Schumer Knows

As the Supreme Court heard argument in an “abortion” case, Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer whipped up the crowd of protesters outside with the words they so desperately wanted to hear.

Schumer can’t use the Trump defense of claiming total ignorance of how law and the Constitution work. He knows. He also can’t claim the brand of being a perpetual spewer of nonsense and idiocy when his team’s brand is to return the nation to normalcy, dignity and  decency. He knows. And Chief Justice John Roberts knows he knows.

On the one hand, this statement evoked the usual tit-for-tat reaction from the useful idiots, ignoring that C.J. Roberts similarly criticized Trump for demeaning Judge Curiel in the early days of his administration, before it became clear that Trump’s rhetorical diarrhea meant this would become so regular phenomenon that addressing each impulse would be a full-time job. But that was Trump, a lost cause.

But Schumer? He knew better. And yet, that didn’t stop him.

A spokesman for Mr. Schumer said the chief justice had engaged in a willful misrepresentation.

“Senator Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grass-roots movement on the issue of reproductive rights,” the spokesman, Justin Goodman, said in a statement.

“For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Senator Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes,” he said.

Had Justin argued that Schumer’s words poorly expressed his intended message, it would have still been incredible, but at least not Trumpian in the boldness of its lie and accusation. Instead, he attacked C.J. Roberts as a right wing tool who lied about Chuck’s words, even though they’re on video for all to see and hear.

This wasn’t Schumer’s way of trying to persuade Justices Gorsuch and Kavanagh to be swayed by the power of the mob, by the threats of a senator (to do what?). This was Schumer doing the Trump, whipping up the crowd of no better grasp of the structure of government, of the nature of the Supreme Court, to believe that the Court is just another political branch of government to go in whatever direction the winds of outrage are blowing.

It’s not that anyone should be surprised that Chuck Schumer is a politician, is willing to pander to his tribe, to whip up a frenzy that he believes will work to his advantage, no matter how low he has to go to make it happen. Schumer has never met a microphone he didn’t love.

But just as pundits like Linda Greenhouse have been using their New York Times platform to delegitimize the Supreme Court in anticipation of rulings that don’t align with her feelings, the Senate Minority Leader has now joined her on the dais, taken charge of leading the chorus and, naming names and leveling threats of retaliation should they not rule as he demands, demeaned the office of Supreme Court justice to no better than any other political hack.

The judiciary is the “least dangerous branch” for a reason. The only tool it possesses, or weapon if you prefer a more violent metaphor, is its integrity. If the public accepts its rulings as legitimate, they are. If the public does not, our Republic is no longer viable, as our disputes will then only be resolved by the people with the most guns. It can’t be said with certainty, but Chuck being the senior Senator from New York, probably does not possess a gun.

On the ground, however, are the many unduly passionate believes whose emotions Chuck hopes to capture. Among them are law students, lawyers, for whom the issue of abortion, inter alia, is a hill they are willing to die on. And here, the Senate Minority Leader, a man who takes to the platform as the paragon of a party laying exclusive claim to morality and decency, tells them that these two despised justices will suffer should they not succumb to his, and his crowds, demands.

I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanagh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Is there anything Schumer could do about it? Sure, though it’s unlikely. But what seems eminently likely is that the young ideologues who have to come to believe that their feelings justify their actions, and that as long as they truly believe they are serving some higher cause, they can do no wrong, will be far less circumspect than Chuck Schumer. Will mobs show up at justice’s homes in the dark of night to protest? Will they surround a justice eating dinner in a restaurant? Will some unduly passionate law student take it upon himself to punch a justice who comes to judge moot court?

When you whip up the mob, and delegitimize the courts, you undermine the last remaining institution that grounds the continued existence of the Republic. No, the Supreme Court may not rule the way you believe it should. Indeed, it’s often ruled contrary to what I would want it to.

But I know what would happen without it, and as much as it may fall far short of the Court I would wish it to be, there is no doubt how much worse off we would be without it. I know. So too does Chuck Schumer. He knows.

Jim Tyre, RIP

I’ve just learned that my dear friend, and friend to SJ, Jim Tyre has died. I will post more information when it becomes available. Damn, he was one of the good guys.

Update: This from the EFF. A bit more about Jim, though not much more about his death yet.

Debate: Enough With The “Technicality” Argument, Presumption of Innocence Matters

Ed. Note: In light of the negative sentiment numerous high-profile criminal cases in recent history generated in both the public and members of the legal profession, Fault Lines alumni Mario Machado and Chris Seaton were tasked with debating the following: “Is the presumption of innocence a viable guiding principle or is it just a technical legal rule?” The following is Mario’s argument.

It’s 5:30 am, and you’re sound asleep, due to be up in about an hour for another hard day’s work, because you’re lucky enough to have a thriving business. Your beautiful wife lies next to you, and your three wonderful, intelligent kids are snoozing next door.

You had a few cocktails too many during the night prior, but it’s nothing you can’t get over after a greasy breakfast. Then comes the rudest awakening by knocking you’ve ever had. BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! Continue reading →

Debate: Presumption of Innocence? Just Another Rule

Ed. Note: In light of the negative sentiment in numerous high-profile criminal cases in recent history generated by both the public and many members of the legal profession, Fault Lines alumni Mario Machado and Chris Seaton were tasked with debating the following: “Is the presumption of innocence a viable guiding principle or is it just a technical legal rule?” The following is Chris’s argument.

There’s a certain picture I have in my head of attorneys like myself who believe the presumption of innocence is a bedrock principle of the American criminal justice system. It’s Eugene Young from David Kelley’s show, “The Practice,” delivering his “America defense” summation.

If you’ve never seen it, Eugene musters the fire of an evangelical minister at a tent revival as he addresses the jury with something resembling the following: Continue reading →

Tuesday Talk*: A Brief Too Far?

As Joe Otte made clear, the job of running a public defender’s office in Pennsylvania is fraught with collateral politics. The problem begins with the fact that funding for indigent defense comes from the county directly rather than the state, and so the hiring, firing and funding is more personal, and more directly felt by the local politicians and taxpayers.

Pennsylvania PDs know this, even if we don’t. They are well aware of who’s butt needs kissing if they want to hire more public defenders, or need new computers, or want to start a program for the good of mankind. Or just need to get along. This isn’t a good situation, but it’s what they have, and they know it.

For the chief public defender and second in command in Montgomery County, this became a problem. A huge problem. Continue reading →

Chris Matthews’ Last Pitch

If you heard that it was because of “sexual harassment,” then it must have been bad.

In 2016, right before I had to go on his show and talk about sexual-assault allegations against Donald Trump, Matthews looked over at me in the makeup chair next to him and said, “Why haven’t I fallen in love with you yet?”

When I laughed nervously and said nothing, he followed up to the makeup artist. “Keep putting makeup on her, I’ll fall in love with her.” Continue reading →

Speak All You Want, But Nobody Has To “Listen”

One of the more fascinating attempts to buck reality has been the New York Times’ efforts to achieve “gender parity” in its Letters to the Editor. The problem, of course, is that if the Times wants to publish more letters from women, men traditionally being more inclined to write, and to write on newsworthy issues, what’s a letters editor to do?

I spent 18 years as the letters editor at The Calgary Herald. I believe that your obsession with tallying the gender of letter writers to achieve greater parity between men and women is the height of political correctness run amok.

Can the “height” of something “run amok”? But I digress. Continue reading →

District Attorneys To Defenders: There’s An App For That

It’s not at all surprising that some district attorneys’ offices in New York City have found a way around the law, and that their solution is to use an outside party to do their work. This has become the method of convenience for a while, whether for the turnover of discovery, videos, and now witness information.

Now that New York has adopted the radical notion that an accused should know something about the accusations before the morning of trial, prosecutors have been scrambling to get around the new discovery laws. One of which is that the defense is entitled to “adequate contact information” for the People’s witnesses.

Taking a tip from the MTA, which invites you to “download the free app” to find out there are no trains for the rest of the night, the DA’s have concocted an app called WitCom, a portal that defense lawyers are “required” to use if they want to talk to prosecution witnesses.

Continue reading →

Lawyer Fashionista: Letting Your Freak Flag Fly

Not too long ago, I went to a birthday party for the father of a dear friend. Harry turned 90, and he’s a great guy. The party was held at 21 Club in Manhattan, and in preparation, I wore a blue suit, white shirt and tie. When I arrived at the party, all but the under-25 crowd of males wore suits. There were only two of us wearing a tie, me and an old friend, Gene. While a few wore sports coats with open collar shirts, most wore suits without ties.

Neckties are silly affectations, but they distinguish more formal dress from less. And, for guys, they’re the only aspect of more formal attire to reflect any personality. Pocket squares make you look like a dandy, trying to be Roger Stone with his desperate whiff of “look at me,” but ties remain within the normal paradigm of things men wear when they’re dressed for business.

But not for long? Continue reading →

Discovery Reform, Courtesy of Axon

Axon? That’s the company formerly known as Taser International, for good reason. As the name Taser got dirtied up some, just because the non-lethal weapon morphed into less-than-lethal and bodies inexplicably piled up due to excited delirium, Taser changed its name and branched out into cameras for cops, and Axon was born.

But what do they have to do with New York’s new Criminal Procedure Law Section 245?

The state of New York recently passed new discovery laws that will take effect on January 1, 2020, impacting the current process of digital evidence disclosure. Article 245, which is part of a state-wide initiative focused on criminal justice reform, will require prosecutors to provide initial discovery within 15 days of arraignment. In turn, law enforcement agencies are required to proactively submit all forms of digital evidence as soon as possible. Proponents of the law hope it will expedite case processing periods and shorten jail stays for defendants detained before trial. Some law enforcement agencies are expressing concern about the article’s impact on their workloads and processes . . ..

Continue reading →