I don't know if where you live you have come across the reports of Chief Justice John Roberts' reaction to the State of the Union Speech. This is the speech where President Obama expressed his disapproval of the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. FEC which is interpreted here and in the dissent by Associate Justice Stevens as enshrining the First Amendment rights of corporations to the detriment of you and me. Chief Justice Roberts had described President Obama's expression of an opinion on the decision in the State of the Union speech as "very troubling." Oh, sweet irony!
In the Citizens United case the Supremes greenlighted unfettered purchase of our democracy, and courts by corporate bullies and robber barons. But sitting through a Constitutionally mandated presidential speech is "troubling," when God forbid you get criticized, at lest for Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. What part of democratic government does Chief Justice Roberts like? That part where he wears the robe and tells the ligtigants that time is up, I guess. From the street level-view of the Bad Lawyer, this Roberts/Alito/State of the Union episode perfectly encapsulates what's wrong with our democracy: we really are incapable of telling the truth or hearing the truth on a granular level. We require a level of bullshit even among the adults who are elected and selected to run our government, including the Supreme Court.
The Suprmes have given us such interesting developments: especially the idea that corporations are "persons." Corporations have "free" speech rights. Corporations now spend billions of dollars buying up your local, state, and federal govenrments including your judiciary in effect taking away our "free speech" rights, think I'm exaggerating, look at Carperton vs. Massey Coal or the campaign cash/rulings chart for the Ohio Supreme Court at Adam Liptak's Sidebar blawg at the NYT. Look at the distortions money has on the Minnesota and Michigan Supreme Courts.
The federal bench is populated for the most part, by very brilliant, scholastic and legal stars. The federal judiciary are chosen from academic and professional high achievers nominated by politically powerful elites in a complicated but nearly invisible, to us, process. Sometimes, the curtain slips and the horse trading and wrangling comes into view--but, usually not. Still strikingly smart and capable people make it to the federal bench. Generally speaking thow who make it he Supreme Court are chosen from the cream of these elites Judges (with the current exceptio of Justice Sotomayor) who have even served at a trial level. That Supeme Court Justices like Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito don't get the whole hoi polloi thing; and, that the experience of democracy might be discomfitting in that raucous echo-chamber, the Congress, isn't terribly surprising. I understand this, but I'm disappointed--when these Justices grant personhood on corporations and allow corporations to snap up our government, like so much merger and acquisition maybe it's a good and palliative thing that they should have to hear a loud and uncomfortable dissent that they can't gavel down.
Showing posts with label US Supeme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Supeme Court. Show all posts
Monday, March 15, 2010
Monday, November 9, 2009
Throw Away the Key!
On Monday morning the Supremes hear the oral arguments in the cases that involve the question: when we the people have had enough of juvenile offenders, can we lock 'em up and throw away the key?
For some reason, Florida (although, it is not the only state that does this) specializes in the practice of dealing with youth crime by incarcerating juvenile offenders for life. In Graham v. Florida; and Sullivan V. Florida, the nine will grapple with the notion that the U.S. Constitution prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" applies to the practice of dealing with young criminals, um, permanently. In Graham, the court will deal with a young guy who was 17 at the time of the crime, burglary, for which he drew a life sentence. Young Mr. Graham was not prize, at 17 he was already well on his way to lifetime career for burglary and theft, in one instance Mr. Graham was involved in the burglary of a Barbecue restaurant during which an accomplices smacked up the manager with a piece of steel pipe. Let's just say Mr. Graham's absence from society is not missed. The other kid, Mr. Sullivan is a real prince, too; at 13, Mr. Sullivan raped an elderly woman during a home invasion. Kids.
But throw away the key? Really? Our answer to minors committing crimes is to say that there is no redemption, no way that we can rehabilitate these children? When we throw away the key what are we saying about ourselves? Impotent? What are we saying about our values, particularly the value enshrined in the US Constitution prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment?" Does it the constitutional value have any meaning when we sanction the practice of warehousing children for life? For life?
BTW, for future reference, all US Supreme Court cases can be followed almost in real time via: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/--Cool, huh?!
For some reason, Florida (although, it is not the only state that does this) specializes in the practice of dealing with youth crime by incarcerating juvenile offenders for life. In Graham v. Florida; and Sullivan V. Florida, the nine will grapple with the notion that the U.S. Constitution prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" applies to the practice of dealing with young criminals, um, permanently. In Graham, the court will deal with a young guy who was 17 at the time of the crime, burglary, for which he drew a life sentence. Young Mr. Graham was not prize, at 17 he was already well on his way to lifetime career for burglary and theft, in one instance Mr. Graham was involved in the burglary of a Barbecue restaurant during which an accomplices smacked up the manager with a piece of steel pipe. Let's just say Mr. Graham's absence from society is not missed. The other kid, Mr. Sullivan is a real prince, too; at 13, Mr. Sullivan raped an elderly woman during a home invasion. Kids.But throw away the key? Really? Our answer to minors committing crimes is to say that there is no redemption, no way that we can rehabilitate these children? When we throw away the key what are we saying about ourselves? Impotent? What are we saying about our values, particularly the value enshrined in the US Constitution prohibiting "cruel and unusual punishment?" Does it the constitutional value have any meaning when we sanction the practice of warehousing children for life? For life?
BTW, for future reference, all US Supreme Court cases can be followed almost in real time via: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/--Cool, huh?!
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Further Evidence that it is Dahlia Lithwick World and the Rest of Us are Just Sniffing Our Own Briefs
http://www.slate.com/id/2234604/pagenum/all/#p2
Dahlia on the Supreme Court Oral Argument in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee see also: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1065.pdf
Dahlia on the Supreme Court Oral Argument in Pottawattamie County v. McGhee see also: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-1065.pdf
Labels:
Dahlia LIthwick,
frame,
innocence,
McGhee,
US Supeme Court
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
