Observations about the latest SCOTUS rulings:
In one case, the court found LWOPP sentences for juvenile violative of 8th Amendment (cruel & unusual punishment) except for murder. In another case, the court upheld a federal law authorizing extended civil commitments of sex offenders based on threats of future danger to children based on proof of propensities to commit sex crimes.
For those interested in the soap opera of shifting alliances on the court, the usual suspects dissented in both case: Scalia and Thomas. In one case, Roberts joined the majority holding but not its rationale. In the other, Alito did the same. Kennedy wrote the majority (5-4) opinion in one, Bryer the other (7-2).
In the debate of left vs. right, so-called “libertarians” immediately decried both rulings. One interfered with states eliminating vicious teenagers. The other upheld a civil law based on a premise that was not literally found in the Constitution. Conservatives will rage about reference in the court’s opinion to international standards of morality in sentencing.
The left is likely to approve the juvenile decision but might be (at least should be) troubled that the court was not troubled by a law that permits lengthy involuntary incarceration based on unreliable medical predictions of future dangerousness.
As Solicitor Gen, court nominee Kagan had argued support for the federal law, thus making new enemies, or at least reinforcing the enmity of her opposition.
In practice, neither case has much impact in California. The vast majority of our vicious juveniles with LWOPP sentences are there for murders. Only a few crimes (eg. kidnap for ransom) authorize that sentence and resentencing to life with possibility of parole or a sentence of years will pose no great barrier to a virtual life sentence. Adding up of consecutive sentences including the many enhancements provided by the criminal statutes can result in sentences like: 184 years, of which the criminal must serve 85%.
California has a law analagous to the federal civil commitment to extend incarceration of sexual offenders. Our sexually violent predator (SVP) law is being applied every day in our courts.
Showing posts with label Clarence Thomas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clarence Thomas. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Friday, June 16, 2006
"KNOCK KNOCK KNOCKIN' ON HEAVEN'S DOOR ..."
The Justice League Strikes Again
Superheroes for the New Age
In case you thought there was any life in the 4th Amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of our homes, the US Supreme Court’s 5 X-Men mutant warriors have stomped again on the corpse.
Antonin Scalia, The Robed Crusader — whose superpower is the ability to erase The Constitution, indeed, all of judicial history — wrote the majority opinion that killed it.
With his faithful sidekick, Clarence Thomas, and the newest members of The League - CJ "LONG JOHN" ROBERTS & SAM ALITO the Magneto - Scalia is finally winning the never ending battle to make America safe for Police Power, Government, and Business interests!
ONCE UPON A TIME, IN THE DARK NIGHTS OF GOTHAM'S PAST, WHEN COURTS WERE BOUND BY THE IMAGINED RESTRAINTS OF THE CONSTITUTION ....
Policeserving search warrants or seeking to make an arrest in a house were forced to first knock, announce their presence, and give a reasonable amount of time for the occupants to let them in.
They could break in if there is no response in a reasonable amount of time or if there was an “exigency,” such as a reasonable belief that the occupants would destroy evidence before entry or have access to weapons.
The rule was put in place by the weak minded WARREN COURT and codified in statutes as in California Penal Code sections 844 & 1531
... intended to protect the right to privacy, and to protect occupants and police from a violent confrontation resulting from a sudden break in, startling frightened householders.
To enforce the rule, courts since 1914 excluded the evidence seized in violation.
This exclusionary rule is what stuck in the throats of The Justice League for all this time. That the criminal should be freed just because the constable blundered was a travesty!
The Robed Crusader finally gave voice to the alternative remedy long proposed --- the homeowner can sue the police officer for violation of his rights!!!
I remember when the exclusionary rule was under attack from the Right and I took an informal poll of police officers I ran across while in court. I asked them whether they would prefer to be sued rather than have courts exclude evidence. I found very few cops who wanted to be sued.
Of course, few will do so — especially if they are in prison. There will be some extreme cases — as history shows — in which the police break into and trash the wrong house, shoot innocent occupants, get shot themselves by people protecting their “castle.”
AND SO ... a new day is dawning on Gotham ...
Because of the youthful vigor of the NEW MAJORITY, THE JUSTICE LEAGUE MAY FLOURISH FOR THIRTY YEARS ... giving America at long last the ORDER it needs to thrive ...
... and the Justice and Justices we deserve.
Superheroes for the New Age
In case you thought there was any life in the 4th Amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of our homes, the US Supreme Court’s 5 X-Men mutant warriors have stomped again on the corpse.
Antonin Scalia, The Robed Crusader — whose superpower is the ability to erase The Constitution, indeed, all of judicial history — wrote the majority opinion that killed it.
With his faithful sidekick, Clarence Thomas, and the newest members of The League - CJ "LONG JOHN" ROBERTS & SAM ALITO the Magneto - Scalia is finally winning the never ending battle to make America safe for Police Power, Government, and Business interests!
ONCE UPON A TIME, IN THE DARK NIGHTS OF GOTHAM'S PAST, WHEN COURTS WERE BOUND BY THE IMAGINED RESTRAINTS OF THE CONSTITUTION ....
Policeserving search warrants or seeking to make an arrest in a house were forced to first knock, announce their presence, and give a reasonable amount of time for the occupants to let them in.
They could break in if there is no response in a reasonable amount of time or if there was an “exigency,” such as a reasonable belief that the occupants would destroy evidence before entry or have access to weapons.
The rule was put in place by the weak minded WARREN COURT and codified in statutes as in California Penal Code sections 844 & 1531
... intended to protect the right to privacy, and to protect occupants and police from a violent confrontation resulting from a sudden break in, startling frightened householders.
To enforce the rule, courts since 1914 excluded the evidence seized in violation.
This exclusionary rule is what stuck in the throats of The Justice League for all this time. That the criminal should be freed just because the constable blundered was a travesty!
The Robed Crusader finally gave voice to the alternative remedy long proposed --- the homeowner can sue the police officer for violation of his rights!!!
I remember when the exclusionary rule was under attack from the Right and I took an informal poll of police officers I ran across while in court. I asked them whether they would prefer to be sued rather than have courts exclude evidence. I found very few cops who wanted to be sued.
Of course, few will do so — especially if they are in prison. There will be some extreme cases — as history shows — in which the police break into and trash the wrong house, shoot innocent occupants, get shot themselves by people protecting their “castle.”
AND SO ... a new day is dawning on Gotham ...
Because of the youthful vigor of the NEW MAJORITY, THE JUSTICE LEAGUE MAY FLOURISH FOR THIRTY YEARS ... giving America at long last the ORDER it needs to thrive ...
... and the Justice and Justices we deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
