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.

Antisemitism

 The calumny, that the Jews (thought of as a racial entity from the beginning of time to the present) killed Jesus Christ, is again a topic of controversy. Though that incendiary concept has been proven historically false and, in recent times, has been rejected by the Christian Church and the Papacy, it has persisted through the centuries and has resurfaced now during the debate over the pending legislation condemning antisemitism and outlawing its teachings in American schools.

Assuming, arguendo , that more than 2,000 years ago the people who crucified the man who later became known as Christ, can be identified as Jews, the question presented is why that act has been so viciously condemned and why the descendants of those people have been vilified, rejected and slaughtered because of it.
Putting aside the obvious truth, that it is wrong to punish a person, let alone an entire group, for the “sins “ of a few long ago forebears, an examination of the beliefs surrounding the crucifixion call into question why that act and its perpetrators are blameworthy.
If one accepts the Christian belief that Christ appeared on Earth for the purpose of dying to expiate the sins of Mankind, than those who enabled him to fulfill his mission were instruments of God acting in accordance with a predetermined plan. Indeed, Christ himself is reported to have foretold the happening and asked for the forgiveness of its enactors.
Furthermore , Christians believe that Christ is the Lord and a god cannot die. That he did not truly die is evidenced by his reappearance just days after the event. Thus, one must conclude that Jews did not kill Christ; no one did.

The Supreme Court and Presidential Immunity

 Incredibly, though perhaps not surprisingly, it is patently clear that the conservative justices on the Supreme Court, based upon their questioning of counsel and statements made by them during argument, are breaking ground for the demise of our democracy.

These justices have left no doubt that they disagree  with the holding of the lower courts and will find Donald Trump enjoys at least some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution. Further, it is apparent that they will send the case back to the trial court with instructions to make findings about whether the charges brought by Special Counsel against Mr. Trump involved official or private acts. This will insure that a trial of the case cannot be held before the November election.
What is surprising is the painfully inadequate response of the liberal justices and the missed opportunities for Special Counsel to present his case with greater cogency and passion.
The consequences of this impending miscarriage of justice is to make more likely the return to power of Donald Trump who will then use the opportunity to complete his destruction of our democracy and the rule of law.

Supreme Court Argument re Obstruction

 

If the conservative majority of the Supreme Court is true to its commitment to textualism it must uphold the convictions of those who assaulted Congress on January 6 for the purpose of obstructing the official proceeding being held that day to declare the winner of the 2020 presidential election. The statute the court has been asked to interpret, by its explicit terms, makes  the conduct of the accused unlawful. And yet the tenor of the questions posed at the argument of the case suggest that the conservative justices are likely to so limit the scope of the obstruction statute as to make it inapplicable to the physical interference which prevented Congress from performing its duty. Compounding that inexplicable departure from their usual approach to statutory interpretation, is the fact that Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife supported the attackers of the Capitol, and who therefore should have recused himself, seems to be leading the charge to absolve the obstructionists.
If the Court doesn’t get this right there is little hope that it will rule appropriately after it hears argument next week on the fraudulent claim of presidential immunity being asserted by Donald Trump.
The obvious partisan tenor of the Court’s conservative majority has already done grave damage to the Court’s reputation for integrity. Any further rulings of a similar nature will put that perception beyond redemption.

The Biden Administration's Low Approval Ratings

 One of the perplexing questions of this Age is why so many Americans disapprove of President Joseph Biden notwithstanding the many commendable accomplishments of his administration, accomplishments achieved in the face of an inflexible, politically motivated Republican majority in the House and despite the indisputably strong economy it has restored.

Part of the answer is the growing strength of White nationalism and the racist resentment it has unleashed. That rancor has been stoked and amplified by Donald Trump, a right-wing media that willfully distorts facts and politicians who have surrendered ethical standards in their quest for power.
However, I respectfully submit that the primary reason for Biden’s low approval is a function of optics. The President projects an image of dotage, stumbling in both words and steps. Even admirers of his good judgment, experience and effectiveness are given to wince at his appearance. While the impact of these visuals may be unfair it is understandable. Americans have come to admire the projection of vitality and youthfulness in their leaders. Adding to this disenchantment has been a perceived lack of gravitas exhibited by Vice President Kamala Harris, though this perception has recently begun to change as she forcefully defends the rights of women to appropriate healthcare and bodily autonomy.
If ever there was a need to delve beneath surface appearance and judge the substance of competing candidates, now is that time. America cannot afford to elevate charisma above character.

Alliances on the Supreme Court

 Former Justice Stephen Breyer paints a pretty picture of how well the justices personally relate to one another even when they strongly disagree on the law. His essay ignores certain historical anomalies and hardly draws a complete portrait.

We know that there were times in the past when religious bigotry infected relationships between certain justices. And while Justice Breyer’s assertion, that the justices at their conferences never raise their voices in anger nor make snide or personal remarks may be accurate, it is not uncommon for dissenting justices to harshly criticize or even vilify a colleague in their written (and public) opinions.
Given the recent revelations about the misconduct and corrupt practices of some of the justices, and the obvious political bent of their decisions which have eroded public trust, perhaps it is time for justices to call out their offending colleagues and hold them to account since no one else seems to have the authority or gumption to do so.