Trying Terrorists: SCOTUSblog reporter Lyle Denniston posts that the Justice Department has told a federal court that within the next 60 days it will decide whether to try in civilian court or military court those accused of taking part in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Denniston reports the Department's decision was motivated by "a sweeping challenge to the entire system of terrorism trials in specialized military tribunals[.]" Ramzi Bin Al-Shibh filed his challenge to the military tribunal system on September 9th, and last Friday, September 11th, the D.C. Circuit Court asked the the Obama Administration to reply to his challenge. Al-Shibh faces war crimes charges, related to the 9/11 attacks. If convicted, he could receive a death sentence. He has challenged the constitutionality of the tribunals, and asked for a stay. The Justice Department opposes a stay, but as Denniston reports the government has asked for a 60 day stay and has "not indicat[ed] that it wants the military commission trial of
Al-Shibh to go ahead with pre-trial proceedings that are already
scheduled."
More Reports On Possible Supreme Court Retirement: At Blog of Legal Times, Tony Mauro reports that a Monday post on Newsweek's blog, The Gaggle, "sent another tremor through the Supreme Court community about the possibility that Justice John Paul Stevens is planning to retire at the end of the upcoming term." The Gaggle reported that in an apparently unusual move, Justice Stevens sent an e-mail to former law clerks inviting them to a clerk reunion next May. Gaggle reporters believed this was another sign Justice Stevens plans to retire. Mauro spent some time tracking down former clerks, who informed him that a former clerk, and not Justice Stevens, was organizing the reunion. Former clerks also stated that reunions are not atypical - the last one was in 2004.
The End of Breathalyzer?: CrimProfBlog points us to an AP story reporting that officers in Idaho and Texas are being trained to draw blood from people suspected of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The officer's training is part of a federal pilot program to determine if drawing blood by law-enforcement officers can be an effective tool against drunken drivers, and aid in their prosecution. In 1966, in Schmerber v. California, the Supreme Court allowed officers to forcibly draw blood from a drunk driving suspect. Arizona was the first state to implement this practice, and its phlebotomy coordinator, Alan Haywood, is directing the training programs in Idaho and Texas.
Federalist Society SCOTUScast on Citizens United: The Federalist Society has posted a "post-re-argument" SCOTUScast for Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Mr. James Bopp Jr., General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech and an attorney with the law firm of Bopp, Coleson, and Bostrom in Terre Haute, Indiana, provides a summary and his analysis of the argument. Ed Whalen also has a post discussing Citizens United at NRO's Bench Memos. Whalen's post addressed comments that Chief Justice Roberts "would be betraying his supposed confirmation testimony on precedent if he were to vote to overrule the Court's holdings on corporate speech in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC."
More Reports On Possible Supreme Court Retirement: At Blog of Legal Times, Tony Mauro reports that a Monday post on Newsweek's blog, The Gaggle, "sent another tremor through the Supreme Court community about the possibility that Justice John Paul Stevens is planning to retire at the end of the upcoming term." The Gaggle reported that in an apparently unusual move, Justice Stevens sent an e-mail to former law clerks inviting them to a clerk reunion next May. Gaggle reporters believed this was another sign Justice Stevens plans to retire. Mauro spent some time tracking down former clerks, who informed him that a former clerk, and not Justice Stevens, was organizing the reunion. Former clerks also stated that reunions are not atypical - the last one was in 2004.
The End of Breathalyzer?: CrimProfBlog points us to an AP story reporting that officers in Idaho and Texas are being trained to draw blood from people suspected of driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The officer's training is part of a federal pilot program to determine if drawing blood by law-enforcement officers can be an effective tool against drunken drivers, and aid in their prosecution. In 1966, in Schmerber v. California, the Supreme Court allowed officers to forcibly draw blood from a drunk driving suspect. Arizona was the first state to implement this practice, and its phlebotomy coordinator, Alan Haywood, is directing the training programs in Idaho and Texas.
Federalist Society SCOTUScast on Citizens United: The Federalist Society has posted a "post-re-argument" SCOTUScast for Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Mr. James Bopp Jr., General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech and an attorney with the law firm of Bopp, Coleson, and Bostrom in Terre Haute, Indiana, provides a summary and his analysis of the argument. Ed Whalen also has a post discussing Citizens United at NRO's Bench Memos. Whalen's post addressed comments that Chief Justice Roberts "would be betraying his supposed confirmation testimony on precedent if he were to vote to overrule the Court's holdings on corporate speech in Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC."
Leave a comment