Hilbert Morales
EL OBSERVADOR
Many ordinary citizens do not pay much attention to the U.S. Federal Court system, which is the judicial arm of governance authorized and established by the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court of these United States of America with nine justices dealing with those cases selected for adjudication. The three (3) federal court levels are: 1) U.S. District Courts; 2) U.S. Court of Appeals; and 3) U.S. Supreme Court. Do google ‘U.S. Federal Court System’ to learn about these 3 levels, their structure and their organization.
During President Obama’s last year (2016) of his second term, to fill a vacant position, a U.S. Supreme Court nominee was sent to the U.S. Senate which has advise, consent and endorse responsibility. However, Republican Senate Majority leader (Mitch McConnell) effectively delayed consideration by the U.S. Senate; and after President Trump (a faux Republican) was installed (January 2017), Judge Neil Gorsuch was ‘endorsed’ by the U.S. Senate and seated as an “Associate Justice of the Supreme Court’. The former President’s nominee was never considered as an outcome of the delaying tactics which may have become ‘new’ U.S. Senate rules for these ‘lifetime appointments’.
Recently (June 2018), Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy decided to retire after 30 years of public service. This gave President Trump the opportunity to nominate Judge Brett Kavanaugh. The same U.S. Senate Majority Leader proclaimed this nominee would be considered by the U.S. Senate ‘as soon as possible’.
Senator Chuck Schumer (Dem-N.Y.), as Minority Leader, indicated that the advising and consenting by Democratic Senators would be deferred until after the November 6, 2018 Midterm election in keeping with the new ‘McConnell procedural standard. Meanwhile, Democratic Party hoped to have ‘flipped’ the U.S. Senate from Red to Blue (i.e., the majority may become Democratic after the midterm election of November 6, 2018). This is the tactic of the Democratic National Committee to establish some sort of ‘check & balance’ influence upon the ultra-conservative Senators and President Trump.
What is the real issue? Simple: Should the U.S. Supreme Court have a majority of very conservative justices or progressive liberal justices? Many important cases are resolved (and adopted as the law of the land) by a 5-4 vote. A majority of very conservative justices would favor implementation of very conservative ideologies and practices in the future. Perhaps, certain cases such as ‘Brown vs. Board of Education (segregation)’ and ‘Roe vs Wade (abortion)’ would be reconsidered resulting in former liberal progressive decisions being set aside.
In addition, there are several judicial issues which the current Trump Presidency has high-lighted as never being adjudicated heretofore. Has President Trump been elected to office ‘fair & square’ or did alleged collusion with a foreign power (Russia’s Putin) assist Trump during the 2016 Presidential campaign? There are several legal issues resulting from Trump’s actions which will be affected by having the U.S. Supreme Court justice have a majority of conservative ideologues.
MSNBC moderator Rachel Maddow said (Friday, 07.20.2018): “(Trump’s nominee) Judge Brett Kavanaugh supports strong executive powers; hostility to administrative agencies; supports gun rights (2nd Amendment); and religious freedoms.” All these are conventional items, however, “Kavanaugh has one stance that sets him apart. It could not be more timely: His deep skepticism of the wisdom of forcing a sitting President to answer questions in criminal cases.”
Maddow continues: “It is not at all far-fetched to think that questions of whether the President must respond to a subpoena could come before the U.S. Supreme Court shortly after the (Kavanaugh) confirmation process,” said Walter Dellinger, who served as Solicitor General for the Clinton Administration. “I do not know of any justice who has staked out as strong a position on presidential immunity even from questioning as Judge Kavanaugh.” THIS TRUMP SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE BELIEVES A PRESIDENT SHOULD NOT BE PROSECUTED WHILE IN OFFICE. Does this result in having a President who is immune to the existing laws of the land? Does this grant the President the status of ‘being above the law of the land?
Judge Kavanaugh has written: “We should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutors. I believe that the President should be exempt from the burdens of ordinary citizens while in office. It would be appropriate for Congress to enact a statute (law) providing that any personal civil suit against the President be deferred while the President is in office.”
“Congress should do the same, moreover, with respect to criminal investigation and prosecution of the President.”
Kavanaugh continues: “Congress might consider a law exempting a President while in office from criminal prosecution and investigation including from questioning by a criminal prosecutor or defense counsel. Even the lesser burden of criminal investigation including preparing for questioning by criminal investigators are time consuming and distracting. Like civil suits, criminal investigations take the President’s focus from his or her responsibilities to the people. The indictment and trial of a sitting President, moreover, would cripple the Federal Government. Such an outcome would ill serve the Public Interest.”
What all the above boils down to is “MAKING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TOTALLY ABOVE THE LAWS OF THIS LAND. INCREDIBLE!
If Judge Kavanaugh is approved by the current Republican Senate Majority, then President Donald J. Trump will be able to introduce a fascist form of democratic governance. Trump would also not have to deal with current issues such as ‘alleged obstruction of justice (dismissal of FBI Chief); alleged treasonous actions (accepting Russian {Putin} assistance during 2016 presidential campaign; dealing with that Playgirl affair (in addition to that Stormy Daniels liaison) which deprived the American voter of that information just before 2016 elections; The Michael Cohen case; abuse of the emoluments clause in U.S. Constitution… and more.
Currently the Trump Administration is filling all vacancies in the Federal Court system at all three levels. Some 40 conservative justices are being installed to vacancies not filled by the Obama Administration (the Clinton Administration also did not fill all U.S. Federal Court vacancies with justices vetted for their ‘liberal ideologies’).
The Democratic Party strategy to defer approval until after the Tuesday, November 6 Midterm election is the best hope to ‘get the right thing done’.
I encourage all registered voters to plan to vote on Tuesday, November 6, 2018…especially that silent majority who must express their values with their votes if a progressive judicial system is to be established. WHY? Two reasons: People of color make up 65% of all prison inmates; and Dark Money sources have delivered sufficient ‘campaign contributions’ to thwart the U.S. Congressional legislative process. In addition, the 32 Republican governors and state assemblies (i.e., the RED states) are all busy finding ways to hinder ordinary citizens who vote using gerrymandering and ‘voter hinderance strategies; and the Establishments of both the Democratic and Republican Parties are into sustaining the status quo. Essential legislation is not being enacted (e.g., immigration reform; the IRS tax reform did more for corporate individuals and the top 0.1% than for ‘We, The People” who work for less than a living wage).
What will it take to get massive numbers of ‘Silent Majority’ to GOTV (get out to vote)? It’s the best way to ‘change things now’.
Addendum: Consider making a one-time per year donation of $20 to <www.el-observador.com> or to <www.el-observadorfoundation.org> (non-profit IRS Section 501(c)(3). All funds received will used to sustain and grow EO as a local independent community publication which posts its publication online. EO is dedicated to publishing accessible ‘useful, truthful, and factual’ information. EO notes that too many mainstream media are owned and operated for profit and use of oligarchy approved propaganda.
