Nullify ?

A tid-bit of news not, as yet, made much of: there's a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to nullify the results of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election on a current SCOTUS docket.


SCOTUS docket 16-907 DISTRIBUTED TO JUSTICES FOR CONFERENCE on March 17, 2017.

While the world is paying attention to theatrical battles over President Trump’s executive orders and cabinet nominees, a largely unnoticed and potentially landmark case sits before the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. A petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to nullify the results of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election sits on the SCOTUS docket..........

Commenters at naked capitalism.com:

(sleepy): SCOTUS will view it as a political issue, not a judicial one, and punt.

(Pat):That would be the best choice. Probable worst outcome more tantrums from those behind the case and their supporters. Anything else spells violent response to me.


More HERE

The Resistance has taken the first official step toward ending the nightmare that is Trump’s presidency. The Supreme Court of the United States has just advanced a case that could kick Trump’s entire administration out of office.

I've nothing to add other than this, if successful (highly unlikely), would be preferable to impeachment of President Trump, leaving us with President Pence - not a beneficial exchange! But, but...violent response....rock and hard place! Better to stick with what we've got, all things considered.

SCOTUS... "If Only..."

I first wrote a blog post about this gentleman back in 2008 - part of that post is included in one from 2012, re-aired below.

It's a pipe dream, of course - but what a superb addition to the SCOTUS line-up this man would be, to fill the now vacant seat of Antonin Scalia dec'd. According to Wikipedia Mr Fitzgerald is now in private practice, in Chicago.

By the way, regarding the late Justice Scalia, there's a good read by a favourite writer of mine, David Michael Green, at The Smirking Chimp: The Loser's Way, (or, What Do You Do When your Politics Suck ?)


Re-airing my 2012 post:

One public figure in the United States I can admire without reservation (and there are precious few) is US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. He has been in the news once more this week, this time announcing his decision to step down from his post in Northern District of Illinois after a stint of 11 years. From the end of June he intends to take the summer off before considering other job possibilities.
(Photo: Getty Images)

His 24-year, often high profile, career has included prosecuting terrorists, mob members, corrupt governors and a presidential aide - we can only guess at what job offers might be forthcoming. Possibilities mentioned here and there on the net would be to replace the current FBI director whose term will end in September 2013, or U.S. attorney general under a new administration.

Mr.Fitzgerald has never made his own political leanings known. He prosecuted Republican Governor George Ryan and Governor Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat, with equal zeal.

On Thursday, speaking to reporters he said, "For the office, it's important that there be change. I thought this was the right time." Asked about future plans, "I don't know, and that's sincere," he told reporters. "Public service is in my blood."
(Photograph: Chicago Sun Times)

Fitzgerald's parents came from Ireland's County Clare, they met in the United States, raised their son in Flatbush and guided him to a scholarship at a Jesuit high school. He worked as a school janitor in Brooklyn to make money for college and spent summers opening doors at an upscale co-op building on East 72nd Street in Manhattan. His father worked at a building on East 75th. Fitzgerald says he remembers where he came from and pinches himself when he realizes where he is. "The values we grew up with were straight-ahead. We didn't grow up in a household where people were anything but direct," Fitzgerald says.

I've posted before about Patrick Fitzgerald -this comes from a 2008 post....

A writer called Fitzgerald an "Untouchable", in the mould of Eliot Ness ."The Prosecutor Never Rests", an article by Peter Slevin from 2005 gives a flavour of Patrick Fitzgerald's personality.

"His thoroughness, his relentlessness, his work ethic are legendary," says terrorism expert Daniel Benjamin, a former member of the National Security Council.

Seeing Fitzgerald in action, says Los Angeles lawyer Anthony Bouza, a college classmate, is "like watching a sophisticated machine." Colleagues speak in head-shaking tones of Fitzgerald's skills in taking a case to trial. A Phi Beta Kappa math and economics student at Amherst before earning a Harvard law degree in 1985, he has a gift for solving puzzles and simplifying complexity for a jury."

"The staff of the 9/11 commission called him one of the world's best terrorism prosecutors. He convicted Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and all four defendants in the embassy bombings, which had left 224 people dead. He extracted a guilty plea from Mafia capo John Gambino and became an authority on bin Laden, whom he indicted in 1998 for a global terrorist conspiracy that included the African bombings"

"People who know Fitzgerald describe him as anything but a stuffed shirt. During a key moment in one New York trial, he slipped a note to his co-counsel, who interrupted questioning to read it to himself. It said, "Is there beer in the fridge?""

"He's no slouch at stagecraft, either. At the trial of a Mafia hit man, the defense argued that a ski mask -- part of what Fitzgerald called a "hit kit" that included surgical gloves, a gun and hollow-point bullets -- was really just a hat. (The defense also said the surgical gloves were for putting ointment on the defendant's ailing dog.) During closing arguments, Fitzgerald startled the jury by rolling up one leg on his lawyerly dark suit. "These are just shorts, ladies and gentlemen," he said, according to one account. "These are just shorts."

Chart above is set for 12 noon as no time of birth is known.

I was confident I'd find Saturn and/or Capricorn very prominent in Fitzgerald's natal chart, and I wasn't wrong.

Sun, Jupiter and Saturn itself are all in Capricorn. Saturn is ruler of Capricorn, both are connected to law, as is Jupiter. Saturn and Capricorn represent the discipline, rules, and structures of law. Jupiter and its sign of rulership, Sagittarius represent the judgement and philosophical aspect of law and justice.
Very apt - and evidence of astrology in action - again!

Mercury at 22 Sagittarius harmoniously trines (120*) Uranus at 25 Leo - Intuitive mind with independence of thought - somewhat ahead of his own time.

Mars at 11 Cancer exactly opposes Jupiter at 11 Capricorn - indication that he seeks out challenges, has to temper a tendency to go over the top at times, but because Saturn is positioned close to Jupiter, such tendencies are held in check, and emanate in Fitzgerald's case mainly as the excess zeal for which he is famous and occasionally criticised.

The Moon's position can't be pinpointed without time of birth, but it would lie somewhere between 22 Aquarius and 6 Pisces. If born before noon (my bet) it was in Aquarius, along with his natal Venus. Analysis is key to his work, and that's a strongly Aquarian trait.

This is the kind of guy we need as president, but as long as he returns to some public office, it'll feel reassuring that good things and good people do happen here.... sometimes.

The SCOTUS-9 in the Court of Astrology

A few SCOTUS/astrological-related links:

#1 ~ I recently saved this article from the BBC's website, thought it a nicely done quick run-down on current SCOTUS Justices:
Meet the Supremes: Who are the US Supreme Court justices?
By Taylor Kate Brown, BBC News Magazine.


#2 ~ It'd be a big job to sift through 9 natal charts looking for similarities, I'm not feeling enthusiastic enough for that, but found an astrologer at Ohio Astrology blog who has already done some work in that direction. Included in the linked post is a handy list of justices' Sun and Moon signs, with observations on any chart similarities or peculiarities:
If you want to be a supreme court justice what sign should you be?


#3 ~ Infographic has an illustration showing Sun signs of the SCOTUS 9 ~
Supreme Court Justices by Name & Zodiac Sign


#4 ~ My own brief scribble about Chief Justice Roberts is below, extracted from THIS 2008 post, written when I was still naive about the US brand of politics and justice...can you tell?

US Chief Justice John Roberts has Sun and Mercury in Aquarius, with Aquarius' modern ruler Uranus conjunct Jupiter in Cancer. Jupiter is traditionally connected with law, and government. Incidentally, with his natal Moon almost certainly in Pisces, Sun in humanitarian Aquarius, and that conjunction in sensitive Cancer , I'd say Chief Justice Roberts is a compassionate man, it's good to see such a person occupying that lofty position.(27 Jan. 1955, Buffalo, New York)

UPDATE

Thanks to commenter Bob (see below) for information on date/time of SCOTUS inaugural meeting. Here's a chart, for reference, based on that data: 2 February 1790 at 1:14 PM, in New York City.

SCOTUS, ACA, King v Burwell ...Here we go again...

This week, on Wednesday, the Supreme Court is to consider the case known as King v. Burwell — a challenge to that part of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare & ACA) which deals with subsidies.

The ACA created a subsidy system for low and some middle income families to help in the purchase of health insurance through insurance exchanges "established by the state". The law sets a cap on the amount of insurance premium that individuals and families will have to pay for the second cheapest Silver plan based upon that person/family's income in relation to the Federal Poverty Level.

States were given the option of establishing their own exchanges or allowing the Health and Human Services Department to run a state marketplace for them. The administration would argue that both types of exchange count as having been "established by the state" (i.e. a state with a federally run exchange having made their choice to "establish" that exchange in their state.) Lawyers will argue day and night on this point, I dare say!

The case turns, I think, on just those four words of the Act: "established by the state".

Plaintiffs attest that subsidies should be available only to people buying coverage on exchanges “established by the state,” i.e. state-run marketplaces. 34 states don’t have their own exchanges. Residents rely on federally run marketplaces - the course opted for by their state representatives. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, subsidies in the form of tax credits would end in those 34 states. Subsidies have made insurance affordable for millions of people who would otherwise have remained uninsured.

The whole point of ACA was to make health care affordable to everybody, not simply to those in states where the state had opted to run their own exchange. If this had not been so, wording would have been clear on this point (or ought to have been!)

There's a somewhat dodgy argument by some lawyers that proposes the real reason for not making the subsidy available in relation to both types of exchange was a way of forcing reluctant states to get on board and establish their own exchanges - or lose availability of subsidies for residents of their state. I can easily imagine that some states would not have wished to get into the exchange/marketplace thing because of the extra worries and risks involved - so much easier to let the government deal with it all! The option and the decision on this did remain with each individual state. States' rights an' all that.

It doesn't seem likely, to me, that there was ever an intention to lock people out of subsidies depending on their type of health exchange. That would have been counterproductive. The aim was to bring in as many insured people as possible, to make the system work as intended.

If SCOTUS finds for the plaintiffs, outlaws subsidies in states with federally run exchanges, the people of those states who become unable to afford health insurance will be rightly incensed. Governors of such states should be under immediate pressure to establish state run exchanges tout de suite! Would they though? Would the people rise up and demand? Would the state representatives comply? Oh.... hmm...and could this possibly be a ploy to force states into running their own exchanges? No, that doesn't feel right....a bit conspiracy-ish for me.

I doubt that those potential eventualities will come about, unless the Justices are feeling particularly obtuse and bloody-minded, with intent to bring down the whole caboodle. Couldn't they have done that on the last opportunity - that time in 2012 when Chief Justice Roberts, for once, saved the day for ACA?(SEE HERE)

NEXT RIGHT TURN...?

Once upon a time I lived in a land where judges or justices were not supposed to be, overtly, members of a political party, or particular religion. Maybe you did too. They did not talk publicly about their religion or political views. Their job was applying the law, interpreting the law even-handedly, whatever the political flavour of the nation's government happened to be at the time. Judges or justices were appointed for their excellent record, their wide experience and their intellectual brilliance. Nobody even knew, for sure, their political leanings. Their decisions were almost always clear, trusted and highly respected, even when there was room for some disagreement. In the USA, though, the Supreme Court is politicized and religion-led, which seems to me to be at root of all recent problems with their rulings, as well as their apparent inability to write clear, concise decisions.

While I have no respect for Hobby Lobby and the Green Family who created and incorporated it, and my respect for the Supreme Court of the United States is dwindling rapidly, I am surprised (perhaps ought not to be), at some early misunderstandings appearing as a result of the SCOTUS ruling in the Hobby Lobby case. Threads of outrage, making some points with which I agree wholeheartedly, but some which were quite incorrect, have been all over the net this week. As usual in the USA everything becomes hyper-hyperbolic.

Again, I hate to say anything even vaguely in favour of Hobby Lobby or SCOTUS, but facts are facts. Hobby Lobby and the Green family are not objecting to contributing towards all contraceptive methods. What Hobby Lobby will not cover are the four contraceptive methods listed below. These, Hobby Lobby owners fear, are abortifacients - they believe that these methods are "tantamount to abortion because they can prevent embryos from implanting in the womb". Most commenters say they are mistaken. The four methods to which Hobby Lobby owners object:

Plan B (“The Morning After Pill”)
Ella (a similar type of “emergency contraception”)
Copper Intra-Uterine Device
IUD with progestin

(How odd, then, that Hobby Lobby's healthcare plan pre-2012, pre- the Affordable Care Act, included the first two of those 4 items.)

Other forms of contraception are still covered, for instance:

Male condoms
Female condoms
Diaphragms with spermicide
Sponges with spermicide
Cervical caps with spermicide
Spermicide alone
Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill)
Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill)
Birth control pills (extended/continuous use)
Contraceptive patches
Contraceptive rings
Progestin injections
Implantable rods
Vasectomies
Female sterilization surgeries
Female sterilization implants.

But wait.....that was in relation to Hobby Lobby's case. The Supreme court, the next day, 1 July, confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just to the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling. (See HERE)

The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.

Oklahoma-based Hobby Lobby Inc. and a Pennsylvania furniture maker won their court challenges Monday in which they refused to pay for two emergency contraceptive pills and two intrauterine devices.

Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case.

They are among roughly 50 lawsuits from profit-seeking corporations that object to the contraceptive coverage requirement in their health plans for employees. Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be included in the health plans, at no extra cost to workers.

The justices also ordered lower courts that ruled in favor of the Obama administration to reconsider those decisions in light of Monday's 5-4 decision.

Saying anything at all in SCOTUS' favour is now impossible. The whole caboodle is blatantly against Separation of Church and State. Christian groups are being allowed to dictate to their employees on matters which should be immune to outside interference. Some see this as a "slippery slope" - actually I think we're already half-way down that slope and gaining speed. Family planning clinics being closed down, "Christian" employers dictating to their female employees on matters of birth control; several new abortion restrictions also became law this week in at least five states (detail HERE). A road sign in the near distance says:
Handmaid's Tale & Theocracy NEXT RIGHT TURN!

The most significant factor is that this recent ruling of SCOTUS grants corporations religious freedom, along with the "person hood" they already enjoy. What next?

SCOTUS carries on piling it on.....

From Brennan Center for Justice website yesterday:
Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted in McCutcheon v. FEC, the most critical campaign finance case since Citizens United, to strike down overall contribution limits, known as aggregate limits. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law released the following statement from President Michael Waldman:

"Today’s Supreme Court decision rejects decades of precedent and strikes a sharp blow against the interests of average voters. Once again the Court has struck down a law that curbs the corrupting influence of large campaign contributions in our politics. Sadly, the Court has also achieved a new milestone by striking down a federal contribution limit for the first time.

Our Founders feared corruption. They did not want government beholden to narrow, elite interests. Eliminating these limits will now allow a single politician to solicit, and a single donor to give, up to $3.6 million through the use of joint fundraising committees. Following the Citizens United decision, this will further inundate a political system already flush with cash, marginalize average voters, and elevate those who can afford to buy political access."

Ye Gods! Was I wrong or was I wrong about Chief Justice John Roberts back in 2008, when I, still naive as they come about US politics, wrote the following as part of a blog post about well-known people with a birthday on 27 January (same as mine)?
His natal chart is available at astro.com

US Chief Justice John Roberts has Sun and Mercury in Aquarius, with Aquarius' modern ruler Uranus conjunct Jupiter in Cancer. Jupiter is traditionally connected with law, and government. Incidentally, with his natal Moon almost certainly in Pisces, Sun in humanitarian Aquarius, and that conjunction in sensitive Cancer , I'd say Chief Justice Roberts is a compassionate man, it's good to see such a person occupying that lofty position.

Come back all I said!! Admittedly, Roberts is just one of 9, but it is his Court!

Here's a voice worth a listen: