Supreme Court Exposed

The sudden death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has dealt a gut punch to the Republican Party. It is something they couldn't wait minutes before announcing that President Obama cannot replace him on the nation's highest court. Why? Because he's a lame duck. Didn't Ronald Reagan nominate Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court when he was a lame duck? (Let's check the record.)

I find that ironic, since Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution enumerates that it is the president's expressed power to nominate Supreme Court justices (how about that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL)?). Of course, that is with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY, by way of Alabama), is sure that he can mire any Obama nominee in senatorial minutiae, until Hillary Clinton is sworn in as president on January 20, 2017. (Wouldn't that be ironic and just desserts?)

Until then, the U.S. Supreme Court may divided in its votes on important court issues facing it, with only eight members. In such a case, the court could be divided by series of 4-to-4 votes.

On another note, why would a sitting United States Supreme Court justice be visiting a luxury Texas hunting lodge (or ranch) with people flying in on private jets? That seems like a prime recipe for ex-parte discussions about cases that may be facing the court. Republicans, however, may argue that since he was an appointment of Ronald Reagan, he is immune from such impunity.

US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia Dead

It would appear as if one of the Republicans' worst nightmares has come true. President Obama gets to add a liberal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the passing of Justice Scalia today in Texas. The passing of Scalia leaves only Justice Anthony Kennedy to carry on the Reagan-era legacy of the Supreme Court.

Marriage Equality for the USA

Ah, yes! The sweet sound of diversity being embraced in the world's oldest democracy: America.

As a gay man, I am finally happy to say that I can marry the individual of my dreams without worrying about being judged unworthy by my government. I kept a list of the states that legalized marriage equality, but I have since torn it up, because it is now moot. Each state is legally bound to accept the marriage of a man to a woman, a man to a man, and a woman to a woman.

What does it mean to me?

A few weeks ago, I watched my brother marry the girl of his dreams in a full wedding that was sanctioned by the government of our state. I was teary eyed for multiple reasons. I never thought I could have the same experience in my home state. Instead, I envisioned a ceremony in a state or country I never had called home. Ironically, and true to form, my brother's marriage wasn't a religious ceremony. It had those tones, but it was civil in nature. They exchanged vows and rings, kissed, held hands, and faced the audience for the first time as husband and wife. There were no gold or rugged crosses or prayers for blessing. It was my their style.

What does it mean to religious individuals?

Nothing. I once heard an individual state that their church would have to change its by-laws to preclude same-sex marriages from being performed. Well, goodness gracious. The religious people get their panties in a wad about the whole affair when it doesn't apply to them. I wouldn't want to get married in their stuffy, hating church in the first place. They place too much premium on "outsiders" wanting what they have. If I want, I'll create my own church and call it the First Church of Same-Sex Love and we'll put in its by-laws that mixed-sex marriages may not be performed. And the person I was eavesdropping on is correct. There is nothing about marriage equality that demands or requires anyone to change their viewpoint of the issue. It is a First Amendment liberty! In short, no one is requiring all the heteros to become homos. Jeez! We don't want you at our party drinking our booze, anyhow.

What does it mean to the hypocrite?

The endless lectures on Facebook and in-person about the Biblical morality of it all. Come on, your argument holds no water. I don't care what Leviticus says. Basically, you may as well pull out Hans Christian Andersen and quote from his works. That's the same level of credence I give your religious arguments. Ironically, many of these sanctity of marriage arguments are being extolled by individuals who have been divorced! In fact, I may have lost a "friend" who argued for marriage's sanctity, considering I couldn't consolidate his argument with the fact that he had divorced his second wife. Where does God fit into that argument? No one wants to talk about that. Instead, he wanted to point out the principles of Christianity that he believed upheld his personal viewpoints. I'm sure he wouldn't have been as comfortable receiving a lecture on divorce and fornication. (Gosh, I may have to ask for an amen on that!)

Finally, I will fly my flag a little higher today with pride and acceptance of all who walk beneath it. It won't be a rainbow flag or Confederate flag. It will be the flag of the United States of America. It will represent the country that underscored the value of human dignity and ratified our nation through the words scrawled by James Madison, "We, the People..."

Let's sue the President

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner (pronounced "boner") has announced a plan to ask the United States House of Representatives to file a lawsuit against the President, which would require him to enforce, protect, and defend the Constitution.

Isn't that a noble concept?

Just days after the Fourth of July, such an action would be suggested against the Executive Branch. I find this idea ludicrous at best. How can a house of Congress sue the President to perform his duties? I think in a counter-suit, the President would sue the House of Representatives to conduct itself, through a constitutional manner, to create laws, rather than sit on its collective thumb and do nothing.

Perhaps, the only legal remedy available to the Speaker is found in Article II, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, which allows the House of Representatives to lay charges of impeachment against the President for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Accordingly, can the House of Representatives lay a charge for impeachment against the President for enacting executive orders, which is at the heart of this squabble? The President is the head of the Executive Branch of government, which contains many, many organs (yes, I'll use an old communist term here) that allow it to operate. The President has constitutional power to execute the laws of the United States, through the enactment of executive orders. (No, there is no clause that allows for executive orders in the Constitution itself. Executive orders are implied rather than explicit.) For example, President Obama issued an executive order raising the federal minimum wage for its employees. Seemingly that is within the purview of the President, since the executive order only impacts those organs--or parts--that are within the executive's sphere of influence (a Cold War reference, yes). Does such an order maintain that the states must now raise their minimum wage?

No.

Does that mean Hobby Lobby must now raise its minimum wage to offset the cost of birth control pills and Plan B for its female employees?

No. (It's in the Bible! No, don't look it up.)

So, who can help in such a quagmire?

Let's look to the Judicial Branch, through the Constitution's well-crafted plan of Checks-and-Balances. Outside of impeachment, the only remedy for Speaker Boehner's complain can be found in the courts; however, which court has original jurisdiction over such a suit? Will the Speaker, along with a throng of Republicans, file suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia? Or like Bush v. Gore (2000), will the case go directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for adjudication?

When it's all said and done (if it ever gains traction), I believe that the courts will find that the only recourse for action in such a case is within Article II, Section 4, of the Constitution of the United States. Previously, the Supreme Court of the United States has determined that the language of the Constitution is quite sufficient and clear in such a case. Inasmuch, Nixon v. USA (1993), the Supreme Court found that it has no judicial review of impeachment proceedings or outcomes, as such proceedings are the "sole" charge of Congress.

In other words, draft articles of impeachment, or hush!

Gay Marriage, DOMA, & SCOTUS

If there will be a landmark opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding same-sex marriage it certainly came when the court struck down key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In addition, the Supreme Court vacated the order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, regarding California's controversial Proposition 8, which now makes it legal to marry in California for same-sex couples.

Perhaps, this Supreme Court make-up works in some fashion. We saw liberal justices partnering with conservative justices, and vice-versa, to render these landmark decisions.

In other news, I heard some people say they were going to move to Canada over this.

Such a comment only shows individual ignorance, considering same-sex marriage is legal in Canada! Good luck with that!

I blame George W. Bush

Conservatives are crying their eyes out today after the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare's primary mandate stating each American must have health insurance by 2014 or face a tax. The highlight was that seemingly conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal majority (5-4) in upholding the most polarizing portion of Obama's legislation; he even crafted its opinion!

Now, I cannot confess to have any love lost on Chief Justice Roberts. He is a George W. Bush appointee, after all, who came with high conservative backing during his nomination and confirmation to the Court. I thought Republicans were surely going to win a victory in the healthcare reform battle, with people like Roberts sitting on the bench, but boy was I (and many other people) wrong. Even CNN and Fox News incorrectly reported that the mandate had been overturned this morning.

It just goes to show that sometimes a Bush appointee can join with Clinton and Obama appointees when the stakes for our nation are highest.

Obama's Supreme Court Nominee

White House sources are saying that President Barack Obama will make an announcement tomorrow nominating United States Solicitor General Elena Kagan as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

(Or so I read on HuffPost...we'll wait and see what happens.)

Supreme Court Vacancy

Associate Justice John Paul Jones, who has been a liberal fixture of the nation's highest court, since 1975, is stepping down. Although, one of the oldest members to serve on the Supreme Court, he is still bested by former Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who retired at the ripe old age of 90.

President Obama, if you need someone to fill that vacancy, I am still available for a lifetime appointment!

(I wish!)

The Swearing-in of Sonia Sotomayor as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Sonia Sotomayor confirmed by Senate to U.S. Supreme Court

Sonia Sotomayor will become the 111th justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, after being confirmed by the United States Senate earlier today. She will be the third woman to sit on the court, and the its first Hispanic.

The final vote by the Senate was 68-31.

Sonia Sotomayor

From the hard streets of the Bronx to the hallow marbled halls of the nation's highest court, Sonia Sotomayor is President Barack Obama's choice to fill the vacated seat left by Justice David Souter.

I had little doubt that Obama would fill this position with a woman. It is in the court's best interests to appoint another woman to its bench. If her appointment is confirmed by the Senate, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the Supreme Court, and only its third woman.

Although, these may seem like important points, what will shape the future of our country is the ideology that Sotomayor brings with her to the Supreme Court, if confirmed. From the accounts I can gather about Sotomayor from the media and her judicial record, she is a moderate-liberal. This will be an important balancing point for a court that is currently top-heavy toward the conservative spectrum of constitutional interpretation. As Sotomayor points out, the U.S. Constitution is a living document that can grow and adapt to serve the needs of the people, not the government. It is not a stagnant document that does not evolve, in which the government can manipulate in times of great national crisis. In other words, the Constitution invokes expressed and implied rights, it does not take them away.

Sotomayor is currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. She was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to the United States District Court for Southern New York. She was later elevated by President Bill Clinton to her current position in the circuit court of appeals.

Justice David Souter to Retire

After serving eighteen years, Justice David Souter, who sits on the United States Supreme Court, will retire at the recess of the current Court's term, which is in June.

Although, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, he is a liberal leaning member of the nation's highest court. His retirement will give President Barack Obama his first opportunity to nominate a justice to the Supreme Court.

Congressman Barney Frank calls Justice Antonin Scalia a homophobe

Can a president quash his pardon?

George W. Bush is many things. He believes that what he can give what he can take away. In this case, he recently rescinded a presidential pardon he granted to a New York developer who was found guilty of mortgage fraud. (President Bush should have done his homework--or at least paid someone else to do it--before he signed any pardons.)

Now, to the main idea of my post: Can the president constitutionally quash an executive pardon?

In regards to pardons, Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution simply states, "[H]e shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment." It fails to mention the president can be an "Indian-giver," as my students would so eloquently note. It simply says the word "grant" in terms of the president's authority on this issue.

This seems like a question only the United States Supreme Court can fully answer. Legally, I do not think the president has the power to change his mind once the deed is done. An executive pardon is an irrevocable constitutional power.

"I like guns"

Who's going to be laughing when there's a deer half-way through the windshield of your Prius?

Supreme Court Overturns District of Columbia Handgun Ban

In a move that reaffirms what I said yesterday about the status of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), the Court has declared that a ban of handgun ownership in the District of Columbia is unconstitutional. This was decided in a 5-4 ruling.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the opinion for the majority, stated that it was not the Court's role to "pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." (67) I believe it is a far cry from the Court's role to declare any part of the governing document of this nation as obsolete, but it is certainly within the purview of the Court to interpret its parts, in whole and in part.

The Constitution of the United States is a living document, which means it is not stagnant and it has the opportunity to expand and be interpreted by the SCOTUS (and inferior courts, also).

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

In 2008, it is hard to believe that well-regulated militias are needed in our country. Further, states no longer have militias. The security of the United States is vested in the armed services, such as the national navy and army. Militias harken to a time when states, and local communities, had their own defense forces. In eighteenth century America that type of arrangement was necessary to protect Americans from all types of danger, however, the dangers and needs of our country have changed.

Is the welfare of the United States contingent upon the citizens of the District of Columbia having the right to bear handguns? That is the question that was before the SCOTUS, in this case. The majority opinion did not simply decide this question, it decided that any form of upholding the handgun ban would be a direct assault on the language of the Second Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion, offered by Justice John Paul Stevens, he writes that the Second Amendment does not fully protect the right to bear arms, such as in the case of a person using a gun "to rob a bank." (68) This opinion argues that the Second Amendment cannot be fully expanded to encompass "nonmilitary uses" such as "hunting and personal self-defense." (68) It is clear that the question arising in this case was not based on military, including national defense, purposes.

Although, conservative members of the SCOTUS pride themselves as being so-called "strict constructionists," it is apparent that they have expanded the language of the Second Amendment to include "nonmilitary" rights to include ownership of weapons by private citizens, through their majority opinion in this case.

Death for Rape

How absurd is it to think you can put someone to death for rape? (Not to mention that the United States would execute any criminal for even murder. It is disgusting.) The developed Western world, with the exception of the United States, of course, has abolished execution as a form of punishment for crimes.

Luckily, the United States Supreme Court has very narrowly defined that execution may only be used as a form of punishment in cases of murder. The Court's decision came on the heels of a Louisiana law, which gave courts the right to sentence child rapists to death. The truly frightening part is the Court's decision was 5-4. The majority's opinion stated that Louisiana's law was "cruel and unusual."

We as a civilized nation must be abhorred that people are executed as a form of punishment, first of all. Secondly, the fact that four justices of the United States Supreme Court ruled that it is appropriate to execute criminals for non-death related crimes is astonishing and unacceptable, It is a glimpse at what eight years of George W. Bush has given this country's judicial system, through appointments to the federal bench.

The Supreme Court has less power?

The Supreme Court is without power or influence in our country, argues one writer in Time magazine. I find this a rather queer assessment of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), indeed.

An article from Time decidedly thinks the justices of the Court are in a bit of a funk when it comes to their constitutional authority; I respectfully disagree.

Although, the article defends the record of the Court on many of the hot issues, such as abortion, civil rights, etc., that have come before it in the past fifty years, it points out that many of the life-altering decisions it used to render are far between in frequency.

It is true that the SCOTUS does not affect such issues as abortion on a daily basis, but it did give us a very terrible beginning for a new century, through its appointment of George W. Bush as president.

This single, unconstitutional decision will affect America--and the world--moreso than its decisions on abortion and civil rights, for years to come. It is evident that the Supreme Court acted beyond its scope when it issued an opinion on Bush v. Gore (2001), which ultimately reversed the decision of a state supreme court. When this case was expedited to them, the conservative members of the Court could smell the blood in the water and became as if sharks circling it until they had their fill. Now, the United States must recover from this horrible, make-shift president for many, many years to come.

A truly impartial Court would have refused the case Bush v. Gore (2001). The Florida Supreme Court had already issued its ruling on a rather cut-and-dry states only issue. As a consequence, the SCOTUS should never have issued a writ of certiorari. The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution awards protection to individual states' quasi-sovereignty from the overly busy body style of the federal government, which includes the Supreme Court.

It is obvious that Florida's electoral process falls within this selective purview of states' autonomy.

Furthermore, how can anyone argue that a branch of the federal government, which is comprised of nine elite members, who are non-beholden to the people and have lifetime tenure, are without power? The greatest obstacle they must face is receiving confirmation from the United States Senate. Despite public opinion, once that is realized their career path in life is set through retirement (or death).

Seemingly, the justices of the Supreme Court may not hear landmark cases on a daily basis, such as Roe v. Wade (1973) or Bush v. Gore (2001), which seem to retain their longevity long past their surface expiration dates, but they do play a vital--and often times autocratic--function in our democratic model of government.

Fred Thompson advocates repeal of Roe v. Wade, ban gay marriage

Former United States senator, Fred Thompson (R-TN), was unofficially campaigning today, when he stated that he would work to repeal the decades' old Supreme Court opinion of Roe v. Wade, which protects a woman's right to choose what she does with her body. In addition, he went further to state that he would work for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Is Fred Thompson trying to send us back to the stone-age with this political crap?

In regards to gay marriage, Thompson said, "I don’t think that one state ought to be able to pass a law requiring gay marriage or allowing gay marriage and have another state be required to follow along."

I suppose Mr. Thompson is working to create some sort of narrow political base among Republicans for his campaign. By limiting his appeal this way, he is also guaranteeing that he will lose the Republican Party's nomination in 2008.

Chief Justice Suffers Seizure

Bush lackey, and chief justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, John Roberts, suffered a seizure while vacationing at his home in Maine, according to the Supreme Court press office.

Hmmmm...