News and Blog Round-up - Aug. 13, 2007
The Courts
Judges live in fear after making controversial decisions, reports Law.com.
Jamin Rashkin at Slate examines how, in his opinion, lower courts are protecting constitutional rights as the Supreme Court strips them away.
Louis Fisher and David Gray Adler discuss whether "we can still count on the Court to protect the rights of citizens." They argue "such trust in the powers of one branch is and has always been misguided."
The War on Terrorism
"Federal appeals court will hear arguments next Wednesday on whether to stop a class-action privacy suit based on allegations that the government and AT&T Inc. have been working together in an illegal wiretapping program," reports the Washington Post. The Center for Constitutional Rights "argues that the new legislation violates the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment," says SCOTUSblog.
"Mugabe cites U.S. program to justify wiretapping law," says Think Progress.
The Christian Science Monitor has a lengthy report on whether Jose Padilla -- an American citizen held for three years and seven months at the U.S/ Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C on terrorism charges -- was tortured.
Law and Politics
No executive appointments during August break, RollCall reports.
Karl Rove has resigned effective the end of August, reports the New York Times. Firedoglake speculates as to why.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales admits "top aids got political briefings," reports the Washington Post.
Other News
Malfunctioning voting machines at the GOP Iowa Straw Poll forces a manual recount, according to Daily Kos.
A hearing on predatory lending and sub-prime loans has caught Melissa Ryan's attention.
Judges live in fear after making controversial decisions, reports Law.com.
Greer, who said he's on the federal bench, was one of four current or former judges who appeared in a 90-minute seminar in San Francisco's Moscone Center West to describe how their lives were affected by their rulings in high-profile cases involving hot-button issues. . . .At the annual ABA convention, Justice Breyer says the last term was "a difficult one," reports the AP.
Many judges believe the current presidential administration has exacerbated the problem by blaming unpopular rulings on "activist judges."
Jamin Rashkin at Slate examines how, in his opinion, lower courts are protecting constitutional rights as the Supreme Court strips them away.
But even as the Supreme Court conducts broad U-turns on fundamental questions like free speech and racial equality in public schools, many lower courts—including some dominated by Republican appointees—have been acting with vigor to protect the rights of the people.Findlaw's Michael Dorf argues "the Supreme Court wreaks havoc in the Lower Federal Courts -- Again." He argues a Court decision, Twombly, concerning "the standard to be used by federal district judges in deciding whether to dismiss a lawsuit before allowing the plaintiff to conduct civil discovery . . . has perplexed the hundreds of federal judges who have already had to confront dismissal motions citing Twombly."
Louis Fisher and David Gray Adler discuss whether "we can still count on the Court to protect the rights of citizens." They argue "such trust in the powers of one branch is and has always been misguided."
The War on Terrorism
"Federal appeals court will hear arguments next Wednesday on whether to stop a class-action privacy suit based on allegations that the government and AT&T Inc. have been working together in an illegal wiretapping program," reports the Washington Post. The Center for Constitutional Rights "argues that the new legislation violates the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment," says SCOTUSblog.
The First Amendment claim is based on CCR's belief that its attorneys have been overheard by illegal wiretaps during private telephone calls or e-mails to clients or witnesses and perhaps other attorneys outside the U.S., intruding on attorney-client confidentiality. The Fourth Amendment claim is based on the argument that this overhearing was done without a warrant and with no suspicion of any criminal activity.The Washington Post examines "How the Fight for Vast New Spying Powers Was Won."
"Mugabe cites U.S. program to justify wiretapping law," says Think Progress.
The Christian Science Monitor has a lengthy report on whether Jose Padilla -- an American citizen held for three years and seven months at the U.S/ Naval Consolidated Brig in Charleston, S.C on terrorism charges -- was tortured.
Padilla's mental health itself is a form of evidence, mental-health experts say, and it strongly suggests that – at least in Padilla's case – the government's harsh interrogation and confinement tactics went too far. . . . "
Padilla's treatment in the brig raises another issue, [legal] scholars say: whether the Constitution ever permits the government to force a man to confess to involvement in terrorist plots and, in doing so, risk destruction of a portion of his mind. . . .
"He is not the same man who was taken into custody in 2002," says Angela Hegarty, a forensic psychiatrist in New York who spent 22 hours examining Padilla. "Whatever happened to him in there has radically changed him. . . ."TalkLeft reports on a Newsweek article on whether Guantanamo Bay detainees may be force-fed.
Jose Padilla had no history of mental illness when President Bush ordered him detained in 2002 as a suspected Al Qaeda operative. But he does now.
Law and Politics
No executive appointments during August break, RollCall reports.
Karl Rove has resigned effective the end of August, reports the New York Times. Firedoglake speculates as to why.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales admits "top aids got political briefings," reports the Washington Post.
Justice Department officials attended at least a dozen political briefings at the White House since 2001, including some meetings led by Karl Rove, President Bush's chief political adviser, and others that were focused on election trends prior to the 2006 midterm contest, according to documents released yesterday.
Other News
Malfunctioning voting machines at the GOP Iowa Straw Poll forces a manual recount, according to Daily Kos.
A hearing on predatory lending and sub-prime loans has caught Melissa Ryan's attention.
Written By:Thos. Moore On August 13, 2007 11:48 AM Written By:Tantallon On August 14, 2007 5:25 AM
Questions:
Chilling effect?
Has anyone considered the impact of this kind of exposure of US judges on the decision-making process or the content of opinions? For litigants how are the right to fair and impartial adjudication get balanced against the right of bloggers and talk show hosts to give out names and addresses of judges whose personal addresses might be exposed? For the rest of us, what about the rule of law?
Post A Comment / Question
The more interesting part of Breyer's quote is this:
"When I look at it objectively, I think how I wish I'd won, but I also think, not a bad system," Breyer said.
"I'm not going to be in the majority all the time. How I wish I were, but that's the system. That's called the rule of law," he said.