FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Liars’ Bench

Photo Source Supermac1961 | CC BY 2.0

No one is such a liar as the indignant man.

– Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

Defense lawyers are wondering what the impact of Brett Kavanaugh’s elevation to the United States Supreme Court will be on criminal law in the United States.  The question is not purely academic.  What we now know is that, thanks to the manipulations of Mitch McConnell whose appearance has caused some to refer to him as “Chin,” (notwithstanding their normal practice of eschewing ad hominem attacks) and Simpering Susan’s 40 minute defense of her unprincipled vote, we now have two confirmed liars sitting as Justices.

To understand how this came about, it is necessary to recall the last year of the administration of Barrack Obama.  President Obama, as readers will recall, was the last man to occupy the White House whom we could call “president” without gagging. The events that gave rise to Brett’s elevation were born in 2016.

In February of that year, Justice Antonin Scalia died.  As contemplated by the Constitution, in March of that year, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, a judge from the D.C. Court of Appeals, to serve as Justice Scalia’s replacement.  The next step in that process was for the Senate to advise and consent to his appointment. If it declined to consent, the nomination failed.  If the consent was given, the appointment was completed and the new Justice sworn in.

In an unprecedented move, Chin refused to permit the Senate to debate the nomination.  Thus, he asserted a right that no majority leader in the Senate had ever before asserted.  He decided he alone could veto the nomination of any individual to the Supreme Court or any other federal court, if it suited him, by refusing to permit his co-equals in the Senate to consider the nomination. As a result, Merrick Garland’s nomination was never considered.

Chin apparently had a better sense of how the election that followed in 2016 would come out, than did much of the rest of the country.  Had Hillary Clinton become president, Chin’s failure to act would have had no consequence insofar as the makeup of the Court was concerned.  As it happened, the unimaginable and unexpected occurred, and before the first year of the new administration had ended, the Republican controlled administration had caused to be installed on the United States Supreme Court, a new conservative justice whose appointment insured that the Court would continue to move sharply to the right.

That was not, of course, the only good fortune bestowed on the White House fool in his attempt to continue to move the Court in a right wing direction. The next did not involve the death of a Justice.  It involved a retirement.

In June of 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement.  For reasons not publicly disclosed, Justice Kennedy, who had enjoyed being the swing vote on the Court in many cases, decided to cast his last swing vote in the most important decision he would ever make while serving on that Court.  He decided to retire before the 2018 elections.  By doing that, he guaranteed that even if the Democrats regained control of the Senate, they would not be able to select, as his successor, a person more reliably liberal than he, because the vacancy created by his resignation would have been filled before the election took place. He guaranteed that his successor would be a person favored by the extreme right wing in the United States. And it was Justice Kennedy’s decision to announced his retirement when he did, that led to Brett’s appointment.  And that leads us to the question posed at the beginning of this discussion.

What effect will the presence of two known liars sitting as Justices on the United States Supreme Court, have on decisions made by that Court, especially, but not exclusively, in criminal cases.?  The question is important, since both Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh were well served by the lies they told during their confirmation processes. The question, therefore is, will they, having been well served by their lies, be more sympathetic to criminal defendants who were convicted because of lies they had told in the activities that led to their convictions.  It is entirely possible that those kinds of defendants will find at least two Justices who, having been well served by lies in their professional careers, will be sympathetic to others who used lies to advance themselves. Time will tell.

(As a totally irrelevant aside to this column I cannot resist observing that Leslie Stahl, in her unbelievably inept interview with the White House fool on “60 Minutes” on October 15, 2018, may have done more to help Republicans in the upcoming elections than any absurd comments from the mouth of the fool, of which there were many, and none successfully challenged by Leslie.  CBS and “60 Minutes” were a disgrace to journalism.)

 

More articles by:

Weekend Edition
November 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jonah Raskin
A California Jew in a Time of Anti-Semitism
Andrew Levine
Whither the Melting Pot?
Joshua Frank
Climate Change and Wildfires: The New Western Travesty
Nick Pemberton
The Revolution’s Here, Please Excuse Me While I Laugh
T.J. Coles
Israel Cannot Use Violent Self-Defense While Occupying Gaza
Rob Urie
Nuclear Weapons are a Nightmare Made in America
Paul Street
Barack von Obamenburg, Herr Donald, and Big Capitalist Hypocrisy: On How Fascism Happens
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Fire is Sweeping Our Very Streets Today
Aidan O'Brien
Ireland’s New President, Other European Fools and the Abyss 
Pete Dolack
“Winners” in Amazon Sweepstakes Sure to be the Losers
Richard Eskow
Amazon, Go Home! Billions for Working People, But Not One Cent For Tribute
Ramzy Baroud
In Breach of Human Rights, Netanyahu Supports the Death Penalty against Palestinians
Brian Terrell
Ending the War in Yemen- Congressional Resolution is Not Enough!
John Laforge
Woolsey Fire Burns Toxic Santa Susana Reactor Site
Ralph Nader
The War Over Words: Republicans Easily Defeat the Democrats
M. G. Piety
Reading Plato in the Time of the Oligarchs
Rafael Correa
Ecuador’s Soft Coup and Political Persecution
Brian Cloughley
Aid Projects Can Work, But Not “Head-Smacking Stupid Ones”
David Swanson
A Tale of Two Marines
Robert Fantina
Democrats and the Mid-Term Elections
Joseph Flatley
The Fascist Creep: How Conspiracy Theories and an Unhinged President Created an Anti-Semitic Terrorist
Joseph Natoli
Twitter: Fast Track to the Id
William Hawes
Baselines for Activism: Brecht’s Stance, the New Science, and Planting Seeds
Bob Wing
Toward Racial Justice and a Third Reconstruction
Ron Jacobs
Hunter S. Thompson: Chronicling the Republic’s Fall
Oscar Gonzalez
Stan Lee and a Barrio Kid
Jack Rasmus
Election 2018 and the Unraveling of America
Sam Pizzigati
The Democrats Won Big, But Will They Go Bold?
Yves Engler
Canada and Saudi Arabia: Friends or Enemies?
Cesar Chelala
Can El Paso be a Model for Healing?
Mike Ferner
The Tragically Misnamed Paris Peace Conference
Barry Lando
Trump’s Enablers: Appalling Parallels
Ariel Dorfman
The Boy Who Taught Me About War and Peace
Binoy Kampmark
The Disgruntled Former Prime Minister
Faisal Khan
Is Dubai Really a Destination of Choice?
Arnold August
The Importance of Néstor García Iturbe, Cuban Intellectual
James Munson
An Indecisive War To End All Wars, I Mean the Midterm Elections
Nyla Ali Khan
Women as Repositories of Communal Values and Cultural Traditions
Dan Bacher
Judge Orders Moratorium on Offshore Fracking in Federal Waters off California
Christopher Brauchli
When Depravity Wins
Robby Sherwin
Here’s an Idea
Susan Block
Cucks, Cuckolding and Campaign Management
Louis Proyect
The Mafia and the Class Struggle (Part Two)
David Yearsley
Smoke on the Water: Jazz in San Francisco
Elliot Sperber
All of Those Bezos
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail