reinstate all our democratic norms?

He has boasted about his placing three justices on the Supreme Court, and their hand in revoking women’s right to terminate pregnancies. Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 SCOTUS decision is now history. Biden vows to restore it if he’s re-elected. His opponent promises to tighten the screws women’s reproductive rights.

Democratic political guru James Carville, no slouch on these matters, said recently that the Republican message has gained traction. The GOP nominee’s hush money trial isn’t making a dent in the lead Carville says he enjoys. Democrats are blowing it, Carville declared. Remember, this is the guy who coined the phrase in 1992 that “It’s the economy, stupid.” It worked for Bill Clinton.

Well, my friend is on board with the likes of Carville. She, too, wants Biden to crystallize his message, harden it to drive home the point that our democracy is in dire peril if Americans make the wrong choice at the ballot box this fall.

Listen to these people, Mr. President! They’re all pulling for you!

legal news, national news

Why delay, SCOTUS?

Many details soar over my occasionally pointed head, such as the apparent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether the 45th POTUS deserves presidential immunity.

The high court heard oral arguments this week from the ex-POTUS’s legal team and the legal eagles assembled by special counsel Jack Smith. At stake is the pending trial on the Jan. 6 assault on the government that took place at the former Liar in Chief’s urging.

I heard reports yesterday that justices appear inclined to deny the ex-POTUS’s claim of immunity from prosecution, but are going to drag their feet in issuing their decision.

Why wait? Why delay this matter any longer than necessary? Why not issue a ruling and if it’s the way media have speculated, then let’s get on with the trial post haste?

SCOTUS can move quickly on these matters. Look at what they did in 2000 when given the case involving the recount of Florida ballots in that year’s presidential election. They heard oral arguments and then — boom! — stopped the recount with Texas Gov. George W. Bush ahead in Florida by 527 votes, giving him the state’s electoral votes … and thus, the presidency over Vice President Al Gore.

It was done in a matter of days.

The current SCOTUS is equally capable of delivering a decision of monumental importance.

Uncategorized

Civility isn’t dead after all!

For the past few years I have been presuming that collegiality and civility have died a slow, painful death, that they have been replaced by rancor and hatred for those with opposing points of view.

Then I read an editorial in the Dallas Morning News that told me to hold on, that it ain’t so.

The editorial talks about two justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett and Sonia Sotomayor, who spoke to the National Governors Association. They talked about how the justices can differ, but they do not see each other as enemies.

The editorial states, in part: Civility and compromise are values in our democracy that, as of late, are buried in bitter arguments or smothered in misinformation.

Barrett is a deeply conservative member of the high court; Sotomayor is an equally fervent progressive jurist. The editorial notes: “When we disagree, our pens are sharp. But on a personal level, we never translate that into our relationships with one another,” Sotomayor told the crowd at one event.

The DMN editorial takes particular note of the extraordinary friendship forged long ago by two justices, the late Antonin Scalia and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their friendship became a talking point around the country as to how people with widely divergent points of view can retain personal affection.

The editorial is posted here: Two Supreme Court justices are reminding us how to act like adults (dallasnews.com)

Barrett said: “We don’t speak in a hot way at our conferences,” Barrett said. “We don’t raise our voices no matter how hot-button the case is.”

I am heartened to hear the words of two jurists who have told the world what goes on behind closed doors at the nation’s highest court. May their secret be repeated in other governmental chambers — such as the Congress — where the principals do raise their voices and speak ill of each other.