Category: judiciary

Categories
crime and punishment judiciary

Constitution-Free Zones?

police, freedom, constitution

Depending on the constitutional provision we’re talking about, probably every state is (or is at risk of becoming) a “Constitution-free zone.”

The present case: a court ruling that a dissident judge says is turning Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi into Constitution-free zones with respect to the crimes of federal officers.

On February 2, 2019, Texas mechanic Kevin Byrd was almost shot at by Ray Lamb, a Homeland Security agent. Lamb was not acting in self-defense. Byrd had been asking questions about a car accident in which the mother of his child was injured. A drunk driver was involved: Lamb’s son.

Called in by Byrd, the police initially detained Byrd, not Lamb. Fortunately, the assault had been videotaped, and Lamb was soon arrested instead. Unfortunately, the police let the matter drop.

Byrd sued in federal court. But he was stymied by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that federal officials like Lamb have absolute immunity, not merely qualified immunity, from prosecution for things like shooting at innocent people.

The Institute for Justice is now representing Kevin Byrd in the litigation. The hope is to get the U.S. Supreme Court to accept the case for review and then determine that, no, federal officers are not entitled to terrorize at will and without legal consequences just because they’re feds.

Fingers crossed. 

The Supreme Court hasn’t exactly covered itself in glory lately when it comes to holding police and other officials accountable for wrongdoing.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall judiciary

The 6 Percent Solution

Idaho, initiative

The Idaho Supreme Court has stated the obvious.

The question was whether legislation passed by the Republican-dominated Idaho state legislature making it prohibitively difficult to run a successful initiative campaign is consistent with the state constitution.

In August, the court ruled that requiring petitioners to obtain signatures from at least 6 percent of voters in every single legislative district of the state — 35 districts — would usher in “tyranny of the minority.”

It said that the new law “conflicts with the democratic ideals that form the bedrock of the constitutional republic created by the Idaho Constitution, and seriously undermines the people’s initiative and referendum powers enshrined therein.”

As the Idaho Statesman observes, the law would have enabled voters of a single district to prevent a question from reaching the ballot.

The Statesman also smashed the silly argument that the current initiative process somehow burdens specifically rural voters in any quest to post a question.

Under current law, petitioners must obtain signatures from 6 percent of all registered voters in the state and also reach that threshold in at least 18 districts, not all 35 districts. The all-35 mandate would have made the job of running a petition drive massively harder no matter what regions petitioners happen to reside in.

Foes of citizen initiative rights also tend to ignore the fact that getting a question on the ballot hardly constitutes its enactment. Every voter, from whatever part of the state, can then decide Yes or No.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall judiciary

The Ultimate Legislature

California, AB5, gig work, freelance driver

Proposition 22 was supported by 59 percent of California voters last November.

The statutory initiative partly reverses the destructive effects of AB5, a law that forced many California gig workers or freelancers to be treated as regular employees who must receive benefits — whether these gig workers like it or not.  

One notices at Ballotpedia that all the listed opponents of this measure were politicians, including our current Vice President (then Senator) Kamala Harris as well as socialist Bernie Sanders, while the diverse list of Prop 22’s supporters included: the California Chambers of Commerce along with the Black, CalAsian, and Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Crime Victims United of California, California Farm Bureau Federation, California NAACP State Conference, California Small Business Association, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

The benefits of the so-called gig economy are politically opposed and diversely appreciated. 

Unions funded the opposition, though far outspent by the prosperous app companies: Uber, Lyft, Doordash, etc. Those same unions, having failed to win over voters, then filed suit to block implementation of Prop 22.

‘The Court finds,” reads Judge Frank Roesch’s opinion, “that Section 7431 is unconstitutional because it limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law.”

Simply. Not. So.

A statutory California initiative can only be changed via a vote of the people, whether that vote happens because the legislature places the change on the ballot or citizens do so through the initiative petition process. 

The voters are the ultimate legislature. 

Therefore, nothing prevents the elected California Legislature from providing a change to ultimately be decided by the people of California, i.e. the whole legislature, at the ballot box.

For good reason, the judge’s decision is being appealed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary property rights

Landlords Defended, Sorta

Supreme Court, property rights, rent

In late June, the Supreme Court declined to end an unlawful CDC-enacted national moratorium on evictions.

Things have apparently changed. The court just ruled — in a 6-3 decision — that the “balance of equities” has tilted in favor of qualified deference to property rights and letting landlords try to financially survive.

Now it will be easier, or possible, for many beleaguered property owners to maintain properties — on which they depend for their livelihoods and tenants depend for things like heat as well as their residencies.

The three dissenters on the high court say that the “balance of equities” still tilts the other way, in favor of violating the property rights of landlords to help tenants unable or unwilling to pay the rent.

The court’s decision does not mention property rights. It does cite a 1972 precedent that cites other precedents “[requiring] Congress to enact exceedingly clear language if it wishes to significantly alter the balance between federal and state power and the power of the Government over private property.”

Of course, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress no authority to violate individual rights at will — even if it uses exceedingly clear language to do so. The Constitution does not say it’s OK to violate the Constitution.

What now? 

Many landlords are still subject to state or municipal restrictions on evictions that this decision does not overturn. But the ruling may help them press for relief.

And we must hope that the U.S. Congress doesn’t get around to intelligibly re-revoking the rights of property owners.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary term limits

Term Limits or Death?

Supreme Court, packing

“The only responsible choice for Justice Breyer is to immediately announce his retirement,” contends Brian Fallon, executive director of Demand Justice, “so President Biden can quickly nominate the first-ever Black woman Supreme Court justice.”

Not merely pushing identity politics, Fallon is warning of the risk of “Democrats losing control of the Senate before a Biden nominee can be confirmed.” 

No retirement announcement yet from 82-year-old Stephen Breyer, who recently advised Democrats against court-packing. Having served on the High Court for the last 27 years, he is the oldest justice and second-longest serving.* 

“Democrats’ fears about Breyer come after [Justice Ruth Bader] Ginsburg refused to heed calls from liberals and former President Barack Obama to step down,” notes Forbes, “which ultimately resulted in Trump appointing conservative-leaning Justice Amy Coney Barrett to succeed her when Ginsburg died in September.” 

It is painfully obvious: life terms at the highest court have produced gamesmanship — not on the Court, mind you, but in Congress, that cesspool of even longer tenure where our supposed representatives do anything but.

And why allow personal circumstances or the vagaries of death to decide such potentially critical matters in our republic? 

To prevent politicians from politicizing the Supreme Court of the United States, put the number of justices (9) into the Constitution and term-limit those justices to a single 18-year term. No renomination. With nine justices, cycle one out and a new one in every two years. 

There are other matters to consider and settle. Do so in constitutional form, so the whole country is engaged and the Court is hereafter more secure and independent of that branch most in need of term limits.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 * On the all-time Supreme Court longevity list, Breyer thus lags ten places behind Justice Clarence Thomas, who has served 10,767 days on the court and currently ranks 16th.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies

Constitutionalize the Court

Supreme Court, court packing

“To undo the damage Republicans did by stealing multiple Supreme Court seats,” argues Demand Justice, “we should immediately add seats to the Supreme Court and appoint justices who will restore balance.”

“Stealing”? That’s hyperbolic, to say the least. The Senate used its constitutional prerogative by refusing to approve President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 and four years later by swiftly voting to confirm Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

The group’s proposal? Add four new justices. 

Facing a 3 to 6 justice deficit (Dem-nominated vs. GOP-nominated), many Democrats and groups like this one have settled on adding four.

For “balance.” 

Which means, to them, going from the minority to the majority.

And you thought Democrats weren’t good at math!

Last week, President Biden announced a commission to look into this “court packing” notion, as well as other possible changes to the High Court, including term limits. 

“My colleagues and I need not wait for the findings of a commission,” offered Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.). It is “obvious,” he added, “we must expand the Supreme Court, before it’s too late.”

That is, before the next election or a resignation or tragic death of a single D-Senator might flip the Senate to Republican control. 

“Adding seats is straight-forward and easy,” reminds Demand Justice, correctly explaining that the Constitution specifies no number, “so Congress can change it at any time.”

Yes, even with the slimmest of congressional majorities Democrats could completely re-make the High Court. Without a single Republican vote. 

A partisan takeover of the Supreme Court is way too “easy” — until we place the number of justices firmly in the Constitution, away from poisonous partisan politicians. 

It’s the most urgent reform of all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies

Ghost of an Argument

Amy Coney Barrett, ACB, ,Supreme Court

On the 73rd anniversary of the birth of Hillary Clinton, the United States Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.

Mrs. Clinton, the former Democratic presidential candidate, looms in the background of the issue as a sort of éminence grise, a specter of the politics of the left. Had she won in 2016, late luminary RBG would have been replaced by a progressive woman. Not ACB.

For what would have been Hillary’s, count ’em, third nomination.

Not a specter, or grisey eminence, is Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Joe Biden’s partner in procuring 2020’s big prize. 

“I’m on my way to the Senate floor to vote no on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court,” Harris tweeted, yesterday. “Health coverage for millions of people hinges on who fills this seat. It’s clear that this nominee has the potential to do great harm to the American people.”

Note that this complaint has nothing to do with actual judicial qualifications. It has to do with a policy that Democrats insist upon: socialized medical billing. But as ACB made clear in the hearings, her judicial mindset is about legal process, as it should be, not government policy.

An hour later, candidate Harris asserted that Senate Republicans had “denied the will of the American people by confirming a Supreme Court justice through an illegitimate process.”

Illegitimate?

Well, you see, “more than 62 million people have already voted.” That is it. Harris pretends that since there is an election next week, and some people have already voted, the normal, constitutional business of Congress should not go on.

Anything to rescue their broken policy, Obamacare. 

Next week’s election sure will have consequences, but ACB’s stint on the Court resulted from Hillary’s quite legitimate loss.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies

Biden’s Court-Packing Scheme

Joe Biden, Supreme Court, court packing, election, Democracy

Hold on! What scheme am I talking about?

Joe Biden hasn’t said that he agrees with other Democrats (including former Democratic presidential candidates) who propose that the U.S. Congress act to dramatically expand the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices.

Joe Biden hasn’t said that at all. 

In his first and so-far-only debate with President Trump he refused to say, because if he did then that would become the issue.

“The issue is the American people should speak,” he said, and then turned to the camera. “You should go out and vote. . . . Vote and let your senators know how strongly you feel. Vote now. Make sure you in fact let people know.”

Know what, precisely? To vote to allow a Democratic administration to seize control of the Court, overcoming any constitutional objections to his (or her) socialist schemes?

But then Biden turned against the voters, when asked on Friday, whether voters deserve to know where he stands on court-packing: “No, they don’t deserve” to know. “I’m not going to play his [Trump’s] game. . . .”

So, officially, we “don’t know” whether Biden supports packing the High Court the way FDR tried in 1937.

Do voters deserve better from Biden? 

They do not! 

O, those voters — always demanding to know positions and agendas and things. Playing right into the hands of the opposition. 

Come on, man! Ya gotta vote for the guy to know what’s in him.

I know what’s on your mind. You’re asking, “Are you saying that Joe Biden’s coy covertness toward the imposition of one-party authoritarian government exemplifies a crude disdain for voters’ legitimate desire to know what their vote will get them and is even more disqualifying than his stealth court-packing scheme?”

Please. Don’t put words in my mouth.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary national politics & policies

Yes, We Can

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, RBG, Supreme Court

“She was an amazing woman, whether you agree or not,” a visibly saddened President Trump offered reporters upon hearing that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had passed away. She had “led an amazing life,” he added.

Not amazing enough, however, to nudge Mr. Trump to wait and let the next president nominate Ginsberg’s successor — either himself or a coin toss between Joe Biden and Kamala Harris should Democrats win. 

That delay was reportedly the justice’s dying wish.

The president’s opponents would certainly prefer that, too, but Trump vows to quickly name his third High Court replacement. 

And why not? There is a vacancy; he has the constitutional power. 

Sure, Republican senators will be charged with hypocrisy. And accurately, because they blocked President Obama’s 2016 pick of Merrick Garland, claiming the voters should decide by choosing the “next president.” Just as Senate Democrats will be orating the opposite of what they said four years ago.

Hypocrisy is as close to half-right as folks in Washington ever seem to get.

But what should you want your so-called representative who currently takes up space in the U.S. Senate to do now?

Same as always: The right thing. 

Unfortunately, not likely. 

Always hyping violations of “democratic norms,” it may be the Democrats threatening (again) to blow up the democratic norm of a stable Court. In a Washington Post op-ed, attorney and journalist Jill Fillpovic urged Democrats to “pack the court” if Republicans move ahead in confirming a justice and Democrats win the White House and Senate this November. Though, she advises, “if they’re smart, Democrats will find a more palatable [term].” 

How about a more palatable approach than a Year Zero re-making of the SCOTUS every time party control of the White House and Senate changes?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment judiciary

Nor Excessive Fines Imposed

criminal justice, traffic,

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

Although less controversial than other constitutional amendments, the much-neglected Eighth Amendment provides important protection from the government. Yet this amendment has been violated, sometimes grotesquely, and not only in the context of criminal sanctions.

The question before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, decided July 22, was whether local governments must comply with the prohibition against “excessive fines” when issuing parking tickets.

“This right to be free from excessive governmental fines is not a relic,” the court ruled. “The government cannot overstep its authority and impose fines on its citizens without paying heed to the limits posed by the Eighth Amendment.” Providing the basis for the present decision was a 2019 Supreme Court decision affirming that the Excessive Fines Clause does indeed apply to state and local governments.

The driver who is the focus of the class-action suit did not win his specific case. With respect to whether the fine he contested was in fact “excessive,” the court said no, it was not. But it sent the question of whether the late penalties were excessive to a lower court for further review.

The principle is crucial here, and the court clearly affirmed the rule that local governments may not impose “excessive fines.”

The many drivers in many municipalities who have been victimized by ridiculous use of red-light cameras to fill government coffers are among those who should take heart.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Original photo by Kecko

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts