Habeas Corpus Redux?

The Senate Judiciary Committee is considering the Restoration of Habeas Corpus Act (S. 185 this week. Committee hearings were held on May 14th.

The bill would overturn restrictions on habeas corpus established in the Military Commissions Act.

For commentary when the bill was introduced, look here. And look here.

For a definition of Habeas Corpus look here.

A Star is Born?

As predicted once Samuel Alito was confirmed, the Supreme Court continues its march to the right, but no one could have predited that the beneficiary would be an increasingly irritated Ruth Bader Ginsburg--a superstar in the making.

In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc. the justices determined (by the unsurprising 5-4 breakdown) that a woman's sexual discrimination suit against her employers was not filed in a timely fashion and was dismissed. The dispute concerns when exactly the discriminatory act happened.

Pundits argue that this decision--along with the ruling on partial birth abortion--was a consequence of Sandra Day O'Oonnor's retirement and replacement with the more conservative Alito. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the court's lone female and is none too pleased with that fact:

"The word I would use to describe my position on the bench is
'lonely,' "Ginsburg told USA Today this year. Asked what
difference O'Connor's departure would make, Ginsburg said
only: "This term may be very revealing."

She sees this as a blow to her efforts, shared by O'Connor, to make it more difficult to treat women unequally before the law. Commentators made note of the fact that he not only wrote the dissenting opinion, she read it from the bench--which is how SC Justices show that they're ticked off. They predict that her stature may increase as a result. Expect more dissents read from the becnh.

The political fallout--if there is one--will be interesting to watch. Will women shift more to the Democrats in order to bolster their civil rights? Nothing mobilizes like loss. Polls should tell us whether this is occurring relatively soon. Democrats are already pledging to change the law in question to allow for such lawsuits to go forward, a direct responce to Ginsburg's plea.

Warrantless Search

According to the Supreme Court of the state of Washington, it's OK for the police to send you a letter, ask you to mail back a response (under false pretences) and gather your DNA from the saliva left on the back of the stamp.

When I do crimes, I'll be sure to use self adhesive stamps.

Are Funeral Sanctuary Laws Constitutional?

The post below mentions efforts that states have adopted to limit the ability of Pastor Fred Phelps and his family to disturb the solemnity of funerals--especially military ones.

The pastor believes that American soldiers in Iraq died because of God's condemnation of the acceptance of homosexuality in the United States. He makes his case known, loudly, as close as he can get to the funeral services.

Considering that this is not just free speech, but the free expression of religious belief (let's assume his opinions are sincere), the Constitution seems to be on his side. The Supreme Court may decide that the greater interest of society in preserving the dignity of funeral services is more important than individual free speech and free expression, but then again it may not.

There is no right to dignified funerals guaranteed in the Constitution.

He may be labelled a public nuisance, or argued to be causing public disruptions that undermine public order, but that can apply to many other public events as well, and may justify an expansion of governmental authority beyond what is prudent.

Is Pastor Phelps another price we pay for living in a free society?

The First Amendment Center Weighs in on the topic here.

Here's a news item about a Kansas law against funeral picketing.

Shirley Phelps explains the picketing.

Should this be Protected Speech? If So Why? If Not Why?

God Hates Virginia Tech!

Let's discuss.

original tip from the daily dish.

Roving Wiretaps

The Texas Senate wants to expand the application of a warrant to new technologies. The justification is homeland security, but it also applies to crimes not related to terrorism.

A necessary update or leading edge of a police state?

Free Hate Speech

This may be the touchiest aspect of free speech. Are we free to articulate hatred? It's easy to say yes, but then you have to deal with people like this that make it very difficult to side with the First Amendment, though somehow you know you must.

story from the daily dish.

Free Speech and the Presidential Forum

Can members of the president's staff lawfully remove from a presidential forum people who they believe may be disruptive because they had antiwar bumper stickers on their car when they arrived?

Here's the story.

It involves first amendment protections on the one hand and public order issues on the other. The caveat is that this was not an actual disruption, but the prevention of possible disruption by the inclusion in the hall of people with obviously different points of view. This will be good material for my 2301's as we get into civil liberties this week.

As an aside: How would Scalia and Roberts rule on this question. Remember that they argued that the state of Massachusetts lacked standing to sue the EPA because global warming posed a potential threat, not one that has caused any real harm to the state at the moment. Would they rule that for the ejectees since they did not in fact cause a disruption?

The Religious Viewpoint Anti-Discrimination Act

The Texas House State Affairs Committee has begun hearing testimony on a bill that "would guarantee youngsters the freedom to express their religious beliefs at school."

The Religious Viewpoint Anti-Discrimination Act was written by Warren Chisum and Charlie Howard and has been sponsored by a handful of House members including our own Mike O'Day and Dennis Bonnen.

The bill is a response to allegations that students in K-12 schools have been punished for expressing their religious beliefs. Governor Perry has endorsed it and stated that it simply would allow for more discussion: "Discussion does not lead to indoctrination. Rather, it leads to open-mindedness and personal and educational betterment."

A blogger at the Chron wonders that since free expression (a civil liberty my 2301's will be covering shortly) is already guaranteed by the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, is the bill really necessary? Howard states that it is because it will codify into Texas law what the courts have already mandated.