Archive for the Supreme Court Category

Third Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 15, 2018)

Posted in Noble Prize in Jurisprudence, Supreme Court on October 15, 2018 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “A prize dedicated to acknowledging and celebrating the work of someone who or some organization that really knows something about jurisprudence and the impact of courts, judges, lawyers and police on the lives and livelihood of ordinary citizens.  Someone who lives the conviction that men and women should establish and respect some norms and standards that are promulgated clearly to all and enforced equally in favor of and against all.”

J          “Someone who advances the Rule of Law and stuff like that.  I like it.  The law schools are vacant deserts of inbreeding and infighting that gestate little legal gamesters.  But they do surprise and do apparently house two dozen hundred (2400) courageous professors willing to take a public stand against an unqualified individual nominated for the Supreme Court.  And yet the bench remains a magnet for wankers who played the legal game profitably and perpetuate the game for the benefit of the judges and a few lawyers.  Is anyone qualified in America?  Is someone outside American eligible?  Give the nod again to another underappreciated and overworked public defender who somehow managed to make a difference and call it good.”

K          “We should.  Remember that they were included in the group of individuals who received the award two years ago.  The recipient of the third annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence . . . is another group . . . you got it . . . the cohort of courageous law professors willing to take a public stand against an unqualified individual nominated for the Supreme Court.  Many of them hail from the corporatist law factories such as Yale, Harvard, Chicago and Virginia and may have jeopardized their careers by taking a stand.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Second Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 16, 2017)”, “First Annual Noble Prize In Jurisprudence (October 17, 2016)” and “Award Deadlines (Livelines?) (July 25, 2016)”.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

e-mail to a group who shared their concerns with Senator Murky about the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh written after she failed to vote “no” despite expressing some reservations:

Were we played?  Were we conned?  Were we duped?  Were we punked?  Were we chumped?

Someone said weeks ago that the only certainty in the confirmation process is that BK will be confirmed at the end of the process.  Everything else is just staged theater.  One thing and only one thing mattered to me – did Murkowtowski vote “no” on the nomination? 

Someone asked yesterday and someone else contended today that everything was just a staged show.  A comment from someone still haunts me:

          I don’t give Murkowski any credit either – she got the greenlight from her leadership to vote “no” only after it became clear that Manchin would nullify her vote.

          Collins and Flake played their usual coy act then voted straight party line as always.  Collins undoubtedly received sufficient promise of support in her next election or some other incentive, and Flake was voting for his post-office employment in the right-wing lobbying/consulting/think tank world.

In one of my seven substantive letters to her (often copied to Collins and Sullivan), the letter on August 18 concluded with a challenge:

          A few years ago, the original vote card tallying the Senate vote on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that passed in 1964 was displayed at a National Archives exhibit down the street from your shop.  For all time, there are check marks under “No” next to Ernest Gruening’s name and next to Wayne Morse’s name. 

Flake is as advertised.  Murkowski and Collins elected to fail.  So much for electing more women in politics and expecting a positive difference.  Same new same new.  We cannot fail not to elect them in the next go round.

The Illegitimate Institution Unpacks After “Beach Week”:  Time To Start Packin’ The Court (October 1, 2018)

Posted in Courage, Courts, Supreme Court on October 1, 2018 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “There is a cancer in the current Court.”

J          “The current Court is the cancer.”

. . .

K          “I do believe Dr. Blasey Ford.  I do not believe Brett Kavanaugh.”

J          “I do not believe Brett Kavanaugh.  I do believe Dr. Blasey Ford.”

. . .

K          “Thomas has confirmed the claims of those who claimed that he is unqualified.  He doubled down on the incompetence out of spite.”

J          “Gorsuch is occupying the ‘Stolen Seat’ without any reservation or compunction.”

K          “And the ‘American Psycho’ is set to assume the third illegitimate seat.”

. . .

K          “Why not?  The argument is that if you do it, they will do it.”

J          “So be it.  Something must be done.  Do it.  Pack it.”

. . .

K          “Only a few Americans realize that the appointments are not for life, they are ‘during good behaviour.’  They are behaving badly.  They need to go.  The Democrats need to present a coherent vision and future and then start impeachment hearings against the illegitimate Justices.”

J          “But the Democrats are weak, effete, feckless and craven.”

. . .

J          “Kavanaugh is ethically obligated to recuse himself from any case involving the Democratic Party, the ACLU, any left wing group broadly defined, voting cases, partisan gerrymandering cases, claims involving Presidential immunity and authority, the Environmental Protection Agency and global climate change, immigration, and other issues.”

K          “Or Roberts must preclude him from participating and deciding.  Someone needs to keep track of any cases in which he participates and later when the forces of light are in control to issue an omnibus order holding all of the holdings void ab initio.”

J          “Each failure to recuse himself is a separate impeachable offense.”

. . .

J          “He observed that if you gave some credence to packing the Court, you would not get into Yale.”

K          “That’s the heart of the problem.  That’s the game in America.  Kavanaugh was angry and frustrated that the ordinary people did not understand that because he got into Yale, all his sins and transgressions were forgiven.”

J          “Secular redemption in today’s America.  Perhaps part of a comprehensive solution is to close Yale and to close Harvard, convert the dorms into low income housing and use the funds to create a great educational institution open to individuals with intellect and integrity and the oft-forgotten . . . character.”

J          “And closed to those who do not have character.”

. . .

K          “Any chance that the Senate will do right?”

J          “Not.  A.  Chance.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Is Kavanaugh Qualified? (July 30, 2018)”, “KavaNaugh(t): Naught.  Oh, and Happy Women’s Equality Day! (August 27, 2018)” and the e-commentary under the Categories “First Monday In October” and the “Supreme Court”.]

Bumper stickers of the week: 

Kavanaugh Calendar:  June 5, 1982:  “Achievment Tests”

B     E     A     C     H          W     E     E     K

Five Red Robes Trump Four Blue Robes

My child is a courageous law professor

The Truth has no statute of limitations

My daughter is a courageous Alaska lawyer

“What goes around, comes around”  Brett Kavanaugh

Partisan Gerrymandering:  From Ballots To Bullets?  Oh, And Happy National Voter Registration Day! (September 24, 2018) 

Posted in Partisan Gerrymandering, Politics, Supreme Court, Voting on September 24, 2018 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “‘Don’t bother me,’ opined the Chief (Justice) to the Indians.  ‘I closed the doors to the Supreme Court.  If you want to change polity, you must resort to bullets not ballots.  My Supreme Court is in business to help big business, it is not in business to help little people,’ proclaimed the Chief.  ‘The game is gamed.  The franchise is foreclosed.  The ballot box is buttoned up.  Go away.  Go home.’”

J          “He does not get it.  ‘In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience,’ observed Stokely Carmichael.  We have a problem.  And he gets it.”

K          “A (Supreme) Court without a conscience.”

J          “In a Country without a conscience.”

. . .

K          “If Roberts and gang do not want to protect the public against partisan gerrymandering, they should resign and let someone else do the job.”

J          “They like the money.  They like the power.  They like to impose their will.”

. . .

K          “I vote for the ballot.”

J          “I second the vote.”

K          “Now we need to get the Chief to focus on protecting the ballot rather than promoting the bullet as the means to bring about peaceful change.”

J          “He just does not get it.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Sweet Senate Alabama (December 18, 2017)”.]

Bumper stickers of the week: 

Vote

“Those who make peaceful revolution [resolution] impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”  John F. Kennedy (Ted could have polished/improved/cadenced the statement by saying “peaceful resolution” rather than “peaceful revolution”.)

Judges:  Conflicts Of Interest And The “Self—Interested Empathy Theory” Of Judicial Decision Making (September 10, 2018) 

Posted in Abortion, Fourth Amendment, Law, Rule of Law, Supreme Court on September 10, 2018 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “A judge shows all-consuming ‘empathy’ for pensions and will use all of the powers at his or her disposal at any and all costs at any and all times and in all and any ways to protect his or her pension.”

J          “So they are too ‘empathetic’ about pensions?”

K          “Exactly.  They are way, way too ‘empathetic’ and have a conflict of interest that precludes them from addressing such matters neutrally, but they address such matters first and foremost.”

. . .

K          “By contrast, judges are given nearly free health care and can flash their ‘judge badge’ if any dispute arises over coverage.  However, when a private citizen encounters a judge who has no experience with criminally intransigent health insurance companies, the judge rules for the insurance company.”

J          “And thus judges make asinine comments in court such as ‘How could the health insurance company make a mistake in coverage because it is their job to know what is covered and not covered’ and then dismiss the case and sanction the injured and uninsured party.”

K          “Indubitably.”

. . .

K          “When it comes to Fourth Amendment protection for cell phones . . . .”

J          “Justices have cell phones.”

K          “Justices have cell phones, but some of them are so cocky that they are above the law that they don’t have to stoop to relying on the mere Fourth Amendment.”

. . .

K          “How many of the Justices flirt with personal pregnancy?”

. . .

K          “The only way to engender empathy is to put the judges in the shoes of the populace or to put the populace in the robes of the judge.”

J          “The latter is more promising.”

K          “Law is too complex and too important to be left to the lawyers and the judges.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Pensions, Conflicts Of Interest And The Illinois Supreme Court (June 1, 2015)”.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

There is no law, there is only ideology

KavaNaugh(t): Naught.  We can do better. Oh, And Happy Women’s Equality Day! (August 27, 2018)

Posted in Supreme Court on August 27, 2018 by e-commentary.org

. . .

August 21, 2018

Senator LisA MurKowski

522 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, D.C. 20510

Re:  Supreme Court nomination

Dear Senator Murkowski:

We can do better.

In a nation of over three hundred and twenty seven million (327,000,000) folks, we can uncover another candidate more representative of America and more likely to represent the interests and reflect the concerns of Americans.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a corporatist, not a true conservative.  At this time, the corporations are adequately represented on the Supreme Court.  The true conservatives are not.

A true conservative protects individual civil rights and civil liberties rather than institutional and corporate interests.  The unelected and unaccountable technological leviathans in particular are eviscerating individual interests and undermining privacy concerns.

A true conservative accepts the time-honored doctrine of stare decisis and respects decisions such as Roe v. Wade and others.  The Supreme Court recently held that “stare decisis promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.”

A true conservative respects the separation of powers and declines to address matters that should be addressed by a co-equal branch of government.  The Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) is based at least in part on Congress’s unambiguous ability and authority to tax.  That is enough heft to pass Constitutional muster and remove the matter from the court docket.  The legislation may be unwise and unsound and unworkable and uneconomical.  However, Congress – not the Supreme Court – can and should debate, discuss, challenge, defend, amend, repeal or replace the ACA.

At the hearings, the nominee takes the coy and disingenuous position that he or she cannot comment on matters that may come before the Court.  The nominee perforce should not speak about a specific case before the Court yet can, should and must discuss the general principles and doctrines that guide his or her thinking on matters that may come before the Court.  Challenge the nominee’s assertion of the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and require answers.  Too many candidates are sweet at their confirmation hearing and less charming when later conducting hearings on the bench.

Nominating another product and by-product of the Great East Coast Credential Factory is unimaginative, tiresome and shopworn.  The current hired help at the Court – on both sides of the political aisle – could have been manufactured at a McDonald’s® hamburger shop.  More of the same just results in more of the same.  The millions who need to be served deserve to be served something better.

What are the qualities of a qualified candidate?  Search for someone with intelligence, tutored intelligence, emotional intelligence, intellectual integrity, integrity, character, grit, courage, wisdom, humility, perspective, kindness, life experience, and a wry/dry/sly sense of humor (sans sarcasm).  And the abilities to shoot a gun, bait a hook, hike a trail and read a book.  And require a zip code outside the WaNeBos (Washington-New York-Boston) Corridor.  And search first out West (not Coast) and for heaven’s sake and ours leave all federal appellate court judges off the list.

A few years ago, the original vote card tallying the Senate vote on the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution that passed in 1964 was displayed at a National Archives exhibit down the street from your shop.  For all time, there are check marks under “No” next to Ernest Gruening’s name and next to Wayne Morse’s name.

Decisions have consequences, big and small.  This decision has consequences, enormous and staggering.

This promising Republic deserves better.

It is time for everyone to head back to the drawing board.

We can do better.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.  Best wishes.

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Is Kavanaugh Qualified? (July 30, 2018)”.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

We can do better

KavaNaugh(t)

Happy Women’s Equality Day

Alex J. / J. Assange And The First Amendment (August 13, 2018)

Posted in Antitrust, Apple, Awards / Incentives, Courage, Facebook, First Amendment, Google, Monopoly, On [Traits/Characteristics], Perjury/Dishonesty, Supreme Court on August 13, 2018 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “I don’t think I would like him.”

J          “Me neither.”

. . .

J          “Which is, of course, the point.  Reflect on the principle not on the principal.  The Supreme Court looks at the principal not at the principle.”

K          “That is the Supreme Court for you.”

J          “For me?  Not for me.  You take ‘em.”

. . .

K          “Google, YouTube, Facebook, Apple and Spotify are imposing various levels of censorship.  Each is a monopoly in its own sphere and is, in practice and effect, a utility and a powerful government.”

J          “The First Amendment does not protect free speech directly but rather is a limitation on government interference with free speech.  Governments such as Google, YouTube, Facebook, Apple and Spotify should not be allowed to interfere with free speech.”

J          “Governments should interfere with and regulate monopolies.  However that is impossible when the monopolies are the government or at least own and operate the government.”    

. . .

K          “Free speech for Alex Jones!”

J          “Freedom for Julian Assange!”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Hero or Traitor? (June 10, 2013)”, “Third Annual ‘Cameo In Courage’ Award For 2018 (April 9, 2018)”, “Second Annual ‘Cameo In Courage’ Award For 2017 (March 6, 2017)”, “First Annual ‘Cameo In Courage’ Award For 2016 (May 9, 2016)”, “Award Deadlines (Livelines?) (July 25, 2016)”, “Profile In Cowardice Award (May 12, 2014)”, “Profile In Courage Award, 2015 (May 11, 2015)”, “Chelsea And Ed:  Time For ‘Con’ ‘dign’ Treatment (November 30, 2015)” and “On Courage and Truth (March 17, 2008)”.]

Bumper stickers of the week: 

Free speech for Alex Jones!

Freedom for Julian Assange!

(Unedited) petition circulating on the Internets; edit as appropriate or better yet use your own words and express your own concerns:

A Petition to the President of the United States:  Pardon Julian Assange

Whereas Journalist Julian Assange and his media organization, Wikileaks, has in the respected tradition of American journalism obtained and published information that is classified and newsworthy, a practice shared with the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal and others and

Whereas in the eleven years of its existence the authenticity and accuracy of materials published by Wikileaks has never been questioned or disputes and

Whereas the material regarding Hillary Clinton and the Democratic National Committee published by Wikileaks served the national interest by exposing the corruption of the Clintons, the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton campaign and the Obama Justice Department and

Whereas assertion by the American Intelligence Services that Julian Assange is the agent of a “Hostile Foreign State” or the Russian government are politically suspect and completely unproven and denied by Assange and

Whereas Julian Assange has consistently denied that material obtained from the Democratic National Committee and published by Wikileaks came from the Russian State and has repeatedly offered to prove this for US authorities and

Whereas Assange, now in failing health, has been a veritable prisoner in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for six years, with the media now reporting Ecuador is preparing to hand Assange over to British authorities who will presumably extradite Assange to the United States for trial and

Whereas Julian Assange is an impeccably-honest, incredibly-brave, humanitarian journalist, who provides an invaluable platform for whistleblowers exposing corruption and criminality infesting governments, nullifying democracy and obliterating human rights, around the world and

Whereas there are absolutely no legitimate legal grounds to prosecute Assange and, as the U.S. DOJ admitted in 2013, that doing so would expose ALL U.S. journalistic and news outlets to similar criminal jeopardy.

Therefore Urge President Donald J. Trump to issue a full and unconditional pardon to the journalist Julian Assange in the interests of both justice and mercy.

Is Kavanaugh Qualified? (July 30, 2018)

Posted in Supreme Court on July 30, 2018 by e-commentary.org

. . .

K          “No way.”

J          “Nope.”

. . .

[See the e-commentary at “Picking the Supreme Beings (May 4, 2009)” and “The Supreme Court – Unrepresentative and Illegitimate: The 33.3 Percent Solution (October 1, 2012)”.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

“And the usual other traits that one rarely finds.  Intelligence, tutored intelligence, emotional intelligence, intellectual integrity, integrity, character, grit, courage, wisdom, humility, perspective, life experience, etc., etc., etc.”