‘There’s no difference between a white snake and a black snake. They’ll both bite’
- the late Justice Thurgood Marshall, 1991
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s shameless, in-your-face, violation of judicial ethics cries out for a better way to choose justices and keep them accountable.
Literally, he is above the law that spells out ethics rules for federal judges who serve on the lower courts, but he should have known better than to get so cozy with Harlan Crow, a major donor to conservative causes and real-estate magnate from Dallas.
When he announced his retirement in 1991, the legendary Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall accurately predicted that President Bush (the elder one) might replace him with another African-American nominee who would betray the primary aspirations of the black community.
After Marshall called his then-generic successor a “black snake” during his retirement announcement, Thomas’s tenure openly mocked Marshall’s lifelong struggle to advocate for the concerns of the black community, not to mention concerns that affect all Americans.
Thomas is the product of a system that protects Supreme Court justices from any reasonable accountability and was selected through a literally undemocratic process.
To be clear, Thomas and his eight colleagues on the Supreme Court are not bound by the code of conduct for federal judges on grounds that a panel of judges who rank below the justices is charged with enforcing said code.
Maybe that’s why Thomas felt free to flout the code’s provision requiring that judges “should not personally participate” in raising funds for charitable initiatives. Authors of the code were concerned that contributors might feel pressured to donate or entitled to favored treatment by the judge, and judges are not supposed to be aware of who contributes to projects which honor them.
The New York Times’s Mike McIntire chronicled a series of instances which has or might have compromised Thomas’s performance on the court. (nyt, fp, 6/19/11)
Thomas violated the code for federal judges by seeking Crow’s help in financing the multi-million-dollar purchase and restoration of a former seafood cannery in Pin Point, Ga., where his mother was employed. Thomas has made it a pet project to establish a museum about the culture and history of Pin Point.
According to the Times, this venture began a few years before when Thomas encountered Algernon Varn, whose grandfather operated the cannery, during a visit to Pin Point, the justice’s birthplace near Savannah. Thomas asked about plans for the property and Varn said he wanted to preserve it. The justice then informed Varn of a friend he would “put you in touch with.” That friend is Crow, who consented to provide financial support.
Deborah L. Rhode, a Stanford University law professor, told the Times that Thomas “should not be directly involved in fund-raising activities, no matter how worthy they are whether he’s being centrally honored by the museum.”
At Common Cause, attorney Arn Pearson said, “The code of conduct is quite clear that judges are not supposed to be soliciting money for their pet projects or charities, period. If any other federal judge was doing that, he could face disciplinary action.”
The plot thickens. Thomas was the lone dissenter in 2006 when the Project on Fair Representation challenged federal voting rights laws. The project is sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, and Crow is an AEI trustee.
In 2001, AEI presented Thomas with a bust of Abraham Lincoln valued at $15,000 and praised his judicial performance at an awards gala. The suit was litigated - pro bono - by a former clerk for Thomas.
Such a cozy circle.
MSNBC TV host Rachel Maddow - expanding on the Times piece - listed eight cases in which Thomas voted in favor of positions taken by organizations tied to Crow.
According to the Times, Crow has hosted Thomas aboard his 161-foot yacht and his private jet, at his California retreat and at his 105-acre summer estate in the Adirondacks.
Crow also reportedly contributed $500,000 to the founding of Liberty Central, a tea party-affiliated group launched by Virginia Thomas, wife of the justice.
Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer testified before Congress in April 2011 that they follow the code of conduct. Is that good enough?
More than 100 law professors urged Congress last February 2011 to impose the ethics code on Supreme Court justices. Legislation to address this concern was introduced.
Deeper systemic issues fuel the potential for abuse. Two clauses in the Constitution align to allow the possibility for justices to be appointed by a minority of voters.
Because a president is not subject to the popular vote, s/he can be elected by a minority. A majority of senators must confirm judicial nominees, but such a majority vote does not necessarily represent the majority of the people because each state - no matter how low their population -- is represented by the same number of senators. A justice can be confirmed by senators representing the 26 least populous states.
President Bush did not win the popular election in 2000, but he won the majority in 2004 before nominating Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. President Clinton never won a majority in either election because of third-party candidates; he nominated Breyer and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The framers of the Constitution invited trouble by creating lifetime tenure for the justices’ positions. Of course, this provision should preclude the justices from ruling on cases in which they might later have ties to some of the parties involved.
The framers might have expected that only honorable people would reach such a lofty position after struggling through law school, practicing law for many years and earning the trust of the president and the majority of the Senate.
Thomas would hardly be the first to blow this theory apart. Justice Abe Fortas resigned in 1969 because he accepted money from a convicted financier while on the court. Justice James Clark McReynolds - a racist, sexist and anti-Semite - snubbed Justice Louis Brandeis, the first Jew to join the court.
Besides, plenty of judges retire while still in their professional prime and use their past connections to return to the practice of law or find other jobs.
The system must be reconsidered. The American people, through our political leaders, must ensure that only the best people are elevated to the court and keep them honest.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Sunday, June 26, 2011
The Supreme Court's English impatience
At least three U.S. Supreme Court justices are emerging as sticklers for the English language, a practice that could one day boomerang on them.
Adam Liptak, New York Times correspondent at the court, reported on June 14 2011 how justices are incorporating dictionary definitions into their legal opinions. This past May, Liptak reported, the justices cited dictionaries in eight cases to figure out what lawmakers meant in using such words as “prevent,” “delay” and “report.” He added that in the decade starting in October 2000, the justices used dictionaries to define 295 words or phrases in 225 opinions, as chronicled in a Marquette Law Review study.
Maybe the court adds injury to insult each time it overturns an inferior court’s ruling. Inferior? No typo, or rather, no error of ink. Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution reads: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold…”
The 19th Amendment can be read a few different ways: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
As in a sporting event, does this mean a citizen’s right to vote cannot be called “on account of…?” How does Congress enforce this amendment? Perhaps the 19th Amendment can stand amending with one word: Substitute “gender” for “sex.”
Liptak focused on Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Clarence Thomas as dictionary aficionados. Breyer is recognized as a member of the court’s liberal bloc while Roberts and Thomas are considered conservatives.
Jessie Sheidlower, editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary, told Liptak, “Dictionary definitions are written with a lot of things in mind, but rigorously circumscribing the exact meanings and connotations of terms is not usually one of them.”
Liptak reported that in 2006 J. Gordon Christy, a professor at the Mississippi College School of Law, wrote in The Mississippi Law Journal, “We are treated to the truly absurd spectacle of august justices and judges arguing over which unreliable dictionary and which unreliable dictionary definition should be deemed authoritative.”
Which brings us to the mother, no pun intended, of all legal and social issues that plagues the Supreme Court in perpetuity, so to speak. Opponents of abortion make a career of stretching semantics by dubbing themselves “pro-life” and insisting that “life” begins at “conception.” Wording employed by those who support the right to anabortion has never confused me.
One can find a range of definitions for “life” and “birth,” but none are synonymous with “conception.” One Merriam-Webster definition of life: “The period from birth to death.” Two M-W versions of birth: “The emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent,” and “the act or process of bringing young from the womb.”
If a same-sex marriage case reaches the Supreme Court, how will “marriage” be defined? One Web site maintains gender-neutral definitions and another limits marriage as an institution for a man and a woman. Merriam-Webster tries to have it both ways: “(1): The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.”
Sounds like grist for a split decision.
Adam Liptak, New York Times correspondent at the court, reported on June 14 2011 how justices are incorporating dictionary definitions into their legal opinions. This past May, Liptak reported, the justices cited dictionaries in eight cases to figure out what lawmakers meant in using such words as “prevent,” “delay” and “report.” He added that in the decade starting in October 2000, the justices used dictionaries to define 295 words or phrases in 225 opinions, as chronicled in a Marquette Law Review study.
Maybe the court adds injury to insult each time it overturns an inferior court’s ruling. Inferior? No typo, or rather, no error of ink. Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution reads: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold…”
The 19th Amendment can be read a few different ways: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
As in a sporting event, does this mean a citizen’s right to vote cannot be called “on account of…?” How does Congress enforce this amendment? Perhaps the 19th Amendment can stand amending with one word: Substitute “gender” for “sex.”
Liptak focused on Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Clarence Thomas as dictionary aficionados. Breyer is recognized as a member of the court’s liberal bloc while Roberts and Thomas are considered conservatives.
Jessie Sheidlower, editor at large of the Oxford English Dictionary, told Liptak, “Dictionary definitions are written with a lot of things in mind, but rigorously circumscribing the exact meanings and connotations of terms is not usually one of them.”
Liptak reported that in 2006 J. Gordon Christy, a professor at the Mississippi College School of Law, wrote in The Mississippi Law Journal, “We are treated to the truly absurd spectacle of august justices and judges arguing over which unreliable dictionary and which unreliable dictionary definition should be deemed authoritative.”
Which brings us to the mother, no pun intended, of all legal and social issues that plagues the Supreme Court in perpetuity, so to speak. Opponents of abortion make a career of stretching semantics by dubbing themselves “pro-life” and insisting that “life” begins at “conception.” Wording employed by those who support the right to anabortion has never confused me.
One can find a range of definitions for “life” and “birth,” but none are synonymous with “conception.” One Merriam-Webster definition of life: “The period from birth to death.” Two M-W versions of birth: “The emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent,” and “the act or process of bringing young from the womb.”
If a same-sex marriage case reaches the Supreme Court, how will “marriage” be defined? One Web site maintains gender-neutral definitions and another limits marriage as an institution for a man and a woman. Merriam-Webster tries to have it both ways: “(1): The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.”
Sounds like grist for a split decision.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Christie's helicopter
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s helicopter ride to his son’s baseball game is perfectly justified. He could not afford the commuter rail fares charged by New Jersey Transit.
The current fares were set by the NJT board a few months after Christie took office because the new governor would not raise the money t forestall the change.
The fare schedule did not increase but moved into the stratosphere. As a daytripper to New York City, I noticed the fares creeping up over the years. I understood that fares would likely rise again, but I could not understand a near 50 percent hike. On April 30, 2010, the round-trip fare from Trenton to Penn Station in Manhattan was $21.50. The next day, the cost was $31.
Philadelphians who ride the SEPTA train to Trenton and NJT to NYC spent $37.50 round-trip from center city until April 30, 2010. That round trip spiked the next day and rose even higher the following August due to a slight SEPTA increase. It now costs $48.50.
The NJT board simultaneously eliminated the discounted round trips on all lines and raised single rail fares 25 percent. While rate increases are unpopular no matter how low, a 50 percent hike is shameful.
I generally do not have difficulty with a governor who uses a helicopter for personal use on occasion. A governor’s schedule makes it difficult to attend to both state business and family affairs. Despite his politics, Christie should be commended for being a good father.
Too bad he treats many of fellow New Jerseyans far differently than his children. He entered office with a let-them-eat-cake attitude in which he slashed programs right and left while eliminating a tax on millionaires and refusing to raise the gas tax.
In less than four months, NJT fares skyrocketed. I found myself paying much higher fares for day trips from Philadelphia to NYC.
I might not feel so ruffled if the fare increases were more reasonable, as they have been with SEPTA in Philadelphia and the MTA in New York. However, what Christie did with train fares, schools and other programs was plain nasty.
Connecticut’s state legislature voted to spread the pain evenly. They raised taxes along with making cuts and seeking union concessions.
Maybe Christie can conside taking the train at time instead of car or helicopter when it is convenient. Amtrak can take him straight to Newark and New York with few stops. Ten of NJT’s 11 rail lines run through northern New Jersey, including stations close to his home in Morris County.
A train trip to his son’s ballgame in Montvale might have been time-consuming, but the game site is located between two train stations serving different NJT lines that Christie could have accessed originating from Trenton.
Christie responded to the the helicopter flap by announcing that he and the Republican Party reimbursed the state $3,300 for his use of the helicopter, operated by the state police, to visit the Montvale game and another near his home in Mendham, The New York Times reported.
Without apologizing, Christie reacted with his usual touch of class: “I am not going to allow the media and the hacks in the Democratic Party to turn this into something that allows them to do what they always like to do, which is get away from serious issues where you have to make hard choices for things that matter, because they want to have a circus.”
He also lashed out at Bergen County Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle who said that leaving the game in the fifth inning for the political meeting “says something about the governor’s priorities.” His reply: “She should really be embarrassed at what a jerk she is.”
Huttle later told a New York Daily News reporter, “I’m not surprised given his pattern of using abusive language towards tose who disagree with him.”
The current fares were set by the NJT board a few months after Christie took office because the new governor would not raise the money t forestall the change.
The fare schedule did not increase but moved into the stratosphere. As a daytripper to New York City, I noticed the fares creeping up over the years. I understood that fares would likely rise again, but I could not understand a near 50 percent hike. On April 30, 2010, the round-trip fare from Trenton to Penn Station in Manhattan was $21.50. The next day, the cost was $31.
Philadelphians who ride the SEPTA train to Trenton and NJT to NYC spent $37.50 round-trip from center city until April 30, 2010. That round trip spiked the next day and rose even higher the following August due to a slight SEPTA increase. It now costs $48.50.
The NJT board simultaneously eliminated the discounted round trips on all lines and raised single rail fares 25 percent. While rate increases are unpopular no matter how low, a 50 percent hike is shameful.
I generally do not have difficulty with a governor who uses a helicopter for personal use on occasion. A governor’s schedule makes it difficult to attend to both state business and family affairs. Despite his politics, Christie should be commended for being a good father.
Too bad he treats many of fellow New Jerseyans far differently than his children. He entered office with a let-them-eat-cake attitude in which he slashed programs right and left while eliminating a tax on millionaires and refusing to raise the gas tax.
In less than four months, NJT fares skyrocketed. I found myself paying much higher fares for day trips from Philadelphia to NYC.
I might not feel so ruffled if the fare increases were more reasonable, as they have been with SEPTA in Philadelphia and the MTA in New York. However, what Christie did with train fares, schools and other programs was plain nasty.
Connecticut’s state legislature voted to spread the pain evenly. They raised taxes along with making cuts and seeking union concessions.
Maybe Christie can conside taking the train at time instead of car or helicopter when it is convenient. Amtrak can take him straight to Newark and New York with few stops. Ten of NJT’s 11 rail lines run through northern New Jersey, including stations close to his home in Morris County.
A train trip to his son’s ballgame in Montvale might have been time-consuming, but the game site is located between two train stations serving different NJT lines that Christie could have accessed originating from Trenton.
Christie responded to the the helicopter flap by announcing that he and the Republican Party reimbursed the state $3,300 for his use of the helicopter, operated by the state police, to visit the Montvale game and another near his home in Mendham, The New York Times reported.
Without apologizing, Christie reacted with his usual touch of class: “I am not going to allow the media and the hacks in the Democratic Party to turn this into something that allows them to do what they always like to do, which is get away from serious issues where you have to make hard choices for things that matter, because they want to have a circus.”
He also lashed out at Bergen County Assemblywoman Valerie Vainieri Huttle who said that leaving the game in the fifth inning for the political meeting “says something about the governor’s priorities.” His reply: “She should really be embarrassed at what a jerk she is.”
Huttle later told a New York Daily News reporter, “I’m not surprised given his pattern of using abusive language towards tose who disagree with him.”
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Congressman Ryan's Medicare panic attack
Paul Ryan should be proud to advocate a plan that is described as a voucher.
If vouchers are good enough for children, why aren’t they good enough for the elderly? Oops! Those under 55 who will be elderly.
Ryan, who represents a congressional district in southeastern Wisconsin, insisted during a private White House meeting on Thursday, June 1, 2011, that President Obama cease and desist from distorting his Medicare plan. It is not a “voucher” system, it is “premium support,” he corrected.
Ryan should plead with Obama to distort it. The truth, as they say, could set you - a load of congressional Republicans - free…from their jobs in 2012, that is. The truth will hurt them.
What Ryan did at that meeting is as significant as Anthony Weiner’s antics. In fact, it was more important before news broke that Weiner texted a 17-year-old student in Delaware. Ryan’s initiative would drastically transform arguably the government’s most popular program.
Ryan showed us that he cannot stick to his position. What’s more, he openly injected politics into a session at a government facility.
Ryan recalled telling Obama: “It’s been misdescribed by the president and many others. I just said…that if we ‘demagogue each other at the leadership level, then we’re never going to take on our debt,’” as reported in The Washington Post.
His Medicare proposal would mainly subsidize citizens presently under 55 in private insurance plans rather than have the federal government continue to insure elderly Americans.
He maintained that this constitutes “premium support,” not the dreaded “voucher,” even though Republicans trumpet “school vouchers” so that children can avoid public schools.
Ryan’s statement won him a standing ovation from other House Republicans who joined him for the meeting.
Obama’s reply: “I’m the death panel-supporting, socialist, may-not-have-been-born-here president.” (from the Tribune Washington bureau.)
“It is a voucher plan,” added Obama spokesman Jay Carney, as quoted in the New York Times. “If you’re basically giving a subsidy of a set dollar figure that’s limited in terms of its growth and that won’t stay up with the growth in medical costs, I mean, that’s - you’re basically getting a certain amount of money to put towards buying insurance.”
Ryan proved on the first of June that he has no spine. It is a fundamental rule of life that if a person sets out on a course of action, one must stay with it and be fully willing to defend it. If you recognize that it is not working, then admit you are wrong and give it up.
I could respect Ryan if he admitted making a mistake, but he had to turn on the spin spigot when the Democrats turned the Medicare plan into a forceful campaign issue. In fact, his Medicare plan is now official House legislation, though it was subsequently rejected by the Senate.
Ryan may not believe in what he is doing. If he did, he would be grateful for the opportunity to defend it. Once attacks on his plan overwhelmed his party’s colleagues, he decided to scold the president for “misdescribing” the plan.
In the process, he openly injected campaign electioneering during the meeting inside a public facility, namely the White House. While everything in Washington is inherently political, public officials there usually do not engage in campaign tactics in any direct way during official or semi-official meetings.
Ryan’s plea was directly related to the 2012 election, when voters are expected to punish Republican incumbents in large measure because of Ryan’s Medicare plan. He plainly hoped that Democrats would lay off so that more Republicans will keep their jobs.
Obama did not lay off and we will be surprised if Democrats neglect to remind voters of Ryan’s idea of “premium supports.”
Now whose the wiener?
If vouchers are good enough for children, why aren’t they good enough for the elderly? Oops! Those under 55 who will be elderly.
Ryan, who represents a congressional district in southeastern Wisconsin, insisted during a private White House meeting on Thursday, June 1, 2011, that President Obama cease and desist from distorting his Medicare plan. It is not a “voucher” system, it is “premium support,” he corrected.
Ryan should plead with Obama to distort it. The truth, as they say, could set you - a load of congressional Republicans - free…from their jobs in 2012, that is. The truth will hurt them.
What Ryan did at that meeting is as significant as Anthony Weiner’s antics. In fact, it was more important before news broke that Weiner texted a 17-year-old student in Delaware. Ryan’s initiative would drastically transform arguably the government’s most popular program.
Ryan showed us that he cannot stick to his position. What’s more, he openly injected politics into a session at a government facility.
Ryan recalled telling Obama: “It’s been misdescribed by the president and many others. I just said…that if we ‘demagogue each other at the leadership level, then we’re never going to take on our debt,’” as reported in The Washington Post.
His Medicare proposal would mainly subsidize citizens presently under 55 in private insurance plans rather than have the federal government continue to insure elderly Americans.
He maintained that this constitutes “premium support,” not the dreaded “voucher,” even though Republicans trumpet “school vouchers” so that children can avoid public schools.
Ryan’s statement won him a standing ovation from other House Republicans who joined him for the meeting.
Obama’s reply: “I’m the death panel-supporting, socialist, may-not-have-been-born-here president.” (from the Tribune Washington bureau.)
“It is a voucher plan,” added Obama spokesman Jay Carney, as quoted in the New York Times. “If you’re basically giving a subsidy of a set dollar figure that’s limited in terms of its growth and that won’t stay up with the growth in medical costs, I mean, that’s - you’re basically getting a certain amount of money to put towards buying insurance.”
Ryan proved on the first of June that he has no spine. It is a fundamental rule of life that if a person sets out on a course of action, one must stay with it and be fully willing to defend it. If you recognize that it is not working, then admit you are wrong and give it up.
I could respect Ryan if he admitted making a mistake, but he had to turn on the spin spigot when the Democrats turned the Medicare plan into a forceful campaign issue. In fact, his Medicare plan is now official House legislation, though it was subsequently rejected by the Senate.
Ryan may not believe in what he is doing. If he did, he would be grateful for the opportunity to defend it. Once attacks on his plan overwhelmed his party’s colleagues, he decided to scold the president for “misdescribing” the plan.
In the process, he openly injected campaign electioneering during the meeting inside a public facility, namely the White House. While everything in Washington is inherently political, public officials there usually do not engage in campaign tactics in any direct way during official or semi-official meetings.
Ryan’s plea was directly related to the 2012 election, when voters are expected to punish Republican incumbents in large measure because of Ryan’s Medicare plan. He plainly hoped that Democrats would lay off so that more Republicans will keep their jobs.
Obama did not lay off and we will be surprised if Democrats neglect to remind voters of Ryan’s idea of “premium supports.”
Now whose the wiener?
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Eighth Amendment
The act of upholding the Eighth Amendment now qualifies as “perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history.”
More wisdom from Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia while dissenting from a 5-4 decision that ordered the state of California to abide by a lower court ruling to release 46,000 inmates from state prisons.
Scalia and the other three dissenting justices raise legitimate concerns that the court order could lead to increased crime, but prison conditions there are so horrid that they constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The justices can read. The Eighth Amendment is so plain and simple that no citizen needs an attorney to explain it: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the May 23, 2011, majority opinion that care “falls below the standard of decency that inheres in the Eighth Amendment.” (I, a11, 5/24/11)
Overcrowding in California’s state’s prisons has already caused “needless suffering and death,” Kennedy added, according to Bloomsberg News. For at least 11 years, the prisons operated at double its design capacity.
He pointed out that up to 54 inmates could share a single toilet and that suicidal prisoners were held in cages the size of a telephone booth due to a shortage of treatment beds.
The New York Times even sent a reporter to a state prison in Chino, California, who wrote, “The rows of bunk beds, just a few inches apart, covered almost every empty space on the floor Tuesday afternoon. The gap between most beds allowed only the thinnest of inmates to stand comfortably.
“A few prisoners wandered around, but most simply rested on their thin mattresses, reading or dozing. As a rule, they go out in the yard just two or three times a week.”
Conditions have improved since 2006 when the suit was filed. The state has already started to comply with the original court order to reduce the the inmate population by 46,000 within two years, according to Bloomberg News. Advocates for the prisoners said that 32,000 more must be cut from the rolls.
Five justices - besides Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - recognized these conditions as violations of the Eighth Amendment, but that was not good enough for the other four justices.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the majority “is gambling with the safety” of California’s citizens. “I fear that today’s decision, like prior prisoner release orders, will lead to a grim roster of victims,” Alito wrote for himself and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Scalia wrote for Justice Clarence Thomas and himself when he cited “what is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history.”
Kennedy countered that the prison population can be reduced “in a manner calculated to avoid an undue negative effect on public safety.”
Kennedy was referring in part to plans to transfer tens of thousands of inmates to local prisons under legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last April, according to Bloomsberg News.
Alito and friends have a legitimate concern. This transformation of prisoners could well cause a spike in crime for Californians. We should be concerned about that. On a personal level, I have relatives in California.
But the Supreme Court deals with the law, not law enforcement. The dissenters were not questioning whether California prison overcrowding violates the Constitution, but how release of the inmates might affect the state’s crime rate.
Many people would conclude that the overcrowded conditions constitute “cruel and unusual punishment,” but whether or not it does, the justices should confine their opinions to the legality of the case.
Crime is the responsibility of the police and other law enforcement agencies. Of course, police departments have often been understaffed and now budget cuts are forcing extensive layoffs in police departments.
Interestingly, this is due in large measure to acts of Scalia’s ideological comrades. The president appointed by Scalia and friends in 2000 failed to avert the 9/11 attacks and led us into the disastrous Iraq war that diverted hundreds of billions of dollars from domestic needs; congressional Republicans are trying to rip apart Medicare and refuse to raise taxes for the rich; and new governors, mostly Republicans, are slashing services and reducing taxes for the wealthy.
For the record, Alito and Roberts were not on the bench when George W. Bush was elevated - not elected - to the presidency in 2000 by a 5-4 majority vote of the Supreme Court.
Scalia’s continued presence on the court may well constitute cruel and unusual punishment for the American people.
More wisdom from Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia while dissenting from a 5-4 decision that ordered the state of California to abide by a lower court ruling to release 46,000 inmates from state prisons.
Scalia and the other three dissenting justices raise legitimate concerns that the court order could lead to increased crime, but prison conditions there are so horrid that they constitute “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The justices can read. The Eighth Amendment is so plain and simple that no citizen needs an attorney to explain it: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the May 23, 2011, majority opinion that care “falls below the standard of decency that inheres in the Eighth Amendment.” (I, a11, 5/24/11)
Overcrowding in California’s state’s prisons has already caused “needless suffering and death,” Kennedy added, according to Bloomsberg News. For at least 11 years, the prisons operated at double its design capacity.
He pointed out that up to 54 inmates could share a single toilet and that suicidal prisoners were held in cages the size of a telephone booth due to a shortage of treatment beds.
The New York Times even sent a reporter to a state prison in Chino, California, who wrote, “The rows of bunk beds, just a few inches apart, covered almost every empty space on the floor Tuesday afternoon. The gap between most beds allowed only the thinnest of inmates to stand comfortably.
“A few prisoners wandered around, but most simply rested on their thin mattresses, reading or dozing. As a rule, they go out in the yard just two or three times a week.”
Conditions have improved since 2006 when the suit was filed. The state has already started to comply with the original court order to reduce the the inmate population by 46,000 within two years, according to Bloomberg News. Advocates for the prisoners said that 32,000 more must be cut from the rolls.
Five justices - besides Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan - recognized these conditions as violations of the Eighth Amendment, but that was not good enough for the other four justices.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the majority “is gambling with the safety” of California’s citizens. “I fear that today’s decision, like prior prisoner release orders, will lead to a grim roster of victims,” Alito wrote for himself and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Scalia wrote for Justice Clarence Thomas and himself when he cited “what is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history.”
Kennedy countered that the prison population can be reduced “in a manner calculated to avoid an undue negative effect on public safety.”
Kennedy was referring in part to plans to transfer tens of thousands of inmates to local prisons under legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last April, according to Bloomsberg News.
Alito and friends have a legitimate concern. This transformation of prisoners could well cause a spike in crime for Californians. We should be concerned about that. On a personal level, I have relatives in California.
But the Supreme Court deals with the law, not law enforcement. The dissenters were not questioning whether California prison overcrowding violates the Constitution, but how release of the inmates might affect the state’s crime rate.
Many people would conclude that the overcrowded conditions constitute “cruel and unusual punishment,” but whether or not it does, the justices should confine their opinions to the legality of the case.
Crime is the responsibility of the police and other law enforcement agencies. Of course, police departments have often been understaffed and now budget cuts are forcing extensive layoffs in police departments.
Interestingly, this is due in large measure to acts of Scalia’s ideological comrades. The president appointed by Scalia and friends in 2000 failed to avert the 9/11 attacks and led us into the disastrous Iraq war that diverted hundreds of billions of dollars from domestic needs; congressional Republicans are trying to rip apart Medicare and refuse to raise taxes for the rich; and new governors, mostly Republicans, are slashing services and reducing taxes for the wealthy.
For the record, Alito and Roberts were not on the bench when George W. Bush was elevated - not elected - to the presidency in 2000 by a 5-4 majority vote of the Supreme Court.
Scalia’s continued presence on the court may well constitute cruel and unusual punishment for the American people.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Courts disrupt govs' agendas
The gavel has dropped on Chris and the two Scotts. They responded with their typical civility and graciousness.
“You don’t elect the Supreme Court; you don’t expect them to be making law,” said New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. “But today, they made law. Because today, they sent an appropriations bill for $500 million that was not passed by the legislature, that was not signed by the governor. Go to the Constitution and tell me, how the hell did they get away with that?”
“There’s still a much larger separation-of-powers issue,” said Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, “whether one Madison judge can stand in the way of the other two democratically elected branches of government. The Supreme Court is going to have the ultimate ruling.”
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was unusually quiet.
Judges in New Jersey and Wisconsin told Christie and Walker that their respective administrations violated state law and must compensate for it.
As Christie, Walker and other new governors - mostly Republicans, but one Democrat - applied an aggressive, confrontational style of governance, I wondered if their initiatives might conflict with the law. Putting it mildly. Looks like one of those rare times that I was right.
New Jersey’s Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 24, 2011, directed the state to raise $500 million more to aid 31 poor and primarily urban school districts including Newark, Camden and Trenton, according to The New York Times. The 3-2 majority claimed the state deliberately violated past Supreme Court orders in Abbott v. Burke, the decades-old case under review.
“Like anyone else, the state is not free to walk away from judicial orders enforcing constitutional obligations,” wrote Justice Jaynee LaVecchia. She added that “the state made a conscious and calculated decision” to retract its commitment from two years earlier when the Abbott case last came before the court.
State Sen. President Stephen M. Sweeney told the Times that Christie “was well aware that his draconian cuts to education were illegal” and recounted that the governor pledged to maintain school funding during his 2009 campaign.
After taking office, Christie slashed $1 billion in aid to the state’s 591 school districts from an overall budget of $10 billion.
Christie on May 24 called on the legislature to find the money itself - without raising taxes. “All of my work is done on this,” he said.
He further castigated the court as “unelected” during a town meeting in Cherry Hill, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Christie conveniently forgets that members of the state Supreme Court are appointed by elected officials. If he does not like it, he can always initiate the process to change the system.
The New Jersey order inspired a Philadelphia city councilman, Darrell Clarke, to introduce a resolution to sue the state of Pennsylvania over the legality of funding cuts leaving the city’s schools up to $110 million in the lurch, according to The Philadelphia Daily News.
“It’s just not fair for us to have to ask the citizens to continue to pay in the city of Philadelphia, and we’re sitting on potentially a $700 million surplus from the state,” Clarke told the News. “Under the state’s statute (it is the state’s) primary responsibility to fund the school district.”
The city’s Law Department will consider City Council’s request to represent Council in such a suit, City Solicitor Shelley Smith said.
However, a spokesman for Mayor Michael Nutter cast doubt on the prospects for success because the laws and politics differ between the two neighboring states.
The News reported that past lawsuits of this nature have failed. In 1999, the city, the school district and the NAACP claimed that the legislature violated the state constitution by failing to adequately fund the schools, noting that the constitution requires the legislature to “provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education.”
Clarke’s proposal prompted Kevin Harley, a spokesman for Gov. Tom Corbett, to say, “This is a political stunt by City Council. To file a frivolous and meaningless lawsuit…maybe City Council should also sue President Obama because there’s no more stimulus funding.”
In New York, law professor Michael Rebell warned Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, and the state legislature will violate the state constitution if they enact $1.5 billion in proposed school aid reductions. The legislature subsequently cut aid to education, though less than originally planned.
In Florida, Gov. Rick Scott faces two lawsuits so far over his actions.
Though Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald wonders how “one Madison judge can stand in the way of the other two democratically elected branches of government,” one Madison judge in fact stood in the way.
“This case is the exemplar of values protected by the open meetings law: transparency in the government, the right of citizens to participate in their government and respect for the rule of law,” wrote Judge Maryann Sumi of Dane County Court.
The judge on Thursday, May 26, 2011, granted a permanent injunction to void a law impeding collective bargaining rights for many state and local employees, The New York Times reported. (nyt, a11, 5/27/11) She said that the March 9 Senate vote violates the open meetings law mandating at least two hours’ notice to the public.
The decision is being appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court as arguments were scheduled for Monday, June 6, 2011.
Gov. Walker proposed the law and signed it in the midst of massive protests in Madison, the state capital. With the exception of police officers and firefighters, the law prohibits public-sector unions from bargaining over health benefits and pensions. Negotiations over wages are permitted, but they must be approved in a public referendum if they exceed the inflation rate, the Times reported.
With all 14 Senate Democrats out of state, the remaining Republicans voted 18-1 to approve the measure within a half-hour sans any floor debate. Sumi cited evidence showing their failure to abide by even the two-hour notice permitted for good cause should a 24-hour notice be impossible or impractical.
While the Wisconsin case is still being adjudicated, both Walker and Christie made themselves vulnerable to legal action which finally turned around to bite them in the derriere. Their counterparts in other states could be dealt a similar blow.
We’ll find out. See you in court.
“You don’t elect the Supreme Court; you don’t expect them to be making law,” said New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. “But today, they made law. Because today, they sent an appropriations bill for $500 million that was not passed by the legislature, that was not signed by the governor. Go to the Constitution and tell me, how the hell did they get away with that?”
“There’s still a much larger separation-of-powers issue,” said Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, “whether one Madison judge can stand in the way of the other two democratically elected branches of government. The Supreme Court is going to have the ultimate ruling.”
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was unusually quiet.
Judges in New Jersey and Wisconsin told Christie and Walker that their respective administrations violated state law and must compensate for it.
As Christie, Walker and other new governors - mostly Republicans, but one Democrat - applied an aggressive, confrontational style of governance, I wondered if their initiatives might conflict with the law. Putting it mildly. Looks like one of those rare times that I was right.
New Jersey’s Supreme Court on Tuesday, May 24, 2011, directed the state to raise $500 million more to aid 31 poor and primarily urban school districts including Newark, Camden and Trenton, according to The New York Times. The 3-2 majority claimed the state deliberately violated past Supreme Court orders in Abbott v. Burke, the decades-old case under review.
“Like anyone else, the state is not free to walk away from judicial orders enforcing constitutional obligations,” wrote Justice Jaynee LaVecchia. She added that “the state made a conscious and calculated decision” to retract its commitment from two years earlier when the Abbott case last came before the court.
State Sen. President Stephen M. Sweeney told the Times that Christie “was well aware that his draconian cuts to education were illegal” and recounted that the governor pledged to maintain school funding during his 2009 campaign.
After taking office, Christie slashed $1 billion in aid to the state’s 591 school districts from an overall budget of $10 billion.
Christie on May 24 called on the legislature to find the money itself - without raising taxes. “All of my work is done on this,” he said.
He further castigated the court as “unelected” during a town meeting in Cherry Hill, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Christie conveniently forgets that members of the state Supreme Court are appointed by elected officials. If he does not like it, he can always initiate the process to change the system.
The New Jersey order inspired a Philadelphia city councilman, Darrell Clarke, to introduce a resolution to sue the state of Pennsylvania over the legality of funding cuts leaving the city’s schools up to $110 million in the lurch, according to The Philadelphia Daily News.
“It’s just not fair for us to have to ask the citizens to continue to pay in the city of Philadelphia, and we’re sitting on potentially a $700 million surplus from the state,” Clarke told the News. “Under the state’s statute (it is the state’s) primary responsibility to fund the school district.”
The city’s Law Department will consider City Council’s request to represent Council in such a suit, City Solicitor Shelley Smith said.
However, a spokesman for Mayor Michael Nutter cast doubt on the prospects for success because the laws and politics differ between the two neighboring states.
The News reported that past lawsuits of this nature have failed. In 1999, the city, the school district and the NAACP claimed that the legislature violated the state constitution by failing to adequately fund the schools, noting that the constitution requires the legislature to “provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education.”
Clarke’s proposal prompted Kevin Harley, a spokesman for Gov. Tom Corbett, to say, “This is a political stunt by City Council. To file a frivolous and meaningless lawsuit…maybe City Council should also sue President Obama because there’s no more stimulus funding.”
In New York, law professor Michael Rebell warned Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, and the state legislature will violate the state constitution if they enact $1.5 billion in proposed school aid reductions. The legislature subsequently cut aid to education, though less than originally planned.
In Florida, Gov. Rick Scott faces two lawsuits so far over his actions.
Though Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald wonders how “one Madison judge can stand in the way of the other two democratically elected branches of government,” one Madison judge in fact stood in the way.
“This case is the exemplar of values protected by the open meetings law: transparency in the government, the right of citizens to participate in their government and respect for the rule of law,” wrote Judge Maryann Sumi of Dane County Court.
The judge on Thursday, May 26, 2011, granted a permanent injunction to void a law impeding collective bargaining rights for many state and local employees, The New York Times reported. (nyt, a11, 5/27/11) She said that the March 9 Senate vote violates the open meetings law mandating at least two hours’ notice to the public.
The decision is being appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court as arguments were scheduled for Monday, June 6, 2011.
Gov. Walker proposed the law and signed it in the midst of massive protests in Madison, the state capital. With the exception of police officers and firefighters, the law prohibits public-sector unions from bargaining over health benefits and pensions. Negotiations over wages are permitted, but they must be approved in a public referendum if they exceed the inflation rate, the Times reported.
With all 14 Senate Democrats out of state, the remaining Republicans voted 18-1 to approve the measure within a half-hour sans any floor debate. Sumi cited evidence showing their failure to abide by even the two-hour notice permitted for good cause should a 24-hour notice be impossible or impractical.
While the Wisconsin case is still being adjudicated, both Walker and Christie made themselves vulnerable to legal action which finally turned around to bite them in the derriere. Their counterparts in other states could be dealt a similar blow.
We’ll find out. See you in court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)