Chief Justice John Roberts Speaks …

Yesterday Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued his annual year-end report on the federal judiciary.  The report is too long to replicate in its entirety, but there are a few salient points that are worth sharing.  A summary from the SCOTUS blog

The report began with the story of the Federalist Papers, which Roberts described as “America’s greatest civics lesson.” Roberts recounted how John Jay, one of the papers’ three authors along with Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, “shouldered the lightest load of the trio, producing only five of the articles.” “Perhaps if Jay had been more productive,” Roberts observed, “America might have rewarded him with a Broadway musical.” But the reality, Roberts explained, is that Jay had fewer contributions because he was injured by “a rock thrown by a rioter motivated by a rumor.”

From there, Roberts segued to the need for civic education: “In our age, when social media can instantly spread rumor and false information on a grand scale, the public’s need to understand our government, and the protections it provides, is ever more vital.” Roberts described various ways in which the “judges and staff of our federal courts are taking up the challenge” of the judiciary’s “important role to play in civic education.” Not only are judges issuing opinions, now online, that the public can read, but the judiciary is also developing educational programs for students and the general public, courthouses are hosting “learning centers” and judges are participating in naturalization ceremonies. (Roberts did not, however, mention the practice of some federal appeals courts of providing live audio or video of oral arguments, which the Supreme Court has resisted.) Roberts gave a shout-out to the “current Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Circuit” – Merrick Garland, who was nominated but never confirmed to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016 – for his longtime volunteer work as a tutor at a local elementary school.

Roberts also cited efforts beyond the judiciary, including the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia and the iCivics program founded by retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. (Referring to the video games created by iCivics, Roberts wryly observed that “[a]s they say, to reach people, you have to meet them where they are.”)

Roberts’ conclusion turned away from the topic of civic education to send a message to his fellow judges. Perhaps echoing his insistence in 2018 that there is no such thing as a “Trump judge” or an “Obama judge,” and with a docket full of hot-button issues for the Supreme Court to decide in the new year, Roberts urged his colleagues to “continue their efforts to promote public confidence in the judiciary, both through their rulings and through civic outreach.” “We should celebrate our strong and independent judiciary,” Roberts continued, “a key source of national unity and stability. But we should also remember,” he cautioned, “that justice is not inevitable. We should reflect on our duty to judge without fear or favor, deciding each matter with humility, integrity, and dispatch.”

Supreme-Court-2019.jpgThe Supreme Court is our last bastion against the corruption in Washington.  More than once in the past years, I have been very disappointed in the decisions of the Court.  The most disappointing, I think, was their ruling in the case of Citizens United v FEC in 2010, a ruling that left the door wide open for corporations and lobbyists to literally buy the votes of members of Congress.  And just last June, the Court ruled that federal courts are powerless to hear challenges to partisan gerrymandering … another disappointment.

With the additions of first Neil Gorsuch and later Brett Kavanaugh, two judges appointed by Trump, but recommended by the ultra-conservative Federalist Society, a group with entirely too much power in our government,  the Court has swung too far to the right, and many question whether at this point we still have a fully independent, non-partisan Judiciary Branch as the Founding Fathers intended.  Chief Justice Roberts’ words in his annual report are encouraging and seem to indicate that he sees more than we may think, but with many crucial cases on the docket for the new year, the proof will be, as they say, in the pudding.

A Family Affair???


kellyanne-george-3Guess who Trump has chosen to head the civil division of the Justice Department???  Never mind … my readers are all sensible people who would never in a million years … well anyway … it is none other than the husband of Miss-Alternative-Facts-Camera-In-The-Microwave Kellyanne Conway!  None other than George T. Conway III, a man of whom we mostly know little or nothing, as he has been overshadowed by his other half for the past year.

Mr. Conway, 53, would lead a department of about 1,000 lawyers that has vast reach across the government, handling issues like national security and consumer protection and enforcing federal programs and the actions of the president himself. If confirmed, Conway would immediately be in charge of representing Trump in the legal challenges over his travel ban.  It would also fall to Mr. Conway to oversee Trump’s defense in a pending lawsuit charging him with violations of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which bans federal officeholders from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments because of the profits his hotels and resorts receive from foreign officials who are customers. Mr. Conway will most assuredly have his work cut out for him!

Conway is currently a partner at the New York City firm of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, specializing in securities, contract and antitrust litigation, as well as mergers and acquisitions.

kellyanne-george-2While there is a law against nepotism in government, it would not affect the Conways. It says that no public official can hire a family member — including one related by marriage — to serve in an agency or office over which he or she has authority. Ms. Conway would have no direct authority over her husband were he to be confirmed, nor would the reverse be true.  Maybe there would be no conflicts of interest on the job, but can you imagine what this could do to their home life?

A quick bit of history about George.  He was involved in Paula Jones’ lawsuit against Bill Clinton in 1994, and has participated in other prominent lawsuits, including tobacco industry cases, however he has only argued one case before the U.S. Supreme Court. He is a supporter of taking voting rights away from felons, and is a member of the ultra-conservative Federalist Society.

dodoThe real question in my mind is this:  Is he as big an idiot as his wife?  I think the answer is he must be, as he, a) married her, and b) has stayed married to her for 16 years!  I wonder if she uses ‘alternative facts’ at home:  “Yes dear, I cooked supper.  Well, I did not mean I actually cooked supper, but more like there is peanut butter and jelly in the cupboard.” It should be quite interesting to see how he spins ‘alternative facts’ in defense of his new boss.  In the words of Alice … it just gets ‘curiouser and curiouser’.