US Supreme Court Stacked, Ideological, Unprincipled

The recent rulings by a politically partisan, stacked United States Supreme Court have made a sick joke of our supposedly highest level of jurisprudence.  It was all foreseeable after Senate Majority Leader, Republican Mitch McConnell stole away a Barack Obama Democratic nomination in 2016 (nine months before that year's presidential election) on the excuse that "the voters should decide" who gets to nominate the new justice while in 2020 forcing through a Donald Trump Republican nomination just days before that year's election...which Trump incidentally lost.  And guess what? McConnell's very proud of what he did.  Now let's look at two rulings and focus on this court's leader, Chief Justice John Roberts.  In the 6-3 ruling striking down the Democratic Biden administration's planned forgiveness of up to ten thousand dollars of college student debt, helping 43 million Americans in the process...not just "billionaires" as Republican opponents like to argue...Roberts wrote that Congress had an appropriate role in the president's actions, which he claimed was denied them.  Yet back in 2010 when he ruled with the conservative SCOTUS wing to strike down a Congress-passed electoral reform bill that sought to properly regulate campaign financing, he had no problem interfering with both the legislative and executive branches, equating spending money with "freedom of speech" protected by the First Amendment.  As a matter of fact, this pretense version of a Supreme Court seems to like to invoke free speech whenever it wants to rule one way or another.  Another recent ruling, playing that First Amendment trump card, was to make an expansive ruling that a Colorado software entrepreneur was legally entitled to deny services to a gay couple due to the businessman's personal beliefs about their lifestyle. Yet John Roberts, from the beginning of his tenure as Chief Justice, always stressed that for a case to be held as worthy of a court hearing, the plaintiff needed to establish standing, meaning that some party had actually done something to them.  That didn't happen in this case, as our Chief Justice conveniently chose to ignore his cherished standard in favor of ideology.  And, sad to say, of all the six conservative justices sitting on the high bench, it is John Roberts who I regard as the most fair-minded!  Like I said, the US Supreme Court is stacked, ideological and unprincipled...truly a sick joke...and I haven't even started to discuss the alleged corruption on the part of Justices Thomas and Alito...

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to Retire This Year

United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed in 1994 by Bill Clinton and at age 83 serving on the bench going on 28 years, just announced his retirement following the conclusion of the court's 2022 term...which ends in October.  This sets President Biden up for his first...and possibly last...Supreme Court nomination...which, as he has promised, is almost certainly going to be an African American woman.  I liked Breyer, but as I see it his spirit of compromise just doesn't work in a Supreme Court that has been unfairly manipulated by Republicans into a 6-3 conservative majority.  Now that Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has altered the Senate rules to eliminate the 60-vote threshold to end debate on Supreme Court nominees, the candidate no longer needs crossover support to win confirmation although some are concerned that Democratic Senators Manchin and Sinema, who thwarted recent important legislation placed forth by their own party, might balk at a nominee they regard as extremist.  Nevertheless, Biden should pick someone with a history of strong, capable and passionate articulation of her beliefs that will carry on into her tenure as the next justice...the time for consensus-building in this highest judicial body of the country that Breyer stood for is over for now: time to take off the gloves and get to work laying the foundations for a future majority...   

Life is Sometimes Like Being on Jury Duty in a Never-Ending Trial

The current televised murder trial of former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin over the death-in-custody of black resident George Floyd last April has brought back memories of the times I was drafted into jury duty over the past few years.  I detest serving on juries so much that I studiously avoid watching these public trials and always avoid those annoying "Judge Bozo" types of programs...heck, I won't even watch Perry Mason!  I never was on a jury detail when either my workplace or the court's clerical staff didn't make my jury duty documentation difficult for me to return to work afterwards...so many times have I sat there in the courtroom or stood outside in the hallway in a state of anxiety wondering if I was getting into trouble for doing something I was required by law to do...instead of actually paying my full attention to the proceedings.  The uncertainty and open-endedness involved in jury selection is very problematic as well...I go there with no clue as to what my future will be for the rest of the week and possibly further on.  The attorneys arguing both sides of the case in question never cease to irritate me with their self-importance...they remind me of an old classmate of mine in high school who used his debate skills to intimidate others (including me).  And I have never to date deliberated as a juror on a case in which there was an obvious witness or crucial piece of evidence that wasn't deliberately withheld from the jurors' consideration...so as a result the verdict probably didn't reflect what the judge, lawyers, defendant and probably a few witnesses actually knew to be true about the case.  Also, in every jury experience I've had there was always a pain-in-the-ass fellow juror trying to prod everyone else into giving a quick verdict...as if the rest of us had nowhere else we'd rather be.  But even though it's been more than two years since I was last subjected to this humiliation, I have noticed that in some ways just going through my day-to-day experiences in life mirrors some things about serving on juries.  I don't think there is a social institution I've ever been involved with in which important information hasn't been withheld from me...yet I am held accountable nonetheless to exhibit proper judgment in my actions and speech.  The entire legal/law-enforcement environment prevalent in the courthouse is designed to humble people...just as so many other institutions seek to control people like herded sheep.  The behavior of the opposing attorneys toward witnesses, depending on whether they support or oppose their case, hits me hard: if a witness agrees with the questioning attorney then they are honest and decent...if they offer testimony running counter to the "agenda" then they are cast as liars and...well, maybe deluded or confused.  Isn't this how the hosts on TV opinion shows and talk radio treat people of different political persuasions?  So no, I'm not too keen on jury duty, and I'm more than a little cynical about the way our society seems to be structured to manipulate and control me in ways similar to being a drafted juror...then again I've always been pretty much a solitary type anyway and naturally suspicious of those trying to put their hooks in me...

Bean Counting Motivates Everything in Washington

Bean counting is what politics in Washington is all about, whether we're talking about amassing enough Electoral College votes to swing a presidential election, manipulating the U.S. Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process to gain or enhance a like-minded majority, passing legislation to address either emergencies or the ideological interests of one's own party, or getting enough senators or representatives elected on one's own side in Congress to assure their party's control of the Senate or House, respectively.  I have been watching snippets of Amy Coney Barrett's Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing as she aspires to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a justice on the high court, just as I've observed similar proceedings with the nominations of current justices Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito and Roberts in recent years.  It's obvious that the underlying motivation, both in the nomination process from the view of the President as well as those of the Republicans and Democratic senators considering them in through advice and consent, is primarily a matter of selecting someone whose expressed ideology and judicial record will help to tip or maintain the Court's voting numbers in their party's favor on key political issues.  In our current world it's issues like the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide, gun regulation laws, LGBT rights, environmental legislation, voting rights and the limits and extent of allowable presidential and congressional authority that motivate the bean counters as they look at the new nominee.  But during the hearing all we've basically seen is Barrett sitting there batting back question after question as if she were in some kind of verbal tennis match, with the objective of avoiding transmitting the least bit of information as possible about her judicial temperament or philosophy, much less anything about specific issues...in a similar way that the four previous nominees performed.  Maybe the hearings serve an educational and political purpose for the voting public by allowing the different senators on the committee a forum to express their own opinions, but as far as enlightening anyone as to what kind of Supreme Court justice Amy Coney Barrett will be, I think we'd be better informed by a journalist or announcer just sitting there reading verbatim the nominee's previous statements from earlier times.  Of course, this hearing is a charade: the Republicans have enough votes to confirm and will do so in plenty of time for Barrett to sit in on next month's case as the deciding "bean" on Obamacare's fate.  And since it is clear that Republican Senate Majority Leader McConnell's actions are only designed to enhance his own party's power through partisan bean counting, the Democrats had better regain control of the Senate if Biden gets elected, otherwise few if any of his cabinet, judicial, or other nominations will ever see the light of day... 

Just Finished Reading Devil in the Grove by Gilbert King

I just finished reading Gilbert King's historical work Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America.  Published in 2012, it won the Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction the following year.  It's an account, earlier in Marshall's career before his tenure on the United States Supreme Court, of when he was an NAACP lawyer defending blacks across the country, and of a case in Jim Crow-segregated central Florida in the late 1940s and early 1950s where four young black man were framed in a white supremist justice system for a rape that probably never happened.  Called the Groveland Four case after the southern Lake County town at the epicenter, King examines the deeply entrenched racism of the white community there at that time, with an extremely corrupt, racist sheriff and deputy who would stoop to any level to see to it that Charles Greenlee, Earnest Thomas, Samuel Shepherd and Walter Irvin would be executed for their alleged crimes.  If Marshall represented the virtuous, rescuing hero of this story then Sheriff Willis McCall would be the archvillain, closely tied in with the Ku Klux Klan and illegal gambling operations in the area.  On one evening outside Groveland, a poor rural white married couple, the Padgetts, got their car stuck in the mud...Shepherd and Irvin were together driving by, and stopped to help them get their car free.  Unsuccessful, the husband, Willie, got angry at them and after insulting them got on the short end of a fist fight with Shepherd.  That was the incident that later was turned into a gang rape allegation...the other two eventual defendants were nowhere near at the time and were sucked into the case by McCall.  Thomas, hearing that he was being accused of this capital offense, fled to the north Florida woods while the other three, while in detention, were beaten and whipped into forced confessions by deputy Yates and his partner...with McCall looking on.  I'll save relating the fates of these four innocent black men, two of them brave, returning World War II veterans, in case you decide to read or research the case for yourself.  Instead I'll discuss how the author chose to present it...

Gilbert King split his analysis of the Groveland Four case into sections whereby he described Thurmond Marshall's philosophy of defense and his different partners and associates within the NAACP, as well as his communications and relationships with the FBI, Florida governors, and the judges and prosecution.  The endemic racism of the South...and of Lake County, Florida in particular...of that time was emphasized as King related incidences of previous horrific lynchings of blacks.  This was crucial to the story as it showed the defense strategy Marshall would employ in trying to save his clients from the electric chair.  The citrus growers would use cheap black prison labor in their groves...Sheriff McCall would see to it that he provided the necessary bodies. The author also presented the corruption and ties to the KKK of the local law enforcement as well as the inherent racism of the local justice system at the time through the principals involved.  And of course, the sequence of events that first led up to the arrests and what followed to the end was revealed through the course of the book.  This is not one of your "whitewashed" Yankee Doodle Dandy American history texts that paint our past in generally idealized terms, but rather is an important testament to the underlying reasons for the racial divisions still plaguing our society in this Black Lives Matter era...I recommend it although its content is very disturbing and pulls no punches about the extreme violence that happened: if you're white and grew up in Lake County back then you most definitely enjoyed a much different experience than if your skin had been of a darker hue...

Quote of the Week...from Thurgood Marshall

Each of you, as an individual, must pick your own goals.  Listen to others, but do not become a blind follower.                                                         ---Thurgood Marshall

I don't know where the above quote came from, but it sounds like a school's commencement speech, doesn't it?  Thurgood Marshall, a champion for civil rights in the twentieth century, is best known for his tenure as a U.S. Supreme Court justice from 1967 to 1991 as well as the attorney successfully arguing for the plaintiff in the landmark Brown vs. Board of Education case that the same court ruled to outlaw segregation and overturn the earlier 1896 Plessy vs. Ferguson "separate but equal" ruling.  But before that 1954 case Marshall repeatedly risked life and limb in the segregated Jim Crow south defending blacks against unjust charges, having to contend with lynchings, white-instigated race riots, police mistreatment of prisoners, and a general atmosphere of hostility toward his presence there as a black northern lawyer...of course he had to abide by the discriminatory segregation rules as he went about his business there as well.  I'm learning all this as I am currently reading Gilbert King's excellent historical account of a 1949 central Florida case he was involved in, titled The Devil in the Grove...very, very disturbing.  As for Marshall's quote, I picked it because it is so universal in application.  I'm afraid that more and more people these days are wasting their God-given ability to think for themselves and instead place all their beliefs in the hands of media gurus, celebrities, and politicians who seem to have a queer hold on them.  Also, in deciding how to behave during this pandemic I'm afraid that too many of us are like animals in a herd, knowing the right, publicly responsible thing to do but holding off on doing it for fear of rejection by the rest of the "herd" we interact with...in particular the alpha dog leaders who often espouse questionable tenets.  For me, no longer concerned about herds or alpha dogs, Marshall's quote had a deeper meaning to me.  I will be turning 64 in less than two months, and when it comes around to forming goals...especially those requiring a substantial investment of my time...this more advanced age may imply to some that my doors are closed in some areas.  But I'm not a blind follower of other peoples' dictates or views and instead hold to the notion that no matter where I am in this journey called life, I have the present moment to make my choices in...what the future holds for anyone is always going to be a mystery...

My Problem with Robert Mueller's Testimony

I heard some of the Robert Mueller testimony yesterday before two House of Representative committees and was dismayed at his apparent lack of knowledge of passages in his own report, his evasiveness to often simple questions from either party, and his general presentation as somebody who simply did not want to be there.  Charges of feeblemindedness and figurehead are now cropping up about him, and I wonder whether, during these past three years his public image, with television continually depicting him as a sharp professional who was completely on top of things, wasn't monumentally inflated.  How much input did he actually have in this report of his...or was he just somebody put up there "in charge" to legitimize it?  And about this exoneration issue: when someone is investigated and prosecution is not recommended, those performing the investigation are supposed to abide by the principal that the target of that investigation is to be presumed innocent in the absence of any charges.  To not affirmatively assert that Trump committed obstruction during the investigations of Russian interference in the 2016 campaign places should translate into a return to the default position of innocence on the part of the President, legally and professionally speaking.  Now you and I as private citizens can differ on how much Trump is guilty of this or that...and he can still be impeached since that process is a political one...but from the perspective of a Justice Department counsel claiming possible guilt after refusing to press for charges is, in my lay opinion, unethical.  Not that I care a whit for Trump, mind you...but this reminds me of something that happened in Gainesville's tragic past...

In the late summer of 1990, a succession of grisly murders of young people occurred in my hometown.  The pressure was on the police to quickly nab a suspect, and conveniently for them a suspicious, mentally disturbed young man was available to present to the public as the likely murderer.  Only one problem: he was innocent, and later on they discovered the true murderer, who at the time was in a Marion County jail and had audio-recorded his own diary of his crimes.  But even though the first suspect was subsequently released and not charged, the Gainesville police chief at the time publicly claimed that he still believed that this individual was somehow tied in with the murders even though he was legally exonerated, damaging his reputation in an entirely unprofessional way.  So since then I've been sensitive to this notion that if an investigator won't recommend charges against someone then they should refrain from expressing their own personal biases.  Then-FBI Director James Comey violated this principle in July 2016 when he went on a public rant against presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for her unsecured emails while not pushing for her prosecution.  Now coming back to the present, I'm always hearing how upstanding and professional Robert Mueller is...but he's doing the same thing, in my estimation, with Donald Trump that Comey did with Clinton...

Quote of the Week...from Mitch McConnell

The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice.    
                                                                          ---Mitch McConnell

The United States Senate's majority party has been Republican for the last two years of the Obama presidency and for all of Trump's so far.  Kentucky's Mitch McConnell has been majority leader the entire period and has ruled his caucus with a tight rein, demanding strict party loyalty on the vast majority of votes.  And "his" senators have by-and-large meekly complied like sheep with his whims, basically turning the Senate into a one-man legislative body.  In February of 2016, United States Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, a strong conservative, unexpectedly passed away, leaving a vacancy.  Within three hours of the announcement, before President Obama could even talk with him about it, McConnell issued a press release stating that he would not consider any Obama appointment to fill the seat and that it would be filled by the winner of the coming November election after he or she took office.  The above quote was made during this period...Barack Obama, who actually WAS the American people's duly-elected president at the time, still submitted federal judge Merrick Garland as his nominee.  But McConnell snubbed Garland's attempts to meet with him and Charles Grassley, the Senate Judiciary chairman, refused to hold confirmation hearings.  The rest is history: Republican Donald Trump won the election, the Republicans retained control over the Senate, and Neil Gorsuch filled Scalia's seat instead of Garland.  Now fast forward to today in 2019 with the 2020 campaign and election looming ahead.  I've previously suggested on this blog that should another vacancy occur on the Supreme Court during 2020, Mitch McConnell would weasel out of his so-called "principled" rationale for blocking Obama's 2016 nominee and instead push through a Trump replacement nominee.  So when he was questioned about this last week in Paducah, Kentucky, he confirmed my suspicions by stating precisely that...

I know that many, many people keep political score on the United States Supreme Court composition and how the tally of conservatives vs. liberals will tilt the balance regarding strongly divisive issues, some of which carry enormous weight with different people and their associated interest groups  My problem is that on some things I'm on the conservative side and on others I'm more to the left.  I don't have any phobia about an "unbalanced" Court wrecking our country and our rights, but I do believe that when the political leaders responsible for processing its nominees are only interested in playing that numbers game for their own "side" and switch from principle to expediency whenever it suits them, then the system becomes corrupted and everybody eventually loses out when they lose respect for the process...and consequently the Court rulings when they are issued.  I never did like McConnell because of his naked hypocrisy on this and other issues...can't the Republicans come up with anyone better to lead them?  I can think of several in the Senate who would do a better job. As far as I can tell, conservatives and liberals alike despise him...Rush Limbaugh even derisively refers to him as "the Turtle"....

Quote of the Week...from Attorney General William Barr

I also believe it is very important that the public and Congress be informed of the results of the special counsel's work, my goal will be to provide as much transparency as I can consistent with the law.                                                    United States Attorney General William Barr

Bill Barr, who served as Attorney General under the first George Bush many years ago, was picked a few months ago by President Trump to fill the same position's vacancy following his firing of Jeff Sessions.  I watched some of Barr's Senate confirmation hearing and was impressed by his candor and realness. Barr knew that by taking on that job enormous pressure would be placed on him by all sides regarding the Mueller investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. During those hearings he said, "I am not going to do anything that I think is wrong, and I will not be bullied into doing anything I think is wrong, by anybody.  Whether it be editorial boards, or Congress or the President.  I'm going to do what I think is right."  A great part of the concern from supporters of independent counsel Robert Mueller's investigation arose from Barr's earlier criticism of it, along with questioning whether a sitting president could be charged with obstruction of justice.  Well, the Attorney General did nothing to interfere with Mueller's investigation and the final report was handed to him last week.  Barr has been constantly stressing...sounding a lot like a broken record...that he would make every effort to release as much of the final report to the public and Congress as legally possible.  First, the Justice Department would need to go through it and withhold classified information as well as parts that pertain to other cases currently under investigation or prosecution...this takes time.  Still, Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rob Rosenstein read the 300+ page Mueller Report and promptly issued a four-page synapsis of its main points.  Since this summary conveys Mueller's opinion that there wasn't evidence proving collusion or conspiracy between Trump and his campaign and the Russians, it as seen as a disappointment by some never-Trumpers...including those who wanted to impeach him before he was even sworn into office.  Barr and Rosenstein also answered Mueller's open question as to whether there was obstruction on the part of the President: they both expressed the opinion that they felt there wasn't.  This riled many because of Barr's earlier statements about obstruction, and I have to acknowledge their legitimate concerns...but remember, Mueller himself wasn't too keen on pushing obstruction, either.  In my opinion, it is pure political theater to demand the immediate release of the full report...the Democrats in Congress making these demands know perfectly well that it must first be redacted to withhold sensitive or inappropriate information.  I have the feeling that no matter how Bill Barr chose to handle this situation, he would right now be on the receiving end of a torrent of strident criticism and innuendos that he is nothing but a Trump lackey trying to rig the report to minimize any politically damaging sections, this despite his claim within the summary that the report did not exonerate Trump.  To those currently flipping out over the report not yet being publicly released in full, I say: chill out, take a deep breath, and give Bill Barr a chance to come through, because as far as I can see he's doing the best he can...

I'm hearing that the Democrat-controlled House Judiciary Committee will soon subpoena Robert Mueller himself to testify there regarding his investigation and report.  I expect him to not contradict Attorney General Barr's conclusions and decisions, as well as to help to instruct both Congress and the American public about the nature of this process as it is being played out...

Just Finished Reading The Runaway Jury by John Grisham

Having served on a jury earlier this year (and not liking it one bit), when I ran across John Grisham's 1996 legal novel The Runaway Jury I couldn't resist and decided to read it.  After all, when stuck in the courthouse I myself felt like running away...but from the jury, not with it.  Grisham's meaning, though, was to describe a jury whose deliberations and decisions went way beyond the parameters expected by both the judge and the opposing attorneys.  Another difference is that my jury experience was of a criminal trial and this book concerned a civil one, with big business, money and publicity playing major roles...

The trial in The Runaway Jury has the plaintiff, the widow of a longtime chain smoker, suing the tobacco company making and selling his favorite brand of cigarette.  It's all seen as a test case for the tobacco industry and anti-smoking litigation, and as such both sides employ extraordinary means to create a jury that will deliver them a favorable verdict.  It seemed pretty creepy to me that there are consulting firms for investigating people in jury pools, even following them around and interviewing neighbors and coworkers concerning their lifestyles, habits, and opinions...what an invasion of privacy!  Grisham exposes not only this form of manipulation but also delves into jury tampering during the trial as well.  But what makes his story special is that he has inserted a mysterious wild card jurist, Nicolas Easter, into the picture.  Just who exactly is Easter, a young man with no discernible past who seems determined to throw the proceedings into complete chaos?  And what about Marlee, a young woman who seems to know everything going on with the jurors...even after they are sequestered? 

I'm getting to be quite a fan of John Grisham...he might now be my second favorite author behind Stephen King.  I heard they made a movie based on this book in 2003, starring among others John Cusack, Gene Hackman, and Dustin Hoffman.  But the trial in the film isn't based on smoking litigation but rather a shooting, making me not even want to watch it.  But do read the book: it's one of Grisham's better ones...

After Confirmation, My Take on Brett Kavanaugh

For a while after President Trump had nominated federal appeals judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring associate justice Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court, I would from time to time weigh in here on this blog about Kavanaugh, usually expressing my approval...in spite of me being generally of a more liberal political orientation.  To me, it was obvious that we were going to get a conservative justice from this conservative administration: this nominee struck me as conscientious and scrupulous in his view of the law, most likely better than others Trump might have selected.  When I watched and listened to the confirmation hearings, I was dismayed at the numerous heckling disruptions, the unwarranted interruptions by Democratic senators, and the generally rude and cold line of questioning they imposed on Kavanaugh...I thought the nominee acquitted himself very well and weathered this storm of opposition.  And then came the allegation from an anonymous source, a woman claiming that Kavanaugh had attempted sexual assault on her back in the early 1980s when they were both in their teens while attending a party.  The accuser stepped forward as a California college professor, Christine Ford, and she ended up testifying before an extended meeting of the Judiciary Committee.  After a very limited FBI investigation of her claims and those of others, the Senate ended up confirming Kavanaugh to the Court, with the final vote being 50-48, Joe Manchin of West Virginia being the only Democrat voting for him.  Friday the confirmation hung in the balance until "moderate" Republican senator Susan Collins of Maine announced her support of Kavanaugh...Manchin closely followed her, saying that he believed Ford's testimony in spite of his support for the nominee.  I said that I would wait until I could compare the testimonies of Ford and Kavanaugh before I would say where I stood on the nomination.  Now it's over...at least the part leading to Kavanaugh's seating on the high bench...so I'll say it: I believe Christine Ford's account, I think Kavanaugh lied about his past, and I would have consequently voted "no" had the honor been accorded me...

I have recently been on jury duty, something that you probably already know if you've read this blog any amount of time.  There was the defendant, who was charged with attempted sexual battery, and the prosecution presented a very detailed case involving witness testimony and physical evidence of the crime.  The Kavanaugh confirmation process was by its intended nature a political one, and the same criteria for making decisions as a jurist did not apply here.  After all, they were considering someone for a very powerful, lifetime seat that could affect the lives of untold numbers of people in this country for decades to come.  Given the fact that, had Kavanaugh's nomination gone down to defeat, Trump would have picked another equally-or-more conservative person as the new nominee, it makes no sense for any senator who, after stating that they believed the accuser...meaning by direct implication that Kavanaugh did attempt to rape her...to vote Kavanaugh into such a high position of honor, responsibility, and trust.  And had he been voted down, he still would have retained his lifetime position as a federal appeals court judge...something I'm not so keen on either.  So for Senator Manchin to state that he believed Ford while voting for Kavanaugh is cynical politics at its worst: he's running for reelection next month as a Democratic senator in staunchly pro-Trump West Virginia...I'm now hoping that he gets his ass kicked...

So what do I think now about Brett Kavanaugh?  Well, there's a small sliver of hope that I hold out for our latest Supreme Court justice...let me explain.  In looking over this individual's life-span, two personality traits have come out about him as I see it.  One, whatever he happened to be involved in, be it studying hard in school, assisting an independent prosecutor in trying to take down a sitting president, assisting another sitting president in his various policy matters, marrying and raising a family, serving as an appeals court judge...and, yes, as a youth partaking in the rowdy, drunken party scene...involving the degradation of women...with his fellow rich, privileged classmates, Brett Kavanaugh has jumped into it with focused enthusiasm while at the same time compartmentalizing each area, acting fuzzy with his memory whenever it suits his interests.  The other is that he has insisted on being the "Alpha Dog", the "head-honcho" in all of these, quite content with being the leader.  Now that he's going to be on the Supreme Court, will he fully commit himself to this institution, trying to excel to his best while assuming the role of a consensus-forming leader?  Who knows, I'd like to hope this will happen, but I have serious doubts.  Oh, by the way: this morning Stephen King tweeted, "When Al Franken was accused of sexual impropriety, Susan Collins demanded he resign. Without a hearing." What a difference political expediency makes with one's so-called "principles"...

One footnote to all this is the extensive protesting that I'm seeing about Kavanaugh.  I wonder how utterly misguided people can be when all they have to do is get off their collective butts and vote in each and every election...but instead seem to believe that demonstrating like this defines their democratic experience!  You can stomp around with your signs and yell to your hearts' content: it won't throw out a single bum...but voting will...

Tuesday's List: Historic Landmark US Supreme Court Decisions

Depending on what your area of interest is, what constitutes a "landmark" United State Supreme Court decision will vary from person to person.  On the below list, I'm sure I left out some important cases...I took a course on the history of Court rulings back in 2002 at the University of Florida.  My two sources for this list, which I merged, rearranged, and modified, were USA Today and Constitution Facts, which you can access buy clicking on their names.  I wanted to demonstrate by presenting my list how divided the U.S. Supreme Court has become in recent decades: 10 out of 11 of the most recent listed decisions have been by single-vote 5-4 majorities (the exception being 6-3), while out of the first 25 decisions below, only 5 were decided that narrowly.  It's true: once a deliberative body of consensus-building and a push for unity, the Court has deteriorated into two camps of opposing ideologies...which accounts for the fury (or with the recent case of Merrick Garland, stonewalling) unleashed on nominees nowadays whenever that precarious"balance" seems threatened for one "side" or the other...

1803 MARBURY v. MADISON (4-0)
1809 MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND (7-0)
1824 GIBBONS v. OGDEN (7-0)
1837 CHARLES RIVER BRIDGE v. WARREN BRIDGE (5-2)
1857 DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD (7-2)
1877 MUNN v. ILLINOIS (7-2)
1896 PLESSY v. FERGUSON (7-1)
1905 LOCHNER v. NEW YORK (5-4)
1918 SCHENCK v. UNITED STATES (9-0)
1931 NEAR v. MINNESOTA (5-4)
1937 WEST COAST HOTEL v. PARRISH (5-4)
1944 KOREMATSU v. UNITED STATES (6-3)
1954 BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION (9-0)
1961 MAPP v. OHIO (6-3)
1962 BAKER v. CARR (6-2)
1962 ENGEL v. VITALE (6-1)
1963 GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT (9-0)
1964 NEW YORK TIMES v. SULLIVAN (9-0)
1965 GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT (7-2)
1966 MIRANDA v. ARIZONA (5-4)
1967 LOVING v. VIRGINIA (9-0)
1969 TINKER v. DES MOINES (7-2)
1973 SAN ANTONIO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT v. RODRIGUEZ (5-4)
1973 ROE v. WADE (7-2)
1974 UNITED STATES v. NIXON (8-0)
1978 REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA v. BAKKE (5-4)
1989 TEXAS v. JOHNSON (5-4)
1990 CRUZAN v. MISSOURI DEPT. OF HEALTH (5-4)
2000 BUSH v. GORE (5-4)
2003 LAWRENCE v. TEXAS (6-3)
2008 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (5-4)
2010 CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMISSION (5-4)
2012 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS (5-4)
2013 SHLEBY COUNTY v. HOLDER (5-4)
2013 UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR (5-4)
2014 OBERGEFELL v. HODGES (5-4)

Kavanaugh's Accuser Comes Out

With the Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Trump's U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh still slated for Thursday (at this writing), a new issue has been brought up.  Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the committee, three days ago came out with an anonymous accusation against Kavanaugh of a past attempted sexual assault that he was alleged to have committed against a girl while in high school.  Feinstein received a lot of criticism for not only having withheld the letter...which she had in possession since July...from the Judiciary Committee, which could have brought up the matter during the hearings, but also for not mentioning it during her own meeting with the nominee when he had earlier visited her in her Senate office.  Well, the accuser has come out publicly now, and it looks as if as she will be testifying under oath before the Committee as early as tomorrow about her experience with Kavanaugh.  All I know about what supposedly happened is that there was a party at a house back then and Kavanaugh, along with a male accomplice, is alleged to have forced the accuser into a back room before attempting a sexual battery against her.  I'm glad this woman decided not to remain anonymous but am concerned about how this will affect her life going forward. I'm hoping that a detailed testimony will direct this nomination process to a decisive vote. If what is being alleged is true, then Kavanaugh would have technically been a minor at the time, but this would not necessarily have exempted him from being charged as an adult.  I doubt that any conclusive proof one way or another can be offered...you either believe the accuser or Kavanaugh in the end.  What this does, though, is give the three Democratic senators running for reelection in pro-Trump states...Manchin (WV), Donnelly (IN), and Heitkamp (ND)...the political cover needed for "no" votes for final confirmation.  And it may (or may not) sway some Republican senators to oppose Kavanaugh as well: Maine's Republican senator Sue Collins last year urged Senate colleague Al Franken to resign over much less serious allegations.  If the nomination fails or is withdrawn, though, the Republicans have a problem: the midterm elections are less than two months away and there is a slight chance that the Democrats might wrest away control of the Senate, effective January 5th next year.  So with this scenario Trump wouldn't have much time to squeeze in a replacement nominee to his ideological liking.  It's all very interesting and I'm going to be watching to see how this all unfolds.  I'm compelled at this time to be angry at Feinstein for secretly holding this card against Kavanaugh, for I had come to like and respect him on a number of levels.  Oh well, I'm open to changing my mind and will strongly do so if the testimony leads me there...let's see what happens...

Just Finished Reading the Litigators by John Grisham

In the middle of a stretch where I've been reading a lot of fantasy literature I decided to try out another one of legal fiction writer John Grisham's books: I settled upon his 2011 The Litigators, and it was a good choice. It's about three lawyers struggling in their own ways to make their profession work for them in Chicago.  Oscar Finley and Walter "Wally" Figg are barely competent ambulance chasers, dreaming of the big case that will win them millions and set their financial lives at ease.  David Zinc is just one very well-paid staff attorney of many working at a major firm, Rogan Rothberg. Although making money hand over fist, he hates his job and one day finds himself unable to step into the elevator leading to his office.  Instead he turns around and goes to a nearby bar, drinking himself silly all day and eventually noticing a Finley & Figg ad on the side of a bus.  He visits their office in his drunkenness and offers his services...meanwhile, Wally has discovered what he believes is the goose that laid the golden egg: he will join his pathetic firm with a nationwide class-action lawsuit against Varrick, a pharmaceutical company producing the cholesterol-reducing drug Krayoxx.  Krayoxx is suspected in the deaths of many of its users, and the hunt is on to find anyone who has used it recently and passed away.  Oscar is skeptical about the case, but his partner is confident that Varrick will settle and not want a full jury trial...but what if they do?

The Litigators, from start to finish, may be John Grisham's funniest book...I'll have to read all of them to render a final "judgment".  Oscar and Wally represent a segment of the legal community that just barely rises above malpractice...and sometimes dips down into it, too.  Their secretary Rochelle is the one stabilizing character keeping them afloat, but David's entry into the firm will change not only all of their lives, but his own as well as he discovers how he wants to develop and employ his skills as a litigation lawyer.  The author examines litigation in both its seedy and honorable aspects, and from the perspectives of both plaintiff and defendant.  I loved the characters in it and want a sequel...probably won't happen, though.  Yes, this was one of my favorite John Grisham novels: you'll enjoy it!

Judge Kavanaugh's Senate Hearings and His Expressed Attitude

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Anthony Kennedy as the next United States Supreme Court justice took place last week.  The proceedings, aired live on C-Span and the major cable news channels, gave the country a chance to see for themselves what kind of person he is.  From my point of view, he did quite well, very composed in the face of continually screaming hecklers and some very harsh questioning from the Democrats, most severely by Senator Kamala Harris.  We all know that he is conservative, but Kavanaugh himself stated that he would put his own personal views on issues to the side and address how the various cases he is presented with stand up to the law...most importantly, the foundational U.S. Constitution.  However, I've heard similar pronouncements from Court nominees in the past: Gorsuch, Kagan, Sotomayor, Alito, and Roberts all would supposedly deal with the law and not allow personal prejudices to influence them.  The only problem is that the pattern in any decision that has come down over the past few years with politically partisan implications has seen these justices and the others predictably line up on their different "sides" that they claim don't exist.  Kavanaugh said that he would treat the Supreme Court as the "team of nine" and would work hard to create more of a consensus with rulings instead of the sharply divided 5-4 votes that have characterized it in recent years.  Well, I'm pretty sure that he will be confirmed...maybe this will be one of those justices in history who will make a positive difference in unifying the nation.  I have written before that I like Brett Kavanaugh: unlike with Neil Gorsuch, whose performance at his hearings made me skeptical of his fairmindedness, this nominee far exceeded my expectations...in fact, much better than did the previous ones I've mentioned.  I wish him the best, but I'm also hoping against hope that he will truly be the independent justice that he promises to be...wouldn't that be a breath of fresh air for a change...

Spans Between Recent Supreme Court Nominees and Their Confirmation Votes

Senate Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley (R, IA) has been accused by the opposition Democrats in the Senate of placing President Trump's July 10 nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, on a fast track to confirmation.  First, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY), along with other senators, stated that no nominee should be considered in an election year...signaling in advance their opposition.  Other Democrats had already come out against Trump's pick...even before it was made.  In their defense, I remind readers that the president had already promised that his nominee would be from a list of names already hand-picked by right-wing conservative think tanks.  After Brett Kavanaugh's nomination was announced, the emphasis changed to his long record of writings while he served in government, including working for Ken Starr's investigation of President Clinton in the 1990s, for the George W. Bush administration as legal counsel, and later as a federal judge.  There has been a strong push to get all of his records, but Grassley has resisted, stating that much of it is irrelevant to Kavanaugh's consideration for the high court...Democrats counter that the nominee's writings are being sifted out by an employee at the George W. Bush library and that many of the ones released have been altered.  Whatever you might think of all this, let's just consider how long it will take between Trump's nomination of Kavanaugh, when the final Senate confirmation vote is expected to happen, and how this compares to other sitting Supreme Court justices and their confirmation experiences.  As of today, September 4 as Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation hearings begin, it has been 56 days since his nomination.  Grassley has stated that he wants the final Senate vote around October 1...if that happens, then it will have taken 83 days between Kavanaugh's nomination and confirmation vote.  Here's a list of the current Supreme Court justices along with the current nominee, ranked by speed taken between their nomination and confirmation by number of days...I placed Kavanaugh in two spots, the first showing his status today and the latter as Chairman Grassley projects it.  Keep in mind that John Roberts was initially nominated by Bush to be an associate justice to replace Sandra Day O'Conner, but was elevated to Chief Justice when William Rehnquist passed away...I totaled the two processes and the number represents the time from his initial nomination to the final Senate vote.  Well, here's that list, which I assembled after researching Wikipedia...the nominating president and party affiliation follow the justices' names in parentheses...

DAYS   NOMINEE
50          RUTH BADER GINSBURG (Clinton, D)
56          so far: BRETT KAVANAUGH (Trump, R)
62          JOHN ROBERTS (W. Bush, R)
65          NEIL GORSUCH (Trump, R)
66          SONIA SOTOMAYOR (Obama, D)
73          STEPHEN BREYER (Clinton, D)
82          SAMUEL ALITO (W. Bush, R)
83          projected: BRETT KAVANAUGH (Trump, R)
87          ELENA KAGAN (Obama, D)
99          CLARENCE THOMAS (HW Bush, R)

Not Too Keen on Jury Duty

I'm always urging people on this blog to exercise their civic duty and regularly vote in all the elections that are offered...and make those votes on an informed basis.  The urging is necessary because in our country voting is voluntary...you can be registered and still skip elections that don't meet your interest level.  This, however isn't true for jury duty...now that's something I wish I had a choice about.  And if I had that choice, maybe I'd come out sounding like a hypocrite about "civic duty" because I have a strong aversion to it...

Unlike with voting, jury duty involves a substantial disruption of my schedule and puts me in a place where I am limited in where and what I can do and say for a protracted amount of time while continually being under others' scrutiny.  I am often forced to stand around in hallways for long periods, waiting for someone to make a decision about where my "number" is supposed to go next.  On selection day I never know how long it will take...possibly only a few minutes but more probably hours and hours.  Once selected, there's no guarantee about how long I'll then have to devote my life to deciding the case.  The temperature indoors can get to be a problem...usually it can be pretty chilly: they even advise jurors to bring a light sweater with them.  I absolutely cringe at the thought of having to go through the security checkpoint whenever I enter the building as the employees scrutinize me and my possessions...I understand the necessity but I dislike it anyway.  And, at least for the last few times I've been there, the building where all this takes place didn't even have a room to sit down and get food and refreshments during breaks...we were always told to go out to one of the nearby eateries for this.  Someone told me that there now is such a place within the courthouse, though...but I'll believe it when I see it.  And finally, I feel offended at the matter-of-fact, ho-hum attitude that the people working there often display in the midst of the personal crises that the defendants, victims, and loved ones for either side are going through.  And quite frankly, I'm not at all keen on hobnobbing and getting "friendly" with perfect strangers just because a couple of opposing lawyers decided we all were the best "fit" among the motley lot for their particular trial...

My wife, when she was recently summoned, drew a high jury pool number: when she called the given phone number the night before she was to report, they told her she didn't have to.  Unfortunately, my own jury number is very low and although I'll make the perfunctory call later this evening, I hold little to no hope of avoiding this ordeal, starting tomorrow...

Trump to Announce His Supreme Court Pick Tonight at 9

So later today...at 9 pm I hear...President Trump will announce his pick to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy on the United States Supreme Court.  Some names have been discussed: Thomas Hardiman, Raymond Kethledge, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh...all currently serving as federal judges...top the list.  They are all conservative, likely to side against Roe vs. Wade should a showdown case be considered in a future court.  And they're also likely to line up with corporate interests over those of labor and consumers as well as go against the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).  For these and other reasons this nomination is being strongly opposed in advance by Democrats and Americans on the left...and even in the political center.  My take on this is a little different...

Although I am disgusted with Donald Trump's destructive and offensive demeanor in promoting himself and his agenda, he is the duly elected president at this time whether you want to recognize it or not, and his politics are conservative.  Had one of the leading Republican candidates in 2016 like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio instead been elected and were selecting their picks, I am confident that you'd be seeing a similar list of possibilities...and with a similarly heated level of opposition to them.  As far as I can see, these conservative judges now on the Supreme Court and in federal courts are very strong on promoting the First Amendment, something that I sympathize with as an American who was brought up with the notion that, above all, we are a free nation in which its people have the liberty to express themselves without the state persecuting them. The problem is that their critics see this application interfering with other rights, as well as making the courts more activist by overturning laws and established precedents.  But a conservative won the election and this is the consequence: we get conservative justices.  I will watch the Senate hearing on whomever Trump selects as the next justice with interest, not only to better learn about the nominee, but also to better understand the schism of ideology that is widening between the political left and right.  I'd rather be seeing President Clinton nominating someone, but that is not our reality and this is.  Getting upset about the composition of the Supreme Court makes no sense to me if people's reactions are just to complain or go out and protest in the streets.  In this democratic republic of ours, we go out and VOTE for our chosen servant-leaders to represent us...if we instead decide to sit on our hands when elections come around, we get what we deserve...

Just Finished Reading Gone Again by James Grippando

James Grippando is a novelist who, like John Grisham, specializes in the legal fiction genre.  His Jack Swyteck series is about a defense attorney residing in South Florida, where I grew up.  So when I selected book #12 in the series, titled Gone Again, I was looking forward to some familiar hometown landmarks.  Although these turned out to be few and far between, I was intrigued by the story...skipping to the twelfth volume in the series was no problem as the main story was self-contained within the book, a story about a man on death row who Jack increasingly believes is innocent of his first-degree murder conviction of a teen-age girl.  Sashi was adopted from Russia (before Putin banned American adoptions of Russians) along with her younger brother into an American family...she had some serious psychological and behavioral issues, and the idea of sending her "back" to Russia had floated around between the adoptive parents.  Although her body was never found following her disappearance one day, she was assumed murdered through circumstantial evidence by the aforementioned convict, a serious felon and all-around "bad guy" before this case ever came up.  His execution is coming up soon, but now the adoptive mother has come out with her belief that he is innocent...on the basis that she is getting calls...with the caller always silent...from Sashi's cell phone number.  As Jack takes on the case, he discovers that there is much more to Sashi's disappearance and that organized crime, particularly with regard to human trafficking, may play a big role before it's all over.  But you'll have to read this book for yourself to see how it all plays out...

The last couple of times I visited Hollywood, where I grew up, Melissa and I would walk in the evening along the "Broadwalk" on Hollywood Beach, where there were eating places and live music performances.  As we strolled along, I would pick up bits of conversations from the other visitors, eerily noting that an unusual percentage of them were going on in Russian, not English or Spanish as I would have expected in South Florida.  I suspected that this area had become something of an ethnic enclave for Russians...Grippando confirmed this notion in Gone Again as he described the coastal area in northeastern Dade County...especially in Sunny Isles...north to Hallandale in southeastern Broward, just south of Hollywood Beach, as "Little Moscow".  In this area reside many from Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, and other East European countries.  It reminds me of the Indian "zone" south of Archer Road along SW 34th Street in my current hometown of Gainesville.  I think it would be fun to see if there isn't a street down there that is full of Russian restaurants and shops and where Russian is the predominant language spoken...

I enjoyed this first James Grippando novel of mine and am receptive to reading more.  But I'm unlikely to pick up another book of his anytime soon as I have several others to read first...

Gorsuch Supreme Court Confirmation Enters Final Week

All day yesterday the Senate Judiciary Committee held its final session for the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Each of the committee members gave their speeches pro or con about this nominee, set to replace the late Antonin Scalia as an associate justice. Afterwards, the full committee voted and sent his nomination to the Senate floor for debate and final vote.  I watched much of the proceedings on C-Span2 and gained some insight into the various viewpoints on Gorsuch.  For example, I heard a couple of Democratic senators criticize the federal judge for excessive writings of concurrent opinions in various cases, opinions that in their opinion expressed an ideological purpose in altering the law and its interpretation...Judge Gorsuch was even known on a number of occasions to write concurring opinions to the majority opinions that he himself wrote.  One of these senators, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, contrasted this tendency of Gorsuch to try to broaden rulings to another federal appeals judge, Merrick Garland...nominated by President Obama in 2016 to fill the same seat for which Gorsuch is now being considered.  Garland is a minimalist, in the tradition of former Supreme Court Justice Byron White (for whom Gorsuch clerked), in that he seeks the narrowest application of law to a judgment and is thereby much less likely to make a politically-charged, judicially activist ruling.  But both Gorsuch and Garland are well-known on their courts as consensus builders with other judges...

I think it's a done deal, in spite of the Democrats staging a filibuster against Neil Gorsuch this week on the Senate floor, that this nominee will be confirmed by floor vote on Friday, when Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will have the rules changed to be able to end debate and invoke cloture by a simple majority vote.  I have my own concerns about Neil Gorsuch, especially how in some cases he has had a tendency to play around with the definitions of words in order to reach the conclusion he felt most comfortable with.  But he has sat on some 2,700 cases on his 10th Circuit Court of Appeals since 2006: 97% of the decisions there he voted unanimously with the other judges on that court and 99% of them he was on the majority side.   And I don't necessarily believe that you can rate a judge by how many times he rules on the side of the "little guy" versus how often he supports big money and corporations...judges are supposed to apply the law accurately and sometimes the compelling argument weighs on the side of the latter.  Although Neil Gorsuch is regarded as conservative and was nominated by a conservative Republican president, I think the real reason for the Democratic filibuster against him is the way Merrick Garland was summarily rejected out of hand last year by the Republican Senate leadership and not even accorded a hearing, much less a floor debate and vote.  For the Republican senators to express outrage at the Democrats' filibuster attempt is about as hypocritical as it can get.  Yet I don't favor a filibuster, either...getting a supermajority of votes (60) in order to close out debate and advance the Supreme Court confirmation process to a final floor vote has only become a significant factor in the process during the last few years...else why wouldn't the Democrats in 1991 have filibustered Clarence Thomas when he barely ended up confirmed by a vote of 52-48?  No, Neil Gorsuch will be our next Supreme Court justice, for better or for worse.  I'm a bit skeptical of him right now, but we'll just have to wait and see how well (or badly) he does...