No. I am sorry. I cannot support Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court of the United States. It is not that he is unqualified. This guy is plenty qualified. He is the Peyton Manning of law. He has the pedigree. He has clerked for all the right people in all the right places. He went to the right schools – high school, college, law school, and postgraduate education. The point is not whether or not he is qualified. Neither is the point whether I agree with his ideology. I do not. Instead, we should be focusing on the fact that Neil Gorsuch is all about process.
President, let me underscore this, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. Mister Garland is eminently qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. Yet, empowered by purely partisan politics, the GOP-led Senate decided to make up their own criteria about whom they are going to vet and whom they are not. This is all about the Democrats’ deciding that it is time to grow a backbone. Sometimes, you need to draw a line in the sand and say, “This is about principle.”
We can go into all the ins and outs behind why the Republicans were 100% wrong about not even granting a hearing to Merrick Garland. They were wrong. They knew that, were they actually hold hearings, Merrick Garland would come off as someone who was thoughtful, intelligent; and, God forbid, Supreme Court material. So they decided to obstruct and thwart Garland in every way. Now, if we allow Neil Gorsuch to move forward, we have rewarded the Republicans for obstructionism. This cannot happen.
Every now and then, you must stand up for what you believe. Do you believe in the Constitution? Do you believe that we are a land of laws? If so, you must admit that we have no choice but to force the Republicans, and Donald Trump, to nominate Merrick Garland, even if they decide to vote him down. He must go through the process. It is the right thing to do. It is the American way.
To me, with very few exceptions, the state should not be in the business of executing its own citizens. I just believe that we humans are too fallible. We’ve heard eyewitness reports that are wrong. We’ve heard of inmates who have been convicted and lost an appeal but have been found innocent 20 years later. In Oklahoma, they botched an execution. There’s no excuse. This should never happen. Strong Editorial in the NY Times against the death penalty. (I don’t understand why there is a need for a new cocktail. We have several medications that we KNOW work. The problem is that we are trying to make death nice and clean for the cameras.)
Paul Ryan met with the Congressional Black Caucus to talk about poverty. All I can do is smile. It is nice to see Paul Ryan get together with the Congressional Black Caucus, but let’s be serious. Is Paul Ryan really going to change his ways? Is he really going to become more enlightened? I doubt it. Was this a big show for the cameras? Yes. This shows that Paul Ryan is not the immovable, inflexible conservative Republican that we think he is.
Economic growth slows in the first quarter, mostly to be blamed on the severe weather in January and February. In my mind, we still need a new economic stimulus. We have millions of Americans still out of work. We have millions of college graduates who are looking for work. These Americans need help.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia makes a huge mistake in writing his dissenting opinion in Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation. From TPM – The conservative justice’s error was noted by University of California-Berkeley law professor Dan Farber, who called it “embarrassing” and a “cringeworthy blunder.” “Scalia’s dissent also contains a hugely embarrassing mistake. He refers to the Court’s earlier decision in American Trucking as involving an effort by EPA to smuggle cost considerations into the statute. But that’s exactly backwards: it was industry that argued for cost considerations and EPA that resisted,” Farber wrote on the environmental law and policy blog Legal Planet. “This gaffe is doubly embarrassing because Scalia wrote the opinion in the case, so he should surely remember which side won! Either some law clerk made the mistake and Scalia failed to read his own dissent carefully enough, or he simply forgot the basics of the earlier case and his clerks failed to correct him. Either way, it’s a cringeworthy blunder.”
100 best iPad apps!!!!
Actor Bob Hoskins has died at age 71.
Tons of flooding in Florida.
Let’s be clear, the Supreme Court of the United States is still led by conservatives. The Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act. The Supreme Court also struck down California’s Proposition 8. Basically, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s decision. Let’s be clear. The Supreme Court did not step out on a limb and boldly go where no man has gone before. As a matter fact, they wimped out. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to tell gay and lesbian Americans that they had the exact same rights as any and all other Americans – to marry anyone whom they love. That is not what the Supreme Court did. Instead, the Supreme Court made what in my opinion was a very narrow ruling. The question still remains about whether gay marriage is legal throughout the land and the answer has to be no. If you happen to live in the correct state, gay marriage is okay in that state. I’m sorry, but I understand that there are lots of people who are very happy, but I continue to be disappointed by the closed-minded cowardice of what is supposed to be the greatest court in the land.
Wendy Davis is awesome!!!
Yesterday, I talked about the New England Patriots tight end, Aaron Hernandez. Today, Mr. Hernandez was arrested and charged with first-degree murder. 90 minutes after his arraignment, the New England Patriots released Aaron Hernandez. He is on his own.
I would like to point everyone to Linda Greenhouse’s article in the New York Times. In my opinion, Linda Greenhouse was the best legal reporter in the country when she retired couple years ago. The article:
“While any racial discrimination in voting is too much,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. told us in Tuesday’s decision gutting the Voting Rights Act, “Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
Well, here’s a current condition: the ink was barely dry on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder when Attorney General Greg Abbott of Texas announced that his state’s voter-ID law, blocked by a federal court last summer, “will take effect immediately.”
The Texas statute has the most stringent requirements of any voter-ID law in the country. The three-judge federal panel, pointing out in a 56-page opinion the several less onerous versions that the Legislature had rejected, found that the state had failed to meet its burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to show that the law wouldn’t have the effect of suppressing the minority vote.
With his precipitous in-your-face move, the Texas attorney general may be doing us a favor, making clear that the court’s decision has real and immediate consequences. Welcome to the Roberts court’s brave new post-Voting Rights Act world.
Roger Federer gets bounced out of the second round of Wimbledon. Maria Sharapova is also out.