It was a busy Monday in the U.S. Supreme Court:
Court hears arguments for lethal injection case
* * *
I could not find any media articles to link to on that highly-publicized issue that were balanced and fair and lacking in a clear agenda. Suffice it to say that that case will decide whether current lethal injection protocols violate the 8th Amendment; presumably it’ll be a 5-4 decision with Justice Kennedy casting the deciding vote.
* * *
Court reiterates Federalism in criminal sentencing; 25 years in prison given without attorney present does not clearly violate Supreme Court precedent
The Supreme Court on Monday applied a 1990’s-era law to reverse lower federal courts which had thrown out a state prison sentence because the defendant’s attorney was not physically present at the sentencing hearing and instead participated by speakerphone.
* * *
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act allows federal court review of state court convictions and sentences, but only if the latter unreasonably apply clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedents.
That’s one of crowning achievements of the Lott-Gingrich-Armey-DeLay years. The codification of bedrock principles of Federalism and states’ rights. Liberals hate that law. For that matter spoiled-brat academics, on the left and the *putative* right, are not very fond of it.
The Supreme Court reversed the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on grounds the sentence did not unreasonably apply clear Supreme Court precedents, in that the High Court has not delineated whether it’s Constitutionally required, for effective assistance of counsel, for the defendant’s attorney physically to be present at a sentencing hearing.
* * *
Here’s a link to an F-minus article on the subject by Pete Yost of the Associated Press — it’s disjointed, ambiguous, lazy and uninformed; written by someone who probably would need a few years of practical legal training merely to become conversant in the law. Basically it’s what you should expect from the liberal print/wire media.
* * *
Court stays out of Michigan late-term abortion dispute
The Supreme Court on Monday turned down efforts by the State of Michigan and a pro-life organization to revive the state’s law which banned late-term abortions.
Without comment the High Court declined to review a ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had invalidated the Michigan law on grounds it was overbroad and thus could also be read to prohibit other abortion procedures which are Constitutionally protected under Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey and their progeny.
The High Court in April 2007 upheld the federal statute that bans late-term abortions.
* * *
Here’s a link to the AP’s story.