Tag Archives: Supreme Court

President Constitution Supreme Court Senate Gobbledygook

Posted on by
Reply

President/Constitution/Supreme Court/Senate Gobbledygook, part I.

Nothing in the U. S. Constitution says ‘a president’s fourth year doesn’t count.’ What the Constitution does say about the president’s term:

“The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:” (Article 2, Section 1)

Nothing in the U. S. Constitution says ‘a president cannot nominate a Supreme Court justice in the fourth year of his term.’ What the Constitution does say about a president’s nominating a justice for the high court:

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he 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: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.” (Article 2, Section 2)

Nothing in the U. S. Constitution says ‘a Senator can refuse to advise and consent if he doesn’t feel like it.’ What the Constitution does say about Senators’ powers:

“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” (Article 1, Section 5) (Also see Article 2, Section 2 again)

Cut through the gobbledygook. Key word: EXPULSION.

I think the same thing this time that I thought last time (2016).

  1. The president’s term is four years.
  2. Mitch McConnell should be expelled from the Senate.

Before I clarify points a) and b), later, a short comment on the headlines. Forget about the day’s mantra from the national political press or prominent Democrats – that the GOP leadership, i.e. Mitch McConnell and henchmen, are being “hypocritical” or “inconsistent.” To do it justice, the GOP in the Senate is not being inconsistent. It is being consistent. It pursued a scurvy strategy last time; it is pursuing a scurvy strategy this time. The strategy is to improperly control nominations to the U. S. Supreme Court, an executive power, by legislators. The tactics are somewhat different (not entirely, but I’ll get to that later), but the strategy is consistent. It is also openly and blatantly unconstitutional. Separation of powers in three branches of government is a cornerstone of U. S. government.

As to “hypocrisy,” hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue, as La Rochefoucauld used to say. To call McConnell’s action “hypocrisy” or “hypocritical” is just an insult to hypocrites. McConnell and his allies in Senate and party are barely pretending to do the right thing. They’re not even pretending aggressively to seem as though they think they are doing the right thing. They’re legislators (of a sort) trying to control an executive branch power, appointments to the high court. They’re making no bones about it.

Mitch McConnell - Wikipedia

(The flip side of the same coin is that they don’t tend to be eager to legislate, when legislation would benefit the public. For example, Congress could heal Social Security simply by removing the arbitrary cap on income that supports it.)

If the Democrats and a few Republicans in the Senate are paying attention, they will at least ensure that any nominee for the highest court in the land is sufficiently vetted. And the time remaining is not enough time for vetting. This is one occasion upon which a genuine filibuster might work.

Kavanaugh’s calendar: I don’t believe Kavanaugh, and he lied to the president who boosted him

Posted on by
Reply

Some people seem to like being lied to. In fact, there are some people who’d rather be lied to by a man than told the truth by a woman. Let’s hope President Trump isn’t one of them. If Judge Brett Kavanaugh had any claim to credibility going in, at yesterday’s hearing, he has none coming out.

As I wrote day before yesterday,

The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court should not be a partisan divide. At this point, there is more than enough reason to go back to the drawing board. The judge should thank his lucky stars for his current job. He and the White House should withdraw his name from consideration. President Trump should pick a nominee who does not have a track record of alcohol trouble.

It’s not only the series of misstatements from Judge Kavanaugh–claiming over and over again that people exonerated him when they didn’t, claiming that his drinking and drunkenness were less than they were in truth, claiming that he has always treated women with respect. Some of his own friends including Republican friends have spoken to the contrary. Lynne Brookes spoke on Cuomo Prime Time last night. She herself saw Kavanaugh and friend Chris Dudley decide to embarrass a young woman–by breaking into a room where she had gone with her date–and they did so.

Image result for kavanaugh calendar

A dead giveaway would be that calendar that Judge Kavanaugh himself offered.

MITCHELL: Dr. Ford described a small gathering of people at a suburban Maryland home in the summer of 1982. She said that Mark Judge, P.J. Smyth and Leland Ingham also were present, as well as an unknown male, and that the people were drinking to varying degrees. Were you ever at a gathering that fits that description?

KAVANAUGH: No, as I’ve said in my opening statements — opening statement.

To her credit, the questioner, Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, followed up with Kavanaugh as she had followed up with Ford:

MITCHELL: I want to talk about your calendars. You submitted to the committee copies of the handwritten calendars that you’ve talked about for the months of May, June, July and August of 1982. Do you have them in front of you?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

MITCHELL: Did you create these calendars, in the sense of all the handwriting that’s on them?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: OK. Is it exclusively your handwriting?

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: When did you make these entries?

KAVANAUGH: In nine — in 1982.

MITCHELL: Has anything changed — been changed for those since 1982?

KAVANAUGH: No.

MITCHELL: Do these calendars represent your plans for each day, or do they document — in other words, prospectively, or do they document what actually occurred, more like a diary?

This is a series of good questions. Mitchell did no grandstanding. She stuck to evidence and stuck to detail.

KAVANAUGH: They’re both forward-looking and backward-looking, as you can tell by looking at them, because I cross out certain doctor’s appointments that didn’t happen, or one night where I was supposed to lift weights, I crossed that out, because it — I obviously didn’t make it that night. So you can see things that I didn’t do crossed out in retrospect, and also, when I list the specific people who I was with, that is likely backward-looking.

MITCHELL: You explain that you kept these calendars because your father started keeping them in 1978, I believe you said. That’s why you kept them. In other words, you wrote on them. But why did you keep them up until this time?

KAVANAUGH: Well — well, he’s kept them, too, since 1978, so he’s a good role model.

At this point, most unfortunately, Grassley stopped her–at Kavanaugh’s request:

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell, you’ll have to stop.

MITCHELL: Oh, I’m sorry.

GRASSLEY: Judge Kavanaugh has asked for a break, so we’ll take a 15-minute break.

(RECESS)

Eventually, after Leahy’s turn questioning Kavanaugh, Rachel Mitchell was allowed to resume.

GRASSLEY: Ms. Mitchell?

MITCHELL: Judge, do you still have your calendar — calendars there?

KAVANAUGH: I do.

MITCHELL: I would like you to look at the July 1st entry.

KAVANAUGH: Yes.

MITCHELL: The entry says — and I quote — “Go to Timmy’s (ph) for skis (ph) with Judge (ph), Tom (ph), P.J. (ph), Bernie (ph) and Squee (ph)”?

KAVANAUGH: Squee. That’s a nick…

MITCHELL: What does…

KAVANAUGH: … that’s a nickname.

MITCHELL: OK. To what does this refer, and to whom?

KAVANAUGH: So first, says “Tobin’s (ph) house workout”. So that’s one of the football workouts that we would have — that Dr. (inaudible) would run for guys on the football team during the summer.

So we would be there — that’s usually 6:00 to 8:00 or so, kind of — until near dark. And then it looks like we went over to Timmy’s — you want to know their last names too? I’m happy to do it.

MITCHELL: If you could just identify, is — is “Judge,” Mark Judge?

KAVANAUGH: It is.

MITCHELL: And is “P.J.,” P.J. Smith?

KAVANAUGH: It is.

So — all right. It’s Tim Gaudette (ph), Mark Judge, Tom Caine (ph), P.J. Smith, Bernie McCarthy (ph), Chris Garrett (ph).

MITCHELL: Chris Garrett is Squee?

KAVANAUGH: He is.

MITCHELL: Did you in your calendar routinely document social gatherings like house parties or gatherings of friends in your calendar?

KAVANAUGH: Yes. It — it certainly appears that way, that’s what I was doing in the summer of 1982. And you can see that reflected on several of the — several of the entries.

There was more, in the testimony to Mitchell and in the calendar itself, more than enough to rebut Kavanaugh’s claims that he has “never” been to such a gathering as that testified to by Dr. Ford. Unfortunately, Mitchell’s time was up. The calendar had not run out, but the honest questioning had. Once Senator Lindsey Graham launched into his bogus diatribe, the day for fact-finding was over.

At least, it was over in the hearing room. Others have confirmed through Mark Judge’s own book that he did indeed work at the nearby Safeway that summer, the summer of 1982.

Kavanaugh, Ford: It’s not ’50-50′: We do have facts

Posted on by
Reply

What’s called a hearing will take place this morning, on the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court and the statements of Professor Christine Blasey Ford–

Hoping we don’t hear the inevitable–‘he says, she says’, or ‘it’s 50-50’, the verbal equivalent of people on air throwing up their hands–‘How do we go back 35 years?’-

We don’t have to. We have facts, and facts in the common knowledge at that. Line up the pronouns; here are a few:

  1. She wants the FBI to investigate. He does not. (By the way, I cannot believe that Republicans in the Senate are trying to ward off an FBI investigation. Look at the nightmare on their hands if they were to confirm Kavanaugh, and some enterprising journalists dig up the relevant information after he gets on the high court, when the only remedy is impeachment.)
  2. She submitted to a polygraph exam. He did not.
  3. She passed the polygraph. He did not.
  4. She wants the process to take whatever time needed to arrive at the truth. His allies do not. They (the more top-down elements of the GOP) are trying to rush it through, hugger-mugger as Hamlet would say.
  5. She wants the other person allegedly in the room, Mark Judge, to appear and to answer questions. His allies do not.
  6. [ADD THIS ONE, 10:04 a.m. Thursday] Her classmates have spoken out in her defense, giving their names. Years’ worth of Holton Arms alumni have signed petitions in her defense. His “members of the class have agreed not to speak on the record to reporters.” (WaPo A10, “Swednick’s Job Experience [etc]”)

Image result for Christine Blasey Ford

‘We weren’t in the room’. No, but we’re in the room now.

Hopeless is not necessary.

Re the typical push-back in yesterday’s blog post, the one all-purpose riposte is that Dr. Ford’s credible allegations are part of Democratic delaying tactics. Not for a moment do I believe that the accuser is part of some Chuck Schumer plot, for the record. But the Dems’ own political lameness–calling for the nomination to be ‘blocked’ when it was constitutionally impossible to do so–set up this bogus rebuttal.

Also, the Democrats in the Senate might not be in this position in the first place if they had pushed for Mitch McConnell’s expulsion back when he openly flouted the U.S. constitution.

“It’s about the integrity of that institution.”

Posted on by
Reply

Why is President Donald Trump trying to appoint someone with a track record of drunkenness to the Supreme Court?

The nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court should not be a partisan divide. At this point, there is more than enough reason to go back to the drawing board. The judge should thank his lucky stars for his current job. He and the White House should withdraw his name from consideration. President Trump should pick a nominee who does not have a track record of alcohol trouble.

While public record in Maryland would show that I am a registered Democrat, and I make no secret of my political leanings as a citizen and voter, I am not taking my stand against this nominee based on partisanship. As a newspaper reader, I have no respect for the hysterically anti-Trump drivel I’ve been trying to sidestep for months now. One reason I have not weighed in against the hysteria more, aside from regrettable time constraints and constraints on other resources, is that I do not want to step on a future book project–a book on political philosophy that I plan, or hope, to write.

Related image

Right now, Judge Brett Kavanaugh has at least two serious and credible accusations against him. I for one believe the accusers named so far, Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez. None of the questions or accusations or implied threats so far leveled against the accusers give me pause. Nobody like me is going to be called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, but if I were, I could address the main, predictable categories of push-back,

  1. the Why-didn’t-she-do-such-and-such question/s
  2. the Why-did-she-wait-until-now question/s
  3. the We-don’t-have-enough-evidence stance

I’m hoping nobody takes those tacks in tomorrow’s hearing–which I will be watching on  video, in between other work as usual.

Image result for Christine Blasey Ford

Aside from the sexual misconduct accusations, there is more than enough evidence in the public record already to show that the younger Brett Kavanaugh had a problem holding his liquor, as they used to say. The article in (my issue of) today’s WaPo is only one recent example. Multiple witnesses who know Kavanaugh and/or who knew him when have instanced his bouts of drinking. Like millions of other college kids, he drank a lot. Again like millions of other college kids, he drank too much. Comments from Kavanaugh himself indicate that he still drank heavily after getting into Yale Law.

Something more than just college drinking or college-age drinking went on, however. For one thing, Kavanaugh’s heavy drinking began in high school, and high-school excess drinking does at least as much harm as college excess drinking. Teens should not drink, because the teenage brain is still developing and cannot handle alcohol abuse. Kavanaugh’s high-school drinking at Georgetown Prep shows up in his own high school yearbook statements. It shows up in the writing of his longtime friend, Mark Judge, who has written frankly about his own alcohol addiction.

For another, he continued the heavy drinking for years, through high school, in college, and in law school. For another–unless you assume that every single person who saw him drinking is lying–then he is lying about the alcohol use or genuinely does not remember it. This is not a good sign. For real substance abusers, the lying becomes almost as compulsive as the drinking; and the lying can be abetted by genuine memory lapses brought on by the alcohol itself.

And for another thing, his personality changed when he drank. This is the real danger sign–even more of a danger sign than just drinking too much.

And on top of the drinking and the accusations of sexual misconduct, there are also the young Kavanaugh’s own words. That “Renate alumnius” ‘joke’, for example? This from the man who claimed on national television that he has always treated women with respect? (This is not the only such yearbook message from Kavanaugh, by the way; I’m choosing not to quote another.)

‘Trump’ is not the story here

If Judge Kavanaugh does end up getting confirmed to the highest court in the land, by the way–IF he does–it will be not only because of Republican intransigence but also because of some of the ham-handed unfairness in news media, not against Kavanaugh but against Trump. I have no interest whatsoever in the phalanx of hysterical commentators and even reporters who clearly just want to spend the next two or more years going TrumpTrumpTrump.

I am a freelance journalist myself, I have loved newspapers all my life–although I haven’t always loved the way they treated their printers–but it is only too obvious right now that some individuals in the news media think anything is okay, no holds barred, as long as it might damage President Trump. Some of these individuals are at the New York Times. There’s that ridiculous anonymous op-ed on September 5, purporting to come from some inner sanctum in the White House. –Heard anything about that lately, btw? There’s the equally ridiculous ‘news report’ August 24 purporting to show that Rod Rosenstein discussed removing Trump from office. Actually, NYTimes’ language itself suggests that this ‘story’ is not a leak, but a plant. If I worked at the Times, I’d be looking at McCabe. –Wonder how soon this furor will die–or has it died already?

When we as members of the informed electorate see an august newspaper getting away with this garbage, when we see over-secure and over-promoted journalists getting away with the abuses, and no one willing or able to call them on the abuses, the offenses give credence to sweeping attacks against the press. The sweeping attacks then become, of course, a way for the worst offenders to wrap themselves in the mantle of the First Amendment. Needless to say, I don’t see the U.S. press as “enemies of the people.” I’m part of the press myself, I’m a reader, and as said I love newspapers.

I’m also part of the people. So are the rest of the press. They’re not enemies of the people; they are people. That’s the clue. Line up the fundamentals as premises, make a syllogism out of them:

  • All human beings are fallible
  • All journalists are human beings
  • Therefore, all journalists are fallible

The fallibility is a universal. But a universal is not a constant. Again, fundamentals, premises, chain of argument:

  • A universal is not a constant
  • That human beings do wrong is a universal
  • That human beings do wrong is not a constant

We all do wrong things. That does not make us all equally wrong. (Et cetera.) If it did, there could be no justice system.

The fact that a few or several human beings at the New York Times did some very wrong things does not mean that all journalists do the same.

Back to alcohol abuse: people who abuse substances can go into recovery, genuine recovery. When they do, the signs are there–not just the sobriety itself, but the frank and accurate admission of the compulsion; the fulfillment of a program; and the willingness to take responsibility and to make amends.

I wouldn’t say that no recovering alcoholic should ever become a judge, or even a Supreme Court justice. But I would say that recovering is a prerequisite.

Dewey Beats Truman, again –Wrong predictions on health care

Posted on by
Reply

DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN, AGAIN!

2012 wrong predictions on health care

“Surely, as there are mountebanks for the natural body, so are there mountebanks for the politic body; men that undertake great cures, and perhaps have been lucky, in two or three experiments, but want the grounds of science, and therefore cannot hold out. . . So these men, when they have promised great matters, and failed most shamefully, yet (if they have the perfection of boldness) they will but slight it over, and make a turn, and no more ado.”

Francis Bacon, “Of Boldness”

 

George Will

The list of wrong predictions about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ‘Obamacare’ would be a long, long one. This post will hardly scratch the surface. Still, it is worth pointing out that some of the preeminent newspapers in the United States got it wrong; some cable television channels got the prediction wrong and even went so far as to get the ruling wrong after it came down; and virtually every member of the rightwing noise machine got it wrong.

Erroneous headlines went up first

A few main points:

1)      They said what they were paid to say, of course. Rush-Limbaugh-Land would not have reacted kindly had George F. Will or Charles Krauthammer, for example, suggested that the high court might well uphold much or most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Koch brothers retreats, the speaker circuits, the book-buying in bulk, even the television appearances designed to reinforce a safe predictability–what David Brock referred to as six-figure speaking fees and seven-figure book contracts—all might threaten to dry up or at least to diminish, if any significant right-wing voices had taken a balanced line with regard to health insurance reform.

2)      This is health care they were talking about. Not predicting the horse race of presidential elections, not the outcome of a senate race. Health care, which in one way or another touches every American.

3)      Not one of them is financially in need of help with regard to health care.

4)      There is no suggestion whatsoever that any editor or producer or othre member of so-called management, at their respective media outlets, will provide guidance or correction, for even the most egregiously ridiculous predictions and bogus arguments about ‘Obamacare’. Far from it.

 

Admittedly not everyone went so far as Forbes, with a blanket prediction that the Supreme Court will strike down all of Obamacare.

But some notable prognosticators spent months overtly campaigning against, and predicting the downfall of, health care reform and/or health insurance reform. (The same experts likewise campaigned, for weeks and months on end, in favor of invading Iraq, and for much the same reasons.) That includes—of course–George F. Will, who used to be referred to as a constitutional scholar, and Charles Krauthammer, who at least once on air advanced his training as a psychiatrist to argue in favor of torture. Krauthammer is a Fox contributor, but Will is employed by ABC. They are both syndicated through the Washington Post Co., through which Colman McCarthy—the noted peace author—used to be syndicated, until both the Washington Post and the Washington Post Writers Group fired him on the same day.

In the wake of the high court’s ruling on health care, both Will and Krauthammer brought out columns this morning spinning the high court’s ruling on health care. Taking Bacon’s impudent fellow as their model, neither columnist volunteers the fact that he himself was wrong, let alone repeatedly wrong, on the question of whether the law would be upheld.

Let’s keep this short. Krauthammer and Will have both predicted the downfall of the law too many times to catalog. For Krauthammer, a few reminders here and here and here and here and above all the 180-degree-wrong prediction here.

For Will, offerings here and here and here, among many others. Will predicted on air that the law would be struck down, and “should be.”

 

The problem is that, as go the big-money columnists, so too often go the journalists—at least in political reporting. Chris Cilizza and Dan Balz of the WashPost may use a different idiom from Will and Krauthammer, but their line of thought is all too similar. Like God, they are always on the side of the big battalions, or what they perceive as the big battalions.

 

One result is that some of the biggest papers in the country have gone for decades as though insurance abuses are among the topics nice people don’t mention, at least in print. A corporate insurance practice of denying claims, whether denial was colorable or not, got outed in fiction by John Grisham, not in reporting by the Times.

Btw I heard about this as ‘company policy’ at one insurance company, anecdotally, myself. It is improbable that no Washington journalist, NYC journalist or Chicago journalist ever heard of it.

UPDATE:

Damn

I thought, ‘Dewey beats Truman’, swear I did. THEN I saw this blog, minutes after posting. It includes the related video: Stranger, go read it.

Medicare for all

Posted on by
Reply

Medicare for all

–Or at least for more. As this writer has noted more than once, the way to get young and healthy people into general coverage is to expand Medicare to cover everyone up to age 26. Why not? What would be the argument against? –This is the cohort least liable to the ills of old age, after all; least liable to need long-term care, to decline into Alzheimer’s dementia, least liable to be diagnosed with colon cancer or breast cancer or pancreatic cancer, least prone to heart disease or strokes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.

Et cetera.

Not that youth doesn’t have its problems, where health and survival are concerned. As previously written, a host of ills awaits to tackle healthy young people–alcohol and other substance abuse, eating disorders including over-eating and the reverse, aggression and guns, dangerous/reckless driving, pointless accidents, dangerous sports and games, and of course war, among others. Every thinking parent is well aware of the possibilities.

But all these, we can tackle. To some extent, the attempts have already begun, with some effect.

Even with all the problems, a large population awaits better wellness and better coverage, with the fiscal pay-off of lowering health care costs partly by spreading the risk far wider. Let’s hope it happens some time.

This comes to mind today, of course, because the cable channels were–just a few minutes ago–all agog with certainty that the Supreme Court would announce a ruling on health care today. Thank God for C-Span, also covering the issue, which instead of inflicting more political prognosticators on a long-suffering public, showed the activists–all sides–demonstrating and speaking in front of the Supreme Court building.

Supreme Court building, Washington, D.C.

Two Supreme Court rulings were announced today: Ms. Justice Kagan read the court’s opinion, on a five-to-four decision, against life without parole for juveniles; and Mr. Justice Kennedy read the court’s opinion, Kagan abstaining, invalidating much of Arizona’s sweeping Latino-profiling law (Arizona v. United States).

Sheriff Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona

Meanwhile, the Dow plunged in early trading this morning. Looks as though the stock market was less gleeful, or perhaps spiteful, over speculation that ‘Obamacare’ would be struck down than were many of the cable commentators. Most of them are just chafing in resentment over their misreading of the public anyway. It is still remarkable that the Washington Post, among other periodicals, went thirty years without reporting insurance abuses.

And speaking of resentment, we still hear wofully little about public reaction to the insurance companies. Many, many commentators have harped on Tea Party anger over the individual mandate. Few, very few, commentators have pointed out that that anger does not speak well for the insurance industry.

Aside from undertakers and mortuaries, is there any industry in America that has more reluctant customers than the insurance industry?

How flood plains work

We also still hear little genuine reporting on flood insurance as a massive transfer of wealth. But then, the officeholders most vehemently denying climate change or most eagerly avoiding it as a topic are the same people, by and large, most in the pay of the insurance industry.

 

 

 

Health insurance is not broccoli

Posted on by
Reply

Health insurance is not broccoli

Listening to news updates on the oral argument currently taking place at the Supreme Court is getting a bit scary. If the ‘slippery slope’ argument is being taken seriously, then the dispute over universal health care is taking an odd turn, surprisingly odd.

Reportedly Mr. Justice Scalia posed a question to government lawyers something along the lines of this one: If the government can make you buy health insurance, what’s next? Broccoli? Can’t the government then make the argument that since broccoli is good for you, you will have to buy broccoli?

This is what broccoli looks like

The simplest, clearest answer to this question–assuming it has been reported accurately–is that there is no analogy between health insurance and broccoli. There are plenty of foods with the nutritional value of broccoli. If we’re talking about healthful diet–and where I am right now, in the lovely state of Louisiana, there is little discussion of that–there are plenty of substitutes for broccoli.

There are no substitutes for health insurance.

(N.b.: My own judgment is still that single-payer would be better. If Mr. Justices Scalia, Alito and Roberts come down in favor of eliminating the insurance industry as middlemen/gatekeepers to health care or medical attention, I have to admit that I will feel a certain sympathy for them. I’m only human.)

Slippery-slope arguments are usually feeble.

One problem with them is that they can usually be reversed. They cut both ways, not to hash a metaphor farther.

Take the broccoli question. The underlying argument seems to be that government cannot force us to do something just because it’s good for us. The oddity in this position is that all law, government, and justice is based on an (Aristotelian) concept of good. If we are not better off with law than without, why have law? If we human beings are not better off with the forms of government, why have government? If we are not better off with a justice system, why have a justice system?

So let’s try the slippery-slope argument on that one. If government cannot require something of us BECAUSE it is to our good, then can we have law? No. If government cannot require something of us because it is to our good, then can we have government? No. If government cannot require something of us because it is to our good, then can we have a justice system? No.

No justice system, no courts. No courts, no judges. Q.E.D.

I assume Mr. Justices Scalia et al. have sufficient saved up to live on.

Securacom (Stratesec) finally won one

Posted on by
Reply

An emailer informs me–mistakenly, as it turns out–that Judge Samuel Alito has already done a judicial favor for the Bush family.

That item turns out to be a misreading of a case in the California Supreme Court. Nonetheless, it raises an intriguing detail, and is a useful reminder about yet another of the many lawsuits that our security-and-surveillance industry has gotten itself entangled in, over the years.

Today’s history lesson–

Back in the day, there was an extremely ill-managed security company, now defunct, named Stratesec. As some readers may recall, the company boasted in its SEC filings of fulfilling every big security need from fences to guards to armored vehicles to electronic badging and access control. The company succeeded in attracting a string of investors and backers, and from 1993 to 2000, its board of directors included Marvin P. Bush, youngest brother of George W. Bush.

Stratesec

The company touted longstanding relationships to a few major security clients, and listed several of the biggest, some of whom paid millions for security, on its public filings. The list of big names for several years–prominently displayed with illustrations on the IPO brochure–included the World Trade Center, Dulles and Reagan National Airports, and United Airlines.

Stratesec started out as a company called Securacom. The original company was the well-regarded engineering firm Burns & Roe Securacom (no relation to author), which did some of the security detailing for the World Trade Center. However, in 1992–soon after the first Gulf War–Burns & Roe became Securacom. Its management changed hands accompanying an infusion of capital from the ruling family of Kuwait, the Al Sabahs, two of whom joined its board. Marvin Bush also joined the board at this time, connecting family and Al Sabah interests among other Bush family rewards after the U.S. kicked Iraq out of Kuwait.

Al Sabah corruption probe, Kuwait

The head of the company was Wirt D. (Dexter) Walker, III, and a former colleague in the company suggested in an interview that Walker is a distant relative of the Bush family. Any blood relationship to the Bush Walkers would have to be remote; the first Wirt D. Walker, two generations ago, was based in Chicago; the second in McLean, Va., in the DIA. However, there is no doubt that the company, Kuwait’s Al Sabahs, and Bush financial interests were closely linked for years. Management and control at Wirt Walker’s other companies, a small airplane company named Commander Aircraft (also bankrupt) and a private investment firm named KuwAm (short for Kuwait-American Corporation, also bankrupt), were inextricably linked to management and control at Securacom. Virtually none of the Bush-Al Sabah financial connections were reported in the U.S. during, before or after the 2000 election.

All three companies were headquartered at the Watergate, in office space leased by the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments.

Stratesec is bankrupt and no longer exists. Commander Aircraft later became Aviation General, also bankrupt. The Watergate has been sold to new owners. The Watergate building also housed one of the numerous branches of Riggs Bank, which has been effectively dismantled by SEC action. The head of the SEC during this operation was longtime Bush supporter William O. Donaldson, a classmate of Jonathan Bush, uncle to George W. and a Riggs executive.

Well-connected Riggs was widely considered to be an Agency bank (CIA) and was the bank used by about 95% of foreign embassies in Washington. Saudi accounts at Riggs were linked by investigators to some of the 9/11 hijackers.

Mishal al Sabah, a younger member of Kuwait’s ruling al Sabah family, was a son of one Emir and son-in-law (then ex-son-in-law) of the Emir who recently died. Mishal al Sabah served as officer and director in all three of Wirt Walker’s companies off and on for years and even lived with Walker when he first came to the U.S. He is now abroad and unlikely to return to the U.S., according to private sources, since he faces arrest on contempt charges stemming from a federal civil lawsuit in which he and Walker are defendants.

Bush with Kuwaiti Amir

Walker is being sued in several cases in federal courts in D.C. and Georgia. By all accounts a colorful character,Walker is no stranger to lawsuits. Earlier he tried to force a company already named Securacomm to give up its name, similar to that of Securacom. He ended up losing the case (Securacomm v. Securacom) but not before engaging in some hardball tactics endorsed by the firm’s directors including Marvin Bush.

(Incidentally, Marvin Bush has also been a party in another legal dispute over naming matters. Neither Bush nor the White House has responded to questions. Walker did speak with me more than once.)

One of the few good days for Walker and Securacom in court occurred before the California high court, a day after Sept. 11, 2001. The ruling did not result in ultimate victory for the company. The favorable outcome but did figure in Walker’s next SEC filings.

Note date of Securacom’s rare court win. Things must have looked good for even the worst-of-the-worst security companies, for 48 or more hour after the tragic events of the previous day.

“Information Systems and Networks Corporation, Cross-complainant and Appellant v. Securacom Inc., Cross-defendant and Respondent

S099607

SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

2001 Cal. LEXIS 6179

September 12, 2001, Decided

NOTICE:    [*1]   DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

PRIOR HISTORY:   Appeal from First Appellate District. Division One. No. A091315.

OPINION: Petition for review DENIED.

Update, Sep 2012:

This post was deleted by the system with many others, here reconstructed from re-posts and Word docs.

Previous errors corrected. Mr. Justice Alito is among the justices who denied cert to Securacom’s opponent in the above-mentioned case.