Category Archives: Article III
This often happens to me. I start down a thought road, planning to talk about one thing, and then I get off on a different road. As Sherlock Holmes described it, I follow the thread where it leads. I had planned to talk about this weeks refusal by the Supreme Court to issue a writ of cert to hear Gee v Planned Parenthood, but I got interested in Justice Thomas’ dissent.
Understandably, he is upset at the refusal of the Court to hear the case. There are those who believe that his dissent is rooted in ideology, and it may be. Clearly, he hates abortion and would vote to overturn Roe v Wade faster than a Michael Cohen news story gets on the air. But he does make a valid point – the jurisdiction and duty of the Court, as intended by the Framers, was to resolve questions such as this case asks. Especially when there are differing opinions as to what is going on with a given law in the lower Courts.
There once came a time when the economic situation was chaotic. A long war had drained national resources and there was an overabundance of land and property available for speculative deals. To that end, numerous banks began making speculative loans backed up by literally nothing. The overextension of easy credit along with declining prices of non-land goods was causing a great deal of concern. And when the crap hit the fan, all hell broke loose.
Banks panicked and began calling in loans and foreclosing on the properties.
And then the politicians got involved…
On Monday, Judge Leonie Brinckema, a Federal Appeals Judge in Virginia, issued an injunction against President Trumps Immigration Executive Orders on the basis that they are in fact, a Muslim Ban.
The Government has argued that the doctrine of Plenary Powers over National Security and Immigration should make the Orders unreviewable. But can such power be given under the Constitution? If the answer is no, then can statements made outside of the Orders by the President and his advisers be taken into account as to the intent of the orders?
If the answer is yes, are we prepared to accept a country where he sitting President has unchecked power which neither the Courts nor Congress can counterbalance?
It’s a Valentines day Tuesday episode of Constitution Thursday!
You have to understand this, Merrick Garland could not lose.
That was my belief, a little less than a year ago. So much so that I did an episode titles, “Merrick Garland Can’t Lose.” But something happened that should have been an indicator – a warning to Democrats and a ray of hope to Republicans. But everybody – even the people who say that they didn’t – missed it.
And now we have a new Supreme Court nominee who is definitely not, Merrick Garland. How do we explain that? What does it mean? Are there lessons we can learn about this from the crash of a Korean Air Cargo 747?