CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Justice Ginsburg Regrets Trump Comments

 

Cariciature Cedit: DonkeyHotey via Flickr Creative Commons

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she regrets her recent criticisms of Donald Trump, calling them “ill-advised” and vowing to be “more circumspect” in the future:

In a statement issued by the court Thursday, she said that judges “should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.”

The Court must have conducted an intervention because Justice Ginsburg, aka "Notorious RGB," has appeared to be anything but repentant. As the New York Times put it:

In an interview with The Times published Sunday, Justice Ginsburg said, “I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” joking that if her husband were alive, he might have said, “It’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

Earlier, in an interview with The Associated Press that appeared on Friday, when asked to consider a Trump victory, Justice Ginsburg replied, “I don’t want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs.”

On Monday Justice Ginsburg doubled down, calling Mr. Trump “a faker,” who “has no consistency about him.” In that interview, with CNN, she added: “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.”

By then, Donald Trump had enough and tweeted that Ginsburg should resign:

Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot - resign!

Justice Ginsberg's regret, sincere or not, only came after scathing criticism from editorial boards such as the New York Times', which used the headline"Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg." Then there was today's Cover of the New York Post [click the link below] picturing "Darth Bader":

Today's front page https://t.co/crhYyWGZJfpic.twitter.com/hjuE6SHpE3

— New York Post (@nypost) July 14, 2016

Sotomayor sworn in as Supreme Court justice

Sonia Sotomayor took to two different oaths today.

First, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., administered the Constitutional Oath to Judge Sonia Sotomayor in a private ceremony. Then Justice Sotomayor took Judicial Oath before a larger gathering of 60 friends and family members, which was recorded by television cameras for the first time:

Sotomayor is the 111th Justice of, the third female, and first Hispanic to sit on the nation’s highest court. At 55, Justice Sotomayor is the second youngest current Justice; Chief Justice John G. Roberts is 54.

The Senate voted 68-31 to confirm Judge Sotomayor as a Justice of the Supreme Court. There were more votes cast against Sotomayor than any other current Supreme Court Justice except Justices Alito and Thomas:

• Chief Justice John G. Roberts, September 29, 2005, 78 – 22

• Justice Samuel A. Alito, January 31, 2006, 58 – 42

• Justice Stephen G. Breyer, July 29, 1994, 87-9

• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, August 03, 1993, 96-3

• Justice Clarence Thomas, October 15, 1991, 52-48

• Retired Justice David H. Souter, October 02, 1990, 90-9

• Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, February 03, 1988, 97-0

• Justice Antonin Scalia,  September 17, 1986, 98-0

• Justice John Paul Stevens, December 17, 1975, 98-0

There was no question about the fact that Justice Sotomayor is qualified. The concern was that she was less than forthcoming about things, such as her Wise Latina remarks, in the confirmation hearings. NPR's Ari Shapiro said that he and other reporters studied Sotomayor's background and career for months and the Sotomayor at the Senate confirmation hearings bore "little resemblance" to the woman they studied.

It truly unfortunate that the confirmation process has become such a farce that a Supreme Court nominee is allowed to obfuscate to such a degree and still be confirmed.

Watch live coverage of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings here

Supreme Court rules for white firefighters

The Supreme Court has ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

The firefighters claimed New Haven unfairly threw out a civil service examination because not enough minorities did well on the test, and the city feared a discrimination suit by the black firefighters.

The Supreme Court decided New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion test because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities. The Court held that the city's fear of litigation cannot justify the refusal to apply the test.    

The decision will certainly play a role in Judge Sotomayor's confirmation.

The 93 decision is available here.

Senate Republicans ready to oppose Sotomayor

Senate Republicans to ramp up opposition, in a respectful and fair manner, against Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, will  lead this week's charge against President Obama's Supreme Court nominee

In a series of speeches Republican Senators will focus on "Sotomayor’s involvement with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, the New Haven firefighters case, as well as role 'empathy' and the influence of international law has had on her decisions." 

Respectful and fair opposition doesn't have to mean nothing substantive.

Objectivity is key question for Sotomayor

In the face of revelations that Judge Sonia Sotomayor made numerous "wise Latina" speeches suggesting race and gender should affect a judge’s decisions, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, says objectivity "is the central question" for consideration of Judge Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination:

Do I want a judge that allows his or her social, political, or religious views to impact the outcome?

Or, do I want a judge that objectively applies the law to the facts, and fairly rules on the merits?

That is the central question around which this entire nomination process will revolve.

Senator Sessions laid down the objectivity marker in the weekly Republican address, in which Sessions also takes President Obama to task for use the "empathy standard" in nominating Judge Sotomayor:

I am troubled by President Obama's use of the ‘empathy standard' when selecting federal judges.

With this view—that a judge should use his or her personal feelings about a particular group or issues to decide a case—it stands in stark contrast to the impartiality that we expect in the American courtroom.

If a judge is allowed to let his or her feelings for one party in the case sway his decision, hasn't that judge then demonstrated a bias against the other party?

And, if a judge is allowed to inject his personal views into the interpretation of the law, does he not then have a license to rewrite the laws to fit his own preferences? 

I fear that this ‘empathy standard' is another step down the path to a cynical, relativistic, results-oriented world:

• Where words and laws have no fixed meaning;

• Where unelected judges set policy;

• And where Constitutional limits on government power are ignored when they are inconvenient to the powerful.

This standard is deeply troubling because it is so contradictory to our country's long heritage of a faithful and impartial adherence to the rule of law.

Impartiality is a cornerstone of the American legal system.  The rule of law is a hallmark of an orderly society.  Together, they form the basis for the moral authority of law.   

That moral authority is the reason that Americans everyday respect and accept the rulings of courts, even when they strongly disagree.

You can watch Senator Sessions' remarks in the following video, which begins by honoring those who participated in the invasion of Normandy 65 years ago:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hospitalized with pancreatic cancer

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg  underwent surgery Thursday for removal of a cancerous tumor from her pancreas.

According to a court announcement, Justice Ginsburg is being treated at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. She will likely remain in the hospital approximately 7-10 days.

Ginsburg's pancreatic cancer was discovered early, in the course of a routine annual screening, but medical literature says even in this circumstance, a patient's five-year survival chances range from 10 to 30 percent

Justice Ginsburg had no symptoms prior to the incidental discovery of the lesion during a routine annual checkup in late January at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. A CAT Scan revealed a small tumor, approximately 1 cm across, in the center of the pancreas.

Justice Ginsburg was treated for colon cancer 10 years ago. Because she underwent radiation treatment after her colon surgery, it is unlikely that Ginsburg will be able to have radiation treatment a second time. Chemotherapy has not proved to be curative for pancreatic cancer.

Obama Insults Justice Clarence Thomas

The Wall Street Journal takes Obama to task for demeaning Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas at the Saddleback Church forum:

Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.

Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.

So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.

You can watch the Democrats' presumptuous nominee, demean Justice Thomas in the following video:

Obama could have answered the question without being uncivil and insulting Justice Thomas.

Supreme Court Affirms Second Amendment Rights, Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

5 to 4 decision, Justice Scalia writes for the majority:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The Court's ruling significantly restricts the D.C. gun laws, enacted in 1976 as the strictest gun control law in the country. The justices did not bar all government regulation of firearms:

"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns," Justice Scalia said, adding the Constitution bars an absolute handgun ban.

No wonder Obama disavowed his "inartful" statement calling the D.C. gun laws constitutional.

Not Even Obama Agrees With What Obama Says

Last year, in a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins reported that "the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

That was then.

Now, anticipating the Supreme Court's ruling in the DC gun case, Obama, a former constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago, reconsiders:

With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

According to ABC, Senator McCain has been more straightforward when it comes to the D.C. gun law:

He [McCain] signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, signaling not only his belief in the Second Amendment but also his view that the DC gun ban is incompatible with it.

The D.C. ban prohibits residents from keeping handguns inside their homes and requires that lawfully registered guns, such as shotguns, be locked and unloaded when kept at home.