A couple of people, whose identities I would rather protect but can say that I care for both of them, recently lowered a bomb of a news story on me. In it apparently our own state government has a special agenda for persecuting and even eliminating their identity group, based on two news stories, one about paramedics and the other a piece of legislation signed into law a few days ago. Upon hearing their narrative, I expressed empathy with them and outrage as to what was going on. Then, later on in the day I got on my computer and investigated both stories, which these two had tied together into a sort of conspiracy. The stories were completely unrelated, with the event about the emergency medical services having taken place long ago back in 2012, and in a distant state, just to begin with...along with other mitigating factors. As for the bill in question, I read its official summary in detail and concluded that my friends' fears were completely unfounded...albeit with a possible hidden reason for their group's underlying concern that they probably didn't want out in the open. Let me just say that all of this drama and rushing to judgment with sinister conspiracy theories doesn't just afflict right-wingers like MyLumpyPillow boss Mike Lindell...anyone can go bananas over absolutely nothing if that's what they feel led to do and are too lazy to perform just a little honest fact-checking and refuse to allow for the possibility that their initial hunch was wrong...
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Law. Show all posts
Monday, May 22, 2023
Saturday, September 18, 2021
Gainesville Attorneys Vie for Title of Biggest UF Gator Fan
As I sit here watching the University of Florida football team behind Alabama late in their game...although performing much better than I had expected...I wondered how some competing Gainesville attorneys have been spending their time for the last three hours. One firm's ad has its senior lawyer sitting with his son, the junior partner, in an empty Ben Hill Griffin Stadium (UF's home field) looking up to the sky like visionaries to show how devoted they are to their Gator idols. Then there's the commercial featuring another local lawyer who indirectly puts down the first firm and claims that HE was the true Gator...not only was he a Florida grad but also played on their football team, by golly! And the other evening I saw yet a third firm claiming that THEY bleed Orange and Blue. Presumably, potential clients of these attorneys will see how attached these dudes are to the University and as a result will rush to employ their services. As for me, they might as well have come out with their favorite color or rock band, for all the meaning that conveys. If I need to seek legal counsel, I'm going to want to know facts about their competence, integrity, and track record of attaining successful judgments...not irrelevant tripe like this. And what if I have a beef with the University of Florida...the last person I would want to represent me in court is someone who has professional and/or deeply emotional ties to that school. So you're a football jock from your youth and want to use that to hawk your trade...that approach makes ME more likely to reject you, not run to you. I feel the same about other ex-jocks, Gators or not, who trade on their athletic pasts to promote their respective business ventures or endorsements. As for the Gainesville attorneys, I wonder whether any more will join the contest for Biggest Gator Fan...
Friday, December 20, 2019
Quote of the Week...from Frank Zappa
The United States is a nation of laws: badly written and randomly enforced. ---Frank Zappa
I've seen comic Bill Maher get on his HBO show and often joke about how much he likes to smoke pot (years before eight of our states legalized casual use) and has had guests on the air who seemed to be stoned...and then I look at the statistic of over 600,000 people arrested for simple marijuana possession last year. Not that I'm a fan of marijuana: I've never used it and never will...and am skeptical of those who practically idolize the weed. Still, I have to disagree with the substance of late avant-garde rock musician Frank Zappa's above quote although I agree with its spirit: our laws are not randomly enforced...if they were, things would be fairer. For Kamala Harris, current U.S. senator from California and that state's former prosecutor, to kid around about having smoked pot after she prosecuted others for the same offense isn't random enforcement, either: it's elitism, saying that some people in society are to be judged by different standards under the law than others. And when you see this circus of result-oriented Federal and Supreme Court judge nominations that has been going on during different administrations during the last couple of decades at least (from both political parties), it becomes apparent that "justice" and the "law" are now being interpreted in a very political and ideological way that diminishes fairness and elevates agendas...
I don't think that police treat the upper class in our society like those in low-income areas...that's not random enforcement in the strict meaning of the word "random". And in the courts the rich can afford better attorneys...along with private investigators...than the poor, who often must resort to whatever pro bono legal assistance the court provides them...that's not random justice. The randomness in law enforcement is real, though, when laws are on the books that are violated so much by people at large that the police cannot possibly catch everyone and must then take violators in a more randomized fashion...traffic speed traps are a good example of this strategy. But, of course, if profiling is going on in the mind of the stationed law enforcement officer, even that isn't truly random, either...
As for the first part of Zappa's quote stating that laws are badly written, just keep in mind that when a politician is elected to a legislature, be it local, state, or national in scope, he or she will naturally feel the pressure to "do" something...and that means becoming an active part of lawmaking. Like the Geico commercial, it's "what you do" when you're a politician. So a legislative body will brag about all the bills they submitted or passed and politicians will run for reelection touting their list of accomplishments. And sometimes they'll pass laws just to say they passed them...after all, one of the most common election-season rallying points is that the other party is a bunch of "do-nothings". So as a result we often end up saddled with some pretty crappy laws as our elected officials struggle to justify themselves to the next round of voters...
I've seen comic Bill Maher get on his HBO show and often joke about how much he likes to smoke pot (years before eight of our states legalized casual use) and has had guests on the air who seemed to be stoned...and then I look at the statistic of over 600,000 people arrested for simple marijuana possession last year. Not that I'm a fan of marijuana: I've never used it and never will...and am skeptical of those who practically idolize the weed. Still, I have to disagree with the substance of late avant-garde rock musician Frank Zappa's above quote although I agree with its spirit: our laws are not randomly enforced...if they were, things would be fairer. For Kamala Harris, current U.S. senator from California and that state's former prosecutor, to kid around about having smoked pot after she prosecuted others for the same offense isn't random enforcement, either: it's elitism, saying that some people in society are to be judged by different standards under the law than others. And when you see this circus of result-oriented Federal and Supreme Court judge nominations that has been going on during different administrations during the last couple of decades at least (from both political parties), it becomes apparent that "justice" and the "law" are now being interpreted in a very political and ideological way that diminishes fairness and elevates agendas...
I don't think that police treat the upper class in our society like those in low-income areas...that's not random enforcement in the strict meaning of the word "random". And in the courts the rich can afford better attorneys...along with private investigators...than the poor, who often must resort to whatever pro bono legal assistance the court provides them...that's not random justice. The randomness in law enforcement is real, though, when laws are on the books that are violated so much by people at large that the police cannot possibly catch everyone and must then take violators in a more randomized fashion...traffic speed traps are a good example of this strategy. But, of course, if profiling is going on in the mind of the stationed law enforcement officer, even that isn't truly random, either...
As for the first part of Zappa's quote stating that laws are badly written, just keep in mind that when a politician is elected to a legislature, be it local, state, or national in scope, he or she will naturally feel the pressure to "do" something...and that means becoming an active part of lawmaking. Like the Geico commercial, it's "what you do" when you're a politician. So a legislative body will brag about all the bills they submitted or passed and politicians will run for reelection touting their list of accomplishments. And sometimes they'll pass laws just to say they passed them...after all, one of the most common election-season rallying points is that the other party is a bunch of "do-nothings". So as a result we often end up saddled with some pretty crappy laws as our elected officials struggle to justify themselves to the next round of voters...
Friday, November 15, 2019
Quote of the Week...from Elizabeth Loftus
Just because someone thinks they remember something in detail, with confidence and with emotion, does not mean that it actually happened, ..False memories have these characteristics, too.
---Elizabeth Loftus
Elizabeth Lofton is a respected cognitive psychologist specializing in the study of memory. She is especially knowledgeable in the area regarding eyewitness testimony and how various factors can distort someone's memory of past events while they themselves fully believe in their recollections. With this "Me Too" movement arising recently with people...mostly women...recalling...sometimes from decades earlier...their experiences of sexual abuse at the hands of usually affluent and famous men, this is an important field to examine. Of course, anyone who had been paying attention to the news last year knows of the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing, when she claimed he tried to sexually assault her upstairs at a party some 35 years earlier. I'm not here to suggest that hers or any specific allegations from others are true or false...come on, how would I know anyway...but rather I want to steer the topic of false memory to my own experiences, for which I do claim some authority...
A year before she passed away, someone close and dear to me in my family made certain statements that I knew were absolutely untrue about the way things were at a past time during which I was 5-6 years old...just to be sure it wasn't me who was imagining things I consulted with another family member who confirmed my memory. The only reason I can fathom for her misrepresenting our past is that her new "memories" fit in better with the narrative that she had adopted about her own life...a week ago on this blog I discussed this idea recently of folks believing falsities for the sake of preserving their own cherished worldviews. I also had more than one unsettling experience with an old friend going way back to elementary school when I would bring up something random that I remember him being involved with and he would flatly deny any memory of it...very disturbing. I think that these two dear people weren't the only ones who unconsciously either manufactured false memories of their own pasts or simply denied to themselves parts of it...I think this cuts across our society, and Dr. Loftus would probably concur. The question I have to pose myself is how pervasive are false memories among people in general and have they infected my own recollections of my past?
Elizabeth Loftus has been a critic of what has been called the "recovered memory movement", which involved adults...sometimes under hypnotism...coming up with "memories" of being abused as children. The hysteria in the early 1990s about childhood satanic ritual abuse that destroyed the lives of some of the accused parents was a symptom of this...I'm glad somebody rose up to denounce this biased and agenda-driven process. Nobody should be subject to automatically having their life ruined by another who, out of the blue, starts pointing their finger at them and falsely accusing them...even with all sincerity...of some horrible outrage from years gone by. Still, narrative-driven individuals, without the assistance of anybody else, can come up with their own false memories and wreak all sorts of havoc...after all, they're obviously not lying, right? That was the problem with Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh: our system of law depends on and respects eyewitness testimony...but how do we distinguish between a real account of events and an honestly-held false memory? I initially held that Kavanaugh's confirmation vote should have been delayed until a full-blown FBI investigation was held, but the witness's lack of recall of the event's specific time and place...as opposed to her detailed description of the alleged attack...most likely meant that such an inquiry would have been fruitless. I'm not saying that the accuser in this case wasn't ultimately correct with her recall, but rather given the lack of corroboration how should society properly react to the charges and protect the accused who, as an old friend from high school pointed out to me in a comment, is supposed to be held innocent until proven guilty?
One important guard against false memory is the simple acknowledgement that it can sometimes happen, and that sometimes it comes about...albeit unconsciously...as a positive response to an agenda or narrative...
---Elizabeth Loftus
Elizabeth Lofton is a respected cognitive psychologist specializing in the study of memory. She is especially knowledgeable in the area regarding eyewitness testimony and how various factors can distort someone's memory of past events while they themselves fully believe in their recollections. With this "Me Too" movement arising recently with people...mostly women...recalling...sometimes from decades earlier...their experiences of sexual abuse at the hands of usually affluent and famous men, this is an important field to examine. Of course, anyone who had been paying attention to the news last year knows of the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing, when she claimed he tried to sexually assault her upstairs at a party some 35 years earlier. I'm not here to suggest that hers or any specific allegations from others are true or false...come on, how would I know anyway...but rather I want to steer the topic of false memory to my own experiences, for which I do claim some authority...
A year before she passed away, someone close and dear to me in my family made certain statements that I knew were absolutely untrue about the way things were at a past time during which I was 5-6 years old...just to be sure it wasn't me who was imagining things I consulted with another family member who confirmed my memory. The only reason I can fathom for her misrepresenting our past is that her new "memories" fit in better with the narrative that she had adopted about her own life...a week ago on this blog I discussed this idea recently of folks believing falsities for the sake of preserving their own cherished worldviews. I also had more than one unsettling experience with an old friend going way back to elementary school when I would bring up something random that I remember him being involved with and he would flatly deny any memory of it...very disturbing. I think that these two dear people weren't the only ones who unconsciously either manufactured false memories of their own pasts or simply denied to themselves parts of it...I think this cuts across our society, and Dr. Loftus would probably concur. The question I have to pose myself is how pervasive are false memories among people in general and have they infected my own recollections of my past?
Elizabeth Loftus has been a critic of what has been called the "recovered memory movement", which involved adults...sometimes under hypnotism...coming up with "memories" of being abused as children. The hysteria in the early 1990s about childhood satanic ritual abuse that destroyed the lives of some of the accused parents was a symptom of this...I'm glad somebody rose up to denounce this biased and agenda-driven process. Nobody should be subject to automatically having their life ruined by another who, out of the blue, starts pointing their finger at them and falsely accusing them...even with all sincerity...of some horrible outrage from years gone by. Still, narrative-driven individuals, without the assistance of anybody else, can come up with their own false memories and wreak all sorts of havoc...after all, they're obviously not lying, right? That was the problem with Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh: our system of law depends on and respects eyewitness testimony...but how do we distinguish between a real account of events and an honestly-held false memory? I initially held that Kavanaugh's confirmation vote should have been delayed until a full-blown FBI investigation was held, but the witness's lack of recall of the event's specific time and place...as opposed to her detailed description of the alleged attack...most likely meant that such an inquiry would have been fruitless. I'm not saying that the accuser in this case wasn't ultimately correct with her recall, but rather given the lack of corroboration how should society properly react to the charges and protect the accused who, as an old friend from high school pointed out to me in a comment, is supposed to be held innocent until proven guilty?
One important guard against false memory is the simple acknowledgement that it can sometimes happen, and that sometimes it comes about...albeit unconsciously...as a positive response to an agenda or narrative...
Thursday, October 10, 2019
The First Amendment Needs Defending
New York City has criminalized speech in a recent law, mandating a fine of up to $250,000.00 on anyone convicted of uttering the words "illegal alien" or "illegals" in conjunction with someone's employment or housing, deeming such use to be "discrimination". I get it...they want to protect families from the fear of being suddenly rounded up and deported or losing their jobs for being here undocumented and to become more confident that their local government...including especially the police...will be there in times of emergency to help them. Still, if it is a federal crime to be here unauthorized then that is a conflict already in place between different parts of our government, and also to make certain words illegal to me flies directly in the face of our Constitution's crucial First Amendment, which elevates free speech as a fundamental human right. This does not mean that people should not be held accountable for what they say...it's just that the State...in this case New York City...has no business getting involved as a prosecutorial agent. If their discrimination laws are being violated, then charge them for that, not for saying certain words. For me, I am for better border security, solving the problems in countries like Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras through the good auspices of our government helping their economies, and normalizing the status of those already here over time. But the people who are here illegally...well, the criminalized terms are accurate even if they may offend some...
A manager for an NBA team a few days ago simply Tweeted on his own his support for the Hong Kong people and to keep fighting for freedom. Keep in mind that he an American living in America, not China. Yet China has responded by canceling within their own country any events or ties with the National Basketball Association, in spite of the fact that the manager had quickly apologized for his Tweet and removed it...and the league itself expressed regret over what I see as a perfectly legitimate original message. In this situation our First Amendment was never in question of being threatened since it's another country's government, not our own, that is exerting undue pressure and the NBA is a private concern. Now if you can see what China will do against someone who criticizes it...even indirectly...who is a citizen of a different nation, you can imagine the immense persecution that those residing in that vast, important country must be undergoing for speaking up themselves. A sober reminder that our own First Amendment needs to be held up high and honored for the treasure that it is...
And finally, not exactly a First Amendment issue...at least yet...is the wave of political correctness, much of it retroactive, that is sweeping this country, especially on the political left. At the Packers-Cowboys football game in Texas the other day, comedian Ellen DeGeneres and former president George W. Bush were seen sitting together and amiably chatting and laughing, two good friends who are able to step outside their political differences and see each other as human beings. From the negative reactions I have been seeing...all against Ellen associating with Bush...you would have thought she had said something like "Go Hong Kong" or "illegal alien". Why does she need to explain being friendly and nice with someone? Is that how bad it's gotten in this country?!
A manager for an NBA team a few days ago simply Tweeted on his own his support for the Hong Kong people and to keep fighting for freedom. Keep in mind that he an American living in America, not China. Yet China has responded by canceling within their own country any events or ties with the National Basketball Association, in spite of the fact that the manager had quickly apologized for his Tweet and removed it...and the league itself expressed regret over what I see as a perfectly legitimate original message. In this situation our First Amendment was never in question of being threatened since it's another country's government, not our own, that is exerting undue pressure and the NBA is a private concern. Now if you can see what China will do against someone who criticizes it...even indirectly...who is a citizen of a different nation, you can imagine the immense persecution that those residing in that vast, important country must be undergoing for speaking up themselves. A sober reminder that our own First Amendment needs to be held up high and honored for the treasure that it is...
And finally, not exactly a First Amendment issue...at least yet...is the wave of political correctness, much of it retroactive, that is sweeping this country, especially on the political left. At the Packers-Cowboys football game in Texas the other day, comedian Ellen DeGeneres and former president George W. Bush were seen sitting together and amiably chatting and laughing, two good friends who are able to step outside their political differences and see each other as human beings. From the negative reactions I have been seeing...all against Ellen associating with Bush...you would have thought she had said something like "Go Hong Kong" or "illegal alien". Why does she need to explain being friendly and nice with someone? Is that how bad it's gotten in this country?!
Thursday, May 2, 2019
More on Barr After His Senate Testimony Yesterday
If you've been reading this blog these past few weeks you already know that I've generally been a defender of Attorney General William Barr, especially following the issuance of the Mueller Report on Russian interference in our 2016 elections to his office in March. He and his Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein went over it and produced a four-page summary which stated that there wasn't enough uncovered evidence to pursue a conspiracy charge against Donald Trump or his campaign...and that after Mueller left any prosecutorial questions about his obstruction of the investigations to Barr's office he had decided not to pursue any charges of obstruction. But since sitting presidents are not subject to criminal prosecution while in office and that the avenue for dealing with lawbreaking on the presidential level is through the Congressional impeachment process as mandated by the U.S. Constitution, I felt that the integrity in Barr's decision-making came down to whether or not he would actually release the Mueller Report...after careful redaction to protect classified data, grand juries, and innocent third parties...to Congress and the American public. This he did...so why do I now have a few beefs with him?
Soon after Barr released his summary, Robert Mueller had sent him a letter complaining that the Attorney General, while not straying from the facts, had distorted the nature of the report. Of course, I realize, like previous attorneys general from earlier presidents, this one is also naturally biased toward protecting the administration he serves. But in his testimony yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barr made the claim that if a president believes that an investigation of his own activities is unfair and that he is innocent, then he has the right to stop it. So I ask...as did Senator Schumer during his opening remarks on the Senate floor this morning...when is a president ever going to state that he is NOT innocent during an ongoing investigation? This sounds like a roadmap to a dictatorship. Mueller had also revealed his disappointment that Barr, when provided by the Mueller team with their own summaries...already devoid of any redactable material...refused to release them. I'm looking forward to hearing Robert Mueller testify before the House Judiciary Committee to hear his take on things, but I think there is something I can personally do about all this...
Like the overwhelming majority of American people I haven't read the Mueller report, his team's summaries...or even Attorney General Barr's initial four-page synopsis. But that's about to end as I am set to go though it all...the results should be interesting and at least I won't be babbling here about second-hand information and innuendos...
A few minutes later: okay, I just read the initial March 24th summary by Barr...it seemed fine to me. Excuse me now while I read Mueller's "protest" letter...
The March 27th letter from Mueller to Barr was brief and pointed, charging that the Attorney General's summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions." He then disclosed that he had two days earlier sent Barr an already redacted report along with "executive summaries" for each section. Mueller urged Barr to immediately release this report to Congress and the public. Instead, Barr ignored Mueller's urging and worked on his own redaction, delaying its release until April 18th. And herein lies the problem as I see it: nearly four weeks of Trump running around boasting of being "completely exonerated" and the semi-comatose American public compliantly lapping it all up. Well, I guess the next step is for me to actually read the full report itself...only then will I be able to comment in an informed manner on the alleged discrepancies between Barr's summary and Mueller's intent. But this will take a wee bit longer to accomplish: it's nearly 400 pages long, I hear...
Soon after Barr released his summary, Robert Mueller had sent him a letter complaining that the Attorney General, while not straying from the facts, had distorted the nature of the report. Of course, I realize, like previous attorneys general from earlier presidents, this one is also naturally biased toward protecting the administration he serves. But in his testimony yesterday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Barr made the claim that if a president believes that an investigation of his own activities is unfair and that he is innocent, then he has the right to stop it. So I ask...as did Senator Schumer during his opening remarks on the Senate floor this morning...when is a president ever going to state that he is NOT innocent during an ongoing investigation? This sounds like a roadmap to a dictatorship. Mueller had also revealed his disappointment that Barr, when provided by the Mueller team with their own summaries...already devoid of any redactable material...refused to release them. I'm looking forward to hearing Robert Mueller testify before the House Judiciary Committee to hear his take on things, but I think there is something I can personally do about all this...
Like the overwhelming majority of American people I haven't read the Mueller report, his team's summaries...or even Attorney General Barr's initial four-page synopsis. But that's about to end as I am set to go though it all...the results should be interesting and at least I won't be babbling here about second-hand information and innuendos...
A few minutes later: okay, I just read the initial March 24th summary by Barr...it seemed fine to me. Excuse me now while I read Mueller's "protest" letter...
The March 27th letter from Mueller to Barr was brief and pointed, charging that the Attorney General's summary "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions." He then disclosed that he had two days earlier sent Barr an already redacted report along with "executive summaries" for each section. Mueller urged Barr to immediately release this report to Congress and the public. Instead, Barr ignored Mueller's urging and worked on his own redaction, delaying its release until April 18th. And herein lies the problem as I see it: nearly four weeks of Trump running around boasting of being "completely exonerated" and the semi-comatose American public compliantly lapping it all up. Well, I guess the next step is for me to actually read the full report itself...only then will I be able to comment in an informed manner on the alleged discrepancies between Barr's summary and Mueller's intent. But this will take a wee bit longer to accomplish: it's nearly 400 pages long, I hear...
Monday, April 29, 2019
The No-Crime, So No-Obstruction Argument About Trump
I've heard from more than one opinion source that it was ridiculous (I think Senator Lindsey Graham used the word "absurd") to consider whether Donald Trump was guilty of obstruction during the Mueller investigation into the extent of Russian interference in the 2016 and whether Trump or his campaign conspired with this adversarial foreign power. Since the final report stated that there was insufficient evidence to charge the president or his campaign with conspiracy, some of his vocal supporters are claiming that since there was no crime, then how could he have been obstructing the investigation of one? The logical fallacy of such an argument is easy for me to see...let me explain...
If I am pulled over by the police for a traffic violation that the officer later decides not to ticket me for...but I am uncooperative and disrespectful during our interaction and, say, call his boss to get him to back off or try giving a bribe, that officer is justified with charging me with resisting an officer...tantamount to an obstruction charge. Sitting there screaming "witch hunt!" or "hoax!" and personally insulting the officer likewise mitigates against me...as well as not presenting my current driver's license or auto registration. Never mind that the original charge is dropped...I've created a new one by my subsequent behavior. Now to Trump: there are two periods for which his behavior has been scrutinized and reported on: the original target of the investigation, that is the 2016 election campaign, and then the investigation itself. It matters not what the final results about 2016 are...the question is whether Trump improperly interfered with the investigation itself. And that's where all the hullaballoo about "obstruction" is coming from. But of course, if you're a "forever Trumper", unquestioningly believing carte blanche anything he says because he's your idol above all idols and is standing firm against all those evil communist Democrats, you'll never believe anything negative anyone says about him...or even what you see and hear with your own senses for that matter. I am no expert in the law, but at this stage the obstruction question seems more a political one than a legal one, anyway...it's all in the hands of Congress to deal with according to the Constitution, something that our president seems to have a great deal of difficulty grasping...
If I am pulled over by the police for a traffic violation that the officer later decides not to ticket me for...but I am uncooperative and disrespectful during our interaction and, say, call his boss to get him to back off or try giving a bribe, that officer is justified with charging me with resisting an officer...tantamount to an obstruction charge. Sitting there screaming "witch hunt!" or "hoax!" and personally insulting the officer likewise mitigates against me...as well as not presenting my current driver's license or auto registration. Never mind that the original charge is dropped...I've created a new one by my subsequent behavior. Now to Trump: there are two periods for which his behavior has been scrutinized and reported on: the original target of the investigation, that is the 2016 election campaign, and then the investigation itself. It matters not what the final results about 2016 are...the question is whether Trump improperly interfered with the investigation itself. And that's where all the hullaballoo about "obstruction" is coming from. But of course, if you're a "forever Trumper", unquestioningly believing carte blanche anything he says because he's your idol above all idols and is standing firm against all those evil communist Democrats, you'll never believe anything negative anyone says about him...or even what you see and hear with your own senses for that matter. I am no expert in the law, but at this stage the obstruction question seems more a political one than a legal one, anyway...it's all in the hands of Congress to deal with according to the Constitution, something that our president seems to have a great deal of difficulty grasping...
Thursday, April 18, 2019
Mueller Report Just Out
The redacted version of independent counselor Robert Mueller's report about his investigation of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election came out around 11 this morning...I was watching the lead-up to the release, including the press conference by Attorney General William Barr and the cable news channels talking heads' reactions. As expected, Barr restated his earlier summary's position that there was no demonstrated collusion on the part of Donald Trump or his campaign with the Russians and that regarding obstruction, the evidence did not rise to the standard of warranting prosecution. Barr did...and I think to his credit...candidly reveal that his views of the theory of illegal obstruction did vary with that of the independent counselor, but of course we already knew that. Barr's press conference performance was roundly criticized by CNN and MSNBC panelists for being too sympathetic to the President while Fox was generally supportive of Barr. Someone on CNN did correctly mention that attorneys general in the past have often been seen, besides serving as the country's chief law enforcement official, as politically supportive of the sitting president...examples on the Democratic side are Obama's Eric Holder and Lorretta Lynch, Clinton's Janet Reno, and John F. Kennedy's own little brother Robert. I'm no fan of Trump but I always felt that Barr has done his best to be fair and impartial...I saw nothing in his press conference to take issue with. I heard that, in accordance with the law, he did allow a Trump attorney to see the redacted version without comment or revision a few hours before it was released to Congress and the public, but now that everyone can see it I look at that preview as a moot point...
So now anyone who wants to can read the Mueller Report...Barr stated in his press conference that it would be made available on the Justice Department's website. I'm sure that in the next few hours and days a lot of it will come to the forefront of the news. And after everyone gets to examine the document, it would be a good idea for Robert Mueller to testify before Congress to clarify different sections that many assuredly will have questions about. But there's one overriding element of this news story on which everyone agrees but gets very little coverage: the Russian government massively interfered in our 2016 election. And that is what I am the most interested in learning about, especially with another election looming before us...
So now anyone who wants to can read the Mueller Report...Barr stated in his press conference that it would be made available on the Justice Department's website. I'm sure that in the next few hours and days a lot of it will come to the forefront of the news. And after everyone gets to examine the document, it would be a good idea for Robert Mueller to testify before Congress to clarify different sections that many assuredly will have questions about. But there's one overriding element of this news story on which everyone agrees but gets very little coverage: the Russian government massively interfered in our 2016 election. And that is what I am the most interested in learning about, especially with another election looming before us...
Monday, November 19, 2018
Just Finished Reading The Rooster Bar by John Grisham
The Rooster Bar, a 2017 legal fiction novel by John Grisham, examines the world of for-profit schools, in particular law schools. Mark, Todd, Zola, and Gordon are all classmates at seedy Foggy Bottom Law School in Washington, D.C., racking up hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loan debt while soon to receive essentially worthless degrees. In the meantime, their school has done little to prepare them for the bar exam needed for them to legally practice law, so they are looking ahead at a mountain of debt with little-to-no means of paying it back. Gordon, Zola's boyfriend, is the first to crack up, and with his bipolar personality has constructed an elaborate conspiracy theory around a reclusive investor who has gained control over eight for-profit law schools, including Foggy Bottom. His friends try to save him in his crisis, intervening to look for his doctor, but to no avail with a tragic end. Now it is just Mark, Todd, and Zola...she is distracted by the fact that her entire Senegalese family has been arrested and are to be deported back to Africa. After seeing how some lawyers hang around courtrooms and offer their services to different accused parties without their legal credentials ever being called into question, Mark hits upon the idea of winging it as a lawyer and Mark and Zola join him, leaving Foggy Bottom and taking on new identities. The story develops from there as they naively stumble through one foolish mistake after another. With all that is going against them, their situation seems more and more hopeless. Yet...
The last ongoing prime time television series that I followed while it was going on was The Pretender, where Jared, an escapee from a school for specially gifted children, successfully takes on different roles, even once as a surgeon. The Rooster Bar is something like that, although Mark, Todd, and Zola in the end come out looking comically clueless in their endeavors to hoodwink those around them. But they are very sympathetic characters and I (hope to) to see them in another Grisham novel: a sequel is in order here. As for the staggering student loan situation in this country, it is bad enough with the legitimate schools. But these for-profit institutions strike me as legalized con rackets and should be much more tightly regulated and scrutinized...
The last ongoing prime time television series that I followed while it was going on was The Pretender, where Jared, an escapee from a school for specially gifted children, successfully takes on different roles, even once as a surgeon. The Rooster Bar is something like that, although Mark, Todd, and Zola in the end come out looking comically clueless in their endeavors to hoodwink those around them. But they are very sympathetic characters and I (hope to) to see them in another Grisham novel: a sequel is in order here. As for the staggering student loan situation in this country, it is bad enough with the legitimate schools. But these for-profit institutions strike me as legalized con rackets and should be much more tightly regulated and scrutinized...
Sunday, November 4, 2018
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...
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...
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
Tuesday's List: The First Six Florida Constitutional Amendments on the Ballot
A few weeks ago I listed the thirteen amendments to the Florida State Constitution that are up for vote this November 6th...since then Amendment Eight has been withdrawn. Today I'm discussing...very briefly...each of the first six amendments and my take on them. For any of these amendments to be accepted in the state's constitution, they need to receive approval of at least 60% of the voters in the election. I learned a lot about them from the website Be Ready to Vote...click on it to get some needed information, complete with pros and cons for each proposed amendment. I plan to discuss Amendments Seven through Thirteen next Tuesday...
1 INCREASED HOMESTEAD TAX EXEMPTION
This amendment increases up to a maximum additional $25,000 homestead tax exemption on properties valued at $100,000 or higher. For those eligible who want to save tax money for themselves, this seems good...but local governments stand to lose an enormous amount of needed revenue should this pass...I'm voting "no".
2 LIMITATIONS ON PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS
This is only for non-homesteaded property and limits to 10% the taxable value increase for such property. Apartment renters and vacation home owners in particular stand to personally benefit from such an amendment, but as with the first one, this is estimated to cause a serious shortfall in local government revenue. Again, I'm voting "no".
3 VOTER CONTROL OF GAMBLING IN FLORIDA
This amendment seems to be getting the most media attention, with supporters pointing to other states of differing political orientations that have this amendment in their constitutions...let the people decide if they want a casino or not, right? But the way I see it, since casinos are a good source of government revenue, I'd rather see people voluntarily fund it playing at them than forced to through more compulsory taxes...and I really don't want to see Florida feel as if it needs to resort to a state income tax. Since voting "yes" will inhibit casinos, I'm voting "no" although I'm personally no fan of gambling...
4 VOTING RESTORATION
This amendment restores full voting rights to convicted felons...excluding murderers or those convicted of sex crimes...once they have completed their sentences and are no longer on probation or parole. The current state law, which is undergoing a court challenge right now, mandates five years before a felon can even begin a tedious application process to restore voting rights. I'm voting "yes"...I believe in the restoration of rights (and hope) after criminals have served their punishment, otherwise rehabilitation means nothing...
5 SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED TO IMPOSE, AUTHORIZE, OR RAISE STATE TAXES OR FEES
This amendment, pushed by Tea Party Governor Rick Scott, makes it very difficult to raise taxes and may in the end necessitate cuts to important state services, including those to people unable to fend for themselves. If you're a "never tax" Floridian, vote for it...I'm noting "no"...
6 RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS; JUDGES
While increasing the mandatory retirement age of judges from 70 to 75, this amendment gives emphasis to crime victims. The website I referred to mentioned that many of this amendment's provisions are already state law. There is also proposed a further time limitation on convicts' appeals...and eliminates a section already in law that prevents victims' rights from interfering with those of the accused. I'm fine with letting judges work to 75. About the time limit on appeals I'm unsure...how far does it go? But what killed this amendment for me was allowing victims' rights to impinge upon those of the accused...as a friend of mine recently remarked: innocent until proven guilty and let nothing unfairly interfere with due process. This amendment in a revised form might be acceptable to me as I also care about crime victims, but I'm voting "no"...I'm also wary of the distorted TV ads in favor of it that appear to equate suspects with convicts...
One thing about the above amendments, as well as those that follow: the fact that they are on the ballot in the first place, to me, seems to be an indictment against the ability or willingness of a sitting state government, composed of the governor, the senate, and the house...all controlled by the same party...to govern and pass meaningful legislation. After all, didn't we elect them to represent us and pass laws? Oh well, as I said, the election is November 6th...
1 INCREASED HOMESTEAD TAX EXEMPTION
This amendment increases up to a maximum additional $25,000 homestead tax exemption on properties valued at $100,000 or higher. For those eligible who want to save tax money for themselves, this seems good...but local governments stand to lose an enormous amount of needed revenue should this pass...I'm voting "no".
2 LIMITATIONS ON PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS
This is only for non-homesteaded property and limits to 10% the taxable value increase for such property. Apartment renters and vacation home owners in particular stand to personally benefit from such an amendment, but as with the first one, this is estimated to cause a serious shortfall in local government revenue. Again, I'm voting "no".
3 VOTER CONTROL OF GAMBLING IN FLORIDA
This amendment seems to be getting the most media attention, with supporters pointing to other states of differing political orientations that have this amendment in their constitutions...let the people decide if they want a casino or not, right? But the way I see it, since casinos are a good source of government revenue, I'd rather see people voluntarily fund it playing at them than forced to through more compulsory taxes...and I really don't want to see Florida feel as if it needs to resort to a state income tax. Since voting "yes" will inhibit casinos, I'm voting "no" although I'm personally no fan of gambling...
4 VOTING RESTORATION
This amendment restores full voting rights to convicted felons...excluding murderers or those convicted of sex crimes...once they have completed their sentences and are no longer on probation or parole. The current state law, which is undergoing a court challenge right now, mandates five years before a felon can even begin a tedious application process to restore voting rights. I'm voting "yes"...I believe in the restoration of rights (and hope) after criminals have served their punishment, otherwise rehabilitation means nothing...
5 SUPERMAJORITY VOTE REQUIRED TO IMPOSE, AUTHORIZE, OR RAISE STATE TAXES OR FEES
This amendment, pushed by Tea Party Governor Rick Scott, makes it very difficult to raise taxes and may in the end necessitate cuts to important state services, including those to people unable to fend for themselves. If you're a "never tax" Floridian, vote for it...I'm noting "no"...
6 RIGHTS OF CRIME VICTIMS; JUDGES
While increasing the mandatory retirement age of judges from 70 to 75, this amendment gives emphasis to crime victims. The website I referred to mentioned that many of this amendment's provisions are already state law. There is also proposed a further time limitation on convicts' appeals...and eliminates a section already in law that prevents victims' rights from interfering with those of the accused. I'm fine with letting judges work to 75. About the time limit on appeals I'm unsure...how far does it go? But what killed this amendment for me was allowing victims' rights to impinge upon those of the accused...as a friend of mine recently remarked: innocent until proven guilty and let nothing unfairly interfere with due process. This amendment in a revised form might be acceptable to me as I also care about crime victims, but I'm voting "no"...I'm also wary of the distorted TV ads in favor of it that appear to equate suspects with convicts...
One thing about the above amendments, as well as those that follow: the fact that they are on the ballot in the first place, to me, seems to be an indictment against the ability or willingness of a sitting state government, composed of the governor, the senate, and the house...all controlled by the same party...to govern and pass meaningful legislation. After all, didn't we elect them to represent us and pass laws? Oh well, as I said, the election is November 6th...
Sunday, October 7, 2018
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...
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, October 2, 2018
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)
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)
Saturday, September 15, 2018
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!
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!
Monday, September 10, 2018
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...
Friday, July 20, 2018
Quote of the Week...from Woody Allen
Life is a tragedy filled with suffering and despair and yet some people do manage to avoid jury duty.
---Woody Allen
I'd like to add this line to the above quote by the famed comedic actor and filmmaker: "...but I'm not one of them". The twisted folks over at the courthouse must love me, because they can't get enough of calling me in to jury duty. I often ask others around me about their own experiences with this, and it stuns me how many of them have never received a jury summons. Yet in the not-so-distant past I've been nabbed four times...and got stuck on a jury in three of them, including this week when I sat in on a very serious five-count trial against someone accused of attempted sexual battery and robbery, among other charges. Well, that somber experience is over for me with yesterday's verdict (no point in going into any detail about it)...the good judge guaranteed to us intrepid jurors that we're now exempt for a whole year from once again having our lives disrupted and compelled by the state to attend to this duty, under threat of prosecution should we refuse. Whoopee...I understand that once I turn seventy I'll have a choice to decline jury duty, but that's more than eight years off in the future and a number of potential jury summons still stand between now and then. I'm of the "conviction" that compulsory jury service...well... it simply should not be compulsory. The state could institute a policy whereby by default a citizen could still be summoned at random from the pool to serve on a jury while those who are averse to it could go to the trouble to sign up for automatic exemption, a process that they would be forced to renew every year or two...or else go back into the jury pool. I think this would leave the potential jury pool viable and large enough, much in the same way most people don't use the no-call list but those who do have to proactively take the necessary action to apply for that status. Just a suggestion, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for some political bigshot to adopt and champion it. Guess I'll just have to be content with the sad fact that I was born to be a juror...
Regarding this past week's jury experience, I found all the employees there (entrance security, bailiffs, lawyers, clerks, judges) to be courteous, patient, and accommodating...sadly, that hasn't always been the case in the past. The other six jurors I ended up empaneled with were also a welcome departure from my past "trials". These people were thoughtful, attentive, very courteous, and friendly, and if they were in a hurry during deliberations to arrive at a quick verdict none of them gave any such indication...every argument in the case was methodically reviewed as each count against the defendant was weighed according to the law as the judge had provided us. I applaud my fellow jurors for this...but after it was over, of course, we all left the building and each others' lives...I'll probably see one or two of them around from time to time in the future and wonder why they seem familiar...
Finally, a note about Woody Allen. I liked him in Sleeper and he was okay in Annie Hall, but surprisingly when I looked at his filmography it turns out that these are the only two movies of his I've seen in their entirety! I think one of the reasons for this is that he seemed to have built up a kind of cult status among highbrow movie critics and I'm more into entertainment than "art" in cinema...not to say that some of my favorite films don't merit "art" status. Allen also has gone through some serious relational problems that created some scandal and bad publicity for him more recently...not knowing the facts in detail, I make no judgment one way or another. So I'm not placing Woody Allen on any kind of role model pedestal by presenting his quote (which I found on the A-Z Quotes website)...no, I used it because it is thoroughly hilarious and fits my take on jury duty to a T...
---Woody Allen
I'd like to add this line to the above quote by the famed comedic actor and filmmaker: "...but I'm not one of them". The twisted folks over at the courthouse must love me, because they can't get enough of calling me in to jury duty. I often ask others around me about their own experiences with this, and it stuns me how many of them have never received a jury summons. Yet in the not-so-distant past I've been nabbed four times...and got stuck on a jury in three of them, including this week when I sat in on a very serious five-count trial against someone accused of attempted sexual battery and robbery, among other charges. Well, that somber experience is over for me with yesterday's verdict (no point in going into any detail about it)...the good judge guaranteed to us intrepid jurors that we're now exempt for a whole year from once again having our lives disrupted and compelled by the state to attend to this duty, under threat of prosecution should we refuse. Whoopee...I understand that once I turn seventy I'll have a choice to decline jury duty, but that's more than eight years off in the future and a number of potential jury summons still stand between now and then. I'm of the "conviction" that compulsory jury service...well... it simply should not be compulsory. The state could institute a policy whereby by default a citizen could still be summoned at random from the pool to serve on a jury while those who are averse to it could go to the trouble to sign up for automatic exemption, a process that they would be forced to renew every year or two...or else go back into the jury pool. I think this would leave the potential jury pool viable and large enough, much in the same way most people don't use the no-call list but those who do have to proactively take the necessary action to apply for that status. Just a suggestion, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for some political bigshot to adopt and champion it. Guess I'll just have to be content with the sad fact that I was born to be a juror...
Regarding this past week's jury experience, I found all the employees there (entrance security, bailiffs, lawyers, clerks, judges) to be courteous, patient, and accommodating...sadly, that hasn't always been the case in the past. The other six jurors I ended up empaneled with were also a welcome departure from my past "trials". These people were thoughtful, attentive, very courteous, and friendly, and if they were in a hurry during deliberations to arrive at a quick verdict none of them gave any such indication...every argument in the case was methodically reviewed as each count against the defendant was weighed according to the law as the judge had provided us. I applaud my fellow jurors for this...but after it was over, of course, we all left the building and each others' lives...I'll probably see one or two of them around from time to time in the future and wonder why they seem familiar...
Finally, a note about Woody Allen. I liked him in Sleeper and he was okay in Annie Hall, but surprisingly when I looked at his filmography it turns out that these are the only two movies of his I've seen in their entirety! I think one of the reasons for this is that he seemed to have built up a kind of cult status among highbrow movie critics and I'm more into entertainment than "art" in cinema...not to say that some of my favorite films don't merit "art" status. Allen also has gone through some serious relational problems that created some scandal and bad publicity for him more recently...not knowing the facts in detail, I make no judgment one way or another. So I'm not placing Woody Allen on any kind of role model pedestal by presenting his quote (which I found on the A-Z Quotes website)...no, I used it because it is thoroughly hilarious and fits my take on jury duty to a T...
Sunday, July 15, 2018
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...
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...
Friday, June 29, 2018
Quote of the Week...from Senator Chuck Schumer
Our Republican colleagues should follow the rule they set in 2016: not to consider a Supreme Court justice in an election year. Charles Schumer.
Charles "Chuck" Schumer is not only the senior United States senator from New York, but is also that body's minority leader for the Democrats. He was there under ineffective then-minority leader Harry Reid when majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell, decided to announce only some three hours after learning of Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February 2016 that he would flatly refuse to consider any replacement nominee from then-Democratic president Barack Obama...in spite of the president's strongly expressed desire to work with the Republican Senate leadership to come up with a nominee more fitting to their ideological orientation. This unprecedented (and, in my opinion, disgraceful) shunning paid off for McConnell and his party...at least in the short run... after Donald Trump unexpectedly beat Hillary Clinton in the November presidential election and the winner nominated very conservative Neil Gorsuch for the position. Obama, following the refusal of McConnell...and Senate Judiciary Committer Chairman Charles Grassley...to respect the U.S. Constitution regarding their duties in this regard, had gone ahead anyway and nominated Merrick Garland, a federal judge with no ideological trail to speak of. McConnell wouldn't even show the common decency of meeting with this distinguished judge, at least for the sake of politeness, when he visited the Senate after being nominated. So with this disgusting spectacle behind us, why is it then that I totally disagree with Schumer's statement? Well, it's like this...
The whole controversy about McConnell's 2016 decision to stonewall Obama's Supreme Court nominee was based on it being a presidential election year. After all, every two years all of the House of Representative seats are up for election, as well as one third of the Senate seats...under Schumer's suggestion justices should only be nominated in odd-numbered years, an asinine idea. I sympathize with the minority leader's criticism of McConnell...but I also feel it is completely legitimate to go ahead with the nomination and hearings process for the nominee to replace Anthony Kennedy, who just announced his retirement. Trump will doubtless pick the next justice from a much-publicized list that is full of very conservative judges and politicians likely to vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade and Obamacare, among other issues...here is the crux of where the Democrats are concerned, not the timing: it is unlikely, in my opinion, that the upcoming election will see them take the majority from the Republicans...if anything McConnell's GOP will probably increase their margin of control, so stalling this nomination until after the election is just delaying the inevitable...
McConnell's action in 2016 to me smacks more of personal animosity against President Obama than any desire to be "fair". Obama was the duly, constitutionally elected president when Scalia died and vacated his seat, and was thus the one who legitimately had the duty to select Scalia's replacement, just as the Senate in turn had the duty to consider his nominee through advice and consent. As for precedents in history, when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. retired early in 1932...also a presidential election year...Republican president Herbert Hoover wasted no time in nominating a liberal Democrat, Benjamin Cardozo, to replace him. That process went smoothly...Obama was conducive to something similar in 2016 but McConnell's spitefulness went so far as risking a much more liberal justice later being installed by Hillary Clinton, who at the time was leading the polls. My concern about all this, and the true test as to whether Senator McConnell is a hypocrite as Chuck Schumer just accused him of being, may come in 2020...
In 2020, the next presidential election year, the Republicans under Mitch McConnell probably will still have the majority in the Senate. Should a Supreme Court justice die or resign during that year, will the majority leader stay true to his stated principles he claimed to follow in 2016 by delaying any Trump replacement pick until after that election? Now that's a cut-and-dry indicator of McConnell's integrity level...I expect him to try to weasel out of it all with a lame excuse should that scenario develop, considering his long record of cloaking political expediency in "principles" he makes up as he goes along...
Charles "Chuck" Schumer is not only the senior United States senator from New York, but is also that body's minority leader for the Democrats. He was there under ineffective then-minority leader Harry Reid when majority leader, Republican Mitch McConnell, decided to announce only some three hours after learning of Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February 2016 that he would flatly refuse to consider any replacement nominee from then-Democratic president Barack Obama...in spite of the president's strongly expressed desire to work with the Republican Senate leadership to come up with a nominee more fitting to their ideological orientation. This unprecedented (and, in my opinion, disgraceful) shunning paid off for McConnell and his party...at least in the short run... after Donald Trump unexpectedly beat Hillary Clinton in the November presidential election and the winner nominated very conservative Neil Gorsuch for the position. Obama, following the refusal of McConnell...and Senate Judiciary Committer Chairman Charles Grassley...to respect the U.S. Constitution regarding their duties in this regard, had gone ahead anyway and nominated Merrick Garland, a federal judge with no ideological trail to speak of. McConnell wouldn't even show the common decency of meeting with this distinguished judge, at least for the sake of politeness, when he visited the Senate after being nominated. So with this disgusting spectacle behind us, why is it then that I totally disagree with Schumer's statement? Well, it's like this...
The whole controversy about McConnell's 2016 decision to stonewall Obama's Supreme Court nominee was based on it being a presidential election year. After all, every two years all of the House of Representative seats are up for election, as well as one third of the Senate seats...under Schumer's suggestion justices should only be nominated in odd-numbered years, an asinine idea. I sympathize with the minority leader's criticism of McConnell...but I also feel it is completely legitimate to go ahead with the nomination and hearings process for the nominee to replace Anthony Kennedy, who just announced his retirement. Trump will doubtless pick the next justice from a much-publicized list that is full of very conservative judges and politicians likely to vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade and Obamacare, among other issues...here is the crux of where the Democrats are concerned, not the timing: it is unlikely, in my opinion, that the upcoming election will see them take the majority from the Republicans...if anything McConnell's GOP will probably increase their margin of control, so stalling this nomination until after the election is just delaying the inevitable...
McConnell's action in 2016 to me smacks more of personal animosity against President Obama than any desire to be "fair". Obama was the duly, constitutionally elected president when Scalia died and vacated his seat, and was thus the one who legitimately had the duty to select Scalia's replacement, just as the Senate in turn had the duty to consider his nominee through advice and consent. As for precedents in history, when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. retired early in 1932...also a presidential election year...Republican president Herbert Hoover wasted no time in nominating a liberal Democrat, Benjamin Cardozo, to replace him. That process went smoothly...Obama was conducive to something similar in 2016 but McConnell's spitefulness went so far as risking a much more liberal justice later being installed by Hillary Clinton, who at the time was leading the polls. My concern about all this, and the true test as to whether Senator McConnell is a hypocrite as Chuck Schumer just accused him of being, may come in 2020...
In 2020, the next presidential election year, the Republicans under Mitch McConnell probably will still have the majority in the Senate. Should a Supreme Court justice die or resign during that year, will the majority leader stay true to his stated principles he claimed to follow in 2016 by delaying any Trump replacement pick until after that election? Now that's a cut-and-dry indicator of McConnell's integrity level...I expect him to try to weasel out of it all with a lame excuse should that scenario develop, considering his long record of cloaking political expediency in "principles" he makes up as he goes along...
Monday, February 26, 2018
About Robert Mueller's Investigation
I admit I don't know very much about the Robert Mueller investigation into the degree of how much Russia interfered with our 2016 presidential election and to what extent there may have been collusion on the part of any campaigns here, especially that of Donald Trump. It does seem clear to me that Vladimir Putin wanted to avoid Hillary Clinton getting elected first and foremost...Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders would have been the preferred candidates for him. Was Trump some kind of "Manchurian candidate" with secret, special obligations to the Russians? I don't know. Did he cooperate with Putin by enabling their propaganda machine to plant false news stories derogatory to Clinton? I don't know, but Trump during the campaign was very vocal in promoting the WikiLeaks release of stolen emails from her campaign...something that has been tied to hackers working for the Russians. Seeing how Mueller is keeping everything in his investigation close to the vest, it's hard to know exactly how much has been revealed and who all it is pointing to. Yet the president keeps going on and on about how the inquiry into Russian meddling is all a big hoax...
I've tried to suspend any judgment of Trump and his campaign until substantial results from the investigation have been produced. So far there are some indictments...they seem to be focusing on false statements and money laundering...and there are some guilty pleas, implying that these people are now cooperating with Mueller's probe. Personally, I suspect that Donald Trump is involved with Russian election interference on some level, but that's just my unsubstantiated hunch...you're entitled to your own opinion about this. I am hoping that Robert Mueller won't do what Kenneth Starr did during the Clinton administration in the 1990s when he was initially commissioned to look into any possible improprieties of the Clintons involving Whitewater...and then stuck around after that investigation was fruitless, trying to dig up anything to damage the president and finally hitting pay dirt with the Monica Lewinsky revelations on a completely different matter. Trump was on the Clintons' side back then and obviously knows how independent special counsels can widely stray from the original missions they were assigned: to this extent I sympathize with Trump. But then again, he has behaved in an arrogant, interfering, and obstructive manner with this investigation...I can't see how Nixon behaved much worse with Watergate in this regard. The main difference is that during Watergate the opposition party controlled Congress: Trump has his own party in there, and they don't seem very enthusiastic about holding him an any way accountable for anything he might have done...
Until this Mueller investigation issues its final report...assuming the president doesn't fire him first...neither I nor others around me will really know what happened in 2016. Those who have allowed themselves to become overly emotional about Donald Trump...both those who idolize and despise him...may have already formed their respective opinions about his connection to the Russians: just listen to their own narratives on this subject. As for myself, I think the country would be better off if one of the houses of Congress...either the Senate or House of Representatives...were under Democratic control in order to better ensure to the public-at-large that the president's own party isn't complicit in obstructing the flow of the investigation...
I've tried to suspend any judgment of Trump and his campaign until substantial results from the investigation have been produced. So far there are some indictments...they seem to be focusing on false statements and money laundering...and there are some guilty pleas, implying that these people are now cooperating with Mueller's probe. Personally, I suspect that Donald Trump is involved with Russian election interference on some level, but that's just my unsubstantiated hunch...you're entitled to your own opinion about this. I am hoping that Robert Mueller won't do what Kenneth Starr did during the Clinton administration in the 1990s when he was initially commissioned to look into any possible improprieties of the Clintons involving Whitewater...and then stuck around after that investigation was fruitless, trying to dig up anything to damage the president and finally hitting pay dirt with the Monica Lewinsky revelations on a completely different matter. Trump was on the Clintons' side back then and obviously knows how independent special counsels can widely stray from the original missions they were assigned: to this extent I sympathize with Trump. But then again, he has behaved in an arrogant, interfering, and obstructive manner with this investigation...I can't see how Nixon behaved much worse with Watergate in this regard. The main difference is that during Watergate the opposition party controlled Congress: Trump has his own party in there, and they don't seem very enthusiastic about holding him an any way accountable for anything he might have done...
Until this Mueller investigation issues its final report...assuming the president doesn't fire him first...neither I nor others around me will really know what happened in 2016. Those who have allowed themselves to become overly emotional about Donald Trump...both those who idolize and despise him...may have already formed their respective opinions about his connection to the Russians: just listen to their own narratives on this subject. As for myself, I think the country would be better off if one of the houses of Congress...either the Senate or House of Representatives...were under Democratic control in order to better ensure to the public-at-large that the president's own party isn't complicit in obstructing the flow of the investigation...
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
Tuesday's List: Ten Leading Causes of Bankruptcy
I was watching the U.S. Senate floor proceedings on C-Span2 this morning when Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL) spoke about the proposed Republican tax reform bill...specifically its provision eliminating deductions for medical expenses. Durbin pointed out that many households have large accrued medical expenses and need this deduction to keep themselves afloat...he said there were more than 300,000 in his home state of Illinois alone. This is nothing minor: as the senator stated, medical expenses account for the number one cause of bankruptcies in this country...and it's not even close. Well, Durbin's speech made me wonder exactly what are the primary causes for bankruptcy, so afterward I did a search and quickly came across Clear Bankruptcy, which seems to be designed to help people in tough financial straits: good for them, I suppose...there are other sites that have similar lists. On their webpage they listed the top ten causes of bankruptcy, which I've listed below:
1 MEDICAL EXPENSES (42%)
2 JOB LOSS (22%)
3 UNCONTROLLED SPENDING (15%)
4 DIVORCE (8%)
5 UNEXPECTED DISASTER (7%)
6 AVOIDING FORECLOSURE (1.5%)
7 POOR FINANCIAL PLANNING (1.5%)
8 PREVENTING LOSS OF UTILITIES (1%)
9 STUDENT LOANS (1%)
10 PREVENTING REPOSSESSION (1%)
Now I believe that for many of the bankruptcy cases the causes are probably a mixture of different factors coming together for a "perfect financial storm", but it is inarguable that medical expenses present a very big problem for Americans, regardless how well they plan their finances and handle their money. And it's because of our health care system here that, Obamacare notwithstanding, still regards medical treatment more as a privilege than a right. It is almost academic that as people age their health will decline and more and more serious medical problems will present themselves. And with the improvement of the medical community's means to handle those problems with often very expensive treatments comes a drastic increase in the costs, which can devastate people's finances, often just as they are either preparing for retirement or already there. And now one of our political parties apparently wants to aggravate the problem by eliminating medical tax deductions. If this provision of the tax reform bill becomes law, expect that "42%" figure to get higher (other sources already have it as high as 62%)...
1 MEDICAL EXPENSES (42%)
2 JOB LOSS (22%)
3 UNCONTROLLED SPENDING (15%)
4 DIVORCE (8%)
5 UNEXPECTED DISASTER (7%)
6 AVOIDING FORECLOSURE (1.5%)
7 POOR FINANCIAL PLANNING (1.5%)
8 PREVENTING LOSS OF UTILITIES (1%)
9 STUDENT LOANS (1%)
10 PREVENTING REPOSSESSION (1%)
Now I believe that for many of the bankruptcy cases the causes are probably a mixture of different factors coming together for a "perfect financial storm", but it is inarguable that medical expenses present a very big problem for Americans, regardless how well they plan their finances and handle their money. And it's because of our health care system here that, Obamacare notwithstanding, still regards medical treatment more as a privilege than a right. It is almost academic that as people age their health will decline and more and more serious medical problems will present themselves. And with the improvement of the medical community's means to handle those problems with often very expensive treatments comes a drastic increase in the costs, which can devastate people's finances, often just as they are either preparing for retirement or already there. And now one of our political parties apparently wants to aggravate the problem by eliminating medical tax deductions. If this provision of the tax reform bill becomes law, expect that "42%" figure to get higher (other sources already have it as high as 62%)...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
