pat: (WWF)
( Aug. 1st, 2006 11:39 pm)
New post at WWF, about death-qualified juries and the Yates case. I actually wrote most of it last week, but didn't get around to posting it. It's sort of old news, but I thought I would post it anyway.
There is no way in hell to square this morning's case upholding Oregon's assisted suicide law with last-year's medical marijuana case. Not unless you make some distinctions that are so fine as to be nonsensical. Not that that has ever stopped the Court before. It is noteworthy that the Court did not even try to address this issue in its majority opinion.

Mind you, I think last year's case was wrongly decided.
Adventus has a really good post about the law, and the protection it affords us. It's a nice accompaniment to [ profile] pecunium's post from a while back about habeas corpus.

At the end, RMJ points out "The Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that Guantanamo detainees are entitled to hearings. In 2006, those same detainees are still on hunger strikes to protest their incarceration, and are being treated in brutal and inhumane ways, in violation of international law as well as U.S. law. And yet that treatment continues."

This is true -- every time the SCOTUS has told the Administration the have to do something, they have stonewalled, and gone back to court to argue over what it really means, anything rather than provide hearings for these people. And I'm beginning to wonder...

What do we do if, when the cases finally reach the SCOTUS the second time around, and the court unequivocally says you have to provide hearings and these are what they are to look like and this is when they have to happen... what if the Administration flat out refuses?

Of course, by virtue of stonewalling, they will have waited until they could change the composition of the court, so it probably won't happen. That's why Alito matters so much: O'Connor wrote the majority in Hamdan which required the Administration to provide the detainees with due process.

But still, what happens when they finally push things too far, and the Court stands up and says, "No more"? What then?
[ N. B. All typographical errors are from the original source and therefore have not been corrected ]

"We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was "legal" and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal." It was "illegal" to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at the time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's antireligious laws.


But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus an extremist for love: "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Was not Amos an extremist for justice: "Let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream." Was not Paul an extremist for the Christian gospel: "I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." Was not Martin Luther an extremist: "Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God." And John Bunyan: "I will stay in jail to the end of my days before I make a butchery of my conscience." And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that an men are created equal ..." So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we viii be. We we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremist for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calvary's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime---the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jeans Christ, was an extremist for love, truth and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation and the world are in dire need of creative extremists."

Martin Luther King, Letter from Birmingham Jail.

Thanks to [ profile] jmhm for the link.
The Supremes come through.

For anyone who might wonder, this is important. The SCOTUS ruled years ago that race as a factor in selection of juries was impermissible, but the subsequent rulings have failed to put teeth into that. This one does.

[Edit: Here's another link that does not require registration.]
First of all, I hope you understand the difference between an acquittal and a vindication. I don't know that the prosecution made its case, and the system rightly requires them to do so. Personally, I'd be highly suspicious of an adult who admits on camera that he sleeps in the same bed with boys he is not related to, but that's just me. (I would posit, however, that that admission for a defendant who did not have the benefit of Jackson's money and fame would have resulted in a conviction. American justice does not take place on a level playing field.)

That said -- you say you're interested in justice? So interested in justice that you would quit your job and go across country to scream epithets at complete strangers?

Okay, then. Why don't you take some of the money you spend following your "hero" -- your word, not mine, as I have not seen much if anything to convince me of his nobility of character -- and send it elsewhere, in the interests of justice? You could send the money here, or here, or here. Or here. Or here, here and here.

Just a thought.


pat: (Default)


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags