Category Archives: Courts

An Irrelevancy

Posted on by
Reply

Greenpeace USA has lost the suit brought against it by Energy Transfer over Greenpeace USA’s role in blocking Energy Transfer’s Dakota Pipeline; the court ruled that Greenpeace USA’s actions in its role were illegal destructions, not free speech. Greenpeace USA then has been ordered to pay $660 million in realized and punitive damages to Energy Transfer.

Greenpeace USA argued throughout the damages assessment process and subsequently that

such a ruling could “shut down Greenpeace USA.”

That argument is indicative of Greenpeace’s cynicism and dishonesty. Whether or not any ruling would bankrupt Greenpeace USA is wholly irrelevant. What is relevant, the only things that are relevant, are these: did Greenpeace USA do the deed(s) alleged? If it did, what is the appropriate award that would make Greenpeace USA’s victim whole, and what constitutes a suitable level of punitive damage? In the latter case, was the damage Greenpeace USA inflicted enough to warrant its bankruptcy?

Notice that the latter criterion is not at all a death penalty. Bankruptcy is a means of reorganizing an entity and its debts (not their cancelation) that allows the entity to recover and prosper. So it is with Greenpeace USA. Which that entity knows full well.

Supreme Court Has the Louisiana Redistricting Case

Posted on by
Reply

After the 2020 census, Louisiana’s Republican-controlled legislature

only drew one majority-Black congressional district when it redrew the boundaries for the state’s six seats in Congress. A group of Black voters, who make up about a third of the state’s population, sued the state in 2022, arguing that section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race, required lawmakers to add a second majority-Black congressional district.

Here’s the entirety of what that Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act actually says:

SEC. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.

Drawing voting districts explicitly to favor one group of Americans over other groups in that same district is precisely what the CRA prohibits. However the Supreme Court rules in this case, it’s imperative that the Court finally recognize the truth of our Declaration of Independence and the foundational American law that’s before them in the form of the 14th Amendment of our Constitution, which says in pertinent part,

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

One of the most basic privileges accruing to us American citizens is our right to vote, and all of us voters are equal under law—regardless of skin color, or religion, or….

In fine, as citizens, as voters, we’re all exactly alike. Gerrymandering to create districts that favor one group over any others necessarily disadvantages those others—and it denies all groups, and more importantly, every individual regardless of group equal protection of the laws, and so it is unconstitutional.

As an aside, and one of the more favorable aspects of earlier times, the entire CRA fits within seven Word® pages, and contains less than 5500 words, at least as it is presented at the link.

Impeaching Judges

Posted on by
Reply

Especially those who rule against Trump—that’s a bad idea, as The Wall Street Journal‘s editors correctly note. Doing this—even were it possible just once—would destroy the necessarily independent and coequal status of our judiciary.

Impeach judges who violate their oaths of office—certainly. This would apply not only to those who engage in “severe misconduct,” but also those who rule other than on the text of our Constitution or the statute before them in a specific case. Activist judges, and Justices, who rule on the basis of their view of a living constitution or on their personal view of the needs of society or how social requirements have evolved, are among those who are violating their oaths of office, which explicitly require them to uphold and defend our Constitution. Violating an oath, of office or of any other reason or purpose, would be an especially egregious and severe misconduct.

But therein lies the rub.

There is room for honest, textual disagreement on the meaning the text—the words and especially the phrases—present in our foundational documents and the statutes subsequently enacted to give flesh to them. Proving a ruling to be based on activism rather than on honest effort at textualism is deucedly hard. Moreover, even were a proof possible in a given case, the political implications would damage the perception of judicial independence, and that would be as damaging as any actual assault on judicial independence.

Better to take the longer view and elect Presidents and Senates who will nominate and confirm judges and Justices that will rule on the basis of Constitutional and statutory texts. Those confirmed would be good for several generations of election cycles and for a couple of generations of citizens. That would provide sufficient stability in law and court rulings.

In Which our Courts are Failing

Posted on by
Reply

The question here is what standard courts should apply in matters of reverse discrimination. The question is laid out in The Wall Street Journal article’s lede:

Amid a MAGA-led backlash to diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, the Supreme Court on Wednesday will consider an issue that has split judges around the country: what do white people and other members of a majority group have to prove to win a claim for reverse discrimination?

(Aside: the newswriters’—Jess Bravin and Erin Mulvaney—irrelevant reference to MAGA illustrates their own and their editor’s political bias.)

The question is expanded in the second paragraph [emphasis added]:

Marlean Ames claims the Ohio state agency where she works denied her a promotion and then demoted her because she is heterosexual, instead giving both her old job and the one she had sought to gay people. A federal appeals court in Cincinnati threw out Ames’s lawsuit, finding that she failed to show the “background circumstances” suggesting the employer was hostile to straight people—a threshold step that wouldn’t have been required had a gay employee claimed discrimination.

As the writers noted shortly after:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids employment discrimination because of an “individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin….”

Lauren Hartz, DC-located partner in Jenner & Block raised this bit:

We are in disagreement about what groups in American society today are advantaged or disadvantaged[.]

This is a wholly constructed and cynically dragged red herring. The only advantaged groups are those groups of Americans who get favorable treatment from our courts compared to other groups of Americans, and the only disadvantaged groups of Americans are those groups of Americans at whose expense that advantageous treatment comes.

Civil rights groups have raised another irrelevancy:

Many civil-rights groups say the occasional example of reverse discrimination doesn’t change history. Courts, according to a brief filed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, should be able to consider the “realities of this country’s persisting legacy of discrimination.”

The supposedly “occasional” nature of reverse discrimination is no excuse for any amount of that form of discrimination. Neither does it excuse the creation of a new legacy of discrimination for our future.

Thus: how about using the same standard for all cases involving allegations of discrimination?

How about judges and Justices hew to the text of black letter law and to the foundational text of the 14th Amendment of our Constitution?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That’s it in black and white; it’s not that hard to understand and to apply. As a Chief Justice of our Supreme Court said not so long ago, The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.

There is no excuse for our court system, nor any judge or Justice within it, applying different standards of adjudication to different groups of Americans. Judges and Justices are violating their oaths of office when they do.

Speculative Lawsuits

Posted on by
Reply

A collection of Leftist State Attorneys General led by New York’s Letitia James has filed an amicus brief in an existing suit against the Federal government over President Donald Trump’s (R) move to defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. That might leave American banks without a government watchdog, they claim in their brief.

Furthermore, [t]he AGs didn’t accuse any banks of wrongdoing. These AGs further claim

The absence of a functioning CFPB…creates a regulatory vacuum even greater than what existed before the Great Recession. The very large financial institutions that compete with state-chartered banks will have carte blanche to loosen their regulatory compliance and profit accordingly.

Further, as cited by The Wall Street Journal,

The AGs argued that the administration is creating a regulatory gap that will encourage the largest banks to game the system by taking a more lax approach, while smaller state-chartered banks will still be subject to state supervision.

Might. Will have. And those two possibles in the latter: “will encourage” and “will still be.” These are purely speculative, with no harm being alleged. No actual wrong doing, in so many words, is being alleged. Basing a law suit, or even an amicus, on speculation about an unknown future—however likely plaintiffs might claim that future to be—is anathema in the American legal system. The requirement to allege—credibly—actual harm already done prevents a potful of frivolous, of politically motivated, of purely fee-seeking lawsuits where no harm exists, even where no harm is likely to exist in some nebulous future.

The Leftist AGs’ move is typical of the Left’s and their Progressive-Democratic Party politicians’ lawfare business.

This is yet another reason why it’s so difficult for us average Americans to have nice things in our nation. It’s time to start requiring plaintiffs to pay the defendants for the costs of lawsuits which plaintiffs bring and lose, and to require those providing amicus briefs on the side of plaintiffs to share in paying those costs.