Category: Courts

Scranton versus the Courts

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger

After writing an earlier article about the Pennsylvania Voter ID law, I saw another article about a Pennsylvania issue that seems a little hard to comprehend.  Recently, the City of Scranton, PA decided that it could not afford to continue to honor its contractual obligations with its City Fire, Police and Public union workers.  One problem with Scranton’s decision is that a Federal judge had ordered that the City must honor its obligations to the employees under the terms of a temporary injunction that he granted the employees. Continue reading “Scranton versus the Courts”

Et Tu Pennslyvania?

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)- Guest Blogger

I guess I should not be surprised when I read of certain states trying to “cleanse” the voting rolls under the guise of voter fraud.  However, I was saddened to read that the State of Pennsylvania was joining the growing list of so-called Red and some not so Red states that are taking steps to disenfranchise voters prior to the November National elections.  The State of Pennsylvania is poised to possibly disenfranchise almost 10 percent of its voting population.  “Pennsylvania’s new voter ID law, which will take effect for the first time this November, may prevent 758,939 otherwise eligible voters, who do not currently have an acceptable ID, from voting.” Think Progress Continue reading “Et Tu Pennslyvania?”

Obama Campaign Spokesman: It’s a Penalty, Not A Tax

Some of us were highly critical of the Roberts decision on health care — finding that the federal government could impose the individual mandate as a tax even if it could not be justified under the Commerce Clause. This followed the Court rejecting the tax status for the purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act and the fact that the Obama Administration — including the President — long denying that it was a tax. The Administration changed its position in court and argued that it was a tax, if the Commerce Clause did not sustain the mandate. That has produced a political backlash after the Court recognized it as a tax all along. However, now Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said that President Obama denies it is a tax and even denying that the Administration ever said it was.

Continue reading “Obama Campaign Spokesman: It’s a Penalty, Not A Tax”

West Virginia Judge In Abusive Video Will Not Face Complaint From Supreme Court Because He Is “Contrite”

We previously discussed the bizarre screaming tirade of Putnam Circuit Judge William Watkins in a divorce case. While the husband, Rev. Arthur D. Hage, 63, charged Watkins with misconduct, Steve Canterbury, the administrator of the West Virginia Supreme Court has announced that he will not seek charges in the case. It leaves some confusion over what it would take to get a charge out of the high court.

Continue reading “West Virginia Judge In Abusive Video Will Not Face Complaint From Supreme Court Because He Is “Contrite””

Chief Justice John Roberts Opposes Court Expansion Proposal: A Response

Despite our recent appearance as co-commentators last week, Chief Justice John Roberts has spoken against my proposal to expand the Supreme Court to 19 members. According to the Washington Post, Roberts said that he opposed the proposal and added “Well, I suppose it depends on who gets to pick them.” For prior columns on my proposal, click here, here and here and here. (See also Unpacking the Court: The Case for the Expansion of the United States Supreme Court in the Twenty-First Century.” 33 Perspectives on Political Science, no. 3, p. 155 (June 22, 2004)).

Continue reading “Chief Justice John Roberts Opposes Court Expansion Proposal: A Response”

West Virginia Judge Charged With Abusive Conduct Depicted in Courtroom Video

Rev. Arthur D. Hage, 63, has posted the video below as part of his complaint to the state Judicial Investigation Commission about Putnam County Circuit Court Family Law Judge William M. “Chip” Watkins III. It shows Watkins, 58, going ballistic in a divorce case where he screams at Hage, including to tell him to “Shut up” and accusing him of telling a “damn lie.”

Continue reading “West Virginia Judge Charged With Abusive Conduct Depicted in Courtroom Video”

Et Tu, Roberts II: Chief Justice Reportedly Switched Sides After Originally Voting To Strike Down The Health Care Law

When many of us were covering the decision from the Supreme Court, one thing that was immediately noted was the the decision of Associate Justice Anton Scalia read like a majority opinion. The opinion not only referred to “the dissent” as if it were the majority opinion (though sometimes justices even in dissent can refer to other dissents). Reports are now indicating that Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the Affordable Care Act. The report is a serious breach in the normally secretive court in its internal deliberations and contains considerable detail showing a hard effort by the Court’s swing justice Anthony Kennedy to convince Kennedy to return to the fold. The report is likely to increase the feeling of betrayal by those who felt that opinion harmed federalism by reaffirming the taxing power as an easy avenue to circumvent state rights. That was the subject of my column the day after the ruling.

Continue reading “Et Tu, Roberts II: Chief Justice Reportedly Switched Sides After Originally Voting To Strike Down The Health Care Law”

Georgia On My Mind

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)- Guest Blogger

With apologies to the writers of the famous song by the same title, I came across a small news item that didn’t make the big headlines this past week.  Our friends in Georgia just don’t seem to get the idea that their citizen soldiers deserve the same right to vote that on military members enjoy.  In the upcoming primary elections and general election cycle, Georgia has violated the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) by not providing military members the minimum amount of time between elections in order to assure that their absentee ballots arrive in time to actually be counted in the respective elections.  At least the Justice Department thinks Georgia does not have the military on its mind! Continue reading “Georgia On My Mind”

Et tu, Roberts? Federalism Falls By The Hand Of A Friend

Below is today’s column in USA Today on the health care decision. Though I support President Obama’s effort to establish health care, I have always opposed the individual mandate as a violation of federalism principles. What is fascinating is how some challengers have heralded yesterday’s decision as a victory of federalism. As shown below, I do not take that view.

Continue reading “Et tu, Roberts? Federalism Falls By The Hand Of A Friend”

A Bigger and Better Supreme Court

Below is my column in today’s Guardian newspaper — a further discussion of my proposal to expand the Supreme Court. While overlapping a bit with the column on Sunday in the Washington Post, the piece adds a few new details on the proposal that I first made over ten years ago.

Continue reading “A Bigger and Better Supreme Court”

The Limits of Civility: How A Proposal On Reforming The Supreme Court Unleashed A Torrent Of Personal Attacks

As many on this blog know, I rarely respond to criticism of columns that I run in USA Today or other newspapers. As a columnist, I feel that I am given a rare opportunity to express my views and criticism comes with the territory. However, I was taken aback by many of the comments in response to my Sunday column in The Washington Post discussing my proposal for the expansion of the United States Supreme Court. Though the proposal was given serious and supportive reviews by some sites like Forbes, some conservatives immediately assumed that I was a liberal simply upset with the anticipated ruling striking down the individual mandate provision of the health care law. When another law professor and blogger (Ann Althouse) joined this ill-informed and uncivil chorus, I thought I would respond. This blog has always strived to maintain a strict civility rule — distinguishing it from many other blogs by discouraging and sometimes eliminating ad hominem and personal attacks. Yet, I am still surprised by the lack of civility and responsibility by many — particularly fellow lawyers and academics — in responding to such proposals. [Update: Professor Ann Althouse has responded to my call for greater civility with a new blog entitled “Jonathan Turley’s civility bullshit about my calling ‘bullshit’ on his Court-packing plan.” Notably, Professor Althouse does not address the fact that she was completely wrong in claiming that I was motivated by dislike for the anticipated ruling striking down the individual mandate in the health care case. (Apparently both civility and factual accuracy fall into the same “BS” category for Professor Althouse).]

Continue reading “The Limits of Civility: How A Proposal On Reforming The Supreme Court Unleashed A Torrent Of Personal Attacks”

The Nineteen Member Court: The Case For Expanding The United States Supreme Court

Below is today’s column in The Washington Post Sunday Outlook. Due to the normal space restraints, the original article had to be cut down. Given the high number of comments and questions about the proposal (which I first made years ago) for the expansion of the Supreme Court, I have posted the longer, original piece. That longer version addresses some of the questions raised by readers.

Continue reading “The Nineteen Member Court: The Case For Expanding The United States Supreme Court”

Is The Supreme Court Too Small? A Proposal For The Expansion Of The United States Supreme Court

The Washington Post has posted my column for Sunday on expanding the Supreme Court. Due to space limitations, the original piece had to be cut back significantly, so below is the longer column. I will post the actual column on Sunday.

Continue reading “Is The Supreme Court Too Small? A Proposal For The Expansion Of The United States Supreme Court”

Deliberative or Evasive? Obama Asserts Privilege Over “Fast and Furious”

President Barack Obama today asserted executive privilege over documents long sought by Congress in the investigation of the “Fast and Furious” operation. The assertion in my view is facially overbroad and excessive. It is the latest example of sweeping claims of executive power and privilege by this Administration. Congress has ample reason to investigate this operation, which involves alleged criminal acts that may have resulted in the death of third parties, including a U.S. agent. The Justice Department is accused of complicity in one of the most ill-conceived and harmful operations in recent years. The very officials and agency accused of wrongdoing is claiming that it can withhold documents from a committee with oversight responsibilities.

Continue reading “Deliberative or Evasive? Obama Asserts Privilege Over “Fast and Furious””