McConnell Intent to Obstruct Testimony

Listen to McConnell here speak of his colleagues like the Founding Fathers- the Biden Rule- there was never a “Biden Rule” nor did Chuck Schumer set binding precedent for Constitutionally Mandated Duty with some off hand remarks. This action he took is completely unprecedented, the Senate Majority leader with one other Republican, vetoed the Appointment of the Chief Justice of the DC Circuit to the Supreme Court, the smallest jump imaginable..by the twice elected President, for no apparent reason.

He talks about the Democrats blocking Bork, the guy who fired the prosecutor investigating the break in ordered by the Republican Presidential Campaign, into the Democrats’ headquarters and covered up by the President, is the nominee for Supreme Court Justice? Why would you make it so obvious you’re promoting someone who went party over principle when it mattered. This guy didn’t even have to take a real stand- two guys before him resigned so they wouldn’t do the deed he did. So the Democrats didn’t vote for a guy who stopped the investigation of the break in to their head quarters- well, that’s a real head scratcher. I guess in politics you never can tell.

He says this precedent was set over decades, yet even that horrible and stupid pick for a nominee, Bork, got a vote, which he lost, as he should have.

8 Republican Senators said they would meet with Garland, and were refused by McConnell- they can meet with him but they will still not get to vote on him no matter what they decide, because Mitch and Chuck are the only people in the world who can schedule a hearing and they won’t do it.

Why? He thinks the American people should decide, and oh, it could flip the balance on the court to the Democrats and Obama’s influence would be for years to come. so, of course he will do what he can to delay this from happening.

Intent to Obstruct
Intent to Obstruct
No hearings for the longest time in Senate history
Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of Obama’s Civil Rights
Obstruction of 59 judge ships

Senators McConnell and Grassley refused Constitutional Appointments Duty

Illegal actions tipped Supreme Court Balance

McConnell Garland Supreme Court Matter

Appointments Clause

The President…shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law….

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

Scope:

When Mitch McConnell and Charles Grassley refused to give the Senate’s Advice -a Constitutionally Mandated Duty- on the twice elected President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland- the Chief Judge of the DC Court of Appeals -( essentially the position most like Supreme Court Seat without being a Supreme Court Seat, as boring and uncontroversial a pick as can be imagined ) to the Supreme Court it was unprecedented event in the history of the United States– holding up the business of the United States of America for a group that did not exist at the time of the writing of the Constitution- the interests of the Republican Party. Further it was part of a clear pattern- more judges blocked- 79 during Obama’s tenure then have been blocked by the Senate in the history of the Senate (59)

Mitch McConnell  refused to give Constitutionally Mandated Duty  Presidential Appointment Advice and did so without a legitimate reason.
The  actual reason was clear; do not allow the Constitutionally Elected President to Appoint Supreme Court Justices as he should Choose, unless he is a Republican President. This is not speculation but demonstrated by the statements of the Senate of time. The Intent was corrupt, naked power grab, as part of a deliberate, and public strategy to refuse to acknowledge the Power and Authority of the elected President. They did so, because the power of the Supreme Court had helped to keep their Party in Power for decades.
The reason for not stating a reason is also clear; naming that intent is what would be used in a trial for treason.

He held off for a year, and then rammed through the next President’s pick of Gorsuch, repealing the filibuster in order restoring the deciding vote to the conservative or Federalists on the  Supreme Court.

In the previous 200+ years of precedent- the pattern is the same, Supreme Court vacancy, hearing, position filled in under 120 days, only with great cause*-is a nomination like Bork’s very normally with a vote that’s 60-40 or something, trends but doesn’t follow the party lines- no  filibuster, a regular vote, a rare thing since Kentucky Senate Majority Leader McConnell has held the reigns of Senate power.

He Refused the Senate’s Constitutional responsibility to give Advice to the President on his Supreme Court pick, and far worse, cannot identify a legitimate reason to  have done something so extreme to Obama but nothing to George W Bush or Donald J Trump- President Barack Obama relatively scandal free two Term President  to seat a Supreme Court Justice, something which has never before happened, no vote at all, shut down the President.  Far from perfect, but nothing that could be said for him that could not be said for the Republican Presidents of the Era.  Total breach of authority and violation of separation of powers that are clearly delineated by text and by famous precedent.. Not even during the “Civil War” did something so blatantly unconstitutional happen

The President shall- by and with the Senate- Shall means it is a command, not a discretionary duty. While the letter of the law does not impose limits on the time frame- precedent does. Precedents and traditions, as a matter of law should not be overturned for transient causes, no cause given, or worst- a corrupt cause.   The President had a right to Promote the Chief Judge of the DC Circuit to the Supreme Court, and the Senate’s got to have a reason, and has to have a vote. If Mitch McConnell conspired to refuse a Constitutionally mandated duty – process from occurring to maintain control of a branch- holding the operations of Justice to his will alone- delaying many cases by months and years so he gets his preferred Judicial nominees, either for himself or for the Republican Parties decision tree, this is coup d’etat. Affecting as it did a swing vote, which was used in several decision this past year to overturn precedents, and to squash legitimate functions of government that manage the election of other branches. This sort of behavior is the elements of treason.

Extreme examples of the principles
The letter of the law  in the Constitution says all certificates shall be opened, but does not specifically state that ALL electoral votes are to be counted for all parties in the election. This does not qualify as a loophole that Joe Biden could have literally thrown away the electoral votes for the opposing party.
The precedent by not acknowledging this extreme deviation for no discernible value to the American people as a whole, for the bidding of his Party, is a prelude to lawlessness; get into office and do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, while using resources created by law.

 

Authority quote

Appointments Clause- Heritage Foundation

Congress has continued the practice to this day. The Supreme Court has held that Congress may not provide itself with the power to make appointments, Buckley v. Valeo (1976), but it is unclear how far Congress may go in setting qualifications for principal officers without contravening the Framers’ interest in assuring the President’s accountability for the initial choice. President James Monroe declared that Congress had no right to intrude upon the President’s appointing power. In Myers v. United States (1926), Chief Justice Taft declared that the qualifications set by Congress may not “so limit selection and so trench upon executive choice as to be in effect legislative designation.” In Public Citizen v. U.S. Department of Justice (1989), Justice Anthony Kennedy, concurring, opined that the President’s appointing power was exclusive, and that only the Incompatibility Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 2) limits the range of his choice. The Court, however, has yet to make a definitive statement on the issue.

 

And there is no more corrupt intent. Public statements demonstrate that Mitch McConnell deliberately held up the operation of the Federal Court Systems from sea to shining sea, a form of obstruction of  Justice, because governments operation is the operation of Justice, such as it is or it isn’t. To have US Senator do that for the strength of his party’s position.. “strategically playing the game”, holding up people’s lives, costing taxpayer dollars, longer sentences, longer pre trial detention. So McConnell could maintain a Republican hold on the Supreme Court.

 

This so called conservative has been in Congressional power and set the record for filibusters, judicial filibusters, the largest increases in deficits in American history under Republican President

Path Forward

 

We believe to establish Justice in this country there must be a hearing on the matter, and that we need testimony from Obama, McConnell and the entire Senate Judiciary at the time. Supporting testimony from the Attorney General’s. It would be good to have a firmly established analysis of the judicial nomination patterns in context of 200 years of history in opinions from DC District Court.
In the future all such questions of Constitutionally Mandated Duty,should get on the record opinions from the Executive and Justice branches. Petitions from the public of tangible Constitutional theory

Any and all Judicial nominations that were denied or confirmed from 2009 till present must be examined and whether individually or as a class is a decision yet to be decided upon.

 

 

Footnote*

 

*- like Bork, a lawyer who despite great intellectual capacity- fired a special prosecutor, who investigated when a President ordered a burglary into the DNC headquarters. The person of any stripe, who thinks their duty is to aid in the obstruction of Justice has no business being called a Justice. Further he broke into DNC headquarters, then you expect Democrats to vote for him? Height of a hubristic pick.

Appointments clause text from Heritage

Constitution the Supreme Law of the United States

Appointments Clause

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2

 

The President…shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law….

This clause contemplates three sequential acts for the appointment of principal officers—the nomination of the President, the advice and consent of the Senate, and the Appointment of the Official by the President. This clause applies to principal officers in contradistinction to inferior officers, whose appointment is addressed in the next portion of the clause. Although the Senate must confirm principal officers, including Ambassadors and Supreme Court Justices, Congress may choose to require that any officers whose office is “established by Law” be confirmed by the Senate, whether they be inferior or not.

The important questions for principal officers and their confirmation are, first, whether the President has plenary power of nomination or whether the Constitution limits this power by requiring the President to seek prenomination advice; second, whether the President must nominate only those who meet qualifications set by Congress; and, third, whether the Senate has plenary power to reject nominees or whether that power is circumscribed by some standard.

Appointments Clause, cont.

 

Both the debates among the Framers and subsequent practice confirm that the President has plenary power to nominate. He is not obliged to take advice from the Senate on the identity of those he will nominate, nor does the Congress have authority to set qualifications for principal officers. The Senate possesses the plenary authority to reject or confirm the nominee, although its weaker structural position means that it is likely to confirm most nominees, absent compelling reasons to reject them.

 

The very grammar of the clause is telling: the act of nomination is separated from the act of appointment by a comma and a conjunction. Only the latter act is qualified by the phrase “advice and consent.” Furthermore, it is not at all anomalous to use the word advice with respect to the action of the Senate in confirming an appointment. The Senate’s consent is advisory because confirmation does not bind the President to commission and empower the confirmed nominee. Instead, after receiving the Senate’s advice and consent, the President may deliberate again before appointing the nominee.

The purpose of dividing the act of nomination from that of appointment also refutes the permissibility of any statutory restriction on the individuals the President may nominate. The principal concern of the Framers regarding the Appointments Clause, as in many of the other separation of powers provisions of the Constitution, was to ensure accountability while avoiding tyranny. Hence, following the suggestion of Nathaniel Gorham of New Hampshire and the example of the Massachusetts Constitution drafted by John Adams, the Framers gave the power of nomination to the President so that the initiative of choice would be a single individual’s responsibility but provided the check of advice and consent to forestall the possibility of abuse of this power. Gouverneur Morris described the advantages of this multistage process: “As the President was to nominate, there would be responsibility, and as the Senate was to concur, there would be security.”

The Federalist similarly understands the power of nomination to be an exclusively presidential prerogative. In fact, Alexander Hamilton answered critics who would have preferred the whole power of appointment to be lodged in the President by asserting that the assignment of the power of nomination to the President alone assures sufficient accountability:

[I]t is easy to show that every advantage to be expected from such an arrangement would, in substance, be derived from the power of nomination which is proposed to be conferred upon him; while several disadvantages which might attend the absolute power of appointment in the hands of that officer would be avoided. In the act of nomination, his judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment. The Federalist No. 76.

Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, and the modern Supreme Court in Edmond v. United States (1997) all confirm that understanding.

Congress establishes offices, and the President, at least in regard to principal officers, nominates office holders. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8), Congress has often established qualifications for those who can serve in the offices it has created, thereby limiting the range of those the President can nominate. Andrew Jackson protested that such acts were an unconstitutional infringement of his appointing power, but Congress has continued the practice to this day. The Supreme Court has held that Congress may not provide itself with the power to make appointments, Buckley v. Valeo (1976), but it is unclear how far Congress may go in setting qualifications for principal officers without contravening the Framers’ interest in assuring the President’s accountability for the initial choice. President James Monroe declared that Congress had no right to intrude upon the President’s appointing power. In Myers v. United States (1926), Chief Justice Taft declared that the qualifications set by Congress may not “so limit selection and so trench upon executive choice as to be in effect legislative designation.” In Public Citizen v. U.S. Department of Justice (1989), Justice Anthony Kennedy, concurring, opined that the President’s appointing power was exclusive, and that only the Incompatibility Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 2) limits the range of his choice. The Court, however, has yet to make a definitive statement on the issue.

Closely related to the Framers’ interest in assuring accountability was their interest in avoiding an appointment that would be the result of secret deals. In defending the clause’s structure of presidential nomination and public confirmation, Hamilton contrasted it with the appointments process by a multimember council in his own state of New York. Such a council acting in secret would be “a conclave in which cabal and intrigue will have their full scope….[T]he desire of mutual gratification will beget a scandalous bartering of votes and bargaining for places.” Delegates to the Constitutional Convention had expressed similar concerns. If the Senate had a formal prenomination advisory role, the Senate leaders and the President might well be tempted to make a deal that would serve their parochial interests and then be insulated from all but pro forma scrutiny. Other contemporaneous commentary on the Appointments Clause repudiates any special constitutional prenomination role for the Senate. James Iredell, a leading proponent of ratification in North Carolina and subsequently a Supreme Court Justice, observed at his state’s ratifying convention: “As to offices, the Senate has no other influence but a restraint on improper appointments. The President proposes such a man for such an office. The Senate has to consider upon it. If they think him improper, the President must nominate another, whose appointment ultimately again depends upon the Senate.”

The practice of the first President and Senate supported the construction of the Appointments Clause that reserves the act of nomination exclusively to the President. In requesting confirmation of his first nominee, President Washington sent the Senate this message: “I nominate William Short, Esquire, and request your advice on the propriety of appointing him.” The Senate then notified the President of Short’s confirmation, which showed that they too regarded “advice” as a postnomination rather than a prenomination function: “Resolved, that the President of the United States be informed, that the Senate advise and consent to his appointment of William Short Esquire….” The Senate has continued to use this formulation to the present day. Washington wrote in his diary that Thomas Jefferson and John Jay agreed with him that the Senate’s powers “extend no farther than to an approbation or disapprobation of the person nominated by the President, all the rest being Executive and vested in the President by the Constitution.” Washington’s construction of the Appointments Clause has been embraced by his successors. Some Presidents have consulted with key Senators and a few with the Senate leadership, but they have done so out of comity or political prudence and never with the understanding that they were constitutionally obliged to do so. A law setting qualifications would not only invade the power of the President, it would also undermine the authority of the Senate as the sole authority to decide whether a principal officer should be confirmed.

The other principal controversy arising from the Appointments Clause has concerned the authority of the Senate to reject nominees. The Senate has independent authority in that it may constitutionally refuse to confirm a nominee for any reason. While ideology and jurisprudential “point of view” were not among the kinds of concerns listed by the Framers as justifying the requirement of advice and consent, nothing in the text of the clause appears to limit the kind of considerations the Senate can take up. It is thus reasonable to infer that the Framers located the process of advice and consent in the Senate as a check to prevent the President from appointing people who have unsound principles as well as blemished characters. As the President has complete discretion in the use of his veto power, the Senate has complete and final discretion in whether to accept or approve a nomination.

Given that the Senate was not to exercise choice itself, it appeared to Alexander Hamilton that a nominee should be rejected only for “special and strong reasons.” The President’s power of repeated nomination provides a check on the Senate’s ability to reject a nominee on something less than an articulable weighty reason. In fact, Hamilton argued that if the Senate fails to make that case and rejects the nominee for a pretextual reason, the President would generally be in a position to find a second candidate without these putative defects who generally shares the President’s point of view. It is rare, however, for a President to renominate a person to a position once the Senate has declined to accept the nomination.

The President does possess an advantage in the unitary nature of the executive office as compared to the diffuse and variegated nature of the Senate—even when it is controlled by the opposition party. The President is a single individual, whereas the Senate is a body composed of many individuals with a wide range of views, including members with views like that of the President. When the President has a substantial basis of party support in the Senate and thus a nucleus of probable supporters, he has leverage for confirmation. Thus, the image of a divided government as a government in any sense equally divided when it comes to an analysis of the Appointments Clause and the confirmation process is a fundamentally false image, as George Mason recognized: “Notwithstanding the form of the proposition by which the appointment seemed to be divided between the Executive & Senate, the appointment was substantially vested in the former alone.” Moreover, the President’s advantage in the process is a considered feature of the Framers’ design: they knew how to create a process by which the power of the executive and the Senate would be rendered more equal. Unlike the approval of treaties, it does not take a supermajority to approve a presidential nominee.

Because the President has the initiative of choice in the appointments to the executive branch and the judiciary, the views of his prospective appointees are more likely to become a presidential campaign issue than in senatorial campaigns. Since he possesses the greatest discretion, the political process fastens upon him the greatest accountability. However, when a substantial number of Senators assert that there are strong and compelling political reasons to reject a nominee (as opposed to rejecting one because of a flawed character), the Constitution’s structure ensures a confirmation battle. As such, the Constitution contains mechanisms designed to contain conflict within the republican process in order to protect against the degeneration of the Republic’s original ideals and thus ensure the Republic’s stability. The Appointments Clause is a prime example of such a mechanism. It structures the confirmation process so that when two of the Republic’s national governing branches are in fundamental disagreement, there will be a struggle to persuade the people of the correctness of their respective positions. In the case of a struggle over constitutional interpretation as in a Supreme Court nomination, the public will be forced to consider the first principles of the Republic—in this case, the role of the judiciary and the proper method of interpreting its governing document. Citizens will thus vicariously enjoy some measure of the experience of the Framing of the Constitution, thus contributing to the Republic’s self-regeneration.

John O. McGinnis

George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law Northwestern University School of Law

Judge Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court and relief for McConnell’s crimes

Illegal actions tipped Supreme Court Balance

Kavanaugh isn’t the problem, Mitch McConnell’s usurpation of Presidential Appointment powers is- and what to do about it.

By Darrell Prince

The conversations about how to stop Kavanaugh, seem misguided, like arguing over colors of sweaters you will pack for the post apocalypse; perhaps time best spent attempting to prevent the apocalypse. Yes, Kavanaugh has a terribly troubling record, and like certain other Justices it seems like certain things- things which get Republicans elected- shaving off votes, deleting registered voters, tampering with vote values via apportionment and gerrymandering seem to be decided before they hear a case. They also all seem to be pretty obvious forms of altering the government structure and it’s resources to suit a favored minority, the opposite of any form of democracy, including the American republican form of democracy.

But the real story for the Supreme Court, the concept of Justice and the future of the United States, is the balance of power shift that was interrupted by a crime. The balance of power- swung to the liberal end of the court, was rudely, and illegally interrupted, and shifted, making every single case out of the Supreme Court in the last year suspect in the extreme. And, similar to how prior cases by police who are found to be planting evidence, have to be thrown out, so too, do most of the precedent overturning 5-4 decisions involving Gorsuch. The entire credibility of the system of Justice- frankly, already with some very real issues, is nearly entirely dissolved by not only the action, but the failure to examine a highly questionable action involving the make up one of the three branches of government

A crime was committed, when Mitch McConnell decided to block President Obama’s appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, and unlike most crimes, it arises direct and you could apply many criminal statutes 18 USC 241, conspiracy to deny rights, obstruction of justice, to this behavior and actions. It was a violation of separation of powers, as it is clearly meant by both the Constitutional text, and tradition that the President picks Supreme Court nominees. This is a terrible precedent, allowed to continue, it means that any political party controlling the Senate, has the Appointment power, effectively a transfer of Constitutional Authority.

That the action was unusual is not difficult to measure; it’s never happened before in 200 years. The issue was neither President Obama’s qualifications as President, nor his legal status, nor Judge Garlands qualifications, all were impeccable, far more so than Mr. Trump’s. After Mr. Trump started nominating judges, all of a sudden the rate of confirmation went from slowest to fastest in the history of judicial nominations, filling in seats, previously held open by the Republican party of the United States of America, slowing down an entire branch of government, with far more pressing day to day responsibilities than either of the other two branches.

https://powerfulconstitutionalrights.org/mitch-mcconnell-…nges-obstruction/

The intent was that no non Republican judge would be seated on the Supreme Court. Several members went so far as to say that, were Hillary Clinton elected President they would continue Nor was there some sort of unusual circumstanc

Both President Obama himself, as well as Senate Judiciary especially and the Senate in general have strong standing to bring suit in this matter. However, it is pretty clear, as this is clearly a process arising under the Constitution, and involves the make up of sovereign power in the United States, the process of Appointment must be unquestionable and entirely free of the possibility of taint.

The relief? As Obama’s civil rights were violated by the refusal to allow him to pick a Supreme Court Justice- at a minimum, relief is reverting the pick back to President Obama, and removing any, and all of the 5-4 decisions which overturned precedent.

To anyone honest, who is familiar with and directly involved in process- from legal to scientific to business, holding up the whole show from a position of lesser responsibility for selection of team members is an obvious no no. I do not believe 60% of even Republican appointed justices would approve of this action as it is truly repugnant to the law, democratic republic, and the very concept of process itself.

Should this case go to the Supreme Court, Gorsuch would be forced to recuse himself; to end on a 5-4 decision with a person deciding a case on their own job; would be to publicly announce from the Supreme Court that Justice was no longer a thing in America, and it seems unlikely that anyone, no matter their stripe or bend would risk what could very well mark the beginning of full implosion of the United States of America.

Senate Rules on Executive Appointments 2013 revision

From https://www.rules.senate.gov/rules-of-the-senate
XXXI
    1. When nominations shall be made by the President of the United States to the Senate, they shall, unless otherwise ordered, be referred to appropriate committees; and the final question on every nomination shall be, “Will the Senate advise and consent to this nomination?” which question shall not be put on the same day on which the nomination is received, nor on the day on which it may be reported by a committee, unless by unanimous consent.

(Note: where are the records for the 2016 receipt of the Appointment of Merrick Garland how do they differ from Sotomayer, Kagan and Gorsuch what was the purpose of this process deviation)

    1. All business in the Senate shall be transacted in open session, unless the Senate as provided in rule XXI by a majority vote shall determine that a particular nomination, treaty, or other matter shall be considered in closed executive session, in which case all subsequent proceedings with respect to said nomination, treaty, or other matter shall be kept secret: Provided, That the injunction of secrecy as to the whole or any part of proceedings in closed executive session may be removed on motion adopted by a majority vote of the Senate in closed executive session: Provided further, That any Senator may make public his vote in closed executive session.
    1. When a nomination is confirmed or rejected, any Senator voting in the majority may move for a reconsideration on the same day on which the vote was taken, or on either of the next two days of actual executive session of the Senate; but if a notification of the confirmation or rejection of a nomination shall have been sent to the President before the expiration of the time within which a motion to reconsider may be made, the motion to reconsider shall be accompanied by a motion to request the President to return such notification to the Senate. Any motion to reconsider the vote on a nomination may be laid on the table without prejudice to the nomination, and shall be a final disposition of such motion.
    1. Nominations confirmed or rejected by the Senate shall not be returned by the Secretary to the President until the expiration of the time limited for making a motion to reconsider the same, or while a motion to reconsider is pending unless otherwise ordered by the Senate.
    1. When the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all motions to reconsider a vote upon a nomination which has been confirmed or rejected by the Senate, which shall be pending at the time of taking such adjournment or recess, shall fall; and the Secretary shall return all such nominations to the President as confirmed or rejected by the Senate, as the case may be.
    1. Nominations neither confirmed nor rejected during the session at which they are made shall not be acted upon at any succeeding session without being again made to the Senate by the President; and if the Senate shall adjourn or take a recess for more than thirty days, all nominations pending and not finally acted upon at the time of taking such adjournment or recess shall be returned by the Secretary to the President, and shall not again be considered unless they shall again be made to the Senate by the President.
  1. (a) The Official Reporters shall be furnished with a list of nominations to office after the proceedings of the day on which they are received, and a like list of all confirmations and rejections.(b) All nominations to office shall be prepared for the printer by the Official Reporter, and printed in the Congressional Record, after the proceedings of the day in which they are received, also nominations recalled, and confirmed.

    (c) The Secretary shall furnish to the press, and to the public upon request, the names of nominees confirmed or rejected on the day on which a final vote shall be had, except when otherwise ordered by the Senate.

Gerry Mandering- Whitford Gill

Whitford GIll Gerry Mandering

Gill v Whitford- a Case study in the paralyzed legal system of the United State

The Supreme Court- in a unanimous decision, to hit snooze on what they acknowledge is a dire threat to American Republic, growing progressively worse.

Partisan gerry mandering is “incompatible with democratic principles.” Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (slip op., at 1) (quoting Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U. S. 267, 292 (2004) (plurality opinion); alterations omitted). More effectively every day,that practice enables politicians to entrench themselves inpower against the people’s will. And only the courts can do anything to remedy the problem, because gerrymanders benefit those who control the political branches.

 

41 pages to explain why they are not sure that the Wisconsin residents were the right people to address the issues

 

In a surprisingly even handed manner- rather than a dismissal- they remanded the case- sent it to the local, federal district court to adjust the case- and they seemed to genuinely want to hear more. The facts of the case seem to necessitate further and quick action , and I frankly fail to see how there would be much debate on the issue, even from the just the next two paragraphs, long before we get to laws which govern this.

 

Symposium: Bringing Whitford into focus

“In 2010, Wisconsin Republicans won fortuitous majorities in the fall elections. They then used that control to create a map for state assembly elections that would guarantee them large legislative majorities even with a minority of the statewide vote, and, crucially, deny their Democratic opponents the same opportunity. They did this intentionally. And they succeeded. Consultants and legislative aides – supervised by the leaders of the state’s Republican caucus – worked away in an off-site “map room” to engineer maps with the aid of sophisticated social-science techniques. Legislative Democrats were entirely excluded from the mapping process. Even rank-and-file Republicans were largely left in the dark, shown only information relating to their specific districts and only after signing nondisclosure agreements. The maps were then rapidly pushed through both houses of the legislature and signed into law by the state’s Republican governor.”

(Whitford opinions)

In 2012, Republicans won 60 Assembly seats with 48.6% of the two-party statewide vote for Assembly candidates. In 2014, Republicans won 63 Assembly seats with 52% of the statewide vote.

218 F. Supp. 3d 837, 853 (WD Wis. 2016).  *

 

What is an election

The popular answer, one which it is likely neither judge nor politician will dispute is a “test of the people’s will” which is done by tallying the people’s votes for representatives

The map is the way of representing the will of large groups of people, with the idea of maintaining local areas of interest, and giving them a representative voice .

 

This process is governed, primarily by the 14th Amendment-though unfortunately requiring several additional ones-  to get every person the right to vote. No person shall be deprived of equal protection under the laws– and we generally take equal protection to mean equal privileges of. Also, Baker v Carr, Wesberry v Sanders established a ‘one person, one vote’ principle- which means that the number of people in each district should be approximately equivalent. So if it is impermissible to create districts so certain people have more power and influence, it would also be 

 

 

  1. Is there a valid case- does the system for electing representatives accurately(accurate- hits the bulls eye) and precisely( precise- hits the same place on the dartboard, over and over, regardless of where) reflect the will of the people?

 

Together with the fact that Wisconsin has 99 seats in the Assembly you have all the facts necessary to determine the adequacy or lack there of Wisconsin’s districting system. 

 

In 2012, Republicans won 60 Assembly seats with 48.6% of the two-party statewide vote for Assembly candidates. In 2014, Republicans won 63 Assembly seats with 52% of the statewide vote.

218 F. Supp. 3d 837, 853 (WD Wis. 2016).  *

 

Republicans won 61% of State Assembly voting power with 49% of the two party vote in 2012, and 64% with 52% of the vote in 2014.

 

They won a strong majority, while being slightly in the minority- effectively pushing out of power a group with more votes. It may seem like this can vary year to year, or depending on issue, national sentiment, third parties but these things affect the numbers of votes collected- those have already been taken in to consideration, and there is this huge distortion.

 

A couple of seats here or there difference because of blow outs- 48% of the vote producing 52% of the seats- may be possible. But a 12% swing, in consecutive elections is statistically impossible without  map distortion.

 

In a two party system elections are a zero sum game, making this very simple- presumably, a strong showing by a third party hewing to either  in multiple districts would change the over all picture. In this case however- the brilliance in using only the two party vote tally in this comparison, is it doesn’t matter.

 

  1. What gerrymandering actually is.

 

Gerrymandering is a practice intended to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries- Wikipedia

 

In regards to state legislatures, state officials adjust the commons-  take an official act- changing the shape of the state government itself- for the good of themselves, and the good of their external association on taxpayer time and dime.

 

If you are familiar with Baker V Carr, Reynolds, etc, what those cases were was really saying it is impermissible to rig the system to give certain people more say in the state legislatures than others.

 

18 USC 201

(B)

being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

 

Is job security, at a set monetary value, something of value? Is the ability to craft legislation, that directly affects business regulated by the legislation, have value? But this is federal charges.

 

From the Wisconsin statutes.

230.40 Political activities; public office.

 No person holding any position in the classified civil service may during the hours when on duty engage in any form of political activity calculated to favor or improve the chances of any political party or any person seeking or attempting to hold partisan political office, nor engage in any political activity when not on duty to such an extent that the person’s efficiency during working hours will be impaired or that he or she will be tardy or absent from work. Any violation of this section is adequate grounds for dismissal.

While I have not researched whether or not the same standards apply to the elected officials themselves, I’d be willing to bet every dollar I don’t have- quite a tidy sum,  that it applies to any contractor hired by the state government. Nor is accepting outside paid for maps a possibility- this  would directly be bribery. So unless these state legislators literally drew the maps themselves.. there is no way they could draw partisan maps legally- and even that is a stretch.

 

  1. Can these people bring the case forward- standus locii or standing
    1. General objection to court policy on this.

It is the practice of the US Courts, to, particularly when they don’t want to be bothered or the question is difficult, to say that the person has no Article III standing to sue. It is a strict Constitutionally mandated duty which must be adhered to above anything else, and requires that the Courts only act to help people who can show that they have been personally harmed in a significant way that doesn’t affect anyone else. Of course, you may have a difficult time finding it, since it is not mentioned in Article III nor in any legal document anywhere from 1776-1918ish when Justice Brandeis and company decided that it was a clear Constitutional duty.

 

Aquaman certainly doesn’t have any business in court contesting BLM (Bureau of Land Management)Oklahoma cattle grazing regulations, (unless he owns shares in the cattle companies) and those sorts of clear hey you have no dog in this fight should be thrown out. *But  it seems highly unlikely that the founders intended that large swaths of the Constitution would be unusable- and very clear, and very likely violations of said Constitution would continue until the political branches had a change of heart or the right person saying the exact right thing stepped forward. That a government’s adherence to it’s written contracts with it’s

people, is We the people’s business, in country ostensibly of the people for the people and by the people is something that should but apparently does not go without saying.

    1. Restriction to their district for standing-

That gerry mandering only affects the people in the specific district fails to take into account the actual purpose of voting. The right to vote is not the right to go in a booth, nor to choose a person who gets paid to go back and forth from the capital of their state. The purpose is to take part in selecting a representative who the voter  believes will best advance and represent that voters’s interest,( and hopefully the community at large) making real and concrete an agenda the voter supports. The ability to have a non voting, or voting with a substantial minority party in a binary system in practice, nearly the same thing as, nothing whatsoever. Ask Puerto Ricans- Ame Ricans in numbers that in the mid west or New England would get them 6 Senators,  and 5ish Reps without a voting rep in Congress.

Nor is the ability to elect an honest man to have equal say and vote, with 7 members of the same corporation who are unconvicted felons, whose credentials are faked. (Not that this is necessarily the case nor necessarily not the case, here- it is to say that )

 

 

You are always voting for representation in a system; one in this case that only has effect as a whole. Your vote for mayor of your city will not give you standing to sue for malfeasance in the elections of a different city.

 

But if you are voting for members of a board that depends on state wide elections for the representatives who vote on laws that have state wide effect, The taxes collected, whether right turn on red is legal, and whether schools are funded properly are all decisions that are made

 

When I vote for representation, I am voting for a person who will represent my interests, and my values. This person is not going to “go it alone” since the branches are co-equal at all levels, in theory. When it is a person on the legislature, my vote goes to a person to represent me and my interests, and values. So my vote for a person in my district is partially for the person but mostly because they associate themselves with ideas and an idealogy I back- or at least most voters do this, most of the time.

 

In this context their interests and my interests are one and the same- which means that if they/we are elected, but have no coalition, because the other seats have all been gerrymandered,  there is effectively no vote.

 

The Court argues here, that a remedy would only be the fixing of their district, that only individuals denied representation  By this logic, the remedy for a government throwing away the votes of the opposite party would be to apply additional tally marks in the opposing column for the plaintiffs, and only the plaintiffs who stepped forward.

 

Any time you vote, you vote as part of an association, a paradigm, a mindset which best suits what you think you want at the time in government. As an individual, your right to vote, is in fact worthless. One vote can make a difference- ennh- rarely enough that it does not bear merit of additional text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crimes in US Senate: Crimes of Sen. Mitch McConnell, Senator Charles Grassley and other corrupt Senators who solicit bribes for earned income

Mitch Mcconnell, obstructionist
by Brett Sablosky
In 2016 Sen Mitch McConnell and Sen Chuck Grassley did the unthinkable and committed serious crimes. For first time in United States history, the majority leader and the majority refused to have an up or down vote on a U.S. Supreme Court nominee of a sitting United State President. The Senate majority Republicans deprived the Senate minority Democrats of their absolutely guaranteed Constitutional right and constitutional duty to vote on a U.S. Supreme Court nominee, who in this case was Judge Merrick Garland, nominated by President Obama. Senator McConnell and Senator Grassley, two career criminals in U.S. Senate went much further than that, for first time in 230 , they declared that they would not hold confirmation hearings or an up or down vote on any nominee nominated by President Obama in his remaining 10 months. McConnell , Grassley and the other 9 Republicans on U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee each committed 47 felony counts of violations of civil rights of Obama and the 46 Senators who wished to have hearings and vote on the Merrick Garland nomonation plus 1 count of obstruction of justice. Among the criminals on Judiciary who agreed to commit these crimes , under crime tutor Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the current attorney general of U.S. Jefferson Sessions, plus Sen. John Cornyn TX., Sen. Mike Lee UT., Sen Orrin Hatch UT., Sen. David Vitter LA., Sen Lindsay Graham S.C., Sen. Jeff Flake AZ, and Sen Thom Tills N.C.
     These criminal arrogant Senators, in violation of U.S. Constitution decided that they would pick who the next U.S. Supreme Court nominee would be, not President Obama, the sitting elected president.