The Habitual Drunkard and His Immoral Character

When someone is called an alcoholic, it is rarely considered a compliment. But is alcoholism such an iniquitous trait that it justifies the deportation of an illegal alien?

While Congress may think so, the Ninth Circuit considered the idea to be absolutely ridiculous and decided to take a stand on the morality of alcoholism. In Salomon Ledezma-Cosino V. Loretta E. Lynch, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Congress's inclusion of 'habitual drunkard’ as a type of “bad moral character” in order to limit a non-citizen's eligibility for cancellation or voluntary departure is unconstitutional. Under the guise of the equal protection clause, the court found that there is no rational basis for classifying persons afflicted by chronic alcoholism as persons who lack good moral character.

According to the NIH, roughly 7% of Americans 18 and older suffer from an alcohol use disorder. The majority reasoned that chronic alcoholism is a medical condition that produces an irresistible urge to constantly consume alcohol. Because of this inability to say no to the hooch, the court stated that like any other medical condition, alcoholism is undeserving of punishment and should not be held morally offensive.

Just Put the Drink Down You Sick Alien

After a rather fiery oral arguments, it is no surprise that Judge Clifton sees the issue completely differently than the majority. In his dissent, Clifton list several reasons why Congress has the right to use a habitual drunkard standard if they so choose. First, he says a 'rational basis' hurdle is easily cleared, relying mainly on Congress' plenary powers over aliens.

Clifton then goes on to trash the idea that being a habitual drunkard is even a medical condition. He seems to be of the belief that all alcoholics have the free will to stop drinking whenever they please. To jam his dissent even further down the majority’s throat, he states that even if being a habitual drunkard is a medical condition, Congress has the power to "decide that the country should not accept or harbor sick aliens who might infect others or whose treatment might impose heavy costs."

This could be an interesting opinion to keep tabs on if it gets appealed. Whether or not being a "habitual drunkard" and having "bad moral character" are intertwined should be an issue that hits close to home for most lawyers. Because if the two are synonymous, becoming and staying a lawyer is going to to be awfully difficult for those trying to pass a state bar moral character test.  

SCOTUSbracket Round 1: John G. Roberts v. Elena Kagan

Welcome to the first match-up of the highly-anticipated #SCOTUSbracket!

The initial game in this ever-competitive contest is the highest ranking judge in the nation against the SCOTUS bench's "newest" justice. While these two justices only have a 4-year difference in seniority on the bench, William Rehnquist's sudden departure in 2005 elevated John G. Roberts to the top of the SCOTUS ranking and the top of this bracket's seedings.

John's first decade as the chief justice of the highest court in the land has not been the conservative coercion that the GOP dreamed about. One the flip side, Elena's liberal tendencies seem to be satisfying left wingers with every opinion she authors.

But, enough about the political unbiased sway that these judges have on the laws of the land. Let's get to the stats that matter and see who comes out the victor.

Courtroom Curiosity
Roberts’s courtroom curiosity has progressively diminished throughout the past several years. During oral arguments in 2011, Roberts finished as a Top 3 questioner 66% of the time and as the top questions 24% of the time. Since then his top and top 3 finishes have steadily dropped, all the way to 10% and 3% respectively in the October 2014 term.

But that’s not all. Roberts’ was once asking questions at a 20.3 per oral argument clip back in 2011. However, this has taken an drastic down tick every year since, falling to 13.8 questions per argument. 

Kagan, on the other hand, has produced steady numbers in this category over the past four terms. While it is rare that she will be the top questioner (>5% of the time) or even really finish in the Top 3 (averaging 17.5 Top 3 finishes over the past four terms) among the other judges, her average questions tend to hover around 11.8 per oral argument, which tends to be on the lower end of these standings. 

However, even though the Chief Justice's recent decline in oral argument questions might be a tad concerning, his questioning numbers over the past four years are still much greater than Kagan's.  Therefore, despite the fall from the curious John Roberts of old, his inquisitive nature is still higher than Elena, allowing him to narrowly wrap up this category with a win.

Category Winner: John Roberts

Penning Power
When it comes to authoring opinions that the rest of the SCOTUS bretheren are willing to sign off on, the numbers for both Roberts and Kagan are extremely close. 

Because unanimous majority opinion has been an emphasis for Roberts in recent years, these numbers should not be completely ignored. From the October 2011 Term to the October 2014 term, Kagan has posted 15 unanimous majority opinions. However, Roberts is not that far behind, notching 13 in the same amount of time.

While unanimous opinions are nice, just convincing the majority of your bench-mates to agree with your opinion is usually all that a justice is really looking for. Unfortunately, the difference between Kagan and Roberts in this area is also quite minuscule. Since 2011, Kagan received votes from the other justices 84.7% of the time when she writes an opinions, while the Chief tallied agreements from the other justices 84.2% of the time. 

Although the difference between these two in this category are not mind blowing, the edge definitely leans toward Kagan, however so slightly. Therefore, Kagan evens things up with this category win.

Category Winner: Elena Kagan

Humor

Over the past four terms, the laugh differential between Roberts and Kagan has been enormous. Since the October 2012 Term, Roberts has been accredited with 79 laugh tracks compared to Kagan's 43.  In fact, Roberts has registered at least 9 more laughs per term than Kagan in three of last four terms.

While Kagan has been known to crack a good joke in here writings every now and then (see Cat in the Hat), these clever lines will not be enough to move the needle in her favor. Roberts secures the category and moves on to the next round with this victory. 

Category Winner: John Roberts

Winner:  John Roberts 2-1

SCOTUS BRACKET: Crowning The Best U.S. Supreme Court Justice

Every season, the powers of March Madness hypnotizes this nation into a brain-melting bracket coma. The over-abundance of bracket talk is certainly impossible to ignore. And it is not just college basketball bracket talk that pollutes the airwaves during this time of year. Everything and anything seems to be free game to be transformed into bracket form. 

Fictional Lawyers. Check. 

Disney Films. Yup.

Meats. Why the hell not. 

But where is the bracket love for the SCOTUS bench? With the Supreme Court bench missing a key player for the past two months, the even-numbered sitting justices finally fits perfectly into bracket form. Talk about an Elite Eight! So, let's drag the highest bench in the country through the madness and see who takes home the crown as the best currently sitting SCOTUS justice. 

Seeding

Logically, the justices have to be ranked with the Chief Justice first and the rest following in line by seniority. 

#1: CJ John Roberts

#2: Anthony Kennedy

#3: Clarence Thomas

#4: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

#5: Stephen Breyer

#6: Samuel Alito

#7: Sonia Sotomayor

#8: Elena Kegan

Point Categories 

These categories probably aren’t the best for measuring who is the best sitting justices. But, what are you going to do.  I know people would like to throw politics and ideologies into the mix, but we all know there is no real fun in that. So, you get what you get, and you don’t get upset. 

Courtroom Curiosity 

Sitting at oral arguments like a statue without any interrogation of the issues almost displays a lack of interest in a case that have the potential to effect the entire nation. Questions are key to being liked in any situation. It opens up a window the justice's soul. A curious judges makes a better judge. Sorry, Clarence...

Penning Power  

If Supreme Ambitions taught me anything, when you are judge authoring an opinion is huge. Getting certain justices to jump on the band wagon is even bigger. To overstate it just a tad, the power loaded in these justice's pen makes them gladiators in robes. However, some justice are more like Maximus while others work the tongue better like Commodus. 

Humor

A laugh is worth a days worth of honey. Not sure what that means, but if a justice can make me laugh, then he gets an extra gold star in my book. Thanks to @SCOTUSHUMOR, we can get an excellent jumping off point to which justices deserve the most laughs. Throw in some witty remarks during a dissent and you have comedy gold. Well, law-comedy gold. 

Below is a fillable bracket for anyone that might want to play along. Also, follow us on Twitter to vote which justices deserve to move on. 

Starting this week, we will go match-up by match-up pitting these ever-regal justices against each other. So, don't miss out! 



ROUND 1:

#1 John Roberts v. #8 Elena Kagan
#2 Anthony Kennedy v. #7 Sonia Sotomayor

Three Things To Not-Really-Like About Merrick Garland

Merrick Garland commanded yesterday’s news cycle. Considering the hype surrounded by Obama’s potential nominee and that the nomination of a Supreme Court justice is a pretty unique event, it was well-deserved. However, seconds after President Obama released the ‘d’ from Garland’s name, both sides of the aisle should have felt as if they were given deep wedgies and then socked in the gut.

Republicans, adamant about letting the next president make the nominee, looked at this nominee and said “Hmm, this guy seems like the best we would ever get from a Democratic president. But, it’s way too late to turn back on our word now…Right?”

Democrats, hoping to skew the bench towards an ever-changing liberal majority, heard Garland’s name and said, “What! Talk about a blown opportunity…” While Garland appears to be liberal in many ways, his tendency to gravitate towards the middle is definitely a far cry from what far-left liberals were hoping for.

Although some liberals floating closer to the middle might be happy with Obama’s pick, once the shine of this long-awaited nominee wears off, some will realize that this nominee isn’t really the best person (not principle) to become the next Supreme Court justice.

Here are a couple reasons to not-really-like Merrick.

1. Grand Old Party Gets Its Grand Old Justice

When most people close their eyes and picture a potential Republican SCOTUS nominee, it is most likely going to be an old, white guy, possibly with a top hat and monocle. At the ripe age of 63, Merrick’s potential years on the bench are greatly decreased compared to the Obama’s two other confirmed nominees, Kagan (50 when appointed) and Sotomayor (55 when appointed).

The age of Merrick benefits the Republicans much more than the Democrats. An older justice means a shorter time until that justice retires and can be replaced. Most presidents try to pack the bench with younger judges so that their legacy can live long on the SCOTUS bench after the president has become a punching bag in middle school text books. Garland is the opposite of that.

An elderly judge also raises the potential that the justice will not see issues under the same lens as the younger, more in-touch people of our country. While Garland does not hold some of the extreme values that some Republicans hold, his willingness to straddle the line could come back to hurt Democrats on certain swing vote type issues later down the road.

2. Denying Diversity

As mentioned above, and just in case you couldn’t tell from his picture, Garland is a Caucasian male. Unless you are new to the History of Supreme Court Justices, you know that white dude faces litter this list. The nomination of Garland offers more of the same and the minority community should be pissed, especially when Sri or Kelly were deservedly waiting in the wings.

Obama seized the day with his first two cracks at nominating a Supreme Court justice by bringing more women to the bench. Sotomayor’s Latina background also brings an extra layer of diversity to the bench that should not be underscored. After six years on the bench, her first hand views of “minority life” shed a specific light on many issues that many of the old, white men on the bench will not and could not understand.

The failure of Obama to even try to bring onto the court another diverse justice that truly understands the toils of the middle class is disappointing at the very least.

3. The Poisoning of East Coast Ivy
The Supreme Court is packed with East Coast Ivy League alumni. While it’s never proper to knock a Harvard or Yale law degree, forming a bench that holds so much weight on the direction to which this country moves with a handful of people that went to the same type of school seems asinine.

Hoping that a group of nine justices that were taught from the same curriculum will magically understand the intricacies of life that effect people all the way over on the West Coast is unlikely. And while Kennedy and Breyer do have some Westside connections, this is hardly enough.

Garland, a Harvard grad, is once again more of the same. If presidents can’t move away from this form of cronyism when it comes to SCOTUS nominees, then we are all probably doomed anyways.

Despite NFL Official Admitting Link to CTE, Bullet-Proof League Will Continue to Thrive

Mark this date on your calendars. A top NFL official breaks ranks and finally admits that men crashing heads over-and-over again definitely causes some sort of head trauma. While the conclusion that there is a link between playing football and this mysterious CTE disease is hardly shocking, the fact that the holier-than-thou NFL allowed a member of their brethren to state this openly to the public requires a double-take.

Perhaps there is a more nefarious plan here by the evil-genius commissioner Goddell. Or, perhaps the NFL doctors couldn’t keep their silence anymore with the mounting evidence that kept piling on their desks for the past five years. Or, maybe it was just Will Smith’s emotional request that they tell the truth. Whatever the reason, this admission opens up a plethora of other questions and concerns regarding this undeniably violent sport.

Head Hits Cause Damage? You Don’t Say…
According to the brain research performed by the NFL’s doctors, they found CTE in 90 out of 94 NFL players, 45 out of 55 college players and six out of 26 high school players. For years, the NFL turned a blind eye to the head injuries caused by its sport. Like a smoker claiming he can quit at any time, the NFL denied, denied, denied, that there was any kind of problem with their highly-lucrative game.

Jeff Miller’s admission that there is an “unequivocal link between playing football and CTE” is already creating waves. Hours after this statement, plaintiffs in a proposed settlement regarding a concussion lawsuit against the NFL objected to the terms claiming that this new evidence is a “stark turn” from what was originally agreed upon. But will it be enough to bleed the NFL dry?

Dollar, Dollar Bills
Although this revelation is pretty huge, how will this really affect the NFL in the long run? In short, probably very little. The National Football League is admired by kids and adults alike and the NFL takes full advantage of this

Adults use the league as social entertainment, whether it is drinking while watching the games with others, gambling on these games through bookies and fantasy teams, or both. Kids love the game for what it is. They love playing it (through video games and on the playground), collecting memorabilia related to it, and they love how much enjoyment that their parent’s receive from watching it.

Unfortunately, the injuries caused by the game are just an unfortunate by-product of this consumer good like crust is an unfortunate by-product of a delicious peanut butter and jelly sandwich. We won’t stop eating those PB&J sandwiches just because of that much harder bread-like substance, just like we won’t turn off the TVs just because a few guys get injured every single game.

The NFL should really just change the stars on their logo to dollar signs. From birth to grave, the NFL only wants your money and they entice you to follow them by waiving their own money in front of your face.

The superstars of the league sell to the kids of the world that if you work hard enough you may become a multi-millionaire star if you can crack the ranks of this highly exclusive league. On the flip side, the big wigs of the league provide adults with ways to put their hard earned money back into the league through apparel and not-so-legal daily fantasy sports partnerships.

And although they may have admitted that football and brain injuries are (somewhat) synonymous, most people will most likely do what the NFL did for years and turn a blind eye to this fact. While this “new” revelations may deter some parents from signing consent forms for their children, many more will sign away the safety of their loved ones with hopes of striking it rich one day through the “help” of this almighty organization.

These steps taken by the NFL might have been the right thing to do, however, it probably won’t be enough to stop the waves of the willing that put their lives at risk for this entrancing sport.


Related Resources:

• What is CTE? Brain Injury Research Institute] 
• NFL acknowledges, for first time, link between football, brain disease [ESPN] 
• Don’t Applaud the NFL for Admitting (Sort of) That Football Leads To Brain Damage [Time]

When Excessive Force Isn’t Excessive Force

After less than a day of deliberations, a San Francisco jury came to the conclusion that four police officers did not use excessive force when firing at least 48 rounds into Alex Nieto. This begs the questions, what is excessive force if 48 bullets to stop one person is not?

The facts of this case are nothing new. In this most recent version of this story, the police officers fatally shot a young man after the officers mistook a stun gun for an actual gun. Before firing at Nieto, the officers requested that he put his hands up. Rather than follow the officers orders. Nieto pulled out a stun gun from his pocket and this tragic incident ensued.

Everyone, Shoot to Kill

From the police point of view, it could be understandable that their lives were in danger when Nieto refused to listen to their commands and immediately reached for a gun. To the officers, this act by Nieto raised extreme safety concerns.  

However, with four officers on the scene, was it really necessary for each officer to fire an average of 12 bullets each at the victim? But a jury saw the barrage of bullets as a necessary evil given the situation.

Excessive force will be hard to define following a case like this. If 48-plus bullets to stop one man doesn’t seem excessive to a jury, then where is the line drawn. While police safety is extremely important in situation like this, Nieto’s stun gun could not have been confused for a high-powered assault weapon that would do serious damage to a group of armed police men.

In the mind of Nieto’s family and many others around the country, one bullet from each officer would probably suffice to reduce any apparent threat that might be brewing. But 48 shots? Forty-eight of anything seems pretty excessive, especially when it comes to stopping one man with a gun.

Related Links:

• Jury in Nieto trial finds SF cops did not use excessive force [SFGate]
• What Is Excessive Force? [ABC News]
• Police Misconduct and Civil Rights [FindLaw]

Welcome to the Ex Parte Party!

Welcome to the Ex Parte Party!

Legal blogs are really a dime a dozen these days. However, what’s the harm in adding one more? The Ex Parte Party focuses its blog on legal stories affecting all Americans, whether they want to believe it or not. Our writers take a stance on these important issue and blog about them from one side.

Please come and visit this blog frequently to see what we are cooking. This party can’t be party without a good reader base. So, come join the party and don’t worry about bringing your own booze.

Hope you enjoy!