<< News Scan | Main | More Grist for Mills >>


Blog Scan

| 0 Comments
Marbury ad Newseum: Tony Mauro has this post at the Blog of the Legal Times on Justice Stevens moderating a panel at the Newseum on the Marbury v. Madison case. He reports that Justice Stevens has been fascinated with the case since law school and cites it every chance he gets. We at CJLF like to cite it, too, especially this passage: "That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent."

No Change In DOJ's Habeas Stance at Bagram:  At SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denniston posts on the Government's one paragraph reply brief in Maqaleh v. Gates.  Today, the Department of Justice told District Judge John D. Bates that the Government was "adher[ing] to its previously articulated position."  That position was that of the Bush Administration's DOJ, and stated the 600 detainees being held at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan did not have the right to U. S. courts to challenge their confinement.  The reply brief was filed at the request of Judge Bates who issued an order, back in January, asking the Obama Administration to clarify whether it intended to support the Bush Administration's position on the issue.  Denniston's post on that order can be found here.  It remains to be seen if Judge Bates will agree with the stance taken by either Administration.  Denniston writes that he has already "dropped hints that he may find that at least some of those at Bagram have a right to contest their initial confinement and their continuing imprisonment there."  Joe Palazzolo also has this post at Blog of the Legal Times. 

California's Ban on Violent Video Games Unconstitutional:  Eugene Volokh offers his thoughts on today's Ninth Circuit's decision in Video Software Dealers Ass'n. v. Schwarzenegger, which found that California's ban on renting and selling violent video games to minors was unconstitutional.  Bob Egelko also has a story in the San Francisco Chronicle.  California's statute, California Civil Code sections 1746-1746.5, was found unconstitutional as a content based restriction on free speech that could not meet the legal requirements of strict scrutiny, and was not "not the 'variable obscenity' standard from Ginsberg v. New York."  The Ninth Circuit took issue with the Act's definition of obscenity.  The definition could not be upheld under the Ginsberg variable standard because Ginsberg only addressed sexually-explicit materials.  Furthermore, California had not met its burden under the strict scrutiny test to show that the law was necessary to prevent psychological or neurological harm to minors. 

Leave a comment