US Supreme Court

By a single vote, the Constitution was again upheld.

How to solve the Hillary problem and make everyone happy (including Hillary)

Rob Schofield in the Progressive Pulse posted an interesting piece about the recent US Supreme Court's hearing on the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Exxon was hit with a $5 billion punitive award after being held liable for creating the worst environmental disaster to hit this country. Exxon is asking the Supreme Court to eliminate the punitive award. Their lawyer, notes Schofield, is North Carolina's own . . .

I am spending tonight doing the reading for a class in Civil Liberties. A portion of this week's reading is Planned Parenthood of SE PA v Casey. I assume that all on this site are familiar with at least the basic background of the case, and I am assuming the very words planned parenthood will tip everyone else off.

I thought I would share a quote with everyone. It is this quote that embodies why Democrats we must keep congress in 08 and win the presidency.

From Justice Blackmun, concurring opinion:

In the Chief Justice's (Rehnquist) world, a woman considering whether to terminate a pregnancy is entitled to no more protection than adulterers, murderers, and so-called "sexual deviates." Given the Chief Justice's exclusive reliance on tradition, people using contraceptives seem the next likely candidate for his list of outcasts...

A commenter on one of my post brought up the Supreme Courts latest ruling on eminent domain. I blog on this a year ago when the Supreme Court delivered a ruling that allowed private property to be taken by the state and then given to a developer to develop for private use. (Reference my blog on the ruling: ( Nov. 6, 2005 - Bad judgment on the Part of the US Supreme Court)

I had no trouble with the law governing eminent domain since as I understood the Founding Fathers included these strictures in the Constitution as a protection of the public. My understanding was that the government could take private property for use ONLY for the PUBLIC good and after appropriate compensation to the owners. Public good to me meant mainly roads and bridges and perhaps government owned buildings if there was a pressing need to build on that particular site. What I didn’t know was that the courts had ruled in many cases where private property was indeed taken for private development thus setting a great deal of precedence for the Court’s ruling in Kelso vs. City of New London, Conn.

Amidst the furor of the upcoming elections, equally important events are unfolding at the US Supreme Court today. We the People are taking on Big Energy in a case with far ranging environmental and regulatory implications.

Environmental groups are defending a Clinton-era clean air program that the Bush administration is trying to weaken, arguing to the Supreme Court this morning that Duke Energy Corp. must install costly pollution controls on its aging coal-fired plants.

The outcome of the case, Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corp., could affect three dozen power plants in 10 states where utility companies are challenging federal requirements under the New Source Review program. Arguments before the Supreme Court are set to begin at 10 a.m. today.

On May 2nd, judges will be on the primary ballot with the top two in each race heading on to the general election. Since this has been an exam week for me, I have not been able to do a thorough analysis on each candidate (and with a final tomorrow at 9AM will not be able to do one now), but luckily the NCDP has put together a list of judicial candidates that have been long time Democrats here. Since judge's party affiliation will not be listed on the ballot and there is only one race that has more than one Democrat and in each the Democrat is the best candidate (in my humble opinion), this is a pretty good shorthand to remember when going to the polls.

North Carolina Supreme Court

Supreme Court Chief Justice (Parker Seat): Chief Justice Sarah Parker

Although Lance,Angelico,Southern Dem and some others already know before I became Disabled my background was in Emergency Services and 7 years in Law Enforcement. Although I had various duties K-9 handiler for one, the other was to run the system based on what the US Marshals Service does and transport prisioners from here in the far west to Central Prison on Western Blvd. in Raleigh & other units.

In all Honesty, I can saw I only met one felon convicted of murder that got the Death Penality that actually came out to admit he deserved it. I have met up with a lot of inmates here & from Fla. who had their convictions overturned and actually have become totaly different people. And they arent pulling a con job.

I have met those who I could feel in my gut they got a raw deal, and those I knew got what they deserved. But take this into account. The average inmate who receives the Death Penalty will spend a average of 20 or more years on Death Row before his/her execution. A life sentence is considered 30 years before parole. This includes all the appeals we the taxpayer pays for. I have thought on this subject for several days now before writeing this to be sure of my convictions.

George F. Will:

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be.

Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.