What are we really voting for?

UPDATE: The Republican party convention that nominated "I, Trump, to the Presidency of US passed without a a single mention of the stalled nomination by President Obama of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. We are now more than halfway through the Democratic convention of Hillary Clinton and still no acknowledgement of that forsaken nominee.

The Republican's stunning display of hubris and abdication of their responsibility to even hold hearings on the nomination forced The Supreme Court to  limp through its' session with 8 justices.

Garland's fate is now sealed.  Despite being a highly respected jurist and a centrist, Garland will be consigned to being a footnote in history.

If the Trumped Up Republicans win this election and retain control of the Senate, they will attempt to impose on us someone aligned with their core belief in their absolute right to maintain private arsenals, interfere with women's most intimate private decisions and everything else that conforms to their corrupt ideology.

This is an insult to democratic principles. It is time to consign these profiteers in human misery to the trash can of history themselves - each and every last one of them. July 28, 2016
..............................................................................................................................................................

UPDATE: On the morning following the election, politicians did what they always do. The victors reached for the sweet fruit of victory only to find it spoiled by the poisoned venom of the losers intent on avenging their repudiation. November 10, 2012

With the President re-elected, Republicans must consider whether to finally accept some measure of bipartisanship, (effectively abandoning the canard that it was the President who rejected every attempt at cooperation over the past four years.) Or, more likely, they will continue to oppose every Democratic initiative even as the nation dangles on the financial precipice, in service of their mantra not to raise taxes on the very wealthy.
If the Republican challenger had won, any notion that he would have been met with open arms by the Democrats instead of the same locked door the President has faced is pure fantasy.

So, we continue limping from crisis to crisis on two balky, broken legs, the left and the right; strapped together, cleaved and straining at the ties that bind us.

If gridlock is our future and neither party has a realistic opportunity to enact it’s entire policy agenda, the future battle the matters the most will be for the composition of the Supreme Court.

Here are the real long term implications.  

On October 1, the Supreme Court’s 2012-2013 term began.*  On that date, Ruth Bader Ginsberg was 79 years old, Antonin Scalia, 76; Anthony Kennedy, 76 and Stephen Breyer; 74. Several of them are likely to conclude their service on the Court in the next 4 years, creating opportunities for the next President to nominate successors that will shape the direction of the nation for many years to come.

If Mitt Romney becomes President, he will be deeply in debt to the Evangelical Christian wing of his party.  Absent any evidence of a true moral compass of his own, it is likely he will have to use the Court not to further an ideology he does not have, but rather, to placate his right flank. Now, consider that his senior judicial adviser is Robert Bork, the discredited former jurist whose own bid to be seated on the Court was roundly rejected.  Bork is the man who continues to insist, to cite merely one example, that the Equal Protection Clause does not apply to women.  His rationale?  Women are no longer discriminated against.  

This is what we are really voting for - or against – for many more years to come.

November 5, 2012

*Among the issues the Court will consider this term are cases involving affirmative action, habeas corpus in death penalty cases, Immigration and Fourth Amendment search and seizure. Here is a brief preview:

Affirmative Action: In perhaps the most prominent case of the term, the Court will review affirmative action in education in October’s case of Fisher v. University of Texas. Petitioner Abigail Fisher argues that the University of Texas denied her admission in favor of minority applicants with lesser credentials. The 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger determined that universities may consider race as one factor in a holistic review, and the University of Texas argues that it admitted those minority applicants in order to benefit the entire university with a diverse student body. The Court will decide whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows a university to consider race in undergraduate admissions decisions.

Immigration: In Moncrieffe v. Holder, the Court will examine the applicability of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) when a non-citizen is convicted of selling marijuana. Under the INA, an individual faces deportation if he is convicted of an "aggravated felony". A non-citizen can commit an "aggravated felony" under state law if the offense is a felony under the Controlled Substances Act. (“CSA”). The Court will address whether the non-citizen's conviction under a broader state law, which includes conduct that would not be a felony under the CSA, necessarily rises to the level of a felony under the CSA.

In Chaidez v. United States, the Court will determine the extent of its 2010 holding in Padilla v. Kentucky. In Padilla, the Court held that attorneys must advise defendants that pleading guilty to an offense may subject them to deportation. Chaidez will answer whether defendants may raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims for convictions that became final before the ruling in Padilla.

Search and Seizure: In Bailey v. United States, the Court will clarify how officers may detain an individual while the officers execute a search warrant.  Current law states that officers executing a search warrant may detain a person while they search the premises for contraband.  In this case, however, the defendant argues that officers may not detain a person who has already left the premises before the execution of the warrant.

The Court will hear also hear Fourth Amendment questions, including the roles of dogs in searches. Florida v. Jardines will answer two questions. First, whether a dog sniff at a front door is a Fourth Amendment search, thus requiring probable cause. Second, whether officers waiting outside a house to obtain a search warrant are participating in a Fourth Amendment search. The state of Florida argues that past cases imply these are not searches, but Jardines argues that these actions are searches because they violate an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy.

Habeas Corpus: The Court will look at cases interpreting the right of habeas corpus. In Johnson v. Williams, the Court will consider whether it violates the Sixth Amendment to remove a biased juror from a deadlocked jury and, if so, when the case reaches the federal court, can that court reject the state court’s findings of juror bias? The state court's findings have finality and deference in habeas corpus proceedings. The Johnson case will also ask whether state courts, in order to adjudicate a claim and therefore be entitled to deferential review, must explicitly state the federal law basis of the claim.

In death penalty cases, the Court will decide whether mentally incompetent death row inmates are entitled to a stay of federal habeas proceedings because they cannot assist their counsel.  The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Sixth Circuits, respectively, found that the defendants' competency was necessary during federal habeas review, thus staying the proceedings indefinitely. The Court will review the question of whether the appeals may go forward despite the defendants inability to participate.