Elena Kagan

America In 2012: African American President, Irish Catholic Vice President, Mormon Presidential Candidate, Supreme Court Of Catholics, Jews, Women, African American And Hispanic, And The Third Woman Secretary Of State!

Ronald 2 Comments

In the midst of all the turmoil we are going through politically, America should sit back and marvel at how far this nation has come by 2012.

We have an African American President, Barack Obama!

We have an Irish Catholic Vice President, Joe Biden, the only Catholic since John F. Kennedy in 1960.

We have a Mormon Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

We have a Supreme Court consisting of six Catholics (Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor) and three Jews (Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan), and also an African American (Clarence Thomas), an Hispanic, (Sonia Sotomayor) and three women (Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan) on the Court.

And we have the third woman Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, after two earlier ones (Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice (one with Jewish heritage and one African American).

So we have a lot to be proud of in 2012, with the tremendous amount of diversity!

One Dark Part Of The Supreme Court Decision On “Obamacare”: Commerce Clause Limited For First Time Since New Deal, Thrilling Libertarians!

Ronald Leave a comment

As one analyzes the Supreme Court decision on “ObamaCare” written by Chief Justice John Roberts, in the midst of the celebration, one has to pause and be concerned about Roberts’ assertion that the “commerce clause”, utilized regularly since the New Deal to permit expansion of federal power, was declared limited by a 5-4 vote of Roberts and all four Republican and conservative appointments on the Court—Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito–and vigorously opposed by the four Democratic and liberal appointments—Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Instead, Roberts said the law was constitutional based on the “mandate” being a tax.

LIbertarians are cheered by this aspect of the case, but it COULD effectively limit federal power, and restore states rights back to the pre 1930s view, which would indeed be tragic in so many ways!

So the battle over the future of government, and over what the Roberts majority opinion means for the long term, will be the subject of much discussion, debate, and cases over the coming years!

Justice Anthony Kennedy Still The Key Vote On Supreme Court: 2 Positives, 1 Negative!

Ronald 4 Comments

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy is still the key vote on the Supreme Court, and today batted 2 for 3!

He was part of the majority on the Arizona immigration law, with three out of four of the provisions of that law overturned, but still allowing police officers to check the status of people they stop for any violations.

He was also on the majority side on a case that gave juvenile murderers the possibility of parole from a life sentence.

He was on the wrong side of a Montana case designed to reverse the Citizens United case, a tragic development!

But two out of three is quite good, and there is still hope that he may be in the majority, maybe along with Chief Justice John Roberts, on the Obama Health Care law, when the Supreme Court announces its decision on Thursday, June 28.

The fact that Chief Justice Roberts joined Kennedy in the majority in the immigration case, with Justice Elena Kagan recusing herself because she had been Solicitor General during the time of the passage of the Arizona law, was encouraging to make people believe he might join Kennedy in the majority on the health care legislation. We shall see in three days!

So far, quite good!

Supreme Court To Hear Arizona Immigration Law Challenged By Federal Government

Ronald Leave a comment

In a term already historic for the significance of cases to be decided, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments today on the Arizona Immigration law that permits the state to do the following:

Require state and local enforcement to verity the citizenship status of anyone stopped, detained or arrested.

Authorize law enforcement officials to arrest without a warrant when an officer believes someone has committed a public offense that could lead to deportation

Make it a state crime to be in the US unlawfully, and require non citizens to carry documents to prove they are legally in the country

Make it a state crime for such a person to work or seek work, instead of the employer having the burden to verify legality of those seeking to work

This Arizona law has led to similar laws in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah and elsewhere.

The Supreme Court, with only eight Justices participating in the case, because Elena Kagan was Solicitor General in the Obama Administration, will have to decide if states can have their own immigration laws, or if this is only a federal matter.

This is one of the most controversial issues in America right now, and so far, a federal judge and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have held up enforcement of much of the Arizona law, pending the decision in June of the Supreme Court.

The federal government is seen by many as not enforcing immigration laws, while others would say that more illegal immigrants have been deported under Barack Obama than under George W. Bush.

This Arizona law is seen by many as an issue of basic civil rights, and as racial profiling, so the decision in the case is going to be one of the major political stories of the year, and will have an effect on the Presidential Election of 2012.

Trying To Fathom The Supreme Court On Health Care: The Court Under The Microscope

Ronald Leave a comment

Yesterday’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court led many observers to think that the Court is about to declare the Obama Health Care law unconstitutional this coming June.

Not so fast, ladies and gentlemen! This is hysteria and panic before the fact, with plenty of opportunity after the Court decision, if it is, indeed, negative!

Emphasis was put on Justice Antonin Scalia’s sarcastic comments about mandating broccoli, a totally ridiculous statement! But one must remember that Scalia is a showboat, a maniacal egotist who loves to hear the sound of his own voice, and get everyone’s attention, and one must remember that the Court was issuing an audio of the oral arguments immediately after the event, a very rare circumstance, and that had to be on Scalia’s mind!

Scalia was thought to be a possible vote, but if it is not, so what, as Scalia is, arguably, a hypocrite who is constantly contradictory, utilizing a broad interpretation of the Constitution, when he wishes to, and other times, pontificating on “originalism”, the idea that we must literally follow the Founding Fathers as they saw things in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention.

More importantly, the view of Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts will be the crucial votes, and although Kennedy and Roberts both expressed some reservations about the Obama Health Care bill and the mandate contained within it, there were also key comments by both that indicated a mind open to consideration of the constitutionality of the law.

Kennedy is usually the swing vote, and seemed conflicted, which can be seen as a good sign, and Roberts seemed very evenhanded, and is known to want to be in the majority, and probably write this most important decision of the past decade, and aware that the Supreme Court does not look very good in the eyes of many people based on recent cases, particularly the Citizens United Case of 2010, on top of the Bush V. Gore case of 2000.

The argument is that if Kennedy goes to the majority, then Roberts will join, and the vote would be 6-3.

And one must point out that the four defenders of the legislation were excellent in their arguments supporting the legislation, with Justice Stephen Breyer, a true intellectual, particularly outstanding in his arguments, but joined by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan.

So, with one more day of oral arguments, it is not time to give up on support of the legislation, and also realize that one cannot always judge how members of the Court will vote, based on oral argument alone, as often, what is being done is to test both sides in the case, and sometimes, purposely mislead on intentions, in the process of asking the lawyers in the case to defend their side.

This decision is far from certain, but progressives should feel optimistic about it at this point, and simply wait patiently to see the result, knowing that the cause is just and compassionate, and that those of us who support it are on the right side of history with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society!

Two Year Anniversary Of Health Care Law, And Oral Arguments On Case Next Week In Supreme Court

Ronald Leave a comment

The Affordable Care Act, the Obama Health Care legislation, hits its two year anniversary this week, and next week, the US Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of the legislation, seen as the landmark case of the past decade by many, and as the crucial issue that will have a dramatic effect either way on the upcoming Presidential Election of 2012.

The Obama Health Care law has allowed young people to remain on their parents’ health insurance to age 26; has prevented pre-existing conditions from being used to deny health care; and has cut down the “donut hole” for senior citizens in relation to their prescription costs.

Many other reforms must wait until 2014, assuming that the Supreme Court does not declare the whole act unconstitutional.

There is furious action to try to destroy the signature legislation that really defines the Obama Presidency, a law that took a full year to pass, and that was passed on party lines, which is actually not at all unusual in history.

Some federal judges have upheld the legislation, while others have challenged it, and it will be argued by both sides over three days for the unusually long total period of six hours, showing just how significant this case is!

As it seems now, the four “liberal” Justices–Bill Clinton appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, and Barack Obama appointees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—will support the legislation.

For it to survive in one piece, at least one of the five “conservative” Justices would have to join the four liberal appointees of Clinton and Obama.

Anthony Kennedy, usually the swing vote, and usually joining the liberals on about one third of the cases before the Court, is thought to be a good bet, but not a guarantee.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who is very aware of the significance of this case for the Court and for his reputation, is thought to join in the majority, but again no certainty.

Ironically, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who one would think would be opposed, has indicated in other cases as hints that he just might support the legislation.

Associate Justice Samuel Alito is thought less likely to support the legislation, and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is thought to be the one certain, guaranteed vote against the health care legislation.

The argument for the legislation is the application of the commerce clause of the Constitution, which has been utilized over and over again by the US Supreme Court in the past, adding to the powers of the federal government. This was the same controversy with the Social Security Act, with a conservative oriented Supreme Court in the 1930s, and that legislation was upheld.

The argument against is based on opposition to the so called “mandate” that all citizens MUST obtain health insurance coverage by 2014, or face a fine.

What the critics fail to address is that when someone does not have health insurance and ends up needing medical care, he or she ends up in the emergency room, and all of us have to pay for the health care provided. Is it proper that some have no health care coverage and gain medical aid, and the rest of us have to pay for our health care, and also for those who are irresponsible enough to avoid paying for care that he or she knows he or she can gain for free?

This is the crux of the matter, and it is hoped and believed that a majority of the Supreme Court will end up backing the Health Care law, with a prediction by many of at least 5-4, but even possibly 6-3, or 7-2, or even 8-1.

A victory by more than 5-4 would be a real endorsement of the health care legislation, while a 5-4 defeat would be a major blow to 50 million citizens who benefit from the legislation.

In either case, this decision, when it is announced in June, will have a transformative effect on our nation, and on the Presidential Election of 2012. We will all wait with “baited breath” for the result!

The Troy Davis Case: Capital Punishment On Trial, And The Supreme Court Disgraces Itself!

Ronald 1 Comment

The decision of the US Supreme Court to allow the execution of Troy Davis by the state of Georgia tonight is a legal travesty, and makes the Supreme Court look more than ever what it is rapidly becoming–a total disgrace!

It is shocking to the author that the decision of the Court was unanimous! How could it be that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan could sit by and allow themselves to be bullied by Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, and that Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy could not see the virtue of allowing a lie detector test; would not consider that a number of prison wardens called for clemency because of doubts about the evidence, none of which was physical and with no gun found; would not take into account that seven out of nine witnesses in the trial recanted; would not listen to five jurors in the case who said they regret their decision to convict and give the death penalty; and would not listen to a witness who said one of the other witnesses confessed that he had been the murderer of the police officer in Savannah, Georgia, in 1989!

This execution puts capital punishment on trial, and it is barbaric that a country that prides itself on democratic virtues and values allows the death penalty when there is evidence so often that innocent people are being executed, many of them minorities in Southern states that have always been “excellent” in utilizing the death penalty against the racial minority that they exploited in slavery and segregation! This is an enhanced way to utilize racism and justify it!

One would like to believe that the “Old South” has passed into history, but actually it has NOT in any sense! Not only do Southern states use the death penalty very often, but also they seem to revel in the fact that seven of the “Old South” states–all but Virginia, Florida, Georgia and Texas–joined with border states Kentucky and West Virginia, to be nine of the ten poorest states, according to the US Census of 2010!

The “Old South” is great at executing people, and keeping them ignorant and in poverty, and by no coincidence, they tend to be RED states, those that tend to vote Republican!

Is this something the GOP should be proud of? And is it conscionable that Republican candidates tend to ignore poverty, never mentioning the disgrace of it in 21st century America, and this including millions of poor whites, as well as minorities?

This is a sad moment for America, but hopefully, it will start up the fight to end capital punishment as against American democracy, making us look terrible in the viewpoint of our friends, European countries, that do not allow the death penalty, and do just fine without it!

Gay Marriage And The Supreme Court: Anthony Kennedy The Crucial Vote!

Ronald Leave a comment

In 1967, the US Supreme Court issued a decision in Loving V. Virginia, declaring interracial marriage constitutional. At the time, there was still widespread feeling among the American people, particularly whites, that interracial marriage should not be allowed, with three out of four in a 1968 poll so declaring. And nearly the same percentage, 73 percent, of all races felt the same way in 1968.

It is clear, also, that a majority of people, particularly whites, were not supportive of the Supreme Court decision in 1954, Brown V. Board of Education, which mandated the end of segregation of the races in public education.

Often, the Supreme Court is ahead of the country in formulating change, and of course, conservatives resent that. But without the Court intervening, progress would be slower or completely halted.

Therefore, with the decision of New York State to allow gay marriage, it is time for gay rights advocates to bring a case to the higher court!

But, of course, there is fear that the conservative Court would rule against it, but that is seen as highly unlikely.

No one can be sure how Justices would vote, but even if one considers that Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts might vote against, the odds are that Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg would vote in favor.

That leaves Justice Anthony Kennedy, the true centrist on the Court, who more often votes with the conservatives, but often sides with the liberals. And when one considers that Kennedy was the decisive vote in Lawrence V. Texas in 2003, granting privacy rights to gay couples, one has hope that he would continue to support gay rights, including marriage.

Kennedy also supported the rights of gays to stop being treated as a group deserving discrimination in the Colorado Constitution in Romer V. Evans in 1996, and also in a Circuit Court case in 1980, he showed concern about mistreatment of gays.

The timing is crucial, as Ruth Bader Ginsberg may leave the Court soon, and in the next term in office, if a Republican won the White House, both Ginsberg and Kennedy might be replaced, based on their ages, and the opportunity for a Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage might have passed!

And remember, unlike interracial marriage, a majority of Americans in a recent poll support the concept of gay marriage, a massive switch from just a few years ago!

So bring on a Supreme Court case and soon!

Supreme Court Issues Surprising Decision On California Prisoners: Release 30,000 Inmates Within Two Years!

Ronald Leave a comment

The Supreme Court, in a surprise decision by 5-4, ordered California yesterday to release 30,000 inmates in its prison population due to improper care and attention to the medical and mental problems faced by many prisoners.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the Court, again surprised people in that he joined the four liberals–Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginseberg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan–in arguing that the living conditions of many prisoners were unacceptable under the 8th Amendment’s banning of “cruel and unusual punishment”!

The case, Brown V. Plata, drew an oral condemnation from Justice Antonin Scalia, and an equally scathing written attack by Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts also joined the minority.

California, in the midst of a horrible economic crisis, will need to find solutions within two years, and possibly gain an extension, and can utilize new construction, out of state transfers and utilizing county facilities to resolve the issue. Otherwise, up to 30,000 inmates could be unleashed on the general population, a security issue of horrifying proportions if it actually comes to be!

While the future seems grim, Justice Kennedy can be applauded for recognizing the concept of human dignity and a minimal condition of medical care and basic sustenance, and Kennedy has long been a critic of long and harsh sentences.

Realize that not all of the inmates of California state prisons are murderers or rapists, as many are in prison on drug convictions, and there have been laws in California requiring a three strikes concept that puts a prisoner under a life term, no matter how small the infractions on later legal issues.

Key solutions that will arise over the next few years under Governor Jerry Brown will be financing, meaning the need for more taxes to support keeping more people in state prison; making sure that violent criminals do not walk the streets in the future; and overcoming recidivism by promoting real job training and mental health intervention to assist parolees in finding work and going straight, rather than returning to prison through a “revolving door”!

It is clear that America has never been very good at promoting change in felons, whether younger or older. The tendency has been to “throw the keys away”, but in reality, that is not a solution long term, and we must work as a nation on improving the odds of prisoners learning from their incarceration, and hopefully not having to return to prison after having created new victims!

The Westboro Baptist Church, The Supreme Court, And Free Speech

Ronald 2 Comments

What the author feared would happen has indeed occurred!

The Supreme Court of the United States has, by an 8-1 vote, decided that the hateful, anti gay Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, headed by the Reverend Fred Phelps, and consisting of about 50 people, almost all his relatives, have the right to disrupt military funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq or Afghanistan to protest the fact that gays have rights, and that America is going to the devil because gays are allowed to exist in America!

The fact that a military funeral is a time of mourning and stress for those connected to the dead soldier apparently had no effect on the Court, except for Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who, somewhat surprisingly, was the only dissenter.

So the Westboro Baptist Church can continue its evil deeds and disrupt funerals and promote hate, and the right of privacy of funeral attenders, including the family of the deceased, does not matter!

This despicable group not only has done this dastardly deed to families of soldiers, but also were present at the funeral of the nine year old girl murdered when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was seriously wounded in Tucson, Arizona in January. The only difference there was that a large group of sympathizers of the parents of the young girl formed a wall of resistance to these characters, and kept them much further away from the funeral procession.

This is not, in the author’s mind, freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or freedom of assembly. To call the Westboro Baptist Church a church is a mockery of the whole concept of religion!

All decent people will deplore this decision, and be embarrassed that Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined with Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and even the ultimate swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, in writing this reprehensible decision!

This is not a victory for free speech, but rather a victory for hate, and insanity, and lack of respect for the dead, and lack of patriotism regarding the military, who sacrifice themselves every day in far off lands!

Surprising, but the author must commend Samuel Alito for having the courage to go against the tide, a man that the author has not highly admired. So I salute Alito for his brave stand for decency!