THE SUPREME COURT, CONTRACEPTION, THE CONSTITUTION AND SANITY

HOBBY LOBBY AND CONESTOGA WOOD VERSUS SIBELIUS (SECRETARY OF HEALTH)

America’s unique system of Justice and the power of the Supreme Court to interpret and make law is on public display in a landmark trial which essentially is deciding whether a for profit company, on the basis of the owners’ religious beliefs, can decide on whether they must carry out an Act of Congress. The section of the act that they object too does not impinge on their own personal rights but rather would have the effect of depriving their female employees, who number tens of thousands, of benefits under the said Act.  Oral arguments were heard on the dispute earlier this week.

The burden of this case is that two public firms, Hobby Lobby and another Conestoga Wood, have argued that it is against their corporations’ religious beliefs to include contraception benefits, as part of their medical insurance package, which they negotiate on their employees behalf. The reason they do not want them to have these legally mandated benefits included is that they perceive that a few of the contraceptives, such as the intrauterine device, (IUD), may result in an abortion. 

Contraceptive benefits were mandated in the Affordable Health Care Act, (AHCA -  Obamacare). The owners are therefore arguing that their corporations  have religious beliefs - the cases are brought about by the corporations, as they the owners have no locus standi to do so. As individuals, the owners, are not being forced to use this contraception and or buy a policy that insists on giving them these options. Put another way these employers could not bring this case themselves as they are in no way necessarily personally disadvantaged by the law. The issue therefore does not impact on those who are the plaintiffs in this action but rather third parties, their employees. The latter would be effectively deprived of their rights under the AHCA as a result of the owners of the companies,  they work for, religious beliefs.

AMERICAN CONSTITUTION

What is so unique about the American Judicial system is that the case is not decided only on the basis interpreting the laws of Congress and legal precedents that may relate to the issue but whether or not the law is "constitutional" or not. The American Constitution was adapted in 1787 and is the supreme law of the land. 

The problem is that the rights of an individual are not very explicit and have to be interpreted.

The American Constitution’s First Amendment, inter alia, states that the following:

It forbids the government to establish an official religion and creates the separation between Church and State. It also has a “free exercise” clause that basically stops the government from interfering anyone’s right to practice their religion. (The First Amendment also incidentally deals with an individual's right to Freedom of Speech).

It is within in this framework in addition to the Laws of Congress and legal precedents, that the Supreme Court have to decide whether the “corporations” are entitled to deny their employees a provision of the AHCA, on the basis of what the "corporations" religious beliefs are. 

POLITICS OF COURT

There is no doubt that there are interest blocks within the court. There are those appointed by Democrats who tend to favor individual rights and there are those appointed by the Republicans that tend to favor corporations over individual rights. The latter are in the majority and in the last 8 cases involving corporations and individuals the court by 5- 4 voted in favor of corporations 7 of the 8 times. 

The court’s dynamics have changed dramatically since Associate Judge Sandra Day O’Connor resigned. Although appointed by Ronald Reagan she was a true swing vote definitely voting in favor of women’s issues. This is regarded as a women’s issue. The fact that the corporation has no objections to vasectomies and the prescribing of viagra shows that they are not against men's sexual and contraceptive rights. There are also pro amico briefs before the court supporting this as a women’s rights issue. There is in addition a brief from the American Obstetric and Gynecology College stating that what the corporations are objecting too are not abortifactants. Women’s rights groups have stated that it will be a disaster if the corporations’ viewpoint is upheld as millions of women will be denied contraception.

It is interesting to note that the three most vigorous protagonists on the Court of the contraceptive clause in the Obamacare law are women albeit that they are democrats.

THE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS - HOBBY LOBBY AND CONESTOGA WOOD

Associate Justice Kagan was quickly out of the stalls to attack the corporations’ argument. She maintained what would happen if  different corporations stated that they had a religious belief against  one or other of the following - the sex discrimination act, family leave act, minimum wage laws, and child labor laws? There was no limit to what could be argued as to what a religious belief might be.

This was the view held by Associate Justice Scalia in 1990 in a precedent to this case. Scalia maintained then that if religious entities, (and it is important to note that the Plaintiff Corporations are not even religious entities), were to claim exemption to generally applicable laws it would create anarchy. Scalia who wrote the opinion stated that  there may be religious objections that might even include social security, environmental laws, animal cruelty laws and the like.

There could be no end of corporations arguing there religious beliefs. What about massive employers like Walmart or Exxon  It is interesting to note that Obamacare has given dispensation to real religious organizations and their ancillary bodies such as churches and their hospitals. So this argument is by a non religious corporation whose owners just happen to have personal religious objections.

Also it is on its face ridiculous that individuals can hide behind their corporations to impose their beliefs on others. They are not arguing for their own rights rather for the right to deprive others of their rights.

THE REASON WHY THE COURT WILL SUPPORT HOBBY LOBBY AND CONESTEGA WOOD.

Central to the reason why an individual, who happens to be a large employer, can foist his religious beliefs on thousands of others and deprive them of their legal rights is as a result of a recent Supreme Court’s decision. In what has become known as the Citizen's United decision this court by 5 votes to 4 decided that a corporation was an individual in that it was entitled to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech like religious freedom is included in the First Amendment. So the Court has already ruled that corporations are individuals under the First Amendment.

So therefore it is not the owners that are the plaintiffs but rather their corporations whom this court has deemed has the same rights of individuals under the First Amendment. The fact that this is tautologous nonsense in Jay H. Ell’s humble opinion, is irrelevant. 

So the owners of the two corporations can claim that their corporations have the same rights as individuals and therefore can have religious beliefs and therefore as individuals they can protect their religious beliefs!

Now that it has been established that corporations are individuals and can have religious beliefs there is another law that was passed in 1993 whose intent was to protect an individual’s religious rights. The law is entitled the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The law provides exemptions in certain situation for those individuals who hold strongly held religious beliefs. For example, if a Muslim or a Jew or the Pope insisted on wearing a skull cap in a court where hats were not allowed he could seek recourse under this law.The law is written to enshrine the religious rights of individuals in terms of the constitution. 

It is believed that if Scalia votes for the plaintiffs he will use the argument that as corporations are now individuals this law can apply to them who as individuals  have strongly held political beliefs. This not withstanding his 1990 opinion where he forcefully advocated that this type of decision would lead to anarchy.

The only hope of some sanity in the conservative judges’ oral arguments was from Chief Justice Roberts whose court and legacy this is. He was leaning to say that the only corporations, that were non public ones or ones that were partnerships could be regarded as individuals. This would prevent large companies such as Walmart from being able to claim that they were individuals. Jay H. Ell does not follow the logic in this but hey he is no jurist.

Jay H. Ell is also no constitutional expert either but he really believes that the relevant clause in the Constitution was to allow individuals to hold their religious views and practice and not be discriminated against. He cannot conceive that the Founding Fathers were protecting Hobby Lobby’s owners rights in the form of their corporation to deny other individuals their legal rights.

One would hope Chief Justice Roberts will act as he did in the Obamacare challenge and bring some sanity to the verdict. He must know how ridiculous this will all look, particularly in retrospect. (Already the Citizens United precedent declaring corporations individuals has reeked havoc in the political system). Not to mention the fact that millions of women are being deprived of their rights as a result of the beliefs of third parties whose rights are not being challenged. His legacy, if this carries on, will be not be highly regarded from a legal and societal point of view.  

PUTIN PULLS OUT THE OLD USSR PLAYBOOK

As Jay H. Ell blogged a few weeks ago, “Putin - The Last Russian Tzar”, Putin’s move on Crimea operates from a different world view, namely it is based on the USSR playbooks dating from the mid forties. The "playbook" details the predictable scripted explanations that Moscow should spin in an event such as we are now witnessing in Crimea.

In initiating the second cold world war, Putin is now following the old USSR playbook. The playbook stipulates that Putin is to claim that he is merely an observer of the Crimeans exercising their inherent right to proclaim their own sovereignty. He is not, as the playbook spells out, really involved in the Crimean secession as the army in the streets has no Russian markings and they are really Ukrainian soldiers overseeing a peaceful transition and protecting Russians living in Crimea.

The scripted Crimean “referendum” organized in less than a week, with an over 80% voter turnout with a 97% support to join Russia, was an event ludicrous on its face even by USSR playbook standards. This especially so that in a Gallop Poll, conducted in May 2013, only 23% of Crimeans said they wanted to be part of Russia. 

The Putin playbook had earlier indicated that he should warn Ukraine that should they move towards NATO and away from Russia there would be dire consequences and apparently the Crimean people proved him right. The script in the playbook continues to be played out in all solemnity. Putin has recognized the independent country of Crimea. The playbook instructs Putin to then support a Crimean request to be part of Russia which he has now done in record time. Finally, the script says that Putin must say he has no more territorial ambitions, which he has said.  

Amen brother.

         PUTIN'S ASSUMPTIONS

The assumption of Putin is that the great USA  and NATO cannot and or will not send in the cavalry. He reckons that he will expose America as being impotent. Just look at Iraq, Afghanistan and more recently Syria - this is a different world, after all, than post World War 11. What Putin fails to realize is that the world has changed more for Russia, aka the USSR, than NATO aka the USA. For starters NATO, the USSR’s adversary, is very much intact in the wake of the disintegration of the USSR. In fact this is what this is all about as several of the members of former USSR have defected to NATO and Ukraine going that way would have been the giddy limit. So this move is Putin’s major counter. Jay H. Ell believes at the end of the day it is not going to go very far.

COMMUNICATION IN THE TWENTIETH AND TWENTY FIRST CENTURY

For starters no body believes the scripts in these play - books anymore. With all the communication going on in the internet, social media as well as the blogosphere, Tass is no longer the only source of information. To digest what Russia got away over the last century is, in retrospect, mind boggling. Ostensibly carrying out the precepts of egalitarianism of the Marxist philosophy they instituted a fascist totalitarian state. With nothing to counter their claims of the success of socialism, collectivism and industrialization, the reality of purges, famine,10 million either dying or executed and millions deported, was never in the world consciousness and the Russian utopia was the accepted narrative especially by the faithful. 

Stalin shared in the spoils of the second world war. In addition a war of words continued and while the USSR “prospered” a propaganda war was waged against the “imperialistic, fascist warmongers”. This narrative was not only bought by several countries but by well intentioned individuals from the West who believed it all. Strong Communist Parties were formed in Western States to promote the “equality” and “growth” that was the "hallmark" of the USSR. Then as we know it all collapsed like a pack of cards in the early 90’s. 

Ironically, Communists outside of the USSR were involved in championing the cause of the discriminated and the disadvantaged in their own countries. Unlike Mandela himself, several of his inner support group in South Africa were members of the Communist Party. Their problem was that in addition to their championing of the oppressed they stuck to the fictitious scripts emerging from the USSR playbook giving the latter their support and holding them up as the shining utopian example. Even the Russian suppression of the Hungarian revolt hardly shook the Marxist faithful.

........Then there was the story where a Russian and a UK worker were conversing about their work conditions in Hyde Park. The Russian details his low work pay, no trade unions, poor living conditions etc to which the Cockney worker replies, “Gore blimme if that happened here the Commies would go mad.” ...........

So it needs total news blockades and secrecy to enact these fictitious yet plausible scripts of the playbooks and these news blackouts no longer exist.

COLD WAR WAS ABOUT CREATING POWER BLOCKS.

A large chunk of Cold War activity was taken up by trying to win the support of the “unaligned”  countries. Fortunes were spent and wars were fought trying to align countries in South East Asia, South America , the Middle East and Africa to one or other side. Neither super power distinguished themselves in this battle. Wars were fought such as those in Korea and Vietnam, dictators were propped up and rebels supported to overthrow regimes. Aid was poured into countries that often wound up in the leaders’ foreign bank accounts.

Each side used allies to bolster their military capabilities. The most famous example of the latter was the Cuban missile crises when the world stood on the brink of a nuclear conflict. Surrogate wars were the order of the day as Cuba sent soldiers to back up the Angolan regime as the USA backed the apartheid South African troops to support the Angolan rebels. Another example of the cynicism was the USSR’s switched support from the socialistic, collective farming Israel to the Arab cause because of the number of countries involved not to mention the oil. The Iran Contra deal where weapons were sold to Iran, via Israel, so that the American administration could back the Nicaraguan rebels dripped with hypocrisy and deceit. (Prior to the recent Russian moves the fiction of weapons of mass destruction to invade Iraq by NATO leaders Bush and Blair has got to rank up there with the worst deceptions).

However, the machinations from both sides had their desired effect as various countries lined up on the side of one or other power block. Some countries were permanently for "sale" as they created the group of non aligned nations.

The conflict was ostensibly about ideology. The USSR still had their playbook that they stuck to and so did NATO stick to theirs. But in fairness to the latter their’s was far more open to scrutiny. 

Up till the day the charade ended and the USSR Emperor was found to have no clothes both sides carried on with their playbooks  The same playbook that Putin has just dusted off and put back into use.

RUSSIA NO LONGER IS A WORLD SUPER POWER 

In terms of rebuilding its empire Russia is shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. There is no way they are going to win back Eastern Europe. Even Putin cannot be seriously contemplating Sudeitenlands outside the immediate Russian bloc.  Georgia, Chechnya and even Ukraine and Muldovia is one thing but Poland and Hungary, for example, another. This let alone getting near the old unaligned nations. 

The most recent Security Council resolution was the most stark evidence of where Russia stands in the world of nations today. The Security Council voted 13 - 1 with one abstention to affirm the integrity of Ukraine’s borders. Russia was the veto vote against and China it’s soulmate the abstention. China is pretty sensitive about border integrity and would certainly not accept a Hong Kong referendum to secede. China is also finding it more and more embarrassing to be lumped with Russia. Even in the height of Communism's hey day there was never much love between the two. 

Even more revealing was the votes of countries that might have formerly fallen into the unaligned category. Three of those voting against Russia were from Africa - Chad, Nigeria and Rwanda, two from South America - Chile and Argentina and another three of the 10 non permanent members of the Council - Jordan, Lithuania and The Republic of Korea, all voted against Russia. The only two votes that the UK, USA and France would not have had to “work” on in the good old days would have been Australia and Luxembourg. 

So Russia is definitely considered a rogue nation not a potential super power. 

THE RUSSIAN REALITY AFTER CRIMEA

There is plenty of bravado being displayed by Putin and his colleagues. Obama is being made to be look puny as the latter starts with sanctions on the involved Russians and Ukranians who have assets outside of the country. This will be followed by other sanctions as Europe and the USA turn on the screws. Obama has already on his list "key sectors of the Russian ecenomy". Merkel has unilaterally kicked Russia out of the G-8 group of industrial nations. The European Union are meeting to add sanctions and public opinion seems incensed at Russia's behavior.

There is no industrial infrastructure in Russia as 70% of its economy comes from energy. Now that energy is controlled by a number of plutocrats that have been given concessions by Putin. The plutocrats assets Obama has the potential to freeze. Other moves being contemplated by the USA government include giving Ukraine some military hardware and getting oil to Europe to ween them off dependence on Russia. So Russia is very vulnerable to sanctions that will hit its energy income.

The bottom line is the Russian reality and status has taken a big hit as a result of Putin’s foolhardy move. For starters the Russian stock market has dropped 15% wiping out nearly a 100 billion dollars. The last thing his fragile economy needs. The Russian economy is not vast. It is said to be no bigger than the Italian economy.

Also out there are a host of Ukranian military who have sworn not to give up Crimea without a fight. There are going to be plenty of deaths before this is over as the Russian troops mass on the border of Eastern Ukraine. 

Then Putin’s image as an honest broker has taken a dive. He guaranteed with the USA and the UK in the early 1990’s that if Ukraine gave up their nuclear weaponry he would ensure their territorial integrity. 

So he has gained control of a port that he would never have lost access to at a great cost. 

         THE END GAME       

What Putin’s end game is has to be a mystery. Things are what they are. There is no way that Russia can gain its old prominence. Their move is about as futile as the UK trying to win back its formal status of an Empire on which the sun did not set. If Jay H. Ell was Putin he would back off and start talking nicely to Obama, NATO and Ukraine. He has shown a tendency to back off on lesser issues such as releasing Pussy Riot and on his stance on gays when it might have affected the Sochi games, so who knows? Hopefully, he has learned that the old playbook is obsolete in this day and age. 

However, don't hold your breath, Putin followed the old playbook script to the last detail. The script calls for accusing the other side of what you have allegedly just done and act the victim.  

Putin has thus maintained it is the USA and Europe that have no respect for international law citing Kosovo. Using the occassion of the Crimean adventure Putin argued, "As NATO expanded it cheated again and again". So this is payback time for the West, particularly USA, as it was their fault that the USSR collapsed. In case anyone forgot, the old USSR is Putin's pedigree, he merely flipped sides when Gorbachev was being ousted.

With Putin you are dealing with someone, who according to Angela Merkel is not in touch with reality. Putin seems to place great stock on showing the USA that he can do what he likes. This is true, up to a point. He can, for example, instigate East Ukraine to follow the Crimean “example”. He can even try to “rescue” the Russians in Poland and on and on. So while at the end of the day Putin is doomed to failure he can cause a lot of chaos in the process. Once again history is in the hands of an unpredictable sociopathic maniac.  Putin's meddling unhappily need not be confined to the former USSR as evidenced in Syria and Iran.

PISTORIUS TRIAL - COMPARING USA AND SOUTH AFRICA

PISTORIUS TRIAL -  THE AMERICAN AND SOUTH AFRICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEMS

The trial in South Africa of Oscar Pistorius, “The Blade Runner”, who captivated the world by overcoming his disability of having two artificial legs and who actually performed well enough to compete in the open Olympic Games as well as winning several Gold Medals in the Paralympics, has begun. The world was his oyster as he chalked up gold medal after gold medal. His achievements were accompanied by garnering lucrative sponsorship after sponsorship. His relationship with the celebrity model and actress Reeva Steenkamp looked like it was made in heaven till one terrible night he shot and killed her. He claims he mistook her for an intruder and the prosecution alleges cold blooded murder.

To American TV viewers the subsequent  Pistorius trial in South Africa has to have a surreal feel about it. One has not the vaguest idea of whether he is guilty or not. No-one is dissecting the process as it happens and one is left having to digest what appears to be unconnected information. In the USA, in a trial that features an international celebrity and one of the most desirable and upcoming models and actresses in a country, the background data of all and sundry, accused, the victim, their families, the witnesses, the evidence and all the other circumstances surrounding the tragedy would have been the fare of nightly talk shows for months preceding the trial. Lawyers, ex judges, pathologists, ballistic experts and the like would be interviewed on a daily basis as evidence becomes prematurely available.  

What is more after each day’s evidence these selfsame experts would be questioned as to what impact the daily proceedings would have on the outcome of the trial. Everyone would have an opinion as to Pistorius’s guilt or innocence.The rationale for the American approach is the constitutional right to free speech, regardless of the circumstances and outcome.

None of this can happen in South Africa and most other countries in the world because of the sub judice law. The latter law forbids any discourse on the merits of any case that is awaiting a trial or if the trial is in process The reason for this is that nothing can be debated that could influence the decision makers in a trial - judge or jury. (This even though juries were abolished in South Africa in 1969). Also it is considered impossible to make any judgement till every bit of  evidence is heard and has been subject to cross examination. The sub judice law is very strict and no media person would dare run a piece on whether a bit of evidence points to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Contrast that with the celebrity trials in the USA such as OJ Simpson or the recent Zimmerman trial for example. There were in depth commentaries and discussions on every possible bit of evidence before and during the trial. In South Africa there is no Nancy Grace, Court Channel, Greta Fox, Alan Dershowitz, Mark Gerogas, Jerry Spence, Jeff Tobin and the like filling us in on the significance of every nuance of the court proceedings and its possible implications in favor of the defense or prosecution.

Another major difference between the South African court procedures and the American is that it is irrelevant what the victim’s family’s opinions are about the issue.  Pistorius’s alleged crime is against the State not against the Steenkamp family. What the latter feel is not pertinent to the merits of the case or sentencing should that be the issue. The Steenkamp family recognizes this and all they want is answers and justice.

THE TRIAL

Like all trials much is about interpretation of the evidence. For example, screams are heard - are they the screams of a terrified Steenkamp or are they the cries of a distraught Pistorius? At the time of  the cross examination of those that heard them no-one can comment. The relevance of the screams and when they occurred in relation to the gunshots are crucial as to which theory is correct - Pistorius’s or the Prosecution’s. The interpretation of all this has to wait till all the evidence has been heard and weighed. Contrast that with the Zimmerman trial for example where the screams were analyzed from the get - go, by family members and panelists as to who may have uttered them. The tv audience chimed in as the cell phone record was played again and again.

The prosecution’s theory is that Pistorius, who allegedly had a violent temper, shot and killed Steenkamp during an argument. In order to bolster their characterization of him as trigger happy they are simultaneously charging him with three unrelated counts of  firearm “abuse”. Much of the earlier prosecutor’s early evidence has been devoted to these charges in an attempt to establish Pistorius as an individual who had a temper and fired his gun in inappropriate settings. On the other hand the defense are trying to establish the narrative that Pistorius would and has acted in a similar manner in the past to the possibility of an intruder. Also the defense has attempted to use prosecution witnesses to corroborate Pistorius’s timeline of the events of that fateful evening.

The trial is set to last at least three weeks and will hinge around technical evidence. There are cell phones involved and these have GPS equipment in them and are crucial to who was where and when during the alleged altercation. Also did Steenkamp call or attempt to call anyone in that crucial time frame? What was the angle that bullets went through the door will corroborate or not corroborate Pistorius’s story that he rushed out of bed without his prosthetic legs before shooting through the toilet door. At what angle did the cricket bat hit the door while breaking it down? None of this evidence has been released previously so that it cannot even be the subject of talk shoes and be debated in the public arena. 

CHARGES AND OTHER DIFFERENCES BETWEEN USA AND RSA .

Much is made of in America of what the prosecutor charges the defendant with. Once a decision is made then it is extremely difficult to change the charge sheet. For example should an accused face a charge of murder and if it then transpires during the trial that there is not enough evidence to convict him or her, the prosecution cannot automatically fall back on a charge of manslaughter. The latter is equivalent to culpable homicide in South Africa and relates to the negligent killing of a victim without the intent of doing so. 

However, in culpable homicide/manslaughter the accused should have been reasonably aware that his negligent actions might lead to the death of an individual. In South Africa an accused can be charged with murder and failing that culpable homicide. So the prosecution does not have to make any agonizing choices that by overcharging an individual instead of with a lesser charge he or she might be able to go scot free.

What speculation there has been in the Pistorius trial devolves around the culpable homicide charge. The burden here for Pistorius is, will he be able to maintain that it was reasonable to fire shots through a closed door without ascertaining who if anyone was present as he must have known that he might kill someone even if that was not his intent. There is no “stand your ground” defense in South Africa. Similarly can Pistorius say he was doing this in self defense if all he had to do was keep out of the path of the closed door and resort to other activities to rectify the situation? A lot will then depend of Pistorius’s state of mind when firing the shots. 

If this was America the accused would have been asked why he did not call 911. However, in the South African context with an overworked police force there is greater reliance on private security firms that actually were involved in this tragedy. In fact the deceased Steenkamp was taken to hospital prior to the police getting to the scene.

SENTENCES AND APPEAL

In South Africa there is no death penalty but a mandatory 25 year sentence for premeditated murder. For culpable homicide, depending on the circumstances anything from probation to 15 years in prison. Unlike in America an appeal is not a right even in capitol offenses. The South African Judge has to accept that there is a reasonable chance that another court may come to a different outcome. Also unlike in America where appeals are routine bail is rarely granted in a capitol case pending appeal. In South Africa it may be granted even in a capitol case pending the outcome of the appeal. In South Africa if the Trial Judge refuses leave to appeal the defendant can petition the Chief Justice.           

OFFICERS OF THE COURT  AND THE COURT ITSELF.

In the United States all State Courts are entitled to hear all charges including that of murder. Thus a small County in the USA that rarely has a murder charge before it will try a murder case if it occurs in the Court’s jurisdiction. In South Africa there is a hierarchy of courts where lesser charges are heard in the Magistrate’s Court or the next Court above that the Regional Court. Murder cases are only heard in the Supreme or highest Court.The higher courts in the USA are for appeals and do not hear cases for the first time however serious the issue maybe. 

In the USA lawyers can participate in all types of cases in all types of courts. In South Africa the legal bar is divided into lawyers and advocates. The latter are the only ones that can actually argue a case in the Supreme Court. They are “instructed” by lawyers who play a lessor role in these courts. 

In South Africa, in what is the equivalent of a bench trial in the United States, the Judge may additionally be assisted by two accessors. The latter are usually appointed for their expertise in the issues that might be involved in the trial. The accessors are usually well recognized advocates and ultimately cannot outvote the judge. Their acquiescence or disagreement with the Judges decision is often noted when the verdict is given. In the US the Judge acts alone. Judges, unlike juries, issue lengthy reasons for their decisions. 

The Judge , Thokozile Masipi, in this trial is only the second black women, to be appointed to the higher Supreme Court in South Africa. Incidentally she has warned reporters not to approach her. This warning has to be for the large international contingent because no South African reporter would dream of trying to interview her. Initially she conditionally allowed TV in the court room but has suspended this, as well as simultaneous tweets and blogs, during some of the court proceedings. She has a reputation for being scrupulously fair. 

The chief counsel involved are considered to be the leading prosecutor and criminal defense advocate in the country. Both have been extremely successful to date in South African cases that matter. Both made gains in the preliminary hearings. The prosecutor, Gerrie Nel, in the bail hearing painted Pistorius as highly charged and capable of murder and drew Pistorius's whole story out of him in the latter's pursuit for bail. Defense advocate, Barry Roux, on the other hand annihilated the then lead police investigating officer and his shoddy police work, much like Johhny Cochran’s dream team did in the O. J. Simpson trial. The effect was the officer was taken off the investigation. Much of what the defense is doing now is ripping the investigation apart - so so reminiscent of OJ’s trial.

Pistorius to date has been very demonstrative during the proceedings. In a jury trial this could have a positive or negative effect but it is highly unlikely to impact on Judge Masipi’s assessment of the facts. 

Notwithstanding the potential newsworthiness of this trial it is unlikely to really grip America, like a local trial, as the viewers are left to their own speculations on the evidence with no interpretations emerging.

PUTIN - THE LAST RUSSIAN TZAR?

Vladimir Putin joins a long line of Russian dictatorial leaders that like “old man river just keep rolling along”.  The poor Russians they have not really got rid of the Tzars. From Stalin onwards it has been more of the same. Putin becomes more comprehensible when you consider where he came from. He was in the KGB for 16 years. After the axing of Gorbachev he joined Yeltsin’s government and within 4 years he was acting President in 1999. In 2000 he was elected President and remained such till 2008 as he could not continue due to term limits. In the interim, while his term limits were expiring, he retained control by coming Prime Minister. In 2012 he was once again elected for what Jay H. Ell reckons will be forever if Putin has any say in the matter.

2000 - 2008

For Putin’s first turn at bat he was a smashing success. The Russian economy improved but in effect was controlled by a group of oligarchs that Putin had given all the monopolies to and that are totally beholden to him. The moment one of them wanted to turn to matters political he was promptly locked up under trumped up charges and since then the oligarchs have limited their subversive activities to buying football teams such as Chelsea. One uncomfortable moment for Putin was the Chechnya invasion but somehow everyone bought into the fiction that they were nothing but a bunch of terrorists.

In his second term starting in 2004 the honeymoon was soon over and he cracked down on the Russian media. A journalist who exposed corruption was shot in her apartment and the authorities were widely believed to be involved. He invaded Georgia but again he received a pass because he claimed that the NATO member had been the aggressor. There was some opposition to him by liberals lead by the Russian world chess champion Gary Kasparov and even a march in protest, but c'est la vie it all came to nought.

To the world’s surprise and muddying the international diplomatic playbook was that Putin, from 2001 on, became dubbayu’s newest best friend. He became the first foreign visitor to the Bush compound in Kennebunkport Maine. Bush had looked into his eyes and said he was able to get a sense of Putin’s soul and that was that. Putin gave very little clue of his desire to be front and center of the world stage. Other than a token disapproval of his friend’s Iraqi adventure Putin just pottered around in his own backyard.

2012 - ?

After his 4 year breather as Prime Minister, where he shored up his political power, he returned to the world scene with a bang. Enough already playing second fiddle to the US and China - Russia was to become a world power. Furthermore he would brook no dissent within the country. He literally personally hosted the Sochi Olympic Games and served notice, with the costly show that far exceeded the tab for any previous Olympics, that Russia was in the big league. Anything China let alone America could do he could do better. It was a public relations coupe with NBC providing endless background stories about the grandeur of mother Russia.

However he lost plenty basking in the world’s spotlight. He had jailed a nonentity punk band, Pussy Riot, who sang songs about LBGT rights, feminism and that claimed Putin was a dictator. His autocratic decision created such an international storm that he had to release them. His attack on the LBGT, the motive of which was to solidify the support of the Russian Orthodox Church, boomeranged. On that too he backed down, sort of, by claiming that some of his best friends were gays as long as they left the children alone. Obama snubbed him by not only by not coming to the games but by sending an American delegation that was as representative of the LBGT movement as it was of America. No other Western leaders were in evidence either.

All this was just a backdrop to his major moves on the world scene. He was the only major supporter of Syria and Iran blocking, as far as possible, consolidated opposition against them. It is a mischaracterization to call him a supporter of these two rogue nations rather he was on the other side against the Western Powers. It was back to the good old days when it was East versus West. Two major gunslingers in the arena and Russia was one of them. 

On the strength of his shows of strength Forbes nominated him as the most powerful man in the world. George Bush the lesser said that it wasn’t that his original opinion of him was wrong, Putin had changed.

PUTIN  PUTS THE MAD MOVES ON UKRAINE

The West instead of being surprised by Putin’s newly found macho had forgotten where he had come from - he was a child of the old USSR who had conveniently changed to the winning side. He was a product of the Kremlin. He served nearly 20 years in the most feared instrument of the USSR, the KGB.

Putin with his actions on Georgia and Chechnya had already served notice that he was not going to tolerate any more gains by NATO. Ukraine going to NATO would be a bitter pill to swallow and there was no way this was going to happen especially with its key province Crimea and it’s strategic port. It is after all so so Russian, at least the Crimean part. (The total percentage of Russians in Ukraine is less than 20%). It was on the Eastern border of Russia and they were fellow Slavs……

Putin really couldn’t give a hoot as to how he was seen in the rest of the world. In fact this helps bolster his image of them and us. Two major forces in the world once more, Russia versus the rest. It was back to the good old days in more ways than one.

Putin started spinning the invasion of Ukraine ala Kruschev, Brezhnev and the rest - the Russians had not invaded Crimea these were local Ukrainian soldiers who were expressing their support for the ousted regime. Putin would do all that was necessary to protect all the Russians in Ukraine. It was the foreign influences that had caused the ousting of the pro Russian head of Ukraine - all so reminiscent of the days when they were the vanguard against the imperialistic fascist warmongers. Putin’s press conference revealed a man who reflected the paranoia, self righteousness and the anger of his mentors, the leaders of the USSR. “The American Technologists did their work well in the Ukraine And this isn’t the first time they have done this in Ukraine”, “Ukraine needs elections but you can’t have elections as they already have a President”, were examples of the gibberish spouted by Putin. The New Republic quotes Gleb Pavlovsky a former advisor to Putin stating that the latter has surrounded himself with yes men feeding him what he wants to hear. “They are beginning to believe their own propaganda”, Pavlovsky reported.

This all jived with Angela Merkel's, the West German Chancellor assessment that Putin was not in touch with reality and in another world. Indeed he is functioning in a post second world war Cold War paradigm. 

CAN PUTIN SUCCEED?

Russia is still a giant. It has an army of a million. It has nuclear weapons. It has vast energy supplies. It can easily win the Ukraine battle just by cutting off its energy. It can cut of energy to Europe who are dealing with a modern day maniac who is making everyone nervous. Jay H. Ell believes that Putin can and will win the Ukraine fight. At very least he will retain Crimea. He is de facto in control already. He will also use the referendum planned to “legitimize” the annexation.

The fear is that is this is another Hitler who says he has no other territorial ambitions and then proceeds to knock of one by one the old components of the USSR. The difference between him and Hitler and even Stalin as how does he knows when he has won? His objective is to be a major player with the USA and restore Russia to its old glory in a world that isn’t terribly much interested in this baloney. His fight is not with the USA it is with the modern day realities.

PUTIN WINS NOW WHAT?

Assuming the best possible scenario for Putin that, while no one believes that he is in Crimea to protect the Russians there and or to carry out their will, they let him take over Crimea. Russia is now part of the world. It is no longer behind an Iron Curtain and confidence in Russia as an investment country will go to zero. The first day after the “non Russians” took over Crimea the Russian stock market dropped 10%, over 60 billion dollars. That is more than the Sochi games cost. 

Obama now puts into effect the type of financial sanctions that have brought Iran to their knees. You can have all the money in the world but if you can’t use it, it is not much good. Obama’s first start is to hit the individuals involved. Also to support Ukraine with financial aid so that the Russian squeeze is neutralized. 

China, who is Russia’s silent ally on the world stage has close ties to the Ukraine. Big deals on grain and weapons are where it is at. Also China cannot really support invasions of any country, under any pretext, as they their good selves are very vulnerable to intervention. So China has not come out in support of their ostensible soul mates.

The few former USSR countries that have become part of a Russian Federation have not supported Russia’s move. They are hardly likely to do so as implicit in support of the “interference” is the green light to interfere with their own autonomy. Even Cuba has remained silent.

Within Russia itself in this day and age who gives a hoot about empires and power on the world stage. If push comes to shove Putin cannot create to much patriotic fervor about creating an empire, The Kasparov and the Pussy Riot people may be marginalized at the moment but they could become the nidus of real internal opposition. Putin cannot control the narrative in modern day social communication connections. He can control State TV but he cannot control the internet. Fools can now “Rush In” where angels formerly feared to tread. 

For the moment Putin has the upper hand. He is a great source of gas for Europe as well as the Ukraine. But with the USA becoming independent on energy more and more energy is available on the open market and it is just a question of time before Russia can no longer hold this threat over Europe. The whole exercise is counterproductive as who wants to do business with an unreliable psychopath.

So while the situation remains unstable for the moment in the long run it will quicken the demise of what one hopes will be the last Russian tzar.

And just to prove that there is not a monopoly on insanity, the Republicans are blaming Obama for Putin’s megalomania. Actually, Jay H. Ell believes it is Obamacare and not Obama that did it.