Category Archives: Courts

An Alternative Extinguishment

Posted on by
Reply

Federal District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín has ordered Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery to halt their merger process for two weeks—ostensibly, the judge claimed—to give States challenging the deal more time to see their case through in court. The silliness of that order is in the claim that two whole weeks is enough time for such a complex case to wend its way. Any Federal judge worthy of his black robe is well aware of the implications of such a short time frame. This is nothing more than judicial interference in a business decision.

The States’ argument also is risible. The merger would “extinguish competition” in Hollywood and reduce choices for consumers. This can be rendered irrelevant in a straightforward manner. Paramount and WB should move their operations out of Hollywood, out of California altogether. Then there would be no concern about Hollywood at all. There also would be no reduction in consumer choice from the move.

Likely locations for the two companies include Virginia, New Mexico, Texas, and Alabama, each of which has an environment favorable to making movies and television shows. Any of those environments also would lower the costs of production, which could only enhance consumer choice by making movies and TV shows easier and faster to bring off.

Celebrities and Champions

Posted on by
Reply

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson apparently insists on being both.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared on the cover of the most recent issue of Essence magazine[.]

That prompted a Georgia lawyer to complain that

Supreme Court Justices are not celebrities and should not be treated like celebrities[.]

He’s right, but magazine writers are going write and magazine photographers are going to photograph. The real onus is on Supreme Court Justices to not act like celebrities.

On the other hand, Jackson enthusiastically accepts her label as “the people’s champion.”

Judges and especially Supreme Court Justices, though, cannot legitimately be the people’s champions, that’s the exclusive role of our elected officials in Congress and the White House. The role of judges and Justices is to be the champion of our Constitution and of the statutes before them, and apply both without regard to celebrity.

Radical Reform

Posted on by
Reply

Pennsylvania’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Josh Shapiro wants our judges and Justices to be bound by popular assent instead of being bound by law.

I think we need radical reform that’s actually going to ensure that the voices of the people are heard from, that the voices of the people are represented in the three branches of government. We don’t have that right now.

Shapiro wants to pack the Supreme Court to address that, and Jonathan Turley was properly worried in his piece about Shapiro’s sharp turn to the extreme left with that remark.

I add this to that concern. This is another reason we can’t trust the Progressive-Democratic Party with control of our government. It has nothing to do with patriotism or integrity. It’s that so many Party politicians simply do not understand at all our Federal government or its structure.

Only two of the three branches of our government are intended to represent “the voices of the people,” those are the two political branches, and the granularity of that representation itself varies broadly across their elected roles. The politicians in our Congress’ House of Representatives represent, first, the voices of their district’s constituents, and second the voices of the citizens of our nation, since our Congress has national responsibilities as well as to its members’ districts. The politicians in Congress’ Senate represent, first, the voices of their State’s citizens, and second the voices of the citizens of our nation. The politicians in the White House, the President and Vice President, represent the voices of the citizens of our nation.

The judges and Justices of the third branch, though, represent no citizens’ voices. They represent our Constitution and the statutes that come before them and are bound by oath apply those laws without respect to persons and by the Code of Conduct for United States Judges to do so without fear or favor in order to facilitate the necessary political independence of our Judicial Branch and the judges and Justices within it.

Party politicians demanding that the judiciary represent the voices of the people is their demand for the subordination of judges and Justices to the vagaries of politics at the expense of their binding to law.

An Ability to Hold Two Opposing Thoughts Simultaneously

Posted on by
Reply

The ability to do that while continuing to function effectively is one aspect of intelligence. Two Supreme Court decisions, just released, illustrate that.

It took 91 years, but the Supreme Court on Monday abandoned the fiction of independent agencies (Trump v Slaughter). Yet in a somewhat paradoxical decision (Trump v Cook), the Court enshrined the Federal Reserve’s independence despite its exercise of vast executive powers.

It’s not all that paradoxical, just seemingly contradictory, for the Court to have reached those two decisions. In the one, the Court acknowledged what should have been an obvious truth: agencies within the Executive Branch are creatures of and exclusively respondent to the head of the Executive Branch, the President. From that, it should be—and should have been all along—obvious that employees of those branches, including politically appointed employees, serve at the pleasure of the Executive Branch head, and so they are fireable by that head. Congress’ desire to make the agencies and agency employees independent of their boss is plainly unconstitutional.

With one exception. The Federal Reserve Bank of the United States also is an Executive Branch agency, yet the Court, for good or ill, carved out an exception to the who works for whom rule and said “not yet” regarding President Donald Trump (R) firing a Fed governor without first providing notice and opportunity to respond. This ruling is, for good or ill, a temporary move intended to preserve the central bank’s political independence and leave it to deal with monetary matters without political distraction. (It’s temporary because, contrary to what overwrought pressmen, disagreeing politicians, and Court dissents say, the Supreme Court did not rule that Trump could not fire the governor. It only said not yet; the underlying case must make its way through the courts before a final ruling can be made.)

And the Court continues to function effectively.

“Extreme Emotional Disturbance”

Posted on by
Reply

The lawyers defending Luigi Mangione for his (alleged) murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson are planning to say that Mangione admits to his murder, and then the lawyers will argue that he can’t be held liable for his murder because he had an angst.

Guilty but insane is a viable defense in some jurisdictions, and New York, where Mangione is supposed to have committed his crime, has something of the sort. Typically, the plea results in confinement in a psychiatric facility for treatment, and on successful treatment (if that occurs), the guilty person is then transferred to a prison wherein he serves the remainder of the sentence he would have received had he been simply convicted of the crime.

That works for me.

In the event, the defense decided not to run that defense by the judge or the jury. Too bad, from my perspective. That would have gotten Mangione locked up sooner, saving the court time and the people tax money.