Judge Dismisses Document Case

 It is very likely that a new term will enter the American lexicon. Lawyers, journalists and historians will describe a legal case as having been " Cannonized", meaning that an activist judge, acting with blatant bias and utter incompetence, has made a ruling which ignores binding precedent and defies reason. Judge Aileen Cannon's dismissal of the document case is consistent with her handling of the matter from its outset, embracing delay, unconventional techniques and barely concealed favoritism. One can only surmise that Judge Cannon is courting a high level cabinet position or an appointment to the Supreme Court should her preferred candidate recapture the presidency. 

The Supreme Court Bump Stock Decision

 

> Democrats should run an ad which shows a machine gun being fired and a voice over which says: “This is a machine gun which can kill multiple people in seconds. It has been banned by federal law for decades “. The ad should then show an automatic rifle fitted with a bump stock being fired and a voice over which says: “ This is a rifle fitted with a bump stock. It has been used to kill scores of Americans within seconds and was banned by an act of Congress. The conservative majority of the Supreme Court has struck down that law because, in their inexpert opinion, Congress did not intend to ban a weapon which operates in this fashion “.
> Hopefully, the electorate will believe its own eyes and conclude that it must vote to overrule the Supreme Court.

Alito's Recorded Comments

 

We know from his judicial opinions, his lectures and his tolerance for the flag-flying practices of his politically committed spouse, that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito places a higher value on the protection of what he perceives to be religious liberty than any other constitutional right. Indeed, he was recorded saying that he sees his role as helping to move the nation to a greater sense of godliness. This confession of religious bias, which blatantly conflicts with this country’s historical commitment to the doctrine of separation of church and state, also violates the duty imposed on every judge to be fair and impartial when ruling upon the issues before him.
And where was Justice Alito’s godliness when he misled senators at his confirmation hearing, when he accepted extravagant gifts from persons with an interest in cases before him and when he abandoned judicial restraint to make precedent-shattering decisions that deprived Americans of constitutionally protected rights.
While the Justice’s invocation of religious motivation may be more sincere than the God-like imagery with which a certain presidential candidate cloaks himself it is no less dangerous to the preservation of our democracy.

GOP Attacks On Garland and Fauci

 In the past few days Republican members of House committees disgraced themselves and their high office by making false and scandalous statements in the guise of questioning Attorney General Merrick Garland and Dr. Anthony Fauci. These venerable public servants refused to be intimidated and gave as good as they got. While it is necessary and appropriate to take legal action against those who lie to Congress, it would seem only fair and just to hold accountable lying by Congress.

The Sins of the Educated Class

 David Brooks gets it so wrong that it is hard to know where to begin the criticism of his piece. First, it is wrong to equate having a higher education with elitism. Sure there are universities deemed elite but most college educated Americans get their degrees from “lesser” institutions and the good news is that far more people are getting that education than in the past. A majority attain that goal not by dint of parental wealth or influence but by hard work and thirst for self betterment.

The challenge is not how educated progressives can reconcile their outlook with their status but how to convince the working class, from which many of them come, that they are allies committed to making a better society for all. It is bewildering that the Republican Party, which primarily represents the interests of the  wealthy and anti labor segments of society, has somehow persuaded a large percentage of the working class that it is its champion and that a Donald Trump has the interests of workers at heart.

Roberts Won't Compel Alito To Recuse

 Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. is fond of describing the role of Supreme Court justices as being that of umpires calling balls and strikes. What has become apparent over the years is that the strike zone used by these “umpires “ depends upon who is in the batter’s box. When an issue is dear to conservative justices they abandon their professed commitment to narrow rulings and embrace an activism they often claim to abhor, thus expanding the strike zone. When a progressive cause is before them they revert to the originalist approach and shrink the zone. These fluctuating calls are largely responsible for the loss of public confidence in the Court’s impartiality.  Even more corrosive to the Court’s reputation and legitimacy has been the acceptance by some justices of extraordinary largesse from wealthy “friends “ who happen to have matters pending before the Court, generous gifts which the justices failed to disclose. But the final and fatal miscall that threatens to wreck what may be left of the Court’s standing as fair arbiters is the refusal of Justices Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves from cases that raise questions about which they or their spouses have demonstrated strong predispositions and the failure of the Chief Justice to enforce a recently adopted code of ethics intended to prevent justices from acting on cases where their participation creates a substantial appearance of impropriety. This time it is the umpire-in-chief who has struck out.

Senate Needs to Stop Antisemitism Awareness Act

 

The Antisemitism Awareness Act, passed by the House and pending in the Senate, would withhold funding from Universities that permit or facilitate on their campuses antisemitic activities as defined in the bill. Michelle Goldberg is greatly concerned that the bill, if enacted into law, would empower the federal government to stifle free speech. Certainly, in a society that prizes and has enshrined in its constitution protections for free expression of ideas and beliefs, the right to engage in hateful, offensive and even potentially harmful speech must be respected. However, there is no right to insist that the government fund entities that permit such conduct. The focus here should be on how the bill defines antisemitism. The definition currently utilized does seem overly broad in that it appears to equate criticism of Israel’s government and policies with antisemitism, criticism that squarely falls within the ambit of protected speech. If the definition was narrowed to encompass activities that amounted to discrimination, violence and threats of violence, activities that would be universally condemned, the proposed law should pass constitutional muster and gain greater acceptance.