More on Massachusetts' Felon Disenfranchisement Law: At Election Law Blog, Rick Hasen wonders whether Simmons v. Galvin (briefly discussed here yesterday) could be headed to the Supreme Court. In his post, Hasen correctly notes that dissenting Judge Torruella's position on the meaning of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is very much like that expressed by Judge Sotomayor in Hayden v. Pataki. Hasen predicts that Simmons could make its way before the U.S. Supreme Court. With Judge Sotomayor's confirmation almost assured, Simmons would give Judge Sotomayor a chance to reexamine her belief that the Voting Rights Act "applies to all 'voting qualifications,' " and
the state law discriminates because it "disqualifies a group of people from voting."
AG Holder Discusses Incarceration: At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman reports on yesterday's speech by Attorney General Eric Holder before the ABA House of Delegates. Berman reports that the speech outlined the Department of Justice's latest vision and priorities for reform of the nation's criminal justice systems. A portion of Holder's speech (text available here) focused on sentencing and prison policy. Holder pointed out that the nation's violent crime rate had dropped 40% since 1991. He contributed the drop, in part, to "incarceration of offenders[,]" but stated that the DOJ would not rely on imprisonment alone to enforce criminal laws. In light of the states' efforts to trim budgets, and the increasing cost of incarceration, Holder proposed that states adopt alternative policies to address their criminal problems. He advocated for states "to consider what happens to those people after they leave prison and reenter society...." Holder's proposal will not solve every budget crisis. States must still pay for prisoner reentry programs, in addition to the trial costs of those who re-offend.
Most Liberal Nominee Since Justice Marshall?: This was a question asked on The Ninth Justice yesterday. Jonathan Adler wonders over at Volokh Conspiracy whether it is true. According to Segal-Cover rankings, which evaluate the perceived ideology of judicial nominees by examining how newspaper editorials evaluate their qualifications and ideology, Judge Sotomayor has earned a score of 0.79 on ideology, with 0 being conservative, and 1 being liberal. Adler points out that while this may be true, there have only been two Democratic nominees to the Supreme Court since Thurgood Marshall - Justices Ginsburg and Breyer - so "it's possible that Sotomayor could be the 'most liberal' nominee without concluding that she's that much more liberal than current justices, at least at the time of nomination." Jeffrey Segal, who helped develop the ranking system, contributes part of her score to the media's focus on the Ricci case. He also says the scores reflect what is "current, not necessarily what the court would see."
AG Holder Discusses Incarceration: At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman reports on yesterday's speech by Attorney General Eric Holder before the ABA House of Delegates. Berman reports that the speech outlined the Department of Justice's latest vision and priorities for reform of the nation's criminal justice systems. A portion of Holder's speech (text available here) focused on sentencing and prison policy. Holder pointed out that the nation's violent crime rate had dropped 40% since 1991. He contributed the drop, in part, to "incarceration of offenders[,]" but stated that the DOJ would not rely on imprisonment alone to enforce criminal laws. In light of the states' efforts to trim budgets, and the increasing cost of incarceration, Holder proposed that states adopt alternative policies to address their criminal problems. He advocated for states "to consider what happens to those people after they leave prison and reenter society...." Holder's proposal will not solve every budget crisis. States must still pay for prisoner reentry programs, in addition to the trial costs of those who re-offend.
Most Liberal Nominee Since Justice Marshall?: This was a question asked on The Ninth Justice yesterday. Jonathan Adler wonders over at Volokh Conspiracy whether it is true. According to Segal-Cover rankings, which evaluate the perceived ideology of judicial nominees by examining how newspaper editorials evaluate their qualifications and ideology, Judge Sotomayor has earned a score of 0.79 on ideology, with 0 being conservative, and 1 being liberal. Adler points out that while this may be true, there have only been two Democratic nominees to the Supreme Court since Thurgood Marshall - Justices Ginsburg and Breyer - so "it's possible that Sotomayor could be the 'most liberal' nominee without concluding that she's that much more liberal than current justices, at least at the time of nomination." Jeffrey Segal, who helped develop the ranking system, contributes part of her score to the media's focus on the Ricci case. He also says the scores reflect what is "current, not necessarily what the court would see."
Leave a comment