<< "Idiotic" New Laws? Maybe Not | Main | More on Willingham Case >>


Blog Scan

| 0 Comments
Questioning the ACLU Involvement of Federal Judiciary Nominees:  At The Blog of Legal Times, David Ingram reports that Republicans have focused in on Federal Judiciary nominees' involvement in the ACLU.  According to Ingram, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have raised objections to nominees with a history of working for the ACLU.  Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the committee, dislikes the ACLU's stands on the death penalty and separation of church and state. He called its argument that capital punishment is unconstitutional an "outrageous position" that's unworthy of serious consideration.  On the other hand, democrats, like Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), believe that involvement with the ACLU is "more defensible than involvement with the conservative Federalist Society."

LWOP for Juveniles Just May Be Appropriate:
  Sentencing Law and Policy's blogger, Doug Berman, links to a column by Jake Parsley in yesterday's Minnesota Daily.  The column, "The kids are not alright," discusses the Minnesota Supreme Court's ruling that LWOP for a seventeen year old offender did not violate the state or federal constitution, and recognizes that some juveniles commit terrible crimes, after all "[y]ou don't get life without parole for vandalizing the neighbor's garage."  Parsley then goes on to discuss the upcoming Supreme Court case Sullivan v. Florida. He recognizes that at the time of sentencing "Sullivan's criminal record merited 846 points under Florida's sentencing guidelines -- well over the 583 points needed to impose a life sentence[,]" yet believes LWOP for juveniles may not be the best way to deal with severe juvenile offenders.  CJLF authored a brief for both Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida.   Our Summary of Facts and Case describes the violent criminal history of each defendant.  

Justice Ginsburg Hospitalized Overnight:  SCOTUSblog reporter Lyle Denniston posts news of Justice Ginsburg's quick trip to the hospital yesterday.  According to the Supreme Court, the hospitalization is due to an "adverse reaction" to her medication.  The reaction occurred as Justice Ginsburg was getting ready to fly to London where she and other members of the Court were to attend opening ceremonies this week for Britain's new Supreme Court.  The Court's statement explained that after she boarded the plane, she "experienced extreme drowsiness causing her to fall from her seat.  Paramedics were called and the Justice was taken to the Washington Hospital Center as a precaution."  She was found to be in stable health and released this morning.  Tony Mauro also reports on the Justice's hospitalization for Blog of Legal Times.

Alvarez v. Smith May Be Dismissed on Procedural Grounds:
  At Wall Street Journal's Law Blog, Nathan Koppel reports on yesterday's oral arguments in the asset forfeiture case Alvarez v. Smith.  According to Koppel, the case "was shaping up as an interesting battle pitting the government against individual rights," but yesterday's Supreme Court arguments focused on procedural rules that would remove the case from their docket.  Wall Street Journal reporter, Jess Bravin, wrote that "Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to dismiss rather than decide a property-rights case centering on an owner's ability to challenge police seizure of cars or cash in narcotics investigations."  Evidently, the justices appeared largely in agreement on the wisdom of dismissing the case, believing the case was moot.   The arguments' transcript was posted yesterday on SCOTUSblog.  Ilya Somin also states his impression of yesterday's argument at Volokh Conspiracy.   


Leave a comment

Monthly Archives