scotus
Posted at 5:44pm on Jun. 25, 2008 Gov. Bobby Jindal Signs Bill to Chemically Castrate Sex Offenders
Not Even Slightly Veiled Translation: Hey SCOTUS, Suck It
By Ben Domenech
On the heels of today's SCOTUS decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana barring the death penalty for sex offenders, Gov. Bobby Jindal released a statement calling the ruling an "affront to the people of Louisiana" - and what's more, vowing to do whatever possible to amend the state’s laws in order to maintain the death penalty for child rape.
But that's not all he did.
Today, Gov. Jindal signed the "Sex Offender Chemical Castration Bill," authorizing the castration of convicted sex offenders. They get a choice: physical or chemical. Oh, and they don't just get castrated and leave - they still have to serve out their sentence.
More below the fold:
Posted in Bobby Jindal | Breaking News | Crime | Death Penalty | Louisiana | scotus — Comments (51)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 5:05pm on Jun. 17, 2008 Do You Support Habeas Corpus Rights for Osama bin Laden?
John Kerry and Barack Obama Do
By Ben Domenech
From Michael Goldfarb, we learn an astounding fact: John Kerry supports granting Habeas Corpus rights to Osama bin Laden. From the NY Observer:
When asked by a reporter about the McCain campaign's assertion that Obama would want to give Osama Bin Laden habeas corpus rights, Kerry answered angrily.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that they have those rights -- this is not Barack Obama, this is the Supreme Court of the United States. If John McCain were president he'd have to give them those rights. This is a phony argument. And it is typical of what the Republican playbook is, which is, say anything, no matter what the other side has said, just say it, people may believe it, unless you folks write the truth and write it boldly and clearly. The truth is that this is exactly what they tried to say back in 2004 and the record absolutely contradicts it."
Obama himself, of course, already made the mistake of suggesting that granting habeas rights are just following the example of Nuremberg, where no such rights existed.
Conservatives would emphatically support Obama's position if it means as POTUS he would hold to the Nuremberg standard for international tribunals, since this measure would grant far fewer allowances for terrorists on trial than any court arranged by the current Administration. And it's not like Nuremberg was just a slaughterhouse - they acquitted more than one individual - they just weren't as interested in giving a whole slew of known killers and villains undeserved rights. Imagine if Nuremberg had the kind of allowances and presumptions of today's American courts? We'd have been arguing about these Nazis til the Reagan presidency.
It is a simple, straightforward, and reasonable position: Known terrorists, who have done nothing to earn the rights of American citizens but prove that they have varying degrees of skill in killing American citizens, should not have the same court experience as American citizens. The American people agree, emphatically rejecting the Obama-Kerry position in the ABC News/WaPo poll released today:
13. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that non-citizens suspected of terrorism who are being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, should be allowed to challenge their detentions in the U.S. civilian court system. (Supporters of this ruling say it provides detainees with basic constitutional rights.) (Critics of the ruling say only special military tribunals should be allowed, because hearings in open court could compromise terrorism investigations.) What's your view - do you think these detainees should or should not be able to challenge their detentions in the civilian court system?
Should 34%
Should not 61%
No Opinion 6%
Even on a question that convoluted, people have no qualms: access to the civilian court system is not a universal right, but a right that terrorists do not deserve. If caught alive, Osama bin Laden should be tried and executed. He should not be granted rights he has no claim to, by birthright or service or any other measure.
Barack Obama must answer this question: why does Osama bin Laden deserve these rights?
Posted in Barack Obama | Gitmo | John Kerry | John Kerry good John McCain bad | scotus | War — Comments (123)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 6:45pm on Jun. 12, 2008 Cornyn Gets It Right On The SCOTUS "Gitmo" Decision
By haystack
The US Supreme Court today gave rights to non-citizens..you know, the ones killing and trying to kill Americans? yeah-those non-citizens.
The Supreme Court, for the third time, rejected President Bush's policy for holding and trying foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and ruled today these men have a right to seek their freedom in a hearing before a federal judge.
Posted in John Cornyn | scotus | The Courts | What constitution? — Comments (32) / Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 9:24am on May 20, 2008 McCain Matters on Judges
By Erick
I always scratch my head at the purists among us. They won't go vote for John McCain because of their one little issue when objectively Obama is to the left of him on that issue. But because John McCain dared to say something not nice about the purist's favorite position, by God we are all traitors to the cause if we go vote for the man because he has sold us out.
The argument, of course, is B.S. Some people are just too sensitive for politics. As Krempasky said, it ain't bean bag, so as I would say, suck it up.
Here again, is another clear difference.
McCain, asked about judges, has mentioned Roberts and Alito and Scalia and Thomas.
Here's a Wolf Blitzer exchange with Obama on judges from May 8, 2008:
WOLF BLITZER: “Are there members or justices right now upon whom you would model [your Supreme Court nominations], you would look at? Who do you like?”OBAMA: “I think actually Justice Breyer, Justice Ginsburg are very sensible judges. I think that Justice Souter, who is a Republican appointee, is a sensible judge.”
Yesterday's Supreme Court decision on child pornography was decided 7-2.
Justices Souter and Ginsberg were in the minority. Souter opposed the crack down on child pornography.
Heck, even the liberal lion of the Supreme Court, John Paul Stevens, supported the law. Oh, wait, Stevens wasn't one of those Obama liked. But Souter and Ginsberg were on the list.
McCain matters on judges. You may not like him on a number of issues, but he has not disappointed us on supporting conservative judges. And in this day and age, we need good conservative judges.
Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Child Pornography | David Souter | scotus — Comments (16)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 11:41pm on Feb. 14, 2008 San Francisco health care tax appealed to Supreme Court
There are a whole lot of Democrat-led cities and states watching this case very, very closely
By Jeff Emanuel
An association of restaurant operators in San Francisco has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule a decision by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowing the city’s health insurance employer mandate law to go into effect. It will be best for all of San Francisco if the Court sides with the association on this one.
The association is seeking reinstatement of a federal judge’s ruling that the city’s Health Care Security Ordinance conflicts with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a longstanding federal law addressing government regulation of employee benefits.
Read on.
Posted in California | Economics | Government-run health care | Health care | Policy | San Francisco | scotus — Comments (7)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 5:51pm on Nov. 20, 2007 High Hopes, Pass the Carrot Cake
By Thomas
Apropos of Alex's note on the Supreme Court's decision to grant cert in the D.C. gun case:
We all realize, I hope, that this won't resolve whether the 2nd Amendment is, gag, incorporated, right? I mean, whether the 2nd Amendment enshrines an individual right or a collective one (so to speak) is still only a Federal question, and is only applicable here because D.C. is (and will remain forever if I have my way) a Federal protectorate.
If the Court decides that it is an individual right, they're going to have to stand Miller on its head, or just flat-out overrule it. I'm not sure this Court goes there.
(As to incorporation: I know, but I'm not convinced this Court is going to expand the incorporation doctrine. Actually, I just hope they won't, even though I love the policy result.)
Posted at 4:47pm on May 8, 2007 Re: Second Amendment
By krempasky
How many of the Dem House Leadership is right now, desperately working the phones to get DC to drop its challenge? I can't imagine they want to see this case, with these facts, go before this Court.
Posted at 4:03pm on Apr. 10, 2007 Something To Be Thankful For
Yes, he did expand government. On the other hand...
By krempasky
There's a lot for conservatives to be cranky about when it comes to the Bush Administration. Education bill, Prescription Drug Bill, size and scope of government...the list goes on. But noticing the cover of today's edition of USA Today reminded me that even if you're a disgruntled conservative - especially one that thinks Republicans ought to lose to learn a lesson - don't think for a moment this President hasn't done good, important things. Here's just one.
And if you needed a reason to focus on November, 2008 - well, there you go.
Posted in bush | scotus | The Courts — Comments (21)/ Email this page » / Read More »
