Obama Inconsistent in Describing his Supreme Court Replacement: Judge of Law or of Hopes?

01 May

By USLaw

President Obama shared some of the principles he will follow in selecting someone to replace Justice Souter:

“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes.”

He continued:

“I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role.

I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded, and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.”

The two parts of this statement might strike many as inconsistent. One may feel there are situations in which the rules established by law may not always facilitate the hopes and struggles of all people– that often parties in court are confronting a law or legal principle that benefits one parties hopes to the detriment to the others. What is consistent with what most believe to be Constitutional principles is that the judicial branch interpret the intent of the legislative branch and the founders, not the hopes of the parties before the bench. It sounds as though the President’s description better suits the conception of a good legislator rather than one charged with applying the law.

Filed Under Political Justice, Barack Obama | Leave a Comment (trackback)

Bush DOJ / CIA Torture Memos Outline Dubious Application of US Law to Interrogation of Qaeda Operatives

17 Apr

By USLaw

Written by Bush Administration Deputy and Assistant Attorney Generals John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury for the benefit of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) counsel, the four so-called “torture memos”released by Obama’s Department of Justice outline water boarding and a number of other interrogation techniques that permitted to be applied to government detainees suspected of being involved with al Qaeda plots against American interests.

The full text of the memos below the following excerpts.

Walling

“A flexible false wall will be constructed. The individual is placed with his heels touching the wall: The interrogator pulls the individual forward and then quickly and firmly pushes the individual into the wall. It is the individual’s shoulder blades that hit the wall. During this motion, the head and neck are supported with a rolled hood or towel that provides a c-collar effect to help prevent whiplash…

You have orally informed us that the false wall is in part constructed to create a loud sound when the individual hits it, which will further shock or surprise the individual. In part, the idea is to create a sound that will make the impact seem far worse than it is and that will be far worse than any injury that might result from the action.”

Filed Under Bush Follies, Political Justice | Leave a Comment (trackback)

Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

14 Apr

By USLaw

Concerned about the disenfranchising effects of the economic downturn, large numbers of returning combat veterans, election of first African American president, and a perception that gun control laws will soon be strengthened, Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security issued a report alerting law enforcement agencies of potential threats posed by “rightwing extremists”. The report, excerpted and included in full below, describes how the current economic and political climate is fueling the resurgence in radicalization and recruitment of individuals who might commit acts of domestic terrorism and/or commit other crimes. The nature of the report’s content will undoubtedly spark debate about whether the federal government is seeking to squelch what could be taken to be lawful political dissent. This is especially so when the report came to public light on the same day the Texas Governor made a high profile statement warning the federal government to “back off” and respect state’s rights under the 10th Amendment.

Key Findings

Rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.

The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers.

The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.

Filed Under Citizen Justice | 12 Comments (trackback)

Octomom Above the Law– For Now

30 Mar

By Stacy Schneider, Esq.

It seems society can’t let go of the Nadia Suleman’s story and its desire to see the “Octomom” punished. With every move Suleman makes, including her latest “firing” of the free in-home child care services provided by a national charity, a question persists: Can she be charged with child abuse or neglect and stripped of her children for attempting to single-handedly mother 14 children, 8 of them premature infants? Well, she may have broken the taboos of parenting, but she hasn’t broken the law, yet.

Without reasonable suspicion of abuse or neglect, the state of California can’t terminate her parental rights, remove her children, or charge her with a crime. Being a welfare recipient, lacking financial resources, and being “crazy” do not constitute child abuse.

Child welfare and parenting law strongly favors children remaining with biological parents unless there is inadequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, or supervision. The existence of any one of these conditions could constitute neglect. And if there is repeated neglect resulting in injury or harm to children, you would have a case of child abuse, punishable by jail and resulting in temporary or permanent removal of the children from the household.

Although Octomom had no resources when the octuplets were born (which predisposes the possibility of neglect), her circumstances have changed since her story has attracted a national spotlight. She probably already has generated enough money from book deals, interviews, and television appearances to provide the minimal support required by law. If she hires child caretakers, nurses, home health aids to help care for the babies (as no single mother on the planet can do it alone), the law will favor her remaining as their legal parent and guardian. There will be absolutely no legal cause to place her children in foster care or force her into a courtroom to defend criminal charges.

The law only requires that you be an adequate parent. It doesn’t require you to be a good parent, to be regarded as a successful parent, or to provide a preferred standard of living or “functional” home. As long as your children receive the minimum standard of care for that establishes their health and safety, you are safe from government interference in your parenting.

If the Octomom adequately nourishes and nurtures all of her 14 children, she is guilty of no crime and cannot be prosecuted. The only thing she may be guilty of is being a selfish and reckless parent.

Filed Under Octomom | Leave a Comment (trackback)

Michael Phelps Gets a New Depression Endorsement Deal

07 Feb

By USLaw

A cigarette sponsorship would come none to soon. Contrite pot smoking swimmer Michael Phelps was dropped by Kellogg’s Corn Flakes boxes, lost his US Swimming sponsorship, and may be subject to arrest in South Carolina.

(See more of Cathleen M. Rittereiser’s comic depression era captions on USLaw.com’s Bailout Report.)

Filed Under Michael Phelps | 1 Comment (trackback)

« go back — keep looking »