Justice Scalia Blagojevich Obama, Blagojevich appeal response due by February 19 in US Supreme Court, No Scalia to respond, Has protecting Obama reached a new high?
Why did Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department wait until December 2008 to arrest Rod Blagojevich?”…Citizen Wells
“I believe I’m more pristine on Rezko than him.”…Rod Blagojevich
“Regardless of how this plays out, it benefits Obama. If there is no appeal or the appeal is denied, Blagojevich will be sequestered. If the appeal proceeds, it could drag out beyond impacting the 2012 election cycle. The intent is obvious.”…Citizen Wells, July 19, 2011
As reported at Citizen Wells, a response from the US Supreme Court on the Rod Blagojevich appeal is due February 19, 2016.
“The US Supreme Court website reveals the following status of the Rod Blagojevich appeal:
|Docketed:||November 19, 2015|
|Lower Ct:||United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
|Decision Date:||July 21, 2015|
|Rehearing Denied:||August 19, 2015|
|~~~Date~~~||~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|Nov 17 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 21, 2015)|
|Dec 16 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including January 20, 2016.|
|Dec 21 2015||Brief amici curiae of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al. filed.|
|Jan 7 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 19, 2016.|
An amicus brief was filed on December 21, 2015 by attorney Alan R. Friedman on behalf of Current and Former Elected Officials, et al.”
“From the brief:
“Summary of Argument
Amici urge the Court to grant the writ on the first
question presented by Petitioner in order to address an
issue of national importance. Although amici take no
position on Mr. Blagojevich’s innocence or guilt on any
of the counts of conviction, they submit that this Court’s
guidance is needed to distinguish the lawful solicitation of
campaign contributions from criminal violations of federal
extortion, bribery, and fraud laws.”
A Justice Scalia position in 1998 affected the Blagojevich trial.
From the American Spectator.
“BLAGOJEVICH AND SCALIA”
“A federal jury convicted Governor Rod Blagojevich yesterday of one single count, remaining undecided on the other 23. And for that one guilty charge, we can thank Justice Scalia.
No, Justice Scalia had nothing to do with the Blagojevich case. But in a way, he had everything to do with it.
Governor Blagojevich was convicted of making false statements to federal agents. He told the FBI that he did not track campaign contributions and kept a “firewall” between his campaign and his official duties as Governor. In other words, federal agents asked him if he broke the law — and just like any child who is caught with his hand in the cookie jar — he said “no.”
Before 1998, this decision might have been different. Until then, federal courts routinely excused people for what they called the “exculpatory no.” If a federal agent came to your house and asked if you did something illegal, and you said “no,” you were off the hook for making false statements.”
“Brogan argued that a defendant had to be excused for his denial to federal agents because the spirit of the Fifth Amendment would be violated when someone is “cornered” and given a “cruel trilemma”: tell the truth (and admit guilt), remain silent, or lie (and falsely deny guilt).
Scalia snapped back, saying lying is not an option. An innocent person, after all, would not face the same trilemma. The innocent person only has two options: tell the truth or remain silent.”
From the Washington Post December 7, 2009.
“Supreme Court to take up corruption law”
“At issue is the law’s language that it is illegal for public or private employees to “deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” The flexible standard has been part of the law for more than 20 years, but lately it has been subject to a slew of contradictory lower-court rulings and criticism, not the least of which has come from Justice Antonin Scalia.
Last term, in dissenting from his colleagues’ decision not to review the law, Scalia said the provision “invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors in pursuit of local officials, state legislators and corporate C.E.O.’s who engage in any manner of unappealing or ethically questionable conduct.”
He said the assertion that “officeholders and employees owe a duty to act only in the best interests of their constituents and employers” was so loose it could be construed to “cover a salaried employee’s phoning in sick to go to a ballgame.”
Apparently, the court took Scalia’s alert to heart, accepting appeals for two high-profile convictions in the corporate world and the case of an obscure Alaska lawmaker.”
And now we have a decision affecting the prison sentence of Blagojevich and ultimately Obama, and no Justice Scalia to speak up.
What a curious time for Justice Scalia to die of “natural causes.”