Archive for the Supreme Court Category

Game Week At The Supreme Court (June 24, 2013)

Posted in Law, Supreme Court on June 24, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

L1        “What attribute more than any other attribute describes lawyers and perforce judges.”

L2        “Mirthfulness?  Tenderness?  Pensiveness?”

L1        “Procrastinationness.  Don’t do today what you can put off until tomorrow.  That is why the Supremes wait until they are fleeing town to spew decisions.”

L2        “So they order pizza, chug energy drinks, and pull all-nighters to put out the product.”

L1        “Panty raids to relieve the stress are not unknown.”

L2        “I need that gig.”

. . .

L1        “What about mendaciousness?  Judges are able to institutionalize dishonesty.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled TEDx: THEODORAx or DOROTHEAx or . . . DOROTHyx? (April 8, 2013) and the visual commentary at http://doonesbury.slate.com/strip/archive/2013/06/23.]

Bumper sticker of the week:

The Civil War rages on at the Supreme Court.  Salvos are forthcoming.

Energy “Manhattan Project”: The “Carbon Tax And Dividend” (March 25, 2013)

Posted in Awards / Incentives, Economics, Economics Nobel, Gay Politics, Global Climate Change, Global Warming, Supreme Court, Taxation on March 25, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

C1         “The ‘Manhattan Project’ wisely collected all the talent in one location under one command to develop the atomic bomb.  The project required the right mathematical formulas and the right raw materials to be assembled by one team under one governmental authority.  Some say the solution to our energy challenges is to create a Manhattan Project under one authority with one energy czar.  However, the solution is not to establish a government agency but rather to enlist and unfetter the market mechanism.  Rather than subsidizing a company that is politically connected or sports a flashy marketing campaign, let the market decide.  Let not one but one million citizens work on it.  The proposed ‘carbon tax’ provides a tax on carbon and thus rewards those who can reduce or avoid the production of carbon and taxes those who cannot.  The funds collected by the tax are returned as a dividend to the public to maintain revenue neutrality.”

C2         “The ‘old cap and trade scheme’ created undesirable property rights that would be unworkable and undesirable.  A carbon tax and dividend sounds workable and desirable.”

C1          “Friedrich van Hayek would have endorsed the carbon tax and dividend mechanism.  He surely is rolling over in his grave because we as a society have not adopted it.”

C2         “I know that I for one want Fred to rest in peace.”

. . .

[See the website http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org/.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

A planet is a terrible thing to waste

Sign outside the Supreme Court:  “Supremes:  You can hurry love.”

The Sea Change Is Now A Tsunami (March 11, 2013)

Posted in Constitution, Courts, Equal Protection, Gay Politics, Law, Society, Supreme Court on March 11, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

LS1      “An amicus brief is a ‘friend of the court’ brief filed by someone who is not a party to a case that provides information and argument that may or may not have been advanced by a party to the case.”

N1        “Sounds like a legal way to lobby a court constituted of legal lobbyists for private interests.”

LS1      “In effect.  Before the Supreme Court writes its opinion, it is interested in the opinions of the Owners and others.”

N1        “Who would have guessed.  First the housebroken Republicans came out of the cloak room.  Then the business community came out of the board room.”

LS1      “They realized that inequality is less economically efficient than equality.  Surreal that one can drive from one state in a state of marital bliss to another state and enter into a state of marital banishment.”

N1        “That is bad for business.”

LS1      “No bandwagon has been boarded by as many people in as short a period of time.  Everyone now wants to influence the bench to allow all adults to walk down the aisle.  The train is leaving the station.”

N1        “They say the Supreme Court does not pay attention to the weather, but the Justices do pay attention to the climate.”

LS1      “You don’t need a climatologist to see which way the wind blows.”

N1        “But you do need courage.” 

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled Fukushima Daiichied (March 12, 2012) on the anniversary.]

[See the “e-ssay” titled Less Government Regulation Series: Love and Marriage (May 19, 2008).]

[See the articles at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/business/businesses-refuse-to-arrive-late-on-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/business/companies-ask-justices-to-overturn-gay-marriage-ban.html?ref=business, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/us/politics/gay-marriage-brief-gets-more-republican-support.html?ref=business and http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/politics/administration-to-urge-justices-to-overturn-a-gay-marriage-ban.html?ref=business&_r=0.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

“Gay marriage?  Here’s the way I see it.  If I had to get married, then THOSE PEOPLE have to get married.  Fair is fair.”

My wife keeps complaining that I never listen to her . . .  or something like that.

Can someone file an “enemy of the court” brief?

Hate is overrated.

Has Scalia Gone Feral? (March 4, 2013)

Posted in Judges, Law, Move To Amend, Politics, Supreme Court on March 4, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

LS2      “Scalia has gone feral.”

LS1      “In the past, he demanded that the Court and the courts construe congressional language in a statute or provision literally – or as he defined literally – even in the face of clear contrary legislative intent and then took great delight in often perverse or unintended consequences or interpretations.”

LS2      “Now he is transforming the High Court into a MegaCongress to proclaim what he thinks animated Congress when it passed legislation.  In the face of crystal clear Congressional language and equally clear legislative intent regarding the Voting Rights Act, he appointed himself to second guess Congress and impose his personal prejudices on the populace.”

LS1      “At least he is blatant and blunt about it.  In his capacity as the Law Czar, however, he surely will not allow a person to bring and maintain a claim to instate the Move To Amend legislation on the ground that Congress would have passed the legislation except for the overweening influence of corporations.”

LS2      “That’s a new possibility.  Introduce a bill in the Supreme Court and let them pass judgment.  Two can play that game, yet only one person is allowed to play the game in the American legal game.”

. . .

LS2      “His great contribution to legal thinking is a grand sophistry.  ‘Originalism’ is an admixture of equal parts hypocrisy, dishonesty, perversity and absurdity.”

LS1      “And risibility, but it is a serious matter.  He is becoming even more grating and obnoxious.  Sarcasm is the first cousin of anger.  He is angry.  Ergo, he is sarcastic.”

LS2      “Sourcaustic.  In contemporary patois, Scalia is a bully of the worst kind.  A bully and a coward.  He uses the bench as a bully pulpit and then cowers behind the guards and security detail.”

LS1      “If someone asked him to step outside, Scalia would soil his panties and then curl up in a fetal position and cry for help.”

LS2      “He should take senior status and take over a hate radio show on Anger Mongering (AM) radio.”

LS1      “A festschrift of his proclamations does not require more than a few hundred words.  He is worth a footnote perhaps but much less than a chapter.  Someone, probably a former fawning law clerk, will spawn a 900 page idolatrous hagiographic piece.”

. . .

LS1/LS2  “He fails to realize that civility is not unconstitutional.”

. . .

[LS1 = Legal Scholar 1; . . . ]

[See the “e-ssays” titled One Gun Per White Adult Male? A Flintlock Musket? The “One Man, One Gun” Decision (October 4, 2010), Are Courts Irrelevant? Are Courts Illegitimate? (October 3, 2011) and The Supreme Court – Unrepresentative And Illegitimate: The 33.3 Percent Solution (October 1, 2012), three of the “First Monday in October” commentaries on the Supreme Court.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

I don’t like some lawyers because some lawyers are not likable.

Do Supreme Court Justices get rabies shots?

President’s Day (February 18, 2013)

Posted in Drones, Presidency, Privacy, Supreme Court on February 18, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

A           “Ben Franklin.”

B           “Me too.”

A           “At least he is memorialized on the hundred dollar bill.  Imagine how different the national experience would be if some of those who took silver had taken gold.”

B           “Jefferson’s reputation is declining in some quarters.”

A           “And yet he has a Memorial and is memorialized on my favorite dollar bill.  The great irony is that Grant’s mug is still on the fifty and some think his mug should have been on the police wall.”

B           “Granted that his reputation may never change.  And Jackson remains on the twenty despite his attitude toward slaves, Indians and Supreme Court decisions.  Rather than spending Benjamins today, I scratch a few sentences about each president and file them away.”

A          “My perception of each president’s legacy changes with changes in my world view and with information disclosed about presidents, particularly recent ones.”

B          “And be aware of and wary of those ideologues whose views of the Presidency changed on January 20, 2009.”

. . .

[The Supreme Court continues to resist the placement of cameras in the Big Court to keep an eye on them.  See the “e-ssay” titled SCOTUS on TV: “They Might Not Be Such Bastards” (March 26, 2012).]

[But we are still willing and able to place cameras in the sky to spy on each other.  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/16/technology/rise-of-drones-in-us-spurs-efforts-to-limit-uses.html?hpw&_r=0.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

In order to service as many customers as possible, all ammunition sales are limited . . . .

O’Bama. Part Deux. (January 21, 2013)

Posted in Foreign Policy, Global Climate Change, Global Warming, Guns, Immigration, Locke Gary, Military, O'Bama, Presidency, Supreme Court on January 21, 2013 by e-commentary.org

. . .

A          “Cope not hope this go around.”

B          “Not as cold this time.  And a different climate than four years ago.”

A          “Sounds like he is moving from the right to the center.”

. . .

B          “Chuck Hagel is a great move.  The first enlisted man who actually saw combat as an NCO (“no chance officer”) and was not promoted to the officer corps now gets nominated to order and oversee the officers.”

A          “Amazing thing in America that those who go to war and reflect on the experience become Democrats.  Those who dodge the draft and never see combat become Republican chickenhawks.”

B          “Hagel was never a butter bar and now he is tasked with reducing the fat in the Defense budget.”

A          “The best place to start is with the Offense Department of the Department of Defense.  Hagel is the most qualified player to oversee that transition to a sustainable defense in a complex and dangerous world.”

. . .

B          “Jack Lew is a weak move.”

A          “William Black for Treasury would move us into the black.”

B          “The Owners will not allow O’Bama to make that selection.”

A          “Someone must start the process of downsizing too-big-to-fail banks so that they are the right size to succeed.”

B          “Financial reform may not be part of his legacy.”

. . .

A          “We must force him to address his increased use of drones.  If Bush had undertaken the current level of drone attacks on foreign soil and homes, he would have been leveled in some salons.”

B          “Now drones can fill the skies in America.  In the near future, there will be news reports of mid-air collisions between the ‘Fillmore County police drone’ and the ‘state troopers drone.’  Fly the friendly skies of United States of America.”

A          “I suspect that some opposition to gun control in some quarters may be supported by a scintilla of rationality.  A few individuals recognize that these violations of privacy are getting out of hand, so they want something in hand even if it is likely to be deadly, futile and counterproductive.”

B          “They are impinging on our fundamental right to sit in my back yard and scratch body parts without being scrutinized.”

. . .

A          “He has followed the nation’s emerging notions of gay rights and now is in lockstep with the public while the other legislature on Jenkins Hill – the Supreme Court – has elected to decide whether to take a step backward.”

B          “The Supreme Court Legislature is as partisan and divisive as the real Congress legislature.”

. . .

B          “And he mentioned climate change even though the climate changed in the scientific community many years ago.”

A          “His comments were not warmly received.”

. . .

A          “Immigration.”

. . .

B          “And the most important appointment of the last decade – Gary Locke – may just stay on the job for four more years.”

. . .

[See the “e-ssay” titled O’Bama Arming Industry (November 22, 2010).]

[See the essay at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/confessions-of-a-liberal-gun-owner.html.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

No country is exceptional; no country is evil.

provide for the common defense

In order to serve as many customers as possible, all ammunition sales are limited to three boxes per customer per day.

Because of extraordinarily high demand for ammunition and limited . . . .

Constitutional Remedies With An Expiration Date? Affirmative Action and Marriage Neutrality. Again. (December 10, 2012)

Posted in Constitution, Courts, Crime/Punishment, Gay Politics, Judges, Law, Less Government Regulation Series, Miscegenation, Society, Supreme Court on December 17, 2012 by e-commentary.org

. . .

A          “By my simple way of thinking, a constitutional right is either a constitutional right or it is not a constitutional right.  So you say that we treat everyone equally by not treating everyone equally for twenty-five years starting in 2003.  And then the unequal treatment in the name of equal treatment expires in 2028.”

B          “Yup.”

A          “The handiwork of Justice O’Connor.”

B          “Yup.  Not very tidy but workable.” 

A          “But when it comes to marriage neutrality, there is no public incubation period.”

B          “Nope.”

A          “In twenty-five years, no one will even pause when two guys or two gals get married.  But then there is the countervailing contention that society needs to change at its own pace and the law should follow.  Yet you maintain that the Supremes should simply state that it is the law of the land now.”

B          “Yup.  Because it is the law of the land.”

A          “And one person is now elected to make that decision in and for America.  Our friend Tony Kennedy.  The guy who could have been Bork.”

B          “Yup.  Another rich White boy who is a byproduct of one of the two most profitable law schools and an adherent of one of the two most powerful religions.  The youngster who always crayoned within the lines and then as a teenager completely penciled in the designated oval with a number 2 lead pencil is assigned to pen a decision that impacts the lives and the liberties and the pursuit of happiness of millions.”

A          “At the end of the day, the answer is simple.  You need to review the Protest Poem – The Declaration of Independence – quill penned before the Owners Manual – the Constitution.  ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’”

B          “Yup.  That will work.”

A          “And reference the Equal Protection provisions of the Constitution for good measure.”

B          “Yup.  Absent attacks such as 12/7 and 9/11 that trigger a sea change in public opinion, no public consensus has emerged as rapidly in American history.”

A          “If the vote at the Conference is 5 – 4 in favor of marriage neutrality, Kennedy will write the defining opinion of his career.”

B          “Yup.  The minority will write the Plessy v. Ferguson decision for this century.”        

A          “Some guys get all the luck.”

B          “Yup.  They are reactionary guys.  You have got to give it to them.  The polite description is to note that they are off the wall.”

A          “If Roberts sees the writing on the wall, however, he may switch to the majority and opt to write the opinion himself.”

B          “Maybe.  Roberts took some history courses in college and is shrewd enough to foresee Clio’s ultimate verdict.”

A          “By my simple way of thinking, a constitutional right is either a constitutional right or it is not a constitutional right.  Marriage neutrality is a right.”

B          “What is gestating will be revealing.” 

. . .

[See the “e-ssays” titled The Conservative Solution To Affirmative Action (October 15, 2012), The Supreme Court – Unrepresentative and Illegitimate: The 33.3 Percent Solution (October 1, 2012) and September 17 – Constitution Day (September 19, 2011) and the “e-ssay” titled “Strict Construction” Strictly Construed (March 14, 2005) discussing Loving v. Virginia (1967) where the Supreme Court in an unanimous opinion affirmed the right to marry as a fundamental constitutional freedom.]

Bumper stickers of the week:

Marriage – the fundamental Constitutional right of every person to be miserable

Marriage = one consenting adult and one consenting adult

Marriage Neutrality – the government stays out of the picture and away from the altar

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.  As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.  We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Thomas Jefferson (engraved on the Jefferson Memorial)

Women: 2; Men: 3; Boys: 4 – A winning combination

The Conservative Solution To Affirmative Action (October 15, 2012)

Posted in Affirmative Action, Constitution, Courts, Race, Schooling, South, Supreme Court on October 15, 2012 by e-commentary.org

. . .

CL1      “So the Supremes are going after affirmative action again.”

CL2      “Hostile Rich White Boys are not the most neutral arbitrators of opportunity.”

CL1      “In the American selection process, their kids can get into any college and law school just by calling up and then showing up.  ‘Justice Jerry’s son here.  See ya’ in September.’”

CL2      “The dispute comes down to the one last spot between the White kid from an unconnected family who does not otherwise appear to be a profitable prospect for the academic institution versus a Black kid who may be 43 SAT points short yet has attained in the face of limited opportunity.”

CL1      “Too many Americans refuse to acknowledge the impact of slavery and the Great Hundred Year War Of Terror in America from 1865 to 1965.  The epicenter was in the South but touched all of America with lasting effects today.”

CL2      “In 2003, Justice O’Connor and friends suggested an awkward but workable solution that is working awkwardly but solubly.  And gave it twenty-five years.  A shelf life on an exception to address what hopefully was an exceptional time in our history that was not exceptional.”

CL1      “Between you and me, I understand the anxiety spawned when the country’s highest court interprets the country’s most important document to allow for a remedy such as affirmative action which is at odds with the very right that is at issue.”

CL2      “Business, academia and other institutions have accommodated to the awkward modus vivendi without too much fuss in the last nine years.”

CL1      “The Supreme Rich White Boys, a gang that includes Thomas, have no business messing with precedent, tradition and settled practice.”

. . .

Bumper sticker of the week:

“White is right, Brown can stay around, but Black better get back.”  United States Supreme Court, June, 2013

The Supreme Court – Unrepresentative And Illegitimate: The 33.3 Percent Solution (October 1, 2012)

Posted in Courts, First Monday In October, Judges, Perjury, Perjury/Dishonesty, Society, Supreme Court on October 1, 2012 by e-commentary.org

. . .

C1          “What else can you say.  A series of individual decisions have spawned an unrepresentative and illegitimate institution.  Nine bureaucrats and technicians with limited life and work experience plucked from the two most profitable law schools (Harvard or Yale (or Columbia)) and practicing one of the two most powerful religions (Catholicism or Judaism) in America are too provincial and too parochial for a county as varied and diverse as the United States.”

C2          “And all hail from or are products of the parochial Province of WaNeBos (Washington/New York/Boston).  A solution is at hand.  The three Justices drawn randomly from a hat containing all nine names take senior status with a suspension or waiver of the “Rule of 80” if necessary so that they can retire comfortably.  For the good of the cause.  For the good of the Court.  For the good of the country.”

C1          “Greater care and concern for the common good is paramount.  At least one should be a Buddhist intellectual with Northwestern, Midwestern or Western roots and branches who has actually practiced law and lived life.”

. . .

C1/C2     “No one ever gives up power.  Didn’t a few of them tell a few fibs to the Senate?”

. . .

[C1 = Court Watcher 1, C2 = . . . ]

[Fifty years ago today, James Meredith enrolled at the University of Mississippi, with a little help from his friends.  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/01/us/university-of-mississippi-commemorates-integration.html]

Bumper stickers of the week:

The boys (and girls) are back in town

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.

Armstrong (August 27, 2012)

Posted in On [Traits/Characteristics], Pogo Plight, Sports, Supreme Court, Technology on August 27, 2012 by e-commentary.org

. . .

1          “Legstrong is not sexy.”

2          “Walk on moon, pedal a bike.  More leg than arm.”

1          “Some members of the public will opine that he did not receive a de novo trial before the United States Supreme Court, yet the court of public opinion may do a clearer job of determining truth.  Something did not seem right about him and so many of the other riders who were too superhuman.”

2          “Where is the line?  What is the rule?  Photos can be photo shopped.  Songs can be synthesized.  With the intervention of editors and the involvement of focus groups, a book is about as individual an accomplishment as winning the Tour de France is a singular achievement.  Athletes are as much a product of technology as of training.  Who is the real thing?  What is real?”

1          “Neil was real.  He did it with skill, sang-froid, integrity and humility.”

. . .

(Neil Armstrong – 1930 – 2012)

Bumper stickers of the week:

One small step . . .; one giant leap . . .

Girls like guys on bikes