Tag: U.S. Supreme Court

Texas AG’s Case was Legitimate

By Bryan Williams

I have always found the selective amnesia of people a curious thing. My wife will be the first to tell you I have selective amnesia (though I swear I don't recall she said this or that!), but I do remember big things. My high school band teacher was one of my favorites. He was fond of saying, “A short pencil is better than a long memory."  The news is not written in pencil, but it is written online.

I still find it curious that Nancy Pelosi is outraged by the GOP signing on to the Texas Attorney General's (very creative) suit as subverting the Constitution. I hate to break it to the Speaker, but the whole purpose of sending lawsuits to the Supreme Court is to determine if they stand constitutional muster. Everyone has a right to her or his day in court no matter how specious or far-fetched the lawsuit may be. You gotta give Texas AG Paxton some points for creativity though. He had a point, whether or not voting in each state and the District of Columbia was conducted November 3 in a clean, legal manner. The Supreme Court said, "Nice try, but nope." What would have subverted the Constitution is not giving Paxton and 126 GOP members of Congress their day in court.

And here comes the "short pencil" part: Remember about four years ago when people within Barack Obama's government were spying on Trump and his incoming team using dubious legal means? Was that not a subversion of the Constitution? What about all the executive orders President Obama signed? Is that not a subversion of the Constitution, and even of the very power Pelosi wields in the House? 

I don’t think the most die-hard liberal, or Joe Biden supporter would assume there could be absolutely no election fraud in 2020, considering the unprecedented number of mail-in ballots in such an atypical year. Rules for signature verification on ballots varies widely from county to county, and the United States has over 3,000 counties. 

Do I wish Mr. Paxton had tried a different tactic? Yes. I’m not a lawyer, but I think he should have asked the Supremes to rule on signature verification consistency, and how the lack of such consistency affected his state’s voters’ rights. 

Was he trying to subvert the Constitution? I don't think he believes he was, nor do I think the GOP House members who signed on believe they were. I wish people would be more careful with their language. Pelosi's subversion comment was hyperbole. But what else would we expect in a year like this? Keep those pencils sharp, and short.

—–

An Agenda for Uncle Joe

By Jim McCraw

Come January, when the 46th president takes office, we have a few words of advice for Uncle Joe. Herewith, assuming a majority in the House, a recommended agenda.

First, bring COVID-19 to a halt by example and by force of will, which President Trump never did. A quick and thorough response may shut down businesses hard in the short-term but will pay off in stemming outbreaks in the U.S. more quickly allowing us to open up again. The new president has to be in charge of this effort, has to wear a mask at every appearance, and has to coerce Americans to socially distance properly. 

If we could get General Motors and Ford Motor Company to build respirators and make masks in a revival of the “Arsenal of Democracy,” why can’t we get Americans to wear masks and avoid crowding in a World War II-era display of patriotic citizenship?  

Next, undo all the harm that Trump did in terms of environmental deregulation. We need, within reasonable limits, to protect our clean water, our clean air, our natural resources, our national parks from commercialization in all its forms. It’s still our country, every cubic inch of it, and we need to protect it.

We need to have a very serious look at our defense spending, which has, over the last 50 years, become a gigantic, self-sustaining pork barrel.  The Defense department and the federal government have presided over a system where communities in every state count on contributing something to the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us of 60 years ago, to the point where defense accounts for almost 60 percent of the federal budget. We already own enough weaponry to dominate every other country on Earth. This is ridiculous.

And, Joe, since you’re a center-left Democrat, why not some policy that would please center-right Republicans? Dismantle the Department of Education, send all those people back to real, productive jobs, and leave education to the states, counties, cities, towns and school systems.

If you have some free time, how about bringing together Treasury and Congress and figure out a new tax system that shuts the hundreds of loopholes in the current system and gives money for nothing to huge corporations.  Be the new Democratic party of smaller, more effective spending and fair taxation.

And have a good look at the Department of Energy, confine its role to the original intent, and let the rest of the 108,000 direct and contract employees go out and compete for real jobs.

Now that you’re in, start talking up term limits.  You may not get re-elected over this, but you will be doing a great service to your country by giving government back to the people and dismantling the Washington oligarchy.  While you’re at it, have a good look at lobbying and the damage it does to the democratic process.

And, as Justice Kavanaugh said, Roe v. Wade is settled law.  Let’s hope the Supreme Court keeps it that way. [McCraw is not interested in having Biden “stack the court” beyond nine justices. -Ed.]

Election spending limitation also deserves a hard look now that you’re back in office, and it’s time for a re-write of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) as a run-around to restore portions of the legislation that were dismantled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission.

Oh, and how about taking In God We Trust off the money and "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance?  Trump doesn’t believe in God, so why should the rest of us?

Thanks, Joe.  Appreciate you taking the time to listen.

Jim McCraw is a semi-retired writer and columnist. He has been a resident of The Villages for nearly five years.

—–

ACB on the Court Means the End of Gay Rights, Roe vs. Wade

By Chase Wheaton

Before Monday evening’s confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell spoke to the Senate and painted a vivid picture of the GOP’s mindset regarding its role in the current political landscape, saying “A lot of what we've done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election. They won't be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”

It seems to me that Senator McConnell has seen the proverbial writing on the wall, and that he knows that the American electorate is turning out in record numbers to demand change, which is why he capitalized on the Supreme Court vacancy before his power as Senate majority leader comes to a close. Whether McConnell believes that Biden will win, that Democrats will regain control of the Senate, or that both will occur, he knows that he will never again be able to influence the country in the name of conservative politics like he can now, and so, similar to a child flipping over a board game just before he or she loses, Donald Trump and the entire GOP knowingly went against the will of the majority of Americans to shape the legal and political landscape of this country in their image for decades to come.

This means that McConnell and Trump have successfully created a Supreme Court that’s more conservative than it has been in almost 70 years, and that represents their own interests, ideals, and beliefs rather than those of the American people. 

Given President Trump’s legislative record, and compared with the number of Supreme Court appointments by previous presidents, this is by far Trump’s greatest accomplishment. For perspective, President Trump, in his one term, has appointed more Supreme Court justices than any other one-term Republican president since Herbert Hoover in 1929. In fact, in recent history, while the Republican party has lost six of the last seven popular votes, they have appointed five of the last nine Supreme Court justices. 

If the Democratic Party has any hope of passing meaningful legislation or creating significant change in the next 10 to 20 years, they must seriously consider expanding the court and adding justices that reflect the values of the American people, and not those of a one-term, impeached president and a power-hungry white man from Kentucky. Otherwise, in a few years, as a gay man, I will be waving goodbye to my right to get married, and millions of women will be waving goodbye to their right to an abortion.

Wheaton is a higher education professional working in university housing, based in Greenville, N.C.

—–

Will Barrett Matter to the Election?

By Todd Lassa

Precisely one week before Election Day, Chief Justice John Roberts administered the judicial oath to Amy Coney Barrett allowing her to take her seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Late Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas administered the Constitutional oath to his new colleague shortly after the Senate confirmed Barrett by a vote of 52-48, Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed, One Republican, Susan Collins of Maine, who is fighting for her political life in her re-election bid, voted against Barrett. 

Justice Barrett starts work at the Supreme Court immediately, not a moment too soon for Republicans. The court, with Barrett now the sixth justice nominated by a Republican president and part of a potential five-justice majority with Chief Justice Roberts the swing vote, may soon decide challenges to the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, Trump administration executive orders on immigration policy, same-sex couples’ rights and the U.S. Census. The court is also expected to soon decide an effort by Trump’s lawyers to block the release of the president’s financial records to a Manhattan grand jury. 

There is also the likelihood the Trump re-election campaign will challenge Nov. 3’s results if Democratic candidate Joe Biden wins the electoral college. 

There is already election-related roiling in the courts, Pennsylvania Republicans wanted to block an extension to counting mail-in votes. The court rejected it without comment, so it may be refiled within the next few days. 

The court also rejected a case brought by Wisconsin Democrats who wanted to extend the deadline to count mail-in ballots.

The counterpoint to such apparent setbacks to the Democratic Party’s efforts to increase voter turnout and potentially win a majority of the Senate, as well as take back the White House, is that anti-abortion voters who are moderate or liberal on other issues may consider their goal achieved, and therefore may choose to not vote for President Trump next Tuesday. 

As if to counter that irony, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Tuesday called on Biden to expand the court beyond nine justices if he wins the presidency. Biden so far has refused to commit to “packing the court” as an obvious effort to keep the issue off the Nov. 3 ballot. The former vice president said in the Oct. 22 presidential debate that he would establish a commission to consider the option.

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

ACB on SCOTUS is Not the End of the World

By Bryan Williams

It is done. Amy Coney Barrett has been confirmed to the Supreme Court by the Republican Party (minus Susan Collins of Maine) in the United States Senate. The sun is still hanging in the sky, birds are still chirping, and bills are still being sent to me. Life goes on. This is how millions in America feel right now I imagine.

How about our political leaders? Those with a “D” after their name are furious and are promising all kinds of retribution should they win next Tuesday. The most notable option for the Democrats to get back at the Republicans for confirming ACB is to pack the court with upwards of six new justices.

Joe Biden has been coy for weeks as to whether he supports this court packing idea. He finally said at last week’s debate that if he becomes president, he will name a commission to study the matter and bring it back to him in six months or so. Ho hum, and I’m not surprised. This is what politicians do when they don’t want to tell you how they really feel and shield themselves from having to make a decision that may jeopardize some votes. Ask yourself this: would Donald Trump name a commission to study packing the court? Would Kamala? I think we all know the answer is “no.”

Do I think Joe Biden will eventually try to pack the court? Yes, but not because he wants to. While he proclaims that he is the Democratic Party, I don’t think he fooled anyone by saying that. Joe is the guy the left-wing needed to look electable while the liberal wing of the party waits in the, er, wing to swoop in and pull his strings come next Jan. 20th. Will packing the court matter if the Democrats own the other two branches of government? Will the new conservative majority on the court alter “Life as we Roe It?”  As President Trump says quite often, “We’ll see.”

One thing I do know: the sun will rise tomorrow. Birds will chirp. My bills will still be coming in. Life will go on whether there are nine justices on the Supreme Court or fifteen. Let’s let ACB do her (new) job.

Williams is a mental health professional and former Republican party official in California.

—–

Biden Holds a Big Lead Over Trump, but How Reliable Are The Polls This Time?

By Todd Lassa

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden holds an 8.9-point lead over President Donald J. Trump (51.2 percent to 42.3 percent) according to an average of major political polls by Real Clear Politics. It is reasonable to ask whether the president’s Friday morning tweet slamming Sen. Susan Collins helps or hurts the Republican senator from Maine now fighting for her political life, who has said she will not vote in favor of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Collins faces a daunting challenge from Democrat Sara Gideon, Maine’s House speaker, in the Nov. 3 elections.

The president’s Friday tweet reads, “There is a nasty rumor out there that @Susan Collins of Maine will not be supporting our great United States Supreme Court Nominee. Well, she didn’t support Healthcare or my opening up 5000 square miles of Ocean to Maine, so why should this be any different. Not worth the work.”

Closing in on two weeks before the Nov. 3 national elections, the real threat of a Blue Wave accompanying a Biden win would entail a big swing from the GOP’s 53-47 Senate majority, and potentially has Democrats building on their 233-196 majority in the House. Even relatively secure Senate Republicans may be hedging their bets.

Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Nebraska, as a member of the Judiciary Committee handled Supreme Court nominee Barrett with kid gloves earlier this week but criticized President Trump’s Thursday night Town Hall on NBC in a conference call to constituents, the Washington Examiner reports. 

Trump “kisses dictators’ butts,” “sells out our allies” and “trash-talks evangelicals behind their backs,” Sasse reportedly said. He further slammed the president for “mistreating women” and initially “ignoring COVID.” Trump supporters will note that Sasse is considered an early contender for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, a race Donald Trump Jr. may fight if the GOP balance of power remains in his family’s orbit. 

While having brushed off polls showing a huge deficit to former Vice President Biden for many weeks, Trump himself has predicted a repeat of his 2016 campaign performance, which means he’s closing in, especially in the final week. Four years ago Trump gained on Hillary Clinton after the former secretary of state led many polls only by four or five points, often within statistical error of a tie. This year, Trump must overcome landslide-style deficits nationally as well as large margins in battleground states, and even in erstwhile Republican strangleholds like Arizona and North Carolina, where Sens. Martha McSally and Thom Tillis face potential losses to their Democratic challengers. 

Our right-column pundit thinks President Trump has a big chance of pulling off another upset, and our left-column pundit, having been gobsmacked by the 2016 election worries the argument holds many valid points.

—–

Of Time, Bells & Meaning

By Stephen Macaulay

In 1787 Paul Revere opened a bell foundry in Boston. In addition to things like copper spikes and bolts that were used for shipbuilding, Revere cast his first bell in 1792. One of them was produced for the USS Constitution. During the War of 1812, the bell was put out of commission by a British ship, HMS Guerriere.

(For those of you who have forgotten their American history classes, the War of 1812 pitted the U.S. against the United Kingdom, which would seem unthinkable today as the U.K. is now one of our closest allies—well, given the way the current administration has treated our closest allies, maybe it isn’t so unthinkable. Anyway, during this war the U.K. and Native Americans were on the same side; the U.S. tried to get chunks of Canada; the Brits burned the White House. Again, much of this seems bizarre, but things were different 208 years ago. Hang on to that thought.)

While Revere’s bell foundry is somewhat obscure, it is worth noting that in 1787 the U.S. Constitution was signed.

According to the official White House website, “The founders also specified a process by which the Constitution may be amended, and since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended 27 times.”

Which is germane because it is clear from this that the founders didn’t think that what they had created was carved in stone tablets.

Even the White House understands that. Things change. Even words.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett has described herself as a “constitutional originalist” and that she takes a textualist approach to the law.

During the hearings for her appointment to the Supreme Court, Lindsay Graham, a former JAG lawyer (there is no evidence that he, like Harmon Rabb, suffers from night blindness, although he seems to be vexed by a tendency to behave as a presidential lickspittle), asked Judge Barrett what all that means in a way that could be understood.

She replied, "So in English, that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it."

She added, "So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it."

“The meaning doesn’t change over time.”

Really? 

So the words as written in 1787 have the same meaning as they do today? Back when Paul Revere was casting bells?

Let’s look at Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, which is important vis-à-vis the recent decision regarding the U.S. census as this is where taking the census every 10 years came from:

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.”

Note how there seems to be a randomized capitalization of words. Presumably were one to write that way on one a paper submitted to Judge Barrett when she was teaching they would have been in a World of Hurt because We don’t capitalize Nouns Nowadays. 

What’s more, there is the word “Persons” not “citizens” (or Citizens). There are Persons counted as fractions (or Fractions).

And meaning doesn’t change over time? 

Macaulay is a cultural commentator based in Detroit.

—–

Barrett is on Her Way to Senate Confirmation before the Election

By Todd Lassa 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has scheduled the panel’s vote on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court for 1 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 22. The committee, comprising 13 Republicans and 10 Democrats, is considered a sure bet for approving Barrett, whose hearings with the panel concluded Wednesday.

The full Senate will vote to approve Barrett before the presidential election Nov. 3, Graham said. With just two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, having earlier opposed seating a replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the election, the GOP still maintains a majority to approve President Trump’s nominee before the month is over. 

In her appearances before the Judiciary Committee Tuesday and Wednesday, Barrett carefully demurred on questions from Democratic members over concerns the nominee would rule with the court’s fortified conservative majority on potential disputes over the Nov. 3 election, as well as a case the Trump administration brought to the courts over the Affordable Care Act. For the longer term, Democrats interrogated the conservative Catholic mother of seven on her views regarding the 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case that made abortion legal nationally. 

But on these and other matters, Barrett repeatedly declined to answer on potential future cases. 

In her opening remarks, Barrett described herself as an “originalist” in the mold of her mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, whose replacement after his death early in 2016 resulted in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocking President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.

“That means that I interpret the constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it,” she said.

Jeffrey Toobin, legal analyst for CNN and The New Yorker , told NPR Thursday morning that while several Supreme Court nominees have called themselves “originalists” since Scalia in 1982, “she may be the first one to actually mean it… .” 

Barrett told the committee, however, that she is not a carbon-copy of her mentor.

“If I were confirmed, you’d be getting Justice Barrett, not Justice Scalia …,” she said. “I share Justice Scalia’s philosophy, but I never said I agree with him on every issue.”

She did give Democrats some hope in not ruling out the question of recusal from votes on next month’s election and on the ACA ruling, but again declined to answer Sen. Kamala Harris’, D-Calif., question on whether she believes in climate change, because of the potential for a case coming up before the court. [Republicans had singled out Harris, the Democratic vice presidential candidate,  for what they considered aggressive questioning in Justice Brett Kavenaugh’s Judiciary committee hearing in 2018.]

Committee Republicans praised Barrett as a justice who will inspire young conservative women and girls the way Justice Ginsberg inspired young liberal women and girls.

“This is the first time we’ve nominated a woman who is unabashedly pro-life,” Graham said.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Barrett Acquits Herself Well — Will Voters Care?

By Bryan Williams

Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hasn’t turned into the sort of disgusting hack job that afflicted Brett Kavanaugh’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. ACB’s qualifications are unquestionable in my opinion, and she acquitted herself well in the hearing.

The headlines that have grabbed my attention are not about ACB, but regard my state’s senator, Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Many on the left were reportedly worried that the senior senator is not up to the task of grilling the nominee due to her advanced age (she’s 87) and diminished stamina. I was shocked when Feinstein ran for re-election in 2018 -- hasn’t she done her part for King and Country?

Democrats seem to have a thing for senior states-people hanging on to their office. News reports following her question time suggested that Feinstein, like the nine other Democrats on the committee failed to land a punch on the nominee. NPR ran a recording of the hearing for ACB’s nomination to the circuit court, in which Feinstein called her “dogmatic” in her devotion to her Catholic faith. 

Really? Have we returned to the late 1950s, when opponents questioned John F. Kennedy’s Catholicism and devotion to the Pope? The “dogma” that put fear into Feinstein and the media is another way to build up the left’s fear that with Barrett on the court, Roe vs. Wade soon will be overturned.

But what effect will her inevitable confirmation have on the presidential election? I’d like to think that President Trump will get a nice bump from nominating such a qualified jurist whose experience, intellect, and opinions will shape our culture for up to 40 years. Let’s not forget, ACB is taking over for RBG and liberals are hopping mad that Trump and the Republicans are shoving through this confirmation with heaps of Merrick Garland-flavored hypocrisy. 

This will only serve to please the Trump base and inflame the Left. How will the small slice of independents feel about this, and will it affect their vote? I can’t say for sure, but I really don’t think the average American voter has the Supreme Court on his or her mind in this weird year.

Williams is a mental health professional in California and a former Republican party official.

—–

Veep Debate Marks Brief Return to 2020-Style Normalcy

By Charles Dervarics

After a chaotic face-off last week between President Trump and Democrat Joe Biden, Wednesday night’s debate between the vice presidential nominees offered a brief return to normalcy – at least as normal as it gets in 2020.

Despite major disagreements, Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., debated civilly (for the most part) and delivered effective talking points on everything from COVID-19 to China and the Supreme Court. Not that it was exactly like debates of old: Plexiglas separated the candidates due to health concerns after positive COVID tests for the president and others at the White House. The night also was historic with the participation of Harris, the first woman of color on a major party presidential ticket.

But as the nation prepares to choose between the oldest presidential nominees in history, both Pence and Harris offered some depth on issues in what could be a preview of the 2024 campaign.

The debate began with a focus on COVID-19, as Pence claimed the administration had undertaken the “greatest national mobilization since World War II” while Harris charged that the White House was not truthful with the American people. On a vaccine, she added, “If Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it.”

But the issue didn’t crowd out other topics, and both clearly had messages for swing state voters. Pence criticized the Green New Deal and accused Democrats of wanting to halt fracking. Harris talked up Biden’s plans for jobs and economic revival, including more support for education and manufacturing.

Pence sidestepped some questions – including the future of the Affordable Care Act – and Harris would not answer if Democrats plan to expand the Supreme Court if the Senate approves the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. Look for more intensive media queries on those topics this month.

Both also routinely pushed the boundaries of time limits set by moderator Susan Page of USA Today – Pence seemed to be the worst offender there – although Page kept the debate from going off the rails. 

As someone who covered the first debate with a woman running for vice president – George H.W. Bush vs. Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 – the differences between that night and last night were stark. In 1984, the first question to Ferraro was how she could compare herself to Bush, a congressman, ambassador, and CIA Director before becoming Ronald Reagan’s VP. Ferraro later chided Bush for taking a condescending tone and near the end, the male moderator joked with Bush about the World Series. All of that was very 1984, and a far cry from what transpired last night. 

Trump and Biden are up next on the debate calendar, scheduled for a Town Hall-style meeting Oct. 15, but it’s not clear at press time if the event will take place. The Commission on Presidential Debates has announced plans to make it a virtual event, and President Trump said Oct. 8 he does not plan to participate under that format.

Charles Dervarics is a writer and policy analyst in Alexandria, Va.

—–