a law student blog ::fighting the hypo, so you don’t have to ::
’Ritche” by Bill Owens from his photo essay “Suburbia.” (1973)
While the Sherpa is knocking back cabernet in Napa, and I’m golfing my brains out, we thought we would let all of you get your creative juices flowing. Let us know what “Ritche” is thinking. We’ll reveal his monther’s thoughts and pass out prizes on Monday. Happy 4th!
The murders of Corporal Richard S. Findley and the prime suspect in the case Ronnie L. White have opened some old wounds here in the D.C. area. The Prince George’s County Police department has long had a history of excessive force in its policing, culminating in a 2004 memorandum of understanding between the County and the U.S. Department of Justice requiring the County to revise itsuse of force policies. Anecdotal evidence also suggests racial bias is pervasive in the Department, such that it has even been pointed out by Amnesty International. This is why the first thing my mother told me when I got my driver’s license was “whatever you do, don’t get pulled over there.”
Now my heart goes out to Corporal Findley and his family. I can’t imagine the pain they must be going through. I would love nothing more than to see Mr. White - assuming he was found guilty - get the book thrown at him. At the same time, I can’t imagine what his family must be going through, coming to grips with the fact that their son a) may have killed a cop, and b) was strangled to death while in police custody. Continue reading ‘Do We Ask Too Much From Cops?’
We recently had the opportunity to sit with Elizabeth Getman, a recent graduate of The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law and now an associate at Sandler, Reiff & Young, P.C., to discuss her role in Davis v. F.E.C. (recent SCOTUS decision on the “Millionaire’s Amendment” in McCain-Feingold).
Her role in the case was recently profiled in Roll Call, but we thought we’d get the inside story. She’s here, naturally, of her own accord and not as a spokesperson for any clients or employers.
So… be nice. (that means you, BigShow)
Fight The Hypo: Elizabeth, thanks for taking the time to answer some questions for our readers. I’m sure it will provide excellent reading during our summer classes!
Elizabeth Getman: No problem at all. Better to get me now before I dive into my next Supreme Court case (just kidding, just kidding). I could see this becoming addictive, though. And if you’re looking for a quick primer on the subject, the Davis opinion is one of the shortest campaign finance opinions out there.
Continue reading ‘Interview with Catholic Law Grad, Elizabeth Getman’
Before Big Show decided to use the SCOTUS decision in Louisiana v. Kennedy as cover for the Federalist Society talking points, I found myself considering the “punishment” that the Court found appropriate on for an individual defendant and a corporate one.
If you’re going to allow capital punishment at all, the rape of a child seems more than a reasonable basis for it. As long as a state can demonstrate that the process was fair – that the defendant was represented by adequate counsel, no gross errors in evidentiary process, the judge was not of the “hanging” variety – then if they want to execute someone for this crime, so be it. I simply do not understand why the Court found this violated the 8th Amendment. Continue reading ‘Crime and Punishement?’
So I’ve just finished reading Scalia’s opinion in D.C. v. Heller (my apologies to my current employer), and I think my punt analysis was close to the mark. Yes, the D.C. gun ban went the way of the buffalo, based on a sophisticated analysis of the role of guns in society.
The decision states that the weight of historical research supports the position that the right of law abiding citizens to secure their other rights through force of arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. The D.C. gun ban failed because it included “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.” (Being churlish for a moment, I wonder what will happen if the citizens of the District decide to use their new found gun right to secure their right to vote?)
Other than that finding however, (which I grant is significant) not a whole heck of a lot seems to change in terms of the regulation of firearms under the police powers granted to the state. The decision expressly notes that “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It goes on to note that
nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
and
we think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.
So Big Show’s dream of rocking himself to sleep while cuddling an AK-47 are probably not right around the corner. Keep hope alive buddy!
It seems to me that this has just opened up the court system to another 30 years of regulations and lawsuits, trying to flesh out the boundries of what constitutes appropriate regulation outside of a complete ban. Finger printing? Registration? Licensing requirements? If none of these prevent a law abiding citizen from using a firearm in a lawfully contemplated manner (e.g. home defense), is that a problem?
As I mentioned before, I’m sure this will be hotly debated, so have at it.
I know that Dr. Bombay is working on a piece about the Court’s ruling in the child rape death penalty case, Kennedy v. Louisiana, which you can read here, but I wanted to get out ahead of him before his communist propaganda saps and impurifies all of our precious bodily fluids. (Ed Note: bodily fluids reference.)
The Supreme Court in this case basically stated that five Justices of the Supreme Court are better at determining the will of the people of the United States than Congress and the state legislatures are. This is the kind of judicial activism that makes people disgusted with the judicial branch.
I have a real problem with the the legal arguments behind this opinion. Kennedy’s reasoning seems tautological - no one has been executed for these crimes in 40 years, and only six states have enacted child rape capital punishment laws. He uses these facts as a means of justifying the argument that society has decided child rape should not be punished by the death penalty. This is a ridiculous conclusion, given that it was the Court’s jurisprudence that was the reason behind the amount of time since the last execution, and the Court’s dicta in Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) that suggested that the death penalty for any crime not involving the death of the victim would probably not pass constitution muster, made states hesitant to go through the long process of creating a child rape death penalty law - why go through the process if the Court will likely strike the laws down anyway?
Determining whether society’s morals have evolved on capital punishment is not a role for the Court. It certainly shouldn’t be a part of any Constitutional anaylsis framework. It’s a question for Congress and the state legislatures. The Supreme Court here substituted their own morality for the views of the American people. They have now made it effectively impossible to impose the death penalty for any cases that don’t involve the death of the victim. That is a decision that should have been made by the elected representatives of the people themselves, not the Court.
So tomorrow, the Supreme Court is expected to issue its findings in D.C. v. Heller, the first substantive review of Second Amendment rights in over 70 years. Legal nerds that we are, we’re more than a little curious as to what the Court is going to conclude. While the decision will no doubt be endlessly debated here over the next couples of days, I’m going to make a prediction right now.
They punt.
I figure the D.C. gun ban is toast. I’m also guessing that since the Supremes realize that the total elimination of any sort of gun regulation would be highly problematic, they are going to figure some weasel out of it. The decision will include some sort of grand pronouncement about the Second Amendment representing and individual right, and some sort of nebulous statement as to how that doesn’t preclude the state from regulating everything. This (of course) will continue to be endlessly litigated. One important caveat. Scalia is expected to write the opinion, so who knows? He may mandate that every citizen car a broadsword.
Please note that if they do toss any regulation, we’ll be raffling off the Official Fight the Hypo Stinger Missile starting Friday.
