Legal briefs

Crime

One of the tactics misguided criminal justice reformers use in pursuit of their agenda is to control language. For instance, they suggest using the term “substance use disorder” rather than “drug addiction.” They prefer that we call criminals “justice-involved individuals.” Many people otherwise opposed to criminal justice reform efforts choose to go along with this language manipulation so as not to appear rude. We should stop doing that.

Language manipulation is an important step for the reformers. Though it might seem like it’s just a strange way of speaking, it furthers the goal of shifting responsibility from the offender to some other cause, such as “the system.” Once you start thinking in those terms by use of the language, you are halfway converted already. The most recent example I have seen of this (see here) involves domestic battery. It is suggested that we refer to a man who, for instance, punches his wife in the face over and over again before choking her out in front of their kids as an “intimate partner violence user.” He’s not a wife-beater, domestic batterer, or a violent criminal. He's merely a justice-involved individual using intimate partner violence as one of the many options available for interacting with one’s wife. I mean, when you put it that way…

More crime

Earlier this year, lawyer Brian Murphy was nominated by President Joe Biden to serve as a Federal District Judge in Massachusetts. Whenever a person is nominated as a Federal Judge, he or she is required to submit any previous writings for inspection by the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. It was discovered that Mr. Murphy failed to submit to the Committee a letter he had signed onto in June 2020. He has been criticized for the omission. I completely understand how a judicial nominee may fail to gather all his or her previous written material for submission. In this case, it was not even something Murphy himself wrote, but a letter he joined. What I cannot understand, however, is Mr. Murphy being supportive of the content of the letter, which you can read more about here. The letter advocates for eliminating arrests for most crimes, including violent offenses such as battery and burglary. How could a person think that someone who breaks and enters a home should avoid arrest?  

Separation of powers

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Biden v. Nebraska, striking down President Biden’s executive order forgiving student loan debt. The Biden administration argued that Congress’s 2003 HEROES act gave President Biden authority to forgive student loans. The Court found that the President’s executive order was not authorized by the statute’s language. Undeterred, the President then issued a new executive order forgiving student loan debt, this time arguing that a different congressional statute authorized it, namely the 1965 Higher Education Act. Federal lawsuits followed. Recently, two different Obama appointed Federal District Judges struck down President Biden’s latest attempt on the same grounds as the Supreme Court’s previous ruling. Judge John A. Ross in one of the cases wrote, “The allegations in the complaint are substantially similar to, if not identical to, those the Supreme Court held were sufficient to establish Missouri’s standing last year in Biden v. Nebraska. The Court finds no reason to reach a different result here.”

Despite the clear unconstitutionality of the administration’s executive orders, the Biden Department of Education has been forgiving loans during times when the decisions are pending. Billions of dollars have already been ostensibly forgiven. Those sums will certainly never be repaid. For now, though, both Federal Courts in these most recent cases have issued nationwide injunctions on continued student loan forgiveness. Whether you support student loan forgiveness or not, the proper place for such a decision to be made is Congress. Unilateral action by the President through executive order violates the separation of powers doctrine.

Other

The Gallup organization has tracked the approval rating of the U.S. Supreme Court for the last 25 years. At 43%, the current court has the lowest approval rating since Gallup has been measuring it. This is due in large part to the very low approval rating Democrats give the current court. Just 15% of Democrats approve of the Court, compared to 66% of Republicans and 44% of Independents. If you are interested, you can read the results here. Gallup can count me among those approving, mostly because I applaud this Court’s approach to separation of powers issues.

As always, thank you for reading Judex. Please take a moment right now to forward this to some friends and recommend they subscribe.