I find it absolutely appropriate that Yahoo! News places its Supreme Court section under Politics.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Supreme Court, Thought of the day | Leave a comment »
I find it absolutely appropriate that Yahoo! News places its Supreme Court section under Politics.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Supreme Court, Thought of the day | Leave a comment »
Cameron Ward is a civil rights lawyer in Canada. (He is also a pretty good goalie from Canada, playing for the Hurricanes. But that’s another guy.) In 2002 he was arrested on suspicion of plotting to throw a pie at the Prime Minister.
[P]olice – acting on an anonymous tip that someone was preparing to pie then-Prime Minister Jean Chretien at a nearby event – arrested Cameron Ward as he walked to work.
Ward, who did not have pie with him, was jailed for several hours, subjected to a partial strip search and had his car impounded.
He was released after Chretien’s event was over, and the prime minister — who had been pied at an East Coast event in 2000 — never did suffer a pie attack.
Ward then sued the Vancouver police for wrongful arrest. A court ruled in his favor, awarding him approximately $10,000. Vancouver then appealed the ruling, resulting in this a ruling from Canada’s Supreme Court:
The justices unanimously sided with Ward, however, although they struck down the C$100 he got for having his car impounded.
“He had a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, which was violated in an egregious fashion,” wrote the court, ruling that the rights violation was great enough to warrant damages being paid.
This has taken 8 years to conclude. It has cost the city far more than the awarded 10 grand when the legal fees, time and energy, and embarrassment are all factored. But what could have solved the problem much, much, much more quickly? What could have saved everyone from this whole show? It turns out the answer is pretty simple. The courts and police just needed to fess up to their obvious error in judgement.
“All of this has cost hundreds of thousands of dollars needlessly because all I ever wanted was an apology,” Ward insisted.
The audacity.
Filed under: News | Tagged: Cameron Ward, canada, Humble Pie, Police, Supreme Court, Vancouver | 1 Comment »
The Supreme Court recently said a university is not required to give its student groups the same First Amendment protections a private group would receive so long as it is treating the groups equally. It’s akin to a private employer allowing its employees to form groups while putting the restriction on them that no employee may be excluded from any given group for any reason. It’s entirely reasonable.
Now a professor – Mike Adams – has a column I suspect is tongue-in-cheek.
I can’t stand atheists. And I plan to do something about them. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court has given me a powerful tool to use in my war against the godless. Earlier this week, the Court ruled that a public university may require all student organizations to admit any student as a voting member or officer. The decision applies even to a student who is openly hostile to the group’s fundamental beliefs.
It’s perplexing why Adams is focusing on atheists. The decision was based upon the Christian group suing a university. Atheists had nothing to do with it. But whatever. He’s right, students hostile to the message of a group may still join that group – provided the school has an all-comers policy. I’m not sure Adams’ university, UNC, has that policy. If it doesn’t, his whole rant doesn’t apply.
Another site that picked up on Adams has pointed out another flaw in this DIABOLICAL PLAN!
The court’s decision pointed out that student groups could still, for example, expel members who didn’t pay dues, or restrict officer positions to those who had been members for a year or more. If his “young Christian warriors” wanted to disrupt an atheist club, they’d have to sit and wait for a year, paying to promote atheism the whole time, before they’d get their chance. I doubt many Christians would be willing to do that. Or an atheist law students’ club could just forgo official recognition, exactly as the court emphasized that they could, and restrict their membership to professing nonbelievers.
The final point is the primary problem with what Adams is saying. As so many angry, bitter, legally doltish Christians seem to do, Adams is conflating what private groups must be allowed to do versus what university endorsed groups must be allowed to do. As the Supreme Court noted, a student group can forgo official recognition by the university, thus becoming just another private group, allowed to exclude a great many people. In other words, the court said universities do not have to endorse bigotry.
But Adams continues.
The Court acknowledges that such “accept all comers” policies may not in fact be desirable for maintaining robust debate on public college campuses. I concur. And I like it that way. I do not seek robust debate. I seek power over the godless heathen dissident.
The article is tongue-in-cheek and I don’t foresee Adams actually following through, but this makes sense. I mean, the arguments of atheists have long frustrated theists who are unable to give coherent responses. (And by “frustrated theists” I mean all theists who have ever bothered to think.) The only reason Christians and other theists are able to maintain any power is through sheer numbers, not rationality or reason.
But sure, Adams can go ahead and invade other groups if he really wants. He might even succeed in making sure universities do not adopt all-comers policies. But he’ll still be wrong about this Supreme Court decision. And all because he is unable to differentiate between protections for private groups under the constitution and protections for what private groups may do within their own internal structure. It’s sad and intellectually pathetic.
Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, News, Religions | Tagged: Christian Legal Society, CLS, Hastings, Intellectually pathetic, Mike Adams, Supreme Court, UNC | 3 Comments »
In a no-brainer, the Supreme Court has picked up on the fact that 17 year olds are likely to be different individuals when they get older.
By a 5-4 vote, the court said young people serving life prison terms must have “a meaningful opportunity to obtain release” if they haven’t killed their victims. The majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy extended the “children are different” rationale that drove his decision five years ago that outlawed the death penalty for killers under 18.
To no one’s surprise, Scalia and his puppet, Thomas, both dissented. Of course, they’re legal minds haven’t matured past the age of 11 year olds, so maybe they just aren’t aware of the obvious facts of life.
But even the average Joe can be an idiot. This is from the comment section on the Yahoo! article; I suspect it will turn out to be rather representative of the conservative criticism that will be dealt out to this piece of reason.
This is great. Once again the US Supreme Court is telling juveniles it is OK to disobey the laws of this country as long as you do it before 18.
Yes, that’s exactly it. Despite all the news reports, the quotes from the justices, and the actual written opinions, what has actually just happened is that the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no punishments for crimes committed as children. Rob a store at 17? You’re free. Snort cocaine and get busted at 16? No sweat. I mean, how else could someone possibly interpret such a heavy and complex ruling?!
Filed under: News | Tagged: Clarence Thomas, Justices, Kennedy, Scalia, Supreme Court | 3 Comments »
Justice Stevens says he will retire during Obama’s current term.
His departure would give Obama his second nomination to the court, enabling him to ensure there would continue to be at least four liberal-leaning justices. The high court is often split 5 to 4 on major cases, with the vote of moderate Justice Anthony Kennedy often deciding which side prevails.
“I will surely do it while he’s still president,” Stevens told The Washington Post.
Hopefully Obama goes with yet another young candidate.
Filed under: News | Tagged: Justice Stevens, Supreme Court | Leave a comment »
There is a case before the Supreme Court concerning Miranda rights
[Kevin] Powell was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm after telling police he bought the weapon “off the street” for $150 for his protection. Before his confession, Powell signed a Miranda statement that included the statements “You have the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of our questions. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed for you without cost and before any questioning. You have the right to use any of these rights at any time you want during this interview.”
The Florida Supreme Court overturned the conviction on grounds the Tampa police didn’t adequately convey to Powell that he was allowed to have a lawyer with him during questioning.
According to the article, courts haven’t ruled too clearly on this. At the heart of the issue is that police were not clear enough in all their points. Justice Sotomayor makes the following observation.
“We’ve got a split of circuit courts and state courts on whether this reasonably conveys or not. Shouldn’t that be enough of an ambiguity for us to conclude it can’t reasonably convey, if there’s this many courts holding that it doesn’t?” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
That seems like a fair question. Clearly, Obama’s recent pick has some rationality about her.
But then there’s always that loser of a legal mind, Scalia.
Justice Scalia called Brueckheimer’s argument “angels dancing on the head of a pin.”
“You are saying, ‘Oh, if he had only known. Oh, if I knew that I could have an attorney present during the interview, well, that would have been a different kettle of fish and I would never have confessed,'” Scalia said. “I mean, doesn’t that seem to you quite fantastic?”
At issue is not whether this particular suspect would have exercised his rights or not. In fact, it is irrelevant if any suspect would have exercised such a right. The law does not turn on this crazy notion that rights are not important if people do not utilize them. Justice Scalia has just an awful, awful legal mind. I can’t recall the last time I heard him make a valid point about a case.
Filed under: News | Tagged: Jack McCoy, Justice Scalia, Kevin Powell, Miranda Rights, Sotomayor, Supreme Court | 1 Comment »