It’s 2009

The June 8, 2009 edition of Missouri Lawyers Weekly (not available online) reports that only 1 out of the 17 current judges sitting on the United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals are women. Her name is Diana Murphy and she was appointed by a Republican. All nine of the appointments to the 8th Circuit since 1994 (when Murphy was appointed) have been men. Each of these appointments is made by the President of the United States. To put this in context, 47% of the people receiving law degrees in 2007 have been women. Another note: Of the 179 total judges sitting on the 11 U.S. Courts of Appeals, 26% of them (47) are women.

Continue ReadingIt’s 2009

Census issues

Here's a topic I haven't followed well enough, as became obvious to me when I saw this little gem of a video on Huffpo. I had NO IDEA that one of the reasons Those-Who-Hate-Government-But-Want-Government-to-Manage-Religion-and-Reproduction are threatening not to fill out their census forms is the fear of being placed in Internment Camps. Yep, that maven of legislative insight, Michele Bachmann, warns Glenn Beck of the dire consequences we may well repeat from the WWII era. She also laments the missing "are you here illegally?" question (because of course all undocumented workers would 'fess right up to that on an official government form).

Continue ReadingCensus issues

How and why to repeal Don’t ask, Don’t tell.

How and why should we repeal Don't ask, Don't tell? Everything you need to know is here, in this presentation by Lawrence J. Korb, Sean Duggan, and Laura Conley of the Center for American Progress. Here's the pdf. Here are some of the facts worth considering:

More than 32,500 gay and lesbian service men and women have been discharged from military service since 1980.

This policy may have cost the U.S. government up to $1.3 billion since 1980.

“No reputable or peer-reviewed study has ever shown that allowing service by openly gay personnel will compromise military effectiveness.”17

Twenty-four countries allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military. None of these have reported “any determent to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality,” according to the Palm Center, and “in the more than three decades since an overseas force first allowed gay men and lesbians to serve openly, no study has ever documented any detriment to cohesion, readiness, recruiting, morale, retention or any other measure of effectiveness or quality in foreign armed services.”

Even the British, whose military structure and deployment patterns are most similar to ours—and who fiercely resisted allowing gays to serve in the military—were forced to do so by the European Court

What is step ONE for ending the deplorable status quo? "Issue an Executive Order banning further dismissals on the basis of DADT and send a legislative proposal on DADT repeal to Congress." We're waiting, Mr. Obama.

Continue ReadingHow and why to repeal Don’t ask, Don’t tell.

U.S. Supreme Court decision salvages pre-clearance provisions of Voting Rights Act

The US Supreme Court carved out a narrow and near unanimous decision today which retains the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. All justices concurred in the opinion which remanded the case back to the District Court for further proceedings but, there was a partial dissent filed by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. The NW Austin Municipal Utility District filed an action to be removed from the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act or to declare the statute unconstitutional insofar as it mandated the District be subject to the 2006 enactment of such requirement. The Supreme Court declined to declare Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, and instead carved out a more limited remedy for political entities such as the utility district to have a private right to file suit to be removed from the pre-clearance requirement (presumably if the DOJ does not allow a “bail out”). In his concurrence Associate Justice Thomas also dissented in part, arguing in favor of striking down the enforcement provisions of the Voting Rights Act, making the claim that;

Covered jurisdictions are not now engaged in a systematic campaign to deny black citizens access to the ballot through intimidation and violence. And the days of…’property qualifications’ …are gone. There is thus currently no concerted effort in these jurisdictions to engage in the ‘unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution’ that served as the constitutional basis for upholding the ‘uncommon exercise of congressional power embodied in [Section] 5’ (citations omitted).

Nothing could be further from the truth. It is in fact the case that since 1986, there have been “some 200 cases in which the voter change was withdrawn after DOJ objection” according to Associate Justice Souter in the oral arguments of the case. Associate Justice Breyer in the same oral argument noted that “[s]ince 1982 there were at least 105 successful Section 5 suits and 653 Section 2 suits.” Justice Thomas went on:

Continue ReadingU.S. Supreme Court decision salvages pre-clearance provisions of Voting Rights Act

U.S. Supreme Court: no federal right to review DNA evidence

Here's the context: 240 convicted felons have now been proven to be totally innocent thanks to analysis of DNA evidence. Many states have enacted laws giving prisoners the opportunity to obtain DNA analysis of critical evidence used at their trials in years past. The U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled, however, that there is no federal constitutional right to DNA evidence that could exculpate a convict.

The Supreme Court said Thursday that a convicted rapist has no constitutional right to test biological evidence used at his trial in Alaska years earlier, leaving it to the states to decide when prisoners get access to genetic evidence that might prove their innocence . . .

Dissenting liberal justices and advocates for prisoners who seek genetic testing complained that the court is penalizing a small group of inmates who lack access to a simple test that would conclusively show their innocence, or reaffirm their guilt.

Here is the full opinion, District Attorney's Office v. Osborne. Justice John Roberts (supported by the Court's conservatives) wrote the majority opinion, concluding both of the following:

A) "DNA testing has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty." and

B) If you were convicted in one of the handful of states that aren't willing to analyze the DNA evidence of your case, you're screwed. Case over. Too bad for you. Why? Because it would mean more work for the federal judiciary.

Way to go, Justice Roberts. You are compiling quite a track record of refusing to look out for the oppressed and powerless. And see here and here. For more information, visit Project Innocent.

Continue ReadingU.S. Supreme Court: no federal right to review DNA evidence