To listen to the clip from the Mark Levin Show visit http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=XdqGSUSU2G. Tweet
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Supreme Court Again Imposes Its Own Policy Views On Nation By Overturning 37 States And DC That Allowed Juvenile Imprisonment For Life Without Parole
The Los Angeles Times reports that the "Supreme Court for the first time on Monday put a strict constitutional limit on prison terms, ruling it is cruel and unusual punishment to send a young criminal to prison for life with no chance for parole for a crime that does not involve murder. The ruling is the second in recent years to greatly expand the constitutional protections for juveniles. And once again, the justices in the majority said they agreed with international critics who say the United States is out of step when it comes to treatment for the young. There has been a 'global consensus' among all nations but the United States that juvenile criminals should not be locked up for life with no chance to rehabilitate themselves, said Justice Anthony M. Kennedy."
This is another inexcusable ruling from the Supreme Court that makes a mockery of the Constitution. What other countries and nations may or may not think of American practices and laws has absolutely no bearing on the Constitutionality of the law in question. Those who adopted our Constitution could never have imagined that a "global consensus" would have any influence on what the Constitution means. The Supreme Court has done nothing more than impose its own policy preference on the nation, and by fiat overrule the legitimate and democratic will of a strong majority of the States and the District of Columbia. They have completely ignored the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, as they do much of the Constitution. The Supreme Court continues to allow our Constitution to "evolve" in a direction that a majority of current Supreme Court Justices would simply prefer, but that was never intended. The ruling has no basis in the Constitution whatsoever. There is no clearer example of judicial usurpation of policymaking, the legitimate role of an elected legislature, than this decision. The Constitution is once again being shredded by a Supreme Court that views itself as a standing committee that based on little more than a policy preference believes it can overturn clearly Constitutional legislation.
Justice Clarence Thomas eviscerated this unconstitutional ruling, in the sense that it refuses to faithfully apply the Constitution and instead imposes a policy view on the country in spite of the Constitution, in his dissent. Thomas writes that "[a]lthough the text of the Constitution is silent regarding the permissibility of this sentencing practice, and although it would not have offended the standards that prevailed at the founding, the Court insists that the standards of American society have evolved such that the Constitution now requires its prohibition. The news of this evolution will, I think, come as a surprise to the American people. Congress, the District of Columbia, and 37 States allow judges and juries to consider this sentencing practice in juvenile nonhomicide cases, and those judges and juries have decided to use it in the very worst cases they have encountered. The Court does not conclude that life without parole itself is a cruel and unusual punishment. It instead rejects the judgments of those legislatures, judges, and juries regarding what the Court describes as the 'moral' question of whether this sentence can ever be 'proportionat[e]' when applied to the category of offenders at issue here... I am unwilling to assume that we, as members of this Court, are any more capable of making such moral judgments than our fellow citizens. Nothing in our training as judges qualifies us for that task, and nothing in Article III gives us that authority."
Thomas continues by pointing out that recently "the Court has held that the [Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishments] Clause authorizes it to proscribe not only methods of punishment that qualify as 'cruel and unusual,' but also any punishment that the Court deems 'grossly disproportionate' to the crime committed," an interpretation that "is entirely the Court’s creation." There is "no indication that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause originally was understood to require proportionality in sentencing" and "it suffices to recall just two points. First, the Clause does not expressly refer to proportionality or invoke any synonym for that term, even though the Framers were familiar with the concept, as evidenced by several founding-era state constitutions that required (albeit without defining) proportional punishments." Furthermore, "the penal statute adopted by the First Congress demonstrates that proportionality in sentencing was not considered a constitutional command." As Thomas plainly points out, "[t]he categorical proportionality review the Court employs in capital cases thus lacks a principled foundation. The Court’s decision today is significant because it does not merely apply this standard—it remarkably expands its reach. For the first time in its history, the Court declares an entire class of offenders immune from a noncapital sentence using the categorical approach it previously reserved for death penalty cases alone." Thomas continues by explaining that "[u]ntil today, the Court has based its categorical proportionality rulings on the notion that the Constitution gives special protection to capital defendants because the death penalty is a uniquely severe punishment," but that "[t]oday’s decision eviscerates that distinction. 'Death is different' no longer."
Further, Thomas writes that even if one accepts the Court's doctrine that a "national consensus" against a punishment renders it "cruel and unusual" and therefore unconstitutional (a notion which itself also has little basis in the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment), it is clear that "[n]o plausible claim of a consensus against this sentencing practice can be made in light of this overwhelming legislative evidence. The sole fact that federal law authorizes this practice singlehandedly refutes the claim that our Nation finds it morally repugnant. The additional reality that 37 out of 50 States (a supermajority of 74%) permit the practice makes the claim utterly implausible. Not only is there no consensus against this penalty, there is a clear legislative consensus in favor of its availability."
Justice Thomas concludes: "The ultimate question in this case is not whether a life-without-parole sentence ‘fits’ the crime at issue here or the crimes of juvenile nonhomicide offenders more generally, but to whom the Constitution assigns that decision. The Florida Legislature has concluded that such sentences should be available for persons under 18 who commit certain crimes, and the trial judge in this case decided to impose that legislatively authorized sentence here. Because a life-without-parole prison sentence is not a 'cruel and unusual' method of punishment under any standard, the Eighth Amendment gives this Court no authority to reject those judgments. It would be unjustifiable for the Court to declare otherwise even if it could claim that a bare majority of state laws supported its independent moral view. The fact that the Court categorically prohibits life-without-parole sentences for juvenile nonhomicide offenders in the face of an overwhelming legislative majority in favor of leaving that sentencing option available under certain cases simply illustrates how far beyond any cognizable constitutional principle the Court has reached to ensure that its own sense of morality and retributive justice pre-empts that of the people and their representatives. I agree with Justice Stevens that '[w]e learn, sometimes, from our mistakes.'(concurring opinion). Perhaps one day the Court will learn from this one. I respectfully dissent."
Tweet
Friday, May 21, 2010
Senate Asks For Clinton Library Documents On Elena Kagan, Response Is It Would Be "Very Difficult"
The Clinton library is refusing to cooperate with the Senate which wants to see the documents authored by Elena Kagan. It seems they would rather keep the nominee with no paper trail a nominee with no paper trail. The LA Times reports that the "Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday set June 28 as the start date for hearings on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, and asked the Clinton presidential library to turn over voluminous documents related to Kagan's time as a top presidential assistant in the 1990s. But Terri Garner, director of the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum, said in an interview Wednesday that it would be 'very difficult' for her facility to meet the deadline. She said the records request is overly broad and 'too general in scope' and that, under the Presidential Records Act, attorneys for both Clinton and President Obama have the right to read and review each document before it is released to the committee."
Elena Kagan will very likely end up on the highest court in the land, a position of such immense power and influence as this court has taken upon itself very broad powers of judicial review, striking down and upholding federal and state laws regardless of what the Constitution itself demands. It is one of only nine jobs with life tenure, and there is no higher authority than the Supreme Court. The American people and the Senate have a right to see the documents authored by a nominee that is headed toward such a influential position. Excuses about the difficulty of providing those documents are inexcusable.
Tweet
DC Circuit Court Of Appeals Unanimously Rules That Boumedienne Does Not Apply To Bagram In Afghanistan And There Is No Civilian Judicial Oversight
The New York Times reports that a "federal appeals court ruled on Friday that prisoners being held without trial in Afghanistan by the military have no right to challenge their imprisonment in American civilian courts. The decision, overturning a lower court ruling in the detainees’ favor, was a victory for the Obama administration’s efforts to hold terrorism suspects overseas for extended periods without judicial oversight. In a unanimous 26-page ruling, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that detainees who were captured outside of Afghanistan and brought to a military prison at the Bagram air base have no right to a hearing in which a judge would review the evidence against them and could potentially order their release. Such habeas corpus rights do 'not extend to aliens held in executive detention in the Afghan theater of war,' wrote David B. Sentelle, the chief judge of the appeals court, who was appointed by former President Ronald Reagan. His opinion was joined by Judges Harry T. Edwards, a Carter appointee, and David S. Tatel, a Clinton appointee. The panel’s ruling reversed an April 2009 decision by a district court judge, John D. Bates, who had found that such detainees had the same constitutional rights that the Supreme Court has granted to similar prisoners who were flown to the military base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, instead of Bagram. The ruling by Judge Bates, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, had dealt a blow to government efforts to find a prison for holding terrorism suspects who are captured outside of the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones. When the Bush administration set up the Guantánamo military prison in early 2002, it argued that civilian courts had no jurisdiction to interfere with executive-branch decisions about the detainees it brought there. But in a series of rulings, culminating in a 2008 case, the Supreme Court declared that such detainees could challenge the basis for their imprisonment in federal court, in part because the naval base there is, in effect, United States soil. That ruling increased the importance of other overseas prisons, including the one at the Bagram air base. The Bush administration stopped bringing new detainees to Guantánamo, while arguing that Bagram remained outside court jurisdiction. After taking office last year, the Obama administration continued that approach. President Obama also prohibited the Central Intelligence Agency from operating secret prisons for long-term detention, further elevating the importance of military prisons like Bagram. Judge Bates’s ruling was narrow. It applied only to non-Afghans captured outside of Afghanistan — a status that applied to only about a dozen of the roughly 800 detainees being held at Bagram. He had reasoned that for such prisoners, concerns about court interference with a battlefield prison made no sense because the executive branch had chosen to transport them to the combat zone. In overturning Judge Bates yesterday, the appeals court panel rejected arguments by lawyers for the detainees that the government would be able 'to evade judicial review of executive detention decisions by transferring detainees into active combat zones, thereby granting the executive the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will.' Judge Sentelle argued that there had been no such intent by the government with regard to the three detainees in the case, because each been brought to Afghanistan years before the Supreme Court extended constitutional rights to detainees at Guantánamo. Still, he left the door open to approving habeas corpus rights for prisoners taken to prisons other than Guantánamo in the future... The case involves a Tunisian man who says he was captured in Pakistan, a Yemeni man who says he was captured in Thailand, and another Yemeni man who says he was captured somewhere else outside of Afghanistan that has not been disclosed. They have been held for seven to eight years. All three deny they are terrorists."
“We need make no determination on the importance of this possibility, given that it remains only a possibility; its resolution can await a case in which the claim is a reality rather than speculation,” he wrote.
Tweet
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Rush Limbaugh Rips Mexican President Over Hypocrisy On Immigration Policy
Here is the full interview with Wolf Blitzer:
Tweet
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Christopher Hitchens: "Don't Let Iran Blackmail The World"
To read the article visit http://www.slate.com/id/2254073/pagenum/all/. Tweet
Monday, May 17, 2010
Supreme Court Upholds Law Allowing Federal Officials To Indefinitely Hold "Sexually Dangerous" Prisoners After Completed Sentences, Thomas Dissents
The Washington Post reports that the "Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal officials can indefinitely hold inmates considered 'sexually dangerous' after their prison terms are complete. The high court in a 7-2 judgment reversed a lower court decision that said Congress overstepped its authority in allowing indefinite detentions of considered 'sexually dangerous.'... President George W. Bush in 2006 signed the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which authorized the civil commitment of sexually dangerous federal inmates. The act, named after the son of "America's Most Wanted" television host John Walsh, was challenged by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but prison officials said there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released. A fifth man who also was part of the legal challenge was charged with child sex abuse but declared incompetent to stand trial. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled last year that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing the government to hold indefinitely people who are considered 'sexually dangerous.' But 'we conclude that the Constitution grants Congress legislative power sufficient to enact' this law, Breyer said."
"The statute is a 'necessary and proper' means of exercising the federal authority that permits Congress to create federal criminal laws, to punish their violation, to imprison violators, to provide appropriately for those imprisoned and to maintain the security of those who are not imprisoned but who may be affected by the federal imprisonment of others," said Justice Stephen Breyer, writing the majority opinion.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented from the court's judgment, saying Congress can only pass laws that deal with the federal powers listed in the Constitution. The case revolved around the issue of whether "Congress has power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact a law authorizing the Federal Government to civilly commit 'sexually dangerous persons' beyond the date it lawfully could hold them on a charge or conviction for a federal crime." Thomas's opinion is basically that in order to be "necessary and proper" and therefore a power of Congress there must be a relation to a clearly enumerated power in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. He simply does not see "the power to enact a civil-commitment regime for sexually dangerous persons" being "one or more of those federal powers actually enumerated in the Constitution" and the federal government "identifies no specific enumerated power or powers as a constitutional predicate." Further, the "Court’s newly minted test" for what is necessary and proper "cannot be reconciled with the [Necessary and Proper] Clause’s plain text or with two centuries of our precedents interpreting it." He writes that "absent congressional action that is in accordance with, or necessary and proper to, an enumerated power, the duty to protect citizens from violent crime, including acts of sexual violence, belongs solely to the States." He expressly states in his dissent that this is a power of State government, that "the power 'to protect the community from the dangerous tendencies of some' mentally ill persons, are among the numerous powers that remain with the States." As he argues, "[t]o be sure, protecting society from violent sexual offenders is certainly an important end. Sexual abuse is a despicable act with untold consequences for the victim personally and society generally. But the Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it."
Justice Thomas concluded his dissent by saying "[a]bsent congressional action that is in accordance with, or necessary and proper to, an enumerated power, the duty to protect citizens from violent crime, including acts of sexual violence, belongs solely to the States." He points out that "[n]ot long ago, this Court described the Necessary and Proper Clause as 'the last, best hope of those who defend ultra vires congressional action.' Regrettably, today’s opinion breathes new life into that Clause, and — the Court’s protestations to the contrary notwithstanding — comes perilously close to transforming the Necessary and Proper Clause into a basis for the federal police power that 'we always have rejected.' In so doing, the Court endorses the precise abuse of power Article I is designed to prevent—the use of a limited grant of authority as a 'pretext...for the accomplishment of objects not intrusted to the government.'"
Tweet
Iran Says Will Continue 20 Percent Enrichment
Reuters reports that "Iran will continue its uranium enrichment activities, including production of 20 percent enriched uranium, even after signing a nuclear fuel swap deal with Turkey and Brazil on Monday, a senior official told Reuters." Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)