Reps. Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva introduced a bill yesterday that would amend the House appropriations bill for Commerce, Justice and Science to add a provision punishing states with “Stand Your Ground” laws — the law at the heart of the trial of George Zimmerman in Florida. While I have been a long critic of both Castle Doctrine laws and “Stand Your Ground” laws, I believe this bill is a mistake and represents an attack on federalism principles.
Category: Constitutional Law
North Carolina yesterday became the 30th state to ban same-sex marriage. Early results showed the amendment to its Constitution passing overwhelmingly by as much as 61 percent. The popularity of the amendment and key position of North Carolina in the upcoming presidential election appears to have prompted the White House to cancel an event in the state. President Obama cancelled a scheduled trip to North Carolina on the day of the vote. While Obama opposed the amendment last year, this week the White House was ridiculed by the media over the President’s refusal to support gay marriage and his insistence that his views were still “evolving” on the subject. The cancellation was widely viewed as an effort to avoid renewed questions over Obama’s refusal to take a clear stand on the civil rights question.
Continue reading “North Carolina Overwhelmingly Bans Same-Sex Marriage”
No wonder President Obama is so supportive of evolution, he finds it essential to explain both scientific and political developments. Faced with Vice President Joe Biden’s moment of honesty in a weekend interview that he is “comfortable” with same-sex marriage, White House Spokesman Jay Carney appeared to have a brain aneurysm in trying to respond to questions about the President’s position on one of the most fundamental civil rights issues of our generation. Since Biden had clearly “evolved” into supporting same-sex marriage, the reporters wanted to know the status of the President’s long evolution. It appears that Australopithecus evolved faster that President Obama on this civil rights question because Carney kept repeating he is still “evolving” over and over again.
Cheryl Bormann, counsel for defendant Walid bin Attash, has created a stir over wearing a hijab to the military tribunal and asking other women to cover up out of respect of the Muslim sensibilities for the defendants. I have received a fair number of calls on this from reporters and lawyers due to my past representation of Muslims in national security cases. I believe the display was a professional and tactical mistake and I would not want someone on my team to try to make such an extreme accommodation to a client.
Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger
We haven’t heard his name for quite some time now, but former Bush-era Office of Legal Counsel attorney, John Yoo is in the news again. The United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals threw out an appeal by convicted terrorist, Jose Padilla attempting to hold Yoo liable for the torture used on Padilla while in U.S. detention centers.
Believe it or not, the Justices stated that the law on what constituted torture was not clear when Padilla endured the Bush Enhanced Interrogation methods. “A three-judge panel of the court said laws governing combatants and the definition of torture were unclear during the years policies were crafted. Padilla alleged he was subjected to death threats, given psychotropic drugs, shackled and manacled for hours at a time, denied contact with family or a lawyer for 21 months and refused medical care for potentially life-threatening conditions. “That such treatment was torture was not clearly established in 2001-03,” Judge Raymond C. Fisher, a Clinton appointee, wrote for the court.” LA Times Continue reading “Shame on Yoo”
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
The following link was sent to me by Otteray Scribe, who is among the most erudite and respected people among those who frequently comment on this blog. He is an extremely well educated man, with masterful writing ability and a creatively active mind. The title of his E mail to me and the other guest bloggers was WTF? and this is what he wrote:
“This is beyond strange. Horace Boothroyd III is disabled and apparently has nothing to do but sit at his computer. He monitors everything going on regarding OWS and police misconduct. I won’t try to describe this, but it is more than passing strange. Might be worth following up.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/05/03/1088516/-Occupy-Minnesota-WTF-Cops-picking-up-sober-Occupiers-and-Drugging-them-for-Training-
When someone who I like and respect as much as I do Otteray Scribe, is at a loss for words to describe something, I take notice. When I clicked the link and read this story from Daily Kos, my own reaction mirrored his: WTF? It took me more than twelve hours to respond to his E mail because I needed to let it gestate in my own mind and figure out just what to write about.
Rather than me regurgitating the story I think it is an important one for the readers to view for themselves and present their own take on the why, wherefore and implications inherent in the story.
While allowing you make your own judgments, let me give my bottom line opinion on all of the issues and questions the story raises and let’s see what you the reader makes of it on your own. I believe that the actions detailed in this story are indicative of our beloved America fast moving towards becoming a police state, in the same manner that the USSR, its successor Russia and China are police states. That is that all protest against the status quo is to be repressed. The police/security/intelligence/military forces are not only to act as agents of this repression, in many instances on their own volition without sanction, but also are taking part in the use of counter-insurgency techniques towards those elements within the society deemed dangerous to the status quo. In the minds of those in power openly and behind the scenes the question of what is threatening to the country is in most instances a self-serving rationale for what is politically/economically threatening to them. We must ask ourselves are we to be mere observers meekly silent for fear of our own security, or will we act openly to oppose the destruction of the Constitution of the United States and with it our rights and freedoms?
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
As people here no doubt know I am quite opinionated and rather definite in my views, perhaps to a fault some might say. In this piece though I must admit that I have mixed feelings as to what is right and what is wrong, in the issue I write about. The recent thread on this blog: Trophy Terrorist: Obama Suggests Romney Would Not Have Ordered the Killing of Osama Bin Laden: http://jonathanturley.org/2012/04/30/obama-suggests-romney-would-not-have-killed-osama/ engendered a lively debate on the propriety of summarily executing a purported mass murderer. In my mind as I viewed the back and forth of the thread, including my own comments, I began to think of the trial of Anders Behring Breivik in Norway for killing 77 people, the fact that he was using his trial for publicity to advance his racist cause in Norway and that at worst he was facing only twenty-one years, though it “might” be extended for life.
Had Osama Bin Laden been captured and stood trial it would have created a worldwide sensation. It would have had to have been televised, since the clamor for an “open” trial would have been deafening and I would have added my small voice to the clamor. The necessity of fairness to the defense would have followed the same dictum, since a publicly perceived unfairness would result in a U.S. public relations disaster, for obvious reasons. Therefore, this trial could have been used as a stage for stirring up the “terrorist” pot and perhaps as a great recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. My question is: faced with such potentially explosive results from a trial, is the government justified in simply killing to preclude a greater evil? To be honest I’m not completely certain where the equities of these situations lie as I’ll explain. Continue reading “When Mass Murder is Political”
Kuwait’s parliament has passed the latest law limiting speech in the name of religion. The bill makes it a death penalty offense to curse God or the Prophet Muhammad or his wives.
Continue reading “Kuwait Passes Law Making Cursing of Muhammad A Death Penalty Offense”
The ACLU has posted an interesting study that could have profound implications for criminal and torts cases involving injuries or deaths from tasers. We have been following such cases for years (here and here and here and here and here) now a study published by the American Heart Association refutes the claim that tasers are “nonlethal.” The AHA study shows that a rising number of people are dying after being hit by the 50,000 volt shocks (followed by 100 microsecond pulses of 1,200 volts). Since 2001, more than 500 people in the United States have died after being hit by police tasers.
Continue reading “Dont Taze Kill Me, Bro: New Study Refutes Claim That Tasers Are “Non-Lethal””
Iranian “courts” have continued their attack on the rule of law by ordering the jailing of leading human rights attorney Mohammad Ali Dadkhah. Dadkhah has shown great courage in representing dissidents, including Youcef Nadarkhani, the Iranian pastor charged with apostasy and sentenced to death for leaving Islam and converting to Christianity. Dahkhah was actually in court defending an individual when the judge announced his own sentence to nine years in prison.
Superior Court Judge Joan Weber slammed prosecutors in San Diego on Tuesday for allegedly striking a potential juror from a trial because he is gay. However, prosecutors insist that the juror was struck because he admitted to previously protesting in favor of gay rights in a case involving gay protesters. Weber called the San Diego City Attorney’s Office move to block the juror as “shocking,” but if the prosecutors are telling the truth, is it so unreasonable to bar such an individual from a jury based on past similar conduct?
We previously discussed the controversy over the University of North Dakota’s Fighting Sioux nickname. The NCAA has banned the use of such tribal names and members of the Spirit Lake Sioux tribe and Standing Rock Sioux sued to try to restore the use of the name — something they find not insulting but complimentary to their tribe. I have been critical of the NCAA rule. A federal court has now thrown out the lawsuit over the use of the team’s name over standing.
It appears that Congress is not the only branch with falling poll numbers. According to Pew Research Center, the Supreme Court now is viewed favorable by just roughly 50 percent of the public.
Continue reading “Supreme Court Hits Lowest Favorability Numbers In 25 Years”
Dr. Terry Jones is back with his lighter fluid and Korans. In what he called a worldwide campaign of Koran burning, Jones torched the Islamic holy book and a picture of Muhammad in the name of fighting religious intolerance. He and his supporters claim that they are only trying to help Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani who was convicted of apostasy in Iran, a case that we have been following. Of course, the action will only harden the demand to put Youcef Nadarkhani to death by irate Muslims in Iran and other countries. But, few people believe that Youcef Nadarkhani is anything more than an excuse to engage in such hateful demonstrations.
A New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) Observer was arrested this week in the recent OWS march in front of the MTA building. The Observer who was clearly not violating the law was reportedly confronted by Deputy Inspector Johnny Cardona — the officer made infamous by punching protester Felix Rivera-Pitre. A video shows that officer Cardona allegedly grabbed OWS coordinator, Katherine Bromberg and pulled her into the street before putting her under arrest. The charges were later dropped. The site identified the officer as Cardona, though regardless of his identity, the arrest appears without a legal basis or cause. Once again, while the charges were dropped, there is no indication that the officer would be investigated for such an arrest of an observer in the course of a protected activity.