ALGOP Chair: time is now for Doug Jones to decide if he’s with Chuck Schumer or Alabama
The confirmation hearings for President Donald Trump‘s Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) pick, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, began Tuesday. If confirmed by the Senate, Kavanaugh will take the seat currently held by retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. The confirmation hearings are expected to be the scene of highly partisan battle over the future high court, where Alabama’s junior Senator, Doug Jones, among a handful of other Democratic senators in red states, are facing pressure to confirm Trump’s SCOTUS nominee. On Tuesday, the Alabama Republican Party (ALGOP) Chairman Terry Lathan asserted the State Party’s support for Kavanaugh and called on Jones to “decide to either vote with Chuck Schumer or with Alabama.” “The Alabama Republican Party strongly supports Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the United States Supreme Court. A brilliant and fair mainstream jurist with over 20 years of public service on the bench, Judge Kavanaugh is thoroughly qualified to serve on the High Court of our great nation,” said Lathan.” Political theatre Kavanaugh’s confirmation has already been overtaken by political theatre as Democratic lawmakers delayed the start of the hearing by more than an hour saying they lack of important information about the judge’s record. “Helpful reminder: Democrats didn’t show up to see sensitive documents that were made available to them, the idea the hearing should be delayed because they haven’t read material is quite laughable,” tweeted Sen. Orrin Hatch‘s office. Helpful reminder: Democrats didn’t show up to see sensitive documents that were made available to them, the idea the hearing should be delayed because they haven’t read material is quite laughable. #KavanaughConfirmation — Senator Hatch Office (@senorrinhatch) September 4, 2018 Hatch’s office continued to set the record straight, tweeting the process has not been rushed. Myth: “this has been rushed.” Fact: that’s nonsense, this has been an appropriately paced, deliberate process. Kavanaugh was nominated 64 days ago ✅ Sotomayor was confirmed in 66 days ✅ Roberts in 23 days ✅ Kennedy in 65 days ✅ Ginsburg in 42 days#KavanaughConfirmation Nevertheless Senate Democrats have interrupted the hearing 63 times during the first half of the first day. “As his confirmation hearings begin and senseless attacks from the left continue, it is imperative that Americans remember the truth surrounding this nomination. Senate Democrats are reacting in a knee jerk manner of disapproval simply because it is President Trump’s choice,” Lathan continued. “In fact, many Democrats publicly stated they would oppose whatever nominee he chose. Their attempt to discredit Judge Kavanaugh, who earned the unanimous endorsement of the American Bar Association, is another example of their consistent obstructionist choices.” Jones to decide: Schumer or Alabama Lathan encouraged Alabamians to call Jones’ office and let him know of their support for Kavanaugh. “The Alabama Republican Party urges Senator Jones to confirm Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S Supreme Court. In 2020, our voters will remember a ‘no’ vote. We urge every Alabama citizen to call Senator Jones’ office at 202.224.4124 to let him know of your support for Judge Kavanaugh.” “The time is now for Senator Jones to decide to either vote with Chuck Schumer or with Alabama. We thank Senator Richard Shelby for making an early and firm commitment to support Judge Kavanaugh. We hope Senator Jones will follow Senator Shelby’s lead and hear the voices of Alabamians,” Lathan concluded.
Supreme Court permits full enforcement of Donald Trump travel ban
The US Supreme Court on Monday issued an order permitting full enforcement of President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban to go into effect while legal challenges continue to be argued in lower courts. While not a final ruling, the court is allowing the Trump administration enforce a ban on travel to the U.S. by residents of six mostly Muslim countries — Syria, Chad, Iran, Libya, Somalia and Yemen. The only dissent from the court came from Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor who would have left the lower court order in place had they not had the minority opinion on the court. White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley responded to the court’s decision and called the ban “lawful and essential to protecting our homeland.” “We look forward to presenting a fuller defense of the proclamation as the pending cases work their way through the courts,” Gidley added. What happens next? Federal appeals courts in San Francisco, California, and Richmond, Virginia, will hear arguments this week on whether the Trump’s third executive order of the travel ban policy is lawful. The Supreme Court noted it expects those lower courts to reach decisions “with appropriate dispatch.” Meaning the case will eventually end up back in the Supreme Court, likely by the end of June.
Alabama AG Steve Marshall urges SCOTUS to protect prayer at public meetings
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall wants to protect prayer at public meetings. Marshall joined a coalition of 22 states Wednesday urging the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the practice of lawmaker-led prayer at public meetings. “Lawmaker-led prayer is woven into the fabric of American society dating back to the founding of our Republic,” observed Marshall. “Public prayer is both constitutional and a common practice throughout our country. Today more than 35 states and countless local governments permit lawmakers to offer prayer. I share Justice Scalia’s perspective that “to deprive our society of (this) important unifying mechanism…is as senseless in policy as it is unsupported by law.” The effort stems from a case out of Rowan County, N.C. where a lower court ruled the county board of commissioners were not allowed to give brief invocations. The coalition of states filed the friend-of-the-court brief brief calling on the high court to hear arguments in the case of Lund vs. Rowan County and confirm the constitutionality of public prayer led by lawmakers. Such a decision would alleviate confusion among the lower federal courts and strike down a recent ruling in the Fourth Circuit that the Rowan County Board of Commissioners’ practice of opening its public meetings with a commissioner-led prayer violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The brief notes that state legislatures, including in Alabama, have opened public sessions with lawmaker-led prayer for much of this country’s history. “Both of Alabama’s legislative chambers have allowed members to offer prayers for more than one hundred years. A member of the House of Representatives, for instance, gave the invocation in the state Senate in 1873. And during the 1875 legislative session, Mr. Nelson and Mr. Wilson, members of the House of Representatives, opened House sessions with prayers.” Alabama filed its brief in support of free expression of faith along with West Virginia, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin, along with the Governor of Kentucky. A copy of the brief is available here.
Donald Trump nominee decried criticism of judges, senators agree
President Donald Trump insisted Thursday that comments by his Supreme Court nominee criticizing his own attacks on the judiciary were “misrepresented,” even as Republican and Democratic lawmakers vouched for the veracity of the remarks. Trump responded after private rebukes from Judge Neil Gorsuch, who said in meetings with lawmakers on Wednesday that the president’s comments about federal judges were “disheartening.” Gorsuch, who was nominated by Trump last week to the nation’s highest court, made the comments in meetings with senators after Trump accused an appeals court panel considering his immigration and refugee executive order of being “so political.” Over the weekend, he labeled a judge who ruled on his executive order a “so-called judge” and referred to the ruling as “ridiculous.” Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut first relayed Gorsuch’s remarks on Wednesday following a meeting with him. Trump’s own confirmation team for Gorsuch later confirmed he had made the remarks. But Trump said during a Thursday luncheon with senators that Blumenthal had misrepresented Gorsuch. “His comments were misrepresented. And what you should do is ask Senator Blumenthal about his Vietnam record that didn’t exist after years of saying it did,” he said. Blumenthal, who served in the Marine Corps Reserves during Vietnam, apologized in 2010 for saying he had served in Vietnam. The president made the comments while making the case for Gorsuch during a luncheon with 10 senators, including six of Blumenthal’s fellow Democrats. Blumenthal, a former state attorney general, argued Thursday that Gorsuch would need to go further to publicly denounce Trump’s verbal assault on judicial independence. “He needs to condemn Donald Trump’s attacks publicly and it needs to be much stronger, more explicit and direct than has been done so far,” Blumenthal said. “Unless it is done publicly in a clear condemnation, it will not establish his independence.” Lawmakers from both parties quickly vouched for the veracity of the remarks the senator said Gorsuch made. GOP former Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who is helping with Gorsuch’s confirmation and was at the meeting, issued a statement saying Gorsuch made clear he was not referring to any specific case. But she said the nominee said he finds any criticism of a judge’s integrity and independence to be “disheartening and demoralizing.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., each confirmed that Gorsuch made the same comments to them. Sasse told MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” ”Frankly, he got pretty passionate about it.” He added that Gorsuch said any attack on the “‘brothers or sisters of the robe is an attack on all judges’.” Fellow Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy came to Blumenthal’s defense Thursday, lashing out in a tweet directed at Trump: “Ha! As a prosecutor, Dick used to put guys like u in jail. Now, u use your position to mock vets, he uses his to make their lives better.” Gorsuch’s comments came at the end of a week of meetings with members of the Senate, which is considering his nomination. His response may have been aimed at drawing a line of separation with the new president. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is weighing the appeal of Trump’s executive order on immigration, which included a temporary travel ban on people from seven Muslim-majority countries. In a hearing Tuesday, judges on the appeals court challenged the administration’s claim that the ban was motivated by terrorism fears, but they also questioned an attorney’s argument that it unconstitutionally targeted Muslims. Trump told visiting police chiefs Wednesday that a portion of the immigration law gives him the power to enact the ban, calling it “beautifully written” and saying, “A bad high school student would understand this.” “Courts seem to be so political and it would be so great for our justice system if they would be able to read a statement and do what’s right,” Trump added. “And that has to do with the security of our country, which is so important.” Since a lower-court judge blocked the order last week, Trump has assailed the decision, leading legal experts, Democrats and some Republicans to question whether his remarks might jeopardize the independence of the judiciary. Others have expressed fears he may be attempting to use political influence to sway the courts. The president has repeatedly said foreigners are “pouring in” since the ban was put on hold and suggested that blocking the order would be dangerous for U.S. citizens. On Wednesday he tweeted, “Big increase in traffic into our country from certain areas, while our people are far more vulnerable, as we wait for what should be EASY D!” The administration has not provided any information to support his claims. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Martin Dyckman: Supreme Court nominees no reason to elect Donald Trump
Some Republicans to whom Donald Trump is the skunk at their garden party would have you elect him president nevertheless. Mark Sanford is one. When last heard of, he was the governor of South Carolina, canoodling with a mistress in Argentina while his office pretended that he was hiking the Appalachian Trail. Now he’s a congressman, and he had an op-ed in The New York Times last week (Aug. 14) strongly criticizing Trump for refusing to release his tax returns. Trump’s obstinacy “will have consequences,” Sanford said. It “would hurt transparency in our democratic process, and particularly in how voters evaluate the men and women vying to be our leaders. “Whether he wins or loses, that is something our country cannot afford.” Hear, hear. But Sanford also hedged his bets. “I am a conservative Republican who, though I have no stomach for his personal style and his penchant for regularly demeaning others, intends to support my party’s nominee because of the importance of filling the existing vacancy on the Supreme Court, and others that might open in the next four years,” he wrote. There you have it. To Sanford, keeping Hillary Clinton from appointing new justices is worth letting everything else go to hell. The government, the country, maybe the world and certainly the court. Trump might even nominate his conspicuous Florida cheerleader Pam Bondi. Sanford isn’t the only Republican who has sold out for fear of a liberalized Supreme Court. That’s probably a factor with Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell and John McCain too. Independents and die-hard Hillary-hating Democrats need to pay attention. If they don’t vote for her, they could have themselves to blame for making the Supreme Court a right-wing rat hole for another generation. Republicans want a court that would uphold their state-by-state voter suppression schemes, shut its eyes to maliciously partisan gerrymandering, and make it impossible rather than merely difficult to sue people like Trump for consumer fraud, environmental pollution and other white collar crimes. The Citizens United atrocity would continue to leave Congress in the grip of the Koch brothers and their allied oligarchs. Clinton vows to appoint justices who would repeal that monumentally bad Supreme Court decision. Trump doesn’t make that promise. He does, however, assure the religious right that his justices would repeal Roe v. Wade. Exacting such commitments from future judges is another of those developments the Founders didn’t anticipate. They had the idealistic, if naive, view that integrity and competence would govern who got appointed. But we have to take the world as it is, and there’s no shortage of capable lawyers who have declared that Citizens United was wrongly decided. Four of the justices at the time said so too. The court has a history of renouncing prior decisions as wrongly decided or simply no longer applicable. It trashed two precedents in Citizens United. Although Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion more or less rationalized that full disclosure would restrain corporate election spending, that hasn’t happened. Dark money by the billions is sinking the ship of state. And in South Dakota, the Kochtopus is fiercely fighting a ballot initiative that would require public disclosure of donors to advocacy campaigns, create a state ethics commission and provide public financing of political campaigns. Fortunately, there are Republicans who disagree that the court is reason enough to sacrifice everything else. John Yoo and Jeremy Rabkin, law professors in California, are two of them. Writing in the Los Angeles Times Aug. 14, they described the dangerous world we live in and warned that a Trump presidency “invites a cascade of global crises.” Moreover, they argued, conservatives should not take Trump’s word that he would appoint suitable justices or that the Senate would confirm them. “Even if Trump were to win in November, it is in the legislative and executive branches that conservatives will have to win their most important battles,” they wrote. “Does Trump look like the man to lead them?” Yoo’s opposition is really noteworthy. He was the deputy attorney general in the George W. Bush administration who wrote the notorious memos condoning extreme methods of interrogating terrorism suspects, including waterboarding. That’s a form of torture that Trump is salivating to resume. If even Yoo can’t stomach Trump, what does that tell us? ___ Martin Dyckman is a retired associate editor of the newspaper now known as the Tampa Bay Times. He lives in suburban Asheville, North Carolina.
Panel sends Alabama chief justice’s ethics case to trial
A state judicial panel on Monday refused to dismiss an ethics complaint against Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, saying that Moore will go to trial in September on accusations that he urged 68 probate judges to defy the federal courts on same-sex marriage. The Alabama Court of the Judiciary, a state panel that disciplines judges, refused dueling requests to either dismiss the complaint against Moore outright or go ahead and remove him from office. Chief Judge Michael Joiner said the case will go to trial Sept. 28. The panel of nine judges will hear the case and decide whether Moore violated judicial ethics and if so, what punishment he will face. The decision came down shortly after the conclusion of a 60-minute hearing in which Moore was alternately portrayed as a politician on a mission to block gay couples from marrying in Alabama or a judge who was merely trying answer questions from confused probate judges. Moore — who was ousted from office by the court in 2003 for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building — could be removed as chief justice for a second time. “We are here to talk about Chief Justice Roy Moore and his repeated refusal to follow the rule of law,” John Carroll, a former federal magistrate representing the Judicial Inquiry Commission, told the court. Carroll said Moore abused his power as chief justice to promote a private agenda against same-sex marriage. The complaint stems from a Jan. 6 memo he sent probate judges. Moore wrote that a March order from the state Supreme Court to refuse marriage licenses to gay couples remained in full force and effect. The order came even though the U.S. Supreme Court had effectively legalized same-sex marriage nationwide six months prior and a federal judge said Alabama should follow that decision. A lawyer for Moore said the chief justice was only clarifying the status of the state injunction that was issued in March because probate judges were asking questions about it. “The probate judges were flapping in the wind. They were wondering what to do,” his lawyer, Mat Staver, told the court. Moore’s order was merely a legal “truism” that the order had not been lifted by the state court, he argued. Staver, in defending Moore, repeatedly emphasized a section of the January order where Moore told the probate judges that he was not at “liberty to provide any guidance to Alabama probate judges on the effect of (the U.S. Supreme Court ruling) on the existing orders of the Alabama Supreme Court.” Carroll countered that Moore’s intent was clear: to try to urge probate judges to fight against same-sex marriage. Moore acted on his own by sending the order after unsuccessfully urging his fellow justices to take some action regarding the March order in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision, something pointing out by both sides in the hearing. The Monday hearing took on some of the theater and spectacle that accompanied the 2003 dismissal with passionate protests outside the court. Moore’s supporters and opponents held dueling rallies outside the court building ahead of the hearing, at times standing within a few feet of each other as they chanted and waved competing signs such as “No Moore” or “Judge Moore is right.” Moore entered the packed courtroom to applause from his supporters. After the hearing, he spoke to a sign-waving crowd outside, saying there is “no evidence” he broke judicial ethics and that he never told judges what to do. “They said I tried to influence them. I said it’s their decision,” Moore said. Moore said the complaint was filed against him by people who “don’t want anybody opposing any agenda of the homosexual movement.” The Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights legal advocacy group, filed the complaint against Moore that led to the ethics charges, and its director said Moore was clearly urging the judges to defy the courts on gay marriage and was now trying to “save his skin by playing word games.” “Alabama is a great state and deserves better than a chief justice who thinks he is above the law. We’ve said it many times. He acts as if he is the ayatollah of Alabama,” SPLC President Richard Cohen said after the hearing. Ambrosia Starling, the stage name of a small-town Alabama drag queen, was among the speakers against Moore. “We lost the war between the states. That means the Supreme Court holds the final authority over jurisdiction of law,” Starling drawled. Linda Chasom drove three hours from Georgia to attend the rally in support of Moore. She said she thought Moore was being persecuted for his conservative Christian beliefs. “My family is being persecuted. Judge Roy Moore is part of my family as a believer,” Chasom said. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
