Gov. Pat McCrory has signed into law a repeal of a landmark act that allowed convicted murderers in North Carolina to reduce sentences to life in prison if they could prove racial bias.In reality, the law allowed attacks on death sentences with statistics that proved very little about bias and nothing whatever about the defendant's case.
June 13? Well, per Animal House, "Forget it. He's rolling." But what's that dig at Texas? Did he really mean that?Speaking at a ceremony unveiling a statue of [Frederick] Douglass in the U.S. Capitol, Biden talked about how Wednesday's Juneteenth holiday honors the day Texas became the last state to learn the Civil War -- and by extension, slavery -- was over.
"Today, we celebrate the anniversary, as Speaker Pelosi pointed out, of the victory over slavery is June 13th," Biden said, appearing to mix up his dates. "Finally, the message got to Texas."
Biden then caught himself as someone in the audience appeared to react negatively to his choice of words.
"I didn't mean it the way that sounded. It just took time. It took a long time to get to Delaware too," he said.
Actually, Mr. Vice President, emancipation took six months longer to get to Delaware. The Emancipation Proclamation, by its terms, only applied to states in rebellion on January 1, 1863. While the emancipated former slaves in Galveston were celebrating, the slaves in Dover were still slaves. They remained so until the requisite 3/4 of the states ratified the Thirteenth Amendment on December 6. The 3/4 did not include Delaware, which symbolically ratified in 1901.
I'll take Mr. Biden at his word that he didn't mean it that way. Let's both hoist a glass today to the Great Emancipator and, every bit as importantly, the gallant soldiers who transformed the Proclamation into reality. And let's stop elbowing each other over the sins of people long dead.
"Gov. Scott came to Tallahassee to restructure our economy and drag us out of the recession, but if this happens history will note him as the governor who signed more warrants than anyone else,'' said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.This is nonsense of course. Scott will be known primarily by the outcome of his economic efforts. But there is certainly nothing wrong in being known, additionally, as a governor who delivered effective justice in the very worst murder cases.
Far better, in my view, to pose the relevant question directly: Can one fairly infer from an individual's silence and surrounding circumstances an exercise of the Fifth Amendment's privilege? The need for simplicity, the constitutional importance of applying the Fifth Amendment to those who seek its protection, and this Court's case law all suggest that this is the right question to ask here. And the answer to that question in the circumstances of today's case is clearly: yes.What's wrong with this picture? The needs he considers are entirely on one side. There is a reason that the goddess of justice is portrayed holding a double pan balance scale. What about the need to punish Salinas for a double shotgun murder? What about the need to get a violent thug off the street? Don't those needs count at all?
But popular misconceptions notwithstanding, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that no one may be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself "; it does not establish an unqualified "right to remain silent." A witness' constitutional right to refuse to answer questions depends on his reasons for doing so, and courts need to know those reasons to evaluate the merits of a Fifth Amendment claim.For almost half a century, the Miranda rule has required police to tell arrestees they have a right to remain silent, and that phrasing has become more widely known to the public than what the Fifth Amendment actually says. It is good to see the Supreme Court moving back in the direction of the actual Constitution.
Colorado comes onto the line for the first time this cycle following a Quinnipiac University poll showing former congressman Tom Tancredo (R) running neck-and-neck with the once highly popular governor. Hickenlooper's decision to grant a temporary reprieve to a convicted murderer was received very poorly by Colorado voters in the survey. It's just one poll, and time will tell whether it is an outlier. But for now, this race is worth keeping an eye on.The poll is here. Quinnipiac says,
Colorado voters say 69 - 24 percent that the death penalty should stay on the books and not be replaced by life in prison with no chance of parole, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. At the same time, Gov. John Hickenlooper finds himself running neck and neck with possible challengers in the 2014 governor's race.I would dearly love to see Hickenlooper get the boot and for it to be clear that this is the reason. It would be just deserts for Hickenlooper himself. It would allow a reboot of justice for Colorado, one of the states stabbed in the back by the Supreme Court's Walton/Ring flip-flop. It would send a strong signal to governors elsewhere considering similar shenanigans.
Voters disapprove 67 - 27 percent of Gov. Hickenlooper's decision to grant convicted murderer Nathan Dunlap a reprieve, and 74 percent say the death penalty will be "very important" or "somewhat important" in their vote for governor next year, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds.
It doesn't matter if the murder in question -- the death penalty -- is legal. It is still wrong. More importantly, it is unconstitutional.Note the "..." in the quote. What the Supreme Court actually said in Furman v. Georgia is, "The Court holds that the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments." (Emphasis added.)
The Supreme Court itself said so back in 1972. That's right, writing in 1972 the Court argued that "the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty ... constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments."
]]>To my mind, conservatism is gratitude. Conservatives tend to begin from gratitude for what is good and what works in our society and then strive to build on it, while liberals tend to begin from outrage at what is bad and broken and seek to uproot it.
You need both, because some of what is good about our world is irreplaceable and has to be guarded, while some of what is bad is unacceptable and has to be changed. We should never forget that the people who oppose our various endeavors and argue for another way are well intentioned too, even when they're wrong, and that they're not always wrong.
But we can also never forget what moves us to gratitude, and so what we stand for and defend: the extraordinary cultural inheritance we have; the amazing country built for us by others and defended by our best and bravest; America's unmatched potential for lifting the poor and the weak; the legacy of freedom--of ordered liberty--built up over centuries of hard work.
We value these things not because they are triumphant and invincible but because they are precious and vulnerable, because they weren't fated to happen, and they're not certain to survive. They need us--and our gratitude for them should move us to defend them and to build on them.
This regulation is issued under the authority of 40 U.S.C. § 6102 to protect the Supreme Court building and grounds, and persons and property thereon, and to maintain suitable order and decorum within the Supreme Court building and grounds. Any person who fails to comply with this regulation may be subject to a fine and/or imprisonment pursuant to 40 U.S.C. § 6137. This regulation does not apply on the perimeter sidewalks on the Supreme Court grounds. The Supreme Court may also make exceptions to this regulation for activities related to its official functions.
No person shall engage in a demonstration within the Supreme Court building and grounds. The term "demonstration" includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers. The term does not include casual use by visitors or tourists that is not reasonably likely to attract a crowd or onlookers.
Approved and Effective June 13, 2013
The casual use unlikely to draw a crowd exception is to deal with a perceived overbreadth problem. Adam Liptak has this story in the NYT.
John W. Whitehead, the president of the Rutherford Institute, which represents Mr. Hodge, said the new regulation was disturbing.
"Facing a fine or imprisonment because one man demonstrates in front of the Supreme Court," he said, "is repugnant to the First Amendment."
Nonsense. The Grace case says he can demonstrate in front of the Supreme Court. He just has to stay on the sidewalk. Seems like a reasonable "place" limitation to me.
What next? A First Amendment right to hold the protest in the courtroom itself while oral arguments are going on?