-
-
Administration Calls for Action on Detainees
After a major setback in the Supreme Court last month, the Bush administration urged Congress on Monday to work out a plan for allowing prisoners in Guantánamo Bay to contest their incarcerations before federal judges — but without ever letting them set foot in the United States because of the “extraordinary risk” they pose.
As part of the plan, the administration also wants Congress to “reaffirm,” nearly seven years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, that the United States “remains engaged in an armed conflict with al Qaeda” and other terrorist groups. The administration used Congress’s original affirmation of an armed conflict, three days after 9/11, not only to invade Afghanistan, but also to incarcerate enemy combatants without trial and to conduct wiretaps on Americans without a court warrant.
One month after the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners at Guantánamo had the right to challenge their incarcerations in federal court, Attorney General Michael Mukasey laid out the administration’s intentions Monday for the first time.
In effect, his proposal to get quick Congressional action before federal judges begin hearing appeals later this year would put the treatment of the Guantánamo prisoners back before Congress, rather than leaving the process entirely in the hands of the judiciary. But with Congress on the verge of a long summer break, it is not clear how quickly new legislation could be approved.
The high court on June 12 declared unconstitutional a provision of the Military Commission Act of 2006, included at the request of the administration, that stripped the federal courts of the jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from detainees seeking to challenge their designation as enemy combatants.
“I am urging Congress to act to resolve the difficult questions left open by the Supreme Court,” Mr. Mukasey said in a speech delivered at the American Enterprise Institute. His remarks came on the day the first trial of an enemy combatant held at Guantánamo started. After years of delay, Salim Hamdan, who the government charges was Osama bin Laden’s driver, went on trial Monday before a military commission.
There are some 275 other detainees at Guantánamo Bay who the Supreme Court ruled also have the right to challenge their detentions in civil court.
In laying out a six-point plan for responding to the court ruling, Mr. Mukasey said the federal courts would become clogged with inconsistent and unwieldy appeals from the Guantánamo prisoners unless Congress acted quickly to set clear rules for how to proceed.
He said all the appeals should be consolidated in a single court, probably the district court in Washington. Prisoners should not be allowed to physically attend the appeal hearings in the United States, he said, but they could view the proceedings from a secure video link from Guantánamo — a comment that appeared to signal that the administration plans to keep the base open for the time being.
The courts should also not be allowed to release a prisoner into the United States if he is cleared, he said. And the proceedings should not be allowed to delay the military commission trials at Guantánamo Bay, with some 20 prisoners now awaiting trial for war crimes and others expected to be tried later. Only after those trials are completed should prisoners be able to appeal their detentions to the civilian courts, the attorney general said.
Meanwhile, civil liberties advocates representing some of the Guantánamo detainees were quick to attack the principles laid out in Mr. Mukasey’s plan.
“What Mukasey is doing is a shocking attempt to drag us into years of further legal challenges and delays,” said Vincent Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has led many of the legal challenges over Guantánamo. “The Supreme Court has definitively spoken, and there is no need for congressional intervention,” he said, adding that the courts should now be allowed to take up the cases. After a major setback in the Supreme Court last month, the Bush administration urged Congress on Monday to work out a plan for allowin... more -
Court Backs Bush on Military Detentions
"President Bush has the legal power to order the indefinite military detentions of civilians captured in the United States, the federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled on Tuesday in a fractured 5-to-4 decision...
The court effectively reversed a divided three-judge panel of its own members, which ruled last year that the government lacked the power to detain civilians legally in the United States as enemy combatants. That panel ordered the government either to charge Mr. Marri or to release him. The case is likely to reach the Supreme Court."
Indefinite military detentions of civilians captured in the US? Slippery slope or protection? [yes, i had to find the goofiest pic of bush possible!] "President Bush has the legal power to order the indefinite military detentions of civilians captured in the United States, the federa... more -
US court forced to make law against sex with corpse
Wisconsin law bans sex with dead bodies, the state Supreme Court ruled today (July 10) in reinstating charges against three men accused of digging up a corpse so one of them could have sex with it.
Wisconsin law bans sex with dead bodies, the state Supreme Court ruled today (July 10) in reinstating charges against three men accuse... more -
Obama: drifting to the right?
Recently, Obama has been praising several conservative court decisions in his effort to appeal to the American center. He frequently uses the Bill of Rights as one of his crucial tools and the article goes on to explain what Obama's tactics are and why. The article suggests that because Obama is campaigning as a visionary, he should carry that over into "how he talks about the Constitution and the Supreme Court rather than falling back into careful, hyper-technical law professor mode." It concludes: "By meandering to the right on some of the most important provisions in the Bill of Rights while mumbling about appointing judges who rule based on their "own perspectives," he risks alienating both groups and weakening the Constitution right along with his political prospects." Recently, Obama has been praising several conservative court decisions in his effort to appeal to the American center. He frequently u... more
-
Guns in the USA
'Gun rights' activists have won a controversial ruling in the US supreme court, which overturned a previous handgun ban in Washington DC.
The controversy surrounds the interpretation of the second amendment to the United States Constitution, which states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The motion was passed after the court ruled for the first time that "the Constitution confers an individual right to gun ownership", and critically that this right goes, "beyond providing for "a well regulated Militia", as the amendment states."
Part of the voting majority (which won on a narrow margin of 5-4), 'arch-conservative' Justice Antonin Scalia, wrote, however that the ruling "is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." While this may superficially appear to be detrimental to gun restriction movements, Dennis Henigan, a vice-president at the Brady Centre to Prevent Gun Violence, believes that the ruling indicated that "regulation of guns ... is entirely permissible." and that "The ruling gives a constitutional green light to a wide range of gun restrictions.".
The importance of the ruling however, is not simply a case of gun control, but specifically of the banning of guns, and it is the failure of the court to endorse this specifically that worries some; with Richard Daley, mayor of Chicago, calling the ruling "a very frightening decision".
Other senior figures, such as Justice John Paul Stevens of the voting minority, criticised the majority for "its expansive reading of the amendment's "ambiguous" text." The wording of the amendment is obviously outdated: the days of Militias in the US are obviously over; the term being a relic of the time when such armaments were commonplace.
By ignoring the significance of the "Militia" part of the amendment, the Court has made it a "constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes". The logical progression from the apparent choice to interpret the second part of the amendment separately is to pose the obvious question: if part of the amendment can be ignored, why not all of it?
Responses from those in the know about American politics would be welcome.
'Gun rights' activists have won a controversial ruling in the US supreme court, which overturned a previous handgun ban in Washington ... more -
Court: Exorcism is protected by Law
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday threw out a jury award over injuries a 17-year-old girl suffered in an exorcism conducted by members of her old church, ruling that the case unconstitutionally entangled the court in religious matters.
Laura Schubert testified in 2002 that she was cut and bruised and later experienced hallucinations after the church members' actions in 1996, when she was 17. Schubert said she was pinned to the floor for hours and received carpet burns during the exorcism, the Austin American-Statesman reported. She also said the incident led her to mutilate herself and attempt suicide. She eventually sought psychiatric help.
But the church's attorneys had told jurors that her psychological problems were caused by traumatic events she witnessed with her missionary parents in Africa. The church contended she "freaked out" about following her father's life as a missionary and was acting out to gain attention.
Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson, in a dissenting opinion, stated "The First Amendment guards religious liberty; it does not sanction intentional abuse in religion's name."
The Texas Supreme Court on Friday threw out a jury award over injuries a 17-year-old girl suffered in an exorcism conducted by members... more -
Glen Beck: Kill Gitmo Suspects
GLENN BECK: We're going to shoot them all in the head. If we think that they are against us, we're going to shoot them and kill them, period. GLENN BECK: We're going to shoot them all in the head. If we think that they are against us, we're going to shoot them and kill them, ... more
-
McCain against Roe v. Wade & Comprehensive Sex-ed
John McCain has a 0% rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund because he has consistently voted against women's reproductive rights.
Once again it becomes clear that John McCain's policies are identical to Bush's.
He is opposed to Roe v. Wade and has said that he would like to see it overturned.
He's against Comprehensive Sexual Education and only supports "abstinence-only" education which has been proven to be ineffective and is often tied to bringing religion, and misinformation about sex into the classroom.
He's against making birth control affordable by means of requiring insurance companies to cover it.
Do Americans know enough about John McCain's extreme positions on this critical issues?
Is McCain any different from Bush on reproductive health or a disrespect for the Constitution and the right to privacy?
Take the Bush-McCain challenge and quiz by watching this video and decide for yourself if McCain is really the "maverick" he's cracked up to be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Z4dxjRv4g
What do you think?
John McCain has a 0% rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund because he has consistently voted against women's reproductive rig... more -
Supreme Court clings to guns and Constitution
For the first time in history, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a definitive ruling on the right of Americans to own guns. A five-to-four majority of the court ruled that individual citizens have the right to own firearms, and in the process it struck down a 32-year-old ban on handguns in the nation's capital, Washington, D.C. VOA National Correspondent Jim Malone has more on the high court's landmark ruling from Washington.
Writing for the five-member court majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does protect the rights of individuals to own firearms for personal use.
Legal scholars have long debated whether the Second Amendment guaranteed the right of individuals to possess firearms, or if it merely applied to state militias.
Attorney Alan Gura says the high court's historic ruling makes it clear that individuals do have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Gura represented a Washington, D.C. resident who wanted the city's 32-year-old ban on handguns struck down.
"People do have an individual right to keep and bear arms, that is very important to remember. That means that the government cannot ban handguns, it cannot regulate guns out of existence. We feel today is a fantastic day for liberty once again," Gura said.
Gura represented security guard Dick Heller. Heller lives in a high-crime section of Washington and challenged the city's handgun ban so he could defend himself.
Among those welcoming the high court's decision was President Bush. The White House issued a statement saying the president strongly agrees with the court's majority opinion.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain also praised the decision as a landmark victory for freedom in the United States.
Democratic candidate Barack Obama issued a statement that said the court decision will provide guidance to local communities trying to balance the rights of gun owners with the need to protect citizens in high crime areas of the country.
Gun control advocates were disappointed but not surprised by the Supreme Court ruling. 'We are obviously disappointed and disagree with the majority opinion. This takes off the idea that you can have a near total ban on guns, especially guns for self-defense,' said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence. But Helmke noted that in his majority opinion, Justice Scalia said that although the court recognizes an individual right to bear arms, that right is not unlimited.
In his opinion, Scalia said the ruling should not be used to cast doubt on existing gun control laws that keep guns out of the hands of convicted criminals and the mentally ill, and prevent weapons from being carried into schools and government buildings.
The high court last took up the issue of the Second Amendment and gun ownership in 1939, but legal scholars say the court at that time did not directly settle the question of whether individual citizens have a right to bear arms.
For the first time in history, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a definitive ruling on the right of Americans to own guns. A five-to-... more -
High court strikes down gun ban
The Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.”
From Justice Scalia’s Decision
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Washington D.C.'s sweeping ban on handguns is unconstitutional.
The justices voted 5-4 against the ban with Justice Antonin Scalia writing the opinion for the majority.
At issue in District of Columbia v. Heller was whether the city's ban violated the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" by preventing individuals -- as opposed to state militias -- from having guns in their homes.
District of Columbia officials argued they had the responsibility to impose "reasonable" weapons restrictions to reduce violent crime, but several Washingtonians challenged the 32-year-old law. Some said they had been constant victims of crimes and needed guns for protection.
In March, two women went before the justices with starkly different opinions on the handgun ban.
Shelly Parker told the court she is a single woman who has been threatened by drug dealers in her Washington neighborhood.
Don't Miss
"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said, explaining she told police she had an alarm, bars on her windows and a dog.
End Excerpt
Full Article at CNN The Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” ... more -
Obama condemns Supreme Court decision in child rape case
Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision today striking down the use of the death penalty in cases of child rape.
Barack Obama speaks with reporters during a news conference in Chicago Wednesday. (AP)
“I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes,” Obama told reporters at a press conference in Chicago.
The expected Democratic nominee said he believed the rape of a child “is a heinous crime” that fits the circumstance, siding with the four conservative justices who sit on the court, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision today striking down the use of the death penalty in cases of child rape. ... more -
Justices cut damages award in Exxon Valdez spill
The Supreme Court on Wednesday slashed the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million.
-
Justices Cut Damages Award in Exxon Valdez Spill
Once again, the most profitable company in America gets a gentle slap on the wrist for their catastrophic oil spill in Alaska. Pitiful.
The worst? The Supreme Court was divided on its decision, 5-3, with Justice Samuel Alito taking no part in the case because he owns Exxon stock. Once again, the most profitable company in America gets a gentle slap on the wrist for their catastrophic oil spill in Alaska. Pitiful... more -
Supreme Court rejects death penality for raping a child
The Supreme Court on Wednesday outlawed executions of people convicted of raping a child. In a 5-4 vote, the court said the Louisiana law allowing the death penalty to be imposed in such cases violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday outlawed executions of people convicted of raping a child. In a 5-4 vote, the court said the Louisiana ... more -
Supreme Court slashes '89 Exxon oil spill victim payments, Alito owns Exxon stock
The Supreme Court on Wednesday slashed the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million.
The court ruled that victims of the worst oil spill in U.S. history may collect punitive damages from Exxon Mobil Corp., but not as much as a federal appeals court determined...
...The Supreme Court divided on its decision, 5-3, with Justice Samuel Alito taking no part in the case because he owns Exxon stock... The Supreme Court on Wednesday slashed the $2.5 billion punitive damages award in the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster to $500 million. ... more -
Supreme Court: Dead victim's prior statements can't be used at trial
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a convicted killer deserves a new trial because jurors heard testimony that should have been excluded. His ex-girlfriend made the statements shortly before he killed her.
The justices, in a 6-3 vote, reaffirmed the rights of criminal defendants to confront witnesses against them, even in cases where the defendant is responsible for the witness' absence.
The issue arose in the case of Dwayne Giles, arrested in the shooting death of Brenda Avie in 2002, several weeks after she told police that Giles had assaulted her and threatened to kill her.
Justice Antonin Scalia said in his majority opinion that domestic violence, though "an intolerable offense," does not justify "abridging the rights of criminal defendants."
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the court should have ruled that defendants forfeit their constitutional right to confront witnesses when they are responsible for the witness' absence from trial. Wednesday's ruling, Breyer said, "grants the defendant not fair treatment, but a windfall."
Domestic violence experts said they feared a ruling for Giles would dissuade victims from going to authorities and make it harder to convict offenders.
The ruling does not alter the admissibility of a victim's prior statements when a defendant kills someone to prevent him from testifying. In that case, the earlier statements may be used
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a convicted killer deserves a new trial because jurors heard testimony that should have been ex... more -
Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape
By DAVID STOUT - NY Times
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, on Wednesday that sentencing someone to death for raping a child is unconstitutional, assuming that the victim is not killed.
“The death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the court. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
The court overturned a ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court, which had held that child rape is unique in the harm it inflicts not just upon the victim but on society and that, short of first-degree murder, no crime is more deserving of the death penalty.
Justice Kennedy, while in no way minimizing the heinous nature of child rape, wrote that executing someone for that crime, assuming that the victim was not killed, violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Moreover, Justice Kennedy wrote, sentencing someone to death for raping a child could have terrible, unintended consequences, given the years that typically go by between a crime and the execution of the defendant.
“Society’s desire to inflict death for child rape by enlisting the child victim to assist it over the course of years in asking for capital punishment forces a moral choice on the child, who is not of mature age to make that choice,” Justice Kennedy wrote.
The dissenters were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., generally regarded as the conservative wing of the tribunal."
...
"As for the case at hand, Juliet L. Clark, an assistant district attorney from Gretna, La., countered that Mr. Kennedy, who weighs 300 pounds, had committed “a very savage rape” that caused serious injuries to his victim. And R. Ted Cruz, the Solicitor General for the State of Texas, who argued as a “friend of the court” on the side of Louisiana, said that Mr. Kennedy (like Mr. Davis, the other child-rape defendant on Louisiana’s death row) had “committed crimes that are just unspeakable.”" By DAVID STOUT - NY Times ... more -
Exxon Wins. You lose
The Supreme Court has again sided with Giant Corporations over the interests of the lesser people. The 2.5 Billion judgement against Exxon was considered excessive. To put that in perspective, 2.5 billion is about 2 DAYS worth of income for Exxon!
The Supreme Court has again sided with Giant Corporations over the interests of the lesser people. The 2.5 Billion judgement against ... more -
Border Fence Challenge Rebuffed
The government's plan to build a 670-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border took another step forward Monday when the Supreme Court turned away a legal challenge from environmentalists.
The court's action clears the way for U.S. officials to press ahead with the project with little worry that judges will be able to stop it.
Three years ago, Congress gave Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff an unusual power to "waive all legal requirements" that could stand in the way of building the fence. These requirements included the nation's environmental protection laws. The same congressional action took away the authority of judges to review Chertoff's decisions.
Last year, after Chertoff waived at least 20 laws and regulations to complete a section of the fence in Arizona, two environmental groups sued. They said it was unconstitutional to give a Cabinet secretary such sweeping power.
But a federal judge rejected that claim. And on Monday the Supreme Court without comment declined to hear a petition submitted by Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club.
The high court's refusal is not a ruling, and it doesn't mean the justices won't reconsider the issue. But for now, Chertoff and his department have the go-ahead to proceed with the fence. Nearly half the barrier has been built.
Oliver Bernstein, a spokesman for the Sierra Club in Austin, Texas, called the court's action "unfortunate."
"This decision leaves one man -- the secretary of the Homeland Security -- with the extraordinary power to ignore any and all of the laws designed to protect the American people, our lands and our natural resources," Bernstein said. "Today's decision will allow the DHS to continue to waive key health, environmental and safety laws that have protected communities, wildlife, archaeological, historic and cultural resources."
Fourteen House Democrats and a group of law professors had urged the Supreme Court to take the case. They agreed with the environmentalists that it was unprecedented to give a Cabinet member so much power while also stripping judges of the authority to review the legality of his actions.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a proponent of the law, called the court's action "a victory for the American people" and a milestone toward finishing the barrier.
"According to recent estimates, nearly half a million illegal immigrants cross the border annually," Smith said. "The court's refusal to hear the case . . . ensures that the DHS can carry out Congress' mandate to build a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border without legal restrictions or interference from environmentalists."
The project still faces legal challenges from landowners and tribal groups. It is unclear whether judges have the authority to act on such claims. The government's plan to build a 670-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border took another step forward Monday when the Supreme Court t... more -
Navy v. dolphins: Supreme Court to hear battle over sonar
The Supreme Court will settle a fight that pits Southern California dolphins against the U.S. military.
In a closely watched case involving national security and the natural environment, the court agreed to review restrictions on the Navy's use of sonar off the California coast. The Bush administration contends that the sonar rules, meant to protect marine mammals, hinder military preparedness.
"The chief of naval operations determined ... that those restrictions unacceptably risk naval training, the timely deployment of (naval) strike groups and national security," Acting Solicitor General Gregory Garre said in a legal filing.
The California Coastal Commission and environmental groups worry about sonar's potentially destructive impact in a 120,000-square-nautical-mile training area that extends from Santa Catalina Island in the north to Mexico's Guadalupe Island in the south. A federal judge agreed and imposed the strict rules that the Bush administration now is challenging.
One rule requires the Navy to shut down its sonar when a marine mammal comes within 2,200 yards of a sonar source. Another requires the Navy to reduce sonar power during certain ocean conditions. The active sonar also is banned within 12 miles off the California coast.
"The imposition of these measures is not likely to prevent effective training," the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concluded in February, adding that "irreparable harm to marine mammals will almost certainly result should the Navy be permitted to conduct its remaining exercises without appropriate mitigation measures."
The Supreme Court's decision to take up the case, announced Monday, means that at least four justices agreed to review the lower court's decision. That's notably good news for the Bush administration.
The court, dominated by Republican appointees, often defers to the Pentagon's judgment on military matters. The court is also in the habit of overturning the 9th Circuit. The Supreme Court has reversed the 9th Circuit in seven cases and upheld it only once this year, according to statistics compiled by scotusblog.com.
The Supreme Court will settle a fight that pits Southern California dolphins against the U.S. military. ... more
-
related topics
Supreme Court
Contributors (392)
Supreme Court
