Supreme Court Drops a Bomb

The US Supreme Court dropped a little bomb on Thursday and most of us didn't even notice. It wasn't one of the big decisions anticipated at the end of their term so it didn't get much press. It concerned sentencing guidelines and though the decision only applies to Washington State (Blakely vs. Washington), Federal, state and local prosecutors are waiting for guidance along with judges.

USA Today

Contra Costa Times

You rarely see the Court split this way:

Majority
Antonin Scalia, Majority Opinion
John Paul Stevens
David Souter
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Clarence Thomas

Minority
Sandra Day O'Connor, Dissenting Opinion
William Rehnquist
Stephen Breyer, Dissenting Opinion
Anthony Kennedy

 

No, it applies to all jurisdictions. It may have a large impact even in New Mexico state courts.

It is also correct.

I agree that the split is unusual. This Court seems to have a growing interest in protecting the citizen from the federal executive. Perhaps they are acting as a counterweight to the executive tendency to erode civil rights.

 

Hey Nos,

NPR did an interesting review I heard while driving to work on Friday. As you note, the prediction was that it will affect all jurisdictions. It was suggested this will create a prosecutor's nightmare. If I correctly grasped the gist the impact will be retrospective, for those already sentenced, as well as prospective. It was also suggested that prosecutors will feel pressured to settle more cases by way of plea bargains although my attention was diverted by traffic and I missed the rationale why. The outcome was described as prosecutors endorsing shorter sentences. Which, when you think of it, is interesting in light of Justice Kennedy's recent ABA speech

 

The Bomb

Thanks Nos for correcting my error, I typed it late at night - I should know better.

When I first skimmed the article in my paper and saw how the Court split, I was intrigued. I can't remember the last time I saw Scalia and Thomas on the same side with Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. And O'Connor's dissent was very strong.

I also believe that the decision is correct.

 

I am actually not sure whether the decision really will be retroactive. Since it deals with a fundamental constitutional right, it very well may be.

The result will be resentencings, not retrials. I don't think that the prosecutors could emplanel new jurys to retry the aggravating circumstances; double jeopardy, you know. At least, I think so...

 

Fully Informed Jury Associaton.

 

Another bomb

Well!

The Supremes did it again! The administration may NOT hold terrorist/unlawful combatant detainees indefinitely without access to the Courts! Not even at GITMO!

The Chief Justice is nicknamed "Darth Vader" in some legal circles, but that image is changing. I think the Supremes REALLY DO NOT LIKE what they see as a growing executive threat to American civil liberties.

 

Re: Another bomb

Even before this (IMO awful) decision, no one had anything to worry about, unless, of course, you were a terrorist or unlawful combatant. Excuse me if I don't shed any tears for their "rights".

When you drive airplanes into skyscrapers, behead civilian personnel, and conduct covert operations in civilian clothes, you shouldn't expect the leeches at the ACLU & National Lawyer's Guild to try to rescue your sorry ass.

When I was in the first Gulf War, I knew what would most likely happen to me if I was captured, so I took steps to make sure I'd never be taken alive.

 

Um. Excuse me? Who gets to DECIDE whether a defendant is a terrorist and therefore has no rights? It SHOULD scare you. Especially since you are no innocent when it comes to criminal justice and the not unknown phenomenon of abuse of power.

 

Oops. I did NOT MEAN TO IMPLY THAT YOU HAVE EVER ABUSED POLICE POWER!!! Sorry about that; I realize that my post could be misunderstood.

 

"Terrorist" is just the latest sexy word for partisan, irregular, liberation fighter, etc. What it comes down to is that they are illegal combatants. They are not United States citizens, nor did their illegal activity take place in the United States. Exactly how do you figure that the US Constitution should apply to them???

Where do we draw the line? Should we now train all our soldiers to use the Model Penal Code use of force policy?

 

Re: Another bomb

More interesting groupings of Justices - Scalia and Stevens both strongly believed that Hamdi should be relased immediately. Very strange bedfellows.

You could tell from the audio recording of the arguments that the Justices - liberal and conservative - were very troubled by the issues in these cases. Agreed Nos, these were important civil liberties issues.

Heard that the Supreme's decision totally blindsided the Pentagon. It didn't take someone with a law degree to figure out that the Pentagon wasn't going to win.

 

Actually, a designated terrorist CAN be a U.S. citizen. The Bush administration makes no distinction.

 

AFAIK, there are no US citizens being held at Gitmo, so that's a straw-man argument.

 

No, it's not.

The administration claims the authority to designate ANY person as being a terrorist, detain that person imcommunicado and and in secret for any period of time, torture that person, to death if necessary, all at the SOLE determination, in secret, of the president. The Bush adminstration also claims that no domestic law, constitutional restriction, or treaty obligation is binding upon the president.

The sum of this position is that the president has life and death power over any human being he can lay his collective hands on.

The White House and its supporters use as their ONLY argument, "Oh pooh. We would never abuse this power like the liberals say we would. It would be un American. Trust us. Besides, there's a war on."

Nonsense. The genius of our constitution is in the separation of powers. The Founders understood all too clearly that "Trust us" is exactly the WRONG approach to take and that it leads to tyranny.

 

The one US Citizen captured so far (John Walker Lindh) was given due process, and is now in prison.

I really don't understand how/why you want to extend Constitutional protections to foreign terrorists that have never set foot in the United States.

 

Because the power to kill at will outside actual combat situations is the mark of a dictator.

 

Yes... and what is your point?

Unless I am mistaken, Bruce has already advocated summary executions of those SUSPECTED of terrorism.

He also proposed that cops should be able to execute on-sight people suspected of being drug dealers. He then quickly said that he didn't really believe this. Uhh.. right...

 

I never said that I wanted anyone to have the power to kill at will. What I'm saying is that terrorists held at Gitmo that were captured in Afganistan/Iraq should not have Constitutional protections, nor access to US courts. Military tribunals are much more appropriate.

 

I believe what I said was that I wouldn't mind taking out some drug dealers. It's a very common fantasy among cops, since we see, first-hand, the misery & death that they bring.

I'd also love to take a baseball bat to the head of Joel Steinberg, but I'm not going to actually do it. There's a huge difference.