One major campaign issue last year was the need to improve
our federal courts. I wrote about this subject several times on this blog.
Approaching the first quarter of the Obama presidency, his scorecard is tepid
and disappointing.
On Jan. 20, 2009, the new president inherited 55 vacancies
on the federal courts, which would be understaffed if all the seats were
filled. As of Nov. 30, 2009, there were 98 vacancies, 20 on the circuit
(appellate) courts and 78 on the district (trial) courts.
Read more...
The discussions about the responsibility of high-ranking federal officials in the Defense Department, CIA and Vice President’s Office, and the lawyers who advised them about the legality of torture, seem to be going nowhere. How we define torture and when it is permissible seem more appropriate questions for philosophers than politicians. Reading the lawyers’ analyses about whether throwing someone against a wall or how long it is OK to pour water down someone’s throat makes for some weird jurisprudence. Behind the torture question is the provocative “ticking bomb” rationale.
Privacy and anonymity are challenged by public records and
transparency demands. The latest venue of this clash of public interests is
Washington state and its referendum petitions process.
The United States Supreme Court recently upheld a federal
lower court ruling (by not accepting the case and allowing the ruling to stand)
that the names of the signers of the petitions should not be made public. At
issue were 138,000 names of people petitioning for extension of married-couple
rights to same-sex couples. Those seeking the names argued that disclosure
prevents fraud and makes public the names of people seeking to influence
legislation. Opponents feared intimidation, as names going on the Internet will
chill free speech and association rights.
Read more...
The Obama administration just doesn’t get it. Questioned from day one how it planned to handle prior administrations’ state-secrets policies in light of its proclaimed commitment to openness and transparency, it repeatedly missed opportunities to assure meaningful reform. The latest so-called reform measure reportedly sets up a review process in the Justice Department to scrutinize claims of state secrecy in litigation.
When court orders are disobeyed or trial participants misbehave, judges invoke their historic power of civil contempt. They summarily imprison the culprit until he or she does what they were ordered to do. The rationale is that the prisoner has the key to the prison door, and can be released by conforming to the court’s order. The power is supposed to be remedial, not punitive.
The idea makes sense. How could any government body operate without the power to control its own proceedings? The problem is that every so often someone is adamant and ends up summarily incarcerated in prison for egregiously long, sometimes indefinite periods. The case of Susan McDougal in the Clinton era drew attention to this phenomenon. She refused to testify before the Whitewater grand jury and languished in jail over a year. In her notorious custody battle, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan was imprisoned for 25 months for refusing to tell where her daughter was secreted.
Read more...
One of the nine Republicans who voted last Thursday to confirm Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court was Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. (The final vote was 68-31, with only Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., unable to make the vote.)
Graham had announced his vote in a Senate floor speech July 22 after, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearings, he had sharply questioned Sotomayor on her "wise Latina" speech and some of her more contentious decisions. It was a politically risky vote.
What made the vote more significant was his explanation of the vote in the speech.
Read more...
One thing is certain after the confirmation hearings this week for Judge Sonia Sotomayor — there is no way she can explain, defend or recant her "wise Latina woman" comment. She called it a "rhetorical flourish" that fell flat, and she said it was wrong and on and on, but the point is she said it numerous times in numerous speeches and she meant it. Enough said.
That aside, why did Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) — after admitting she would be confirmed barring a meltdown, and that he himself could possibly support her — have to treat her so badly?
Read more...
With the Senate Judiciary Committee questioning of Judge Sonia Sotomayor over, a topic talked about almost as much as "wise Latina" comments has been about why the hearings have been so, well, boring.
There are few responsibilities a senator has that are of more long-term reach than deciding on a Supreme Court nominee. One seat on the Supreme Court can change the court's nature for a generation or more.
Read more...
Al Franken is in the U.S. Senate, and sadly, he’s borrowing more heavily from his former jobs than establishing a level of decorum more befitting of the post he currently holds.
Apparently, when his turn came around at yesterday’s hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Sen. Franken (D-Minn.) reverted to comedian Franken.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how comparisons to Perry Mason and quizzes on which case the fictional prosecutor actually won contribute to the proper vetting process the Senate is required to conduct. I like a tension-breaking splash of humor as much as the next person, but a Senate hearing regarding the qualifications of the first Hispanic to be elevated to the SCOTUS is not the place.
Read more...
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
