Kagan Nomination Sure To Spark Predictable Rhetoric

Late yesterday afternoon I started hearing rumors that President Obama had settled on his pick for the next Supreme Court Justice. Later, just before I went to bed, my BlackBerry started buzzing with reports that indeed, the President had made his choice, and that he would be publicly announcing it early Monday morning. Well, as luck would have it, I had already booked a tour of the Pentagon for this morning at 10:00 am, the exact time the President would be unveiling his nomination.

When you tour the Pentagon, there are a few rules. Among them: no carrying any weapons of mass destruction. Check. No chewing gum. Check. And most importantly, no cell phone use (the guide makes everyone turn them off). Not wanting to cause a stir, I politely obeyed that last rule. But my obedience came with a price, I would not be able to read all the breaking news and Tweets from reporters covering the major announcement.

My tour ended around 11:00 am. Naturally, the first thing I did was turn my phone on and check Twitter to see what had been written about the announcement. As I had expected, based on numerous reports both yesterday and earlier this morning, the President had nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens at the end of the summer. The next thing I did was check my inbox for press releases. Not surprisingly, I had already received more than a few.

Now, I don't pretend to be a Supreme Court expert -- I'll leave that to my colleague -- so I'll spare you my misguided opinions on whether or not Ms. Kagan is qualified to serve on the High Court. However, as someone who covers Congress, I plan on paying close attention to the forthcoming nomination process because I am interested in seeing how it plays out in a political context.

It's no secret that the divide between the two major parties has only grown larger over the past few years. Now, thanks to one-party control of both Houses, the rise of the anti-big government Tea Party movement and a monumental healthcare reform bill that re-ignited a once politically doormant legion of voters nationwide, that divide is arguably at an all-time high.

The first email I read was a lengthy statement on the nomination from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a sure-to-be VIP in the months to follow. Near the end of his statement, Leahy said the following:

"Among the most serious constitutional duties entrusted to the Senate is the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. Americans are looking to Washington to cast aside the political rancor and partisanship that has fueled so many recent debates."

Indeed, driven by such partisan rancor, the battle lines have been definitively drawn on every single substantive issue Congress has worked on lately. From health care, to extending unemployment benefits, to Wall Street reform, the debate has become fairly predictable. In a nutshell it's this: if you're a 'D', you're probably with the President and his administration. If you're an 'R', you're opposed.

Case in point, the following three statements were sent to my inbox from Democrats this morning:

"President Obama has chosen a candidate who will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Solicitor General Kagan's outstanding service as a lawyer, professor, public servant, and administrator prepares her for this challenge, and she will come to the bench with a deep knowledge of the law and respect for all individuals."

"Elena Kagan has won the respect and admiration of colleagues on both the left and the right for her legal and policy knowledge and for her success in working with advocates of a wide range of viewpoints. I have no doubt that she will bring the same skills to the Supreme Court, as its unprecedented third female justice, where I know that she will be mindful of the impact of the law on the lives of ordinary Americans."

"It appears that Elena Kagan would bring a great deal of knowledge and real-world experience to the Supreme Court...Elena Kagan’s experience outside courtrooms should not be held against her."

Which three Democrats issued those statements, you ask? I say, does it matter? To me, anyone with a D after their name could've written them. 100% of Democrats (at least in the Senate) will do anything the current President asks or demands of them. During last year's confirmation battle over Sonia Sotomayor, Democrats often chided Republicans, saying they wouldn't even vote to confirm Moses if he had been nominated to serve (they're still using that talking point, by the way). I don't know about that, but let's suppose the President had chosen a candidate completely lacking in qualification. I am willing to bet that most Democrats would have uniformly supported a quick confirmation.

To be fair, when it comes to solidarity, the same can be said of the other side as well. Here are some excerpts of a few emails I received this morning from Republicans.

“President Obama's decision to nominate Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court demonstrates his willingness to sacrifice experience and judicial impartiality for political activism. Despite Ms. Kagen's lack of judicial experience and limited legal practice, it is clear  that she will use her position to push her personal and political agenda."

 “We know that several areas warrant close scrutiny. Ms. Kagan’s lack of judicial experience and short time as Solicitor General, arguing just six cases before the Court, is troubling."

“There is nothing that requires the President to replace a liberal Justice with a liberal; but unfortunately it appears President Obama is doing just that.  Though Kagan has no prior judicial record for the Senate to review, her role as an Obama-insider and senior official in the Administration indicates that she shares the same liberal judicial philosophy as the President and his top advisors."

Again, I'd reveal the names of the Republicans that released these statements, but it's a moot issue. They are Republicans, they CAN'T support anything this administration attempts to do. Especially with mid-terms coming up.

Listen, if you're still not convinced that this is about anything more than D versus R, consider Arlen Specter. As a Republican last year, he voted against confirming Ms. Kagan as Solicitor General. Now, as a Democrat, he says he is open to supporting her confirmation to the Supreme Court. Really? Did she change that much over the past 12 months? Hmmmmmm.

The bottom line is this: In the end, Elena Kagan will be sworn in as our nation's next Supreme Court Justice, probably sometime before the Fall. The question is, will her confirmation process go smoothly? That all depends on whether or not the divide between parties diminishes or grows larger. And based on what I'm seeing so far, I'd say it's safe to expect bumpy conditions this summer.

Supreme Court Rules Against West Virginia Justice

By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that West Virginia Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself when holding a Court hearing in 2007, which involved an important contributor to Benjamin’s election campaign conducted three years prior.

The decision came after the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 on whether Justice Benjamin Brent, who had been elected in 2004 following a $3 million donation from Massey Coal Company’s Chairman Don Blankenship, should have recused himself when ruling over the Hugh M. Caperton, et al. v. Massey & Co case.

In 2002, a West Virginia jury found Massey Coal & Co. liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment and tortious interference with existing contractual relations. The jury condemned Massey & Co to $50 million to be awarded to the plaintiff, Caperton et al. in June, 2004. Massey & Co filed for appeal but its demand was rejected by the state trial court.

In 2004, West Virginia held it judicial elections. Massey & Co sponsored Brent Benjamin rather than the incumbent Justice so as to renew the possibilities of appealing but before Massey & Co filed its appeal, Caperton moved to prevent this by calling attention to the Due Process Clause and to the State's Code of Judicial Conduct based on Massey & Co’s campaign involvement.

The Due Process Clause under the 14th amendment of the U.S constitution ensures that no state should “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Additionally, the Code of Judicial Conduct states that “A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved,” according to the U.S Courts online.

Despite receiving important funding from the party found liable in the Caperton v. Massey case during his judicial campaign, Justice Benjamin refused to recuse himself, and this for a total of three times.

The controversial topic involved whether or not to trust Judicial figures’ capability to remain unbiased when ruling on a question that involves a personal dimension.

In an interpretation Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered, he said “Under our precedents there are objective standards that require recusal when ‘the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally of this case,” adding that the judgment of the State Supreme Court of West Virginia is dissented “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”

Kennedy cited “risks of biases”, impartiality and “personal involvement” and the the foundations for the Supreme Court’s decision.

Justice at the Price of Safety

By Courtney Ann Jackson-Talk Radio News Service

A unified approach to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay will be crucial in order to meet the one-year deadline signed into law in January by President Obama, according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday.

Holder said the Department has "no choice but to release" some of the detainees. He said they must be released because otherwise an order from the In terms of release, we have to release them or an order from the U.S. courts would be defied.

The Department of Justice is taking the lead from the work set out by President Barack Obama to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and ensure that the policies going forward “live up to our nation’s value,” said Holder.

The Guantanamo Review Task Force will make decisions about where detainees will be housed on an individual basis. Holder said that Task Force's decisions will be guided by “what is in the interest of national security, the foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.”

Ranking Member U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) said “the President has announced the closure of Guantanamo Bay without any plan for the terrorists detained there and has admitted that he cannot guarantee that those detainees who are released will not seek to attack our country again.”

In response, Holder reiterated that the Department isn’t going “to do anything, anything that would put the American people at risk. Nothing.”

Enron Executive to Supreme Court: I’m being unjustly prosecuted

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Today one of Enron’s former executives found himself back in the lime light as the Supreme Court heard his case of being unjustly prosecuted. F. Scott Yeager, an executive at Enron Broadband Services, was caught up in the hunt for white-collar wrongdoing after the Enron scandal. He was charged with wire fraud, securities fraud, insider trading, money laundering, and conspiracy to engage in securities fraud and wire fraud. The original trial saw Yeager acquitted of three of the charges, but the jury couldn’t agree on the charges of insider trading and money laundering.

The United States government then tried to re-try the insider trading and money laundering charges, since the jury was undecided on the matter, something that Yeager says violates his rights against being prosecuted twice for the same matter. Yeager moved to have the case thrown out. He argued that he is protected by collateral estoppel, which prohibits the same issue from being tried twice, and is similar to double jeopardy. Yeager’s legal team relied on a good-faith defense in his initial trial, saying he was not guilty because he had a reasonable belief in his company’s financial stability. The argument for collateral estoppel was that since he was acquitted based on the good-faith defense, it would not be possible to prosecute him on insider trading, since the jury established he could not have illegality at the heart of his actions.

Both the District and Circuit Courts denied Yeager’s motion to have the case thrown out. Yeager then took the matter before the Supreme Court, in Yeager v. United States.

The Justices were undecided in the courtroom about whether or not the acquittal on the similar charges was enough to remove Yeager from any shadow of wrongdoing. Justices Samuel Alito and David Souter felt that he might have been acquitted for other reasons than simply the good-faith defense, although it was self evident that they could not know with certainty why the jury did what it did. The counsel for the United States said that the jury should have said Yeager was not guilty on the two undecided charges if they really meant it. Chief Justice John Roberts showed concern at the effect this decision could have on the Seventh Amendment in the Constitution, which protects the right to jury trials. Roberts questioned whether or not retrial of the undecided charges would undermine the jury’s decisions in the acquitted charges. Although Justice Stephen Breyer did not display a firm position on the case at large, he did say that he can’t think of why this wouldn’t be a second trial, and why collateral estoppel should not apply.

The Court is expected to return a decision on this case in May or June of this year.

“Peace is the work of Justice”

President George Bush attended the groundbreaking of the United States Institute of Peace headquarters and Public Education Center today. Bush spoke in support of USIP and the work that they are doing to promote peace. He spoke of his personal interest in the pursuit of peace, citing the current war in Iraq as a means to spreading democracy and justice throughout the globe, as a national security interest for the United States, an international interest for countries to be safe and secure and that “peace is the work of justice.” Bush said that freedom is an unalienable right that needs to be protected and sought after by every nation.

President Bush also outlined some objectives and legislation that he was working to get passed in order to have operations to deploy whenever there is a need to work for peace: the global peace initiative as well as standby reserve corps of on-call former government workers and professionals who can be sent out to struggling countries who need assistance working for peace and freedom. Bush said that the United States needs to work with other countries, governments as well as non-governmental organizations to train peace keepers and help maintain global freedom, saying that he hopes the United States will never become “isolationist and nervous” when interacting with other countries.

Also in attendance at the groundbreaking was Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Pelosi spoke about the work of the USIP and the peaceful solutions they have made in Rwanda, Kosovo and Sudan saying that it is “peace that makes life worth living.” She praised the USIP for working for and establishing peace for the globe and not just Americans, working towards a helpful, generous and peaceful world.

Reid said that the world has never seeing a fighting force like the United States, which spend billions of dollars on a military, but that also works on “smart power.” This smart power is the ability to create peace, which is just as important as the winning wars. “If there were ever a bipartisan effort, it’d be peace,” Reid said.

All speakers praised the USIP’s efforts to ensure peace globally and stated their excitement for the new building’s completion. The United States Institute of Peace was founded in 1984, it is an independent nonpartisan national institution that was established and funded by Congress to promote peace and resolve international conflicts. The new building costs more than 200 million dollars and covers a 150,000 square-foot area north of the Lincoln Memorial.