Because it just wouldn’t be right or fair to care more for people’s lives, in general, than it would be to cater to a handful of nuts who think that the only opinion that matters is theirs.

Supreme Court strikes down D.C. handgun ban

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices’ first definitive pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history.

I really don’t know how to feel about this one. These people have had to wait all this time for justice to be rendered. And when it came, it came with a pretty harsh slap.

I have to say I’m a little on the fence with this one. Someone close to me works in trucking insurance. In case after case, it seems the common theme is that it doesn’t really matter who is at fault, it’s who has the deeper pockets. And that usually proves to be the trucking company. And that infuriates me! We often hear how the big, bad truck driver, driving that rally big, un-safe truck, jack-knifed and caused all the damage. In truth, it’s usually an irresponsible motorist in his “4-wheeler” that started the disastrous chain of events.

We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Exxon is guilty of this crime. And Exxon should pay. But $2.5 billion? Reducing that amount to $507.5 million just seems more rational. It’s sad these people have been put on hold for so many years. But by going for such a large judgment, they may have shot their own selves in the foot.

If we are to learn anything from this case it’s that large companies such as Exxon can not be trusted with their word when they say they will do everything in their power to not bring harm onto the environment. THEY WILL! They make mistakes. And they know how to “work” the American justice system. We must work hard and continue to refuse access to environmentally-sensitive areas to Exxon and all other large oil corporations.

Exxon Valdez $2.5 billion oil spill ruling overturned

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday threw out the record $2.5 billion in punitive damages that Exxon Mobil Corp had been ordered to pay for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill off Alaska, the nation’s worst tanker spill.

By a 5-3 vote, the high court ruled that the punitive damages award should be slashed — limited by the circumstances of the case to an amount equal to the total relevant compensatory damages of $507.5 million. [...]

In the majority opinion, Justice David Souter concluded the $2.5 billion in punitive damages was excessive under federal maritime law, and should be cut to the amount of actual harm.

And now, the pisser:

How fitting. Makes it almost worth the trouble. Almost.

(Apologies for the image quality. I scanned it from a crumpled newspaper.)

For what is the following quote attributed to?

“I think it’s one of the worst decisions in history. It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution.”

Is it:

• Women’s suffrage?
• The Fifteenth Amendment?
• Roe v. Wade?

Nope - It’s none of the above.

McCain slams Supreme Court on terrorist detainees

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Friday sharply denounced a Supreme Court decision that gave suspected terrorist detainees a right to seek their release in federal courts.

“I think it’s one of the worst decisions in history,” McCain said. “It opens up a whole new chapter and interpretation of our constitution.”

McCain is one of the authors of the 2006 Military Commissions Act which set up procedures for the handling of detainees. The act denied the detainees access to federal courts.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said that provision of the law violated the constitution.

Each of the cases listed above do have something in common though - disgruntled republicans. Food for thought.

It actually boils down to that half-full/half-empty glass of water argument. Should the laws we prize so much be held captive, constrained (by, of all people, us) within our boundaries?

I find it ironic that, as much as republicans want to force democracy onto everyone around the globe, even at gun-point, how and why would they find our laws embarrassing?

Makes no sense at all. Makes one question their motives.

High Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration’s treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court’s liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”

And from the bullshit pulpit:

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Scalia said the nation is “at war with radical Islamists” and that the court’s decision “will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.”

Instead of appending/updating an older post, I opted to give the following it’s own deserving spot.

Washington Monthly commenter, Sparko, has a few things to say about the recent Supreme Court photo ID decision:

Could not have said it better myself!

People are worried that a McCain presidency will move the SCOTUS too far to the right. I think it’s already there.

Supreme Court says states can demand photo ID for voting. From the lead opinion:

What Justice Stevens is saying here is that the only two cases of fraud mentioned during the course of the hearing had nothing to do with “in-person” voting.

From Balloon-Juice commenter, Davis X. Machina:

What happened to strict scrutiny?

Is there a compelling state interest?
Is the measure narrowly tailored to address only the harm?
Is this the least restrictive means to address the harm?

It was my understanding that if you don-t clear hurdle #1, you don-t even get to propose the measure.

There is absolutely NO REASON for the Supreme Court to rule the way it did except:

We all know why this is: it’s because, as Common Cause reminds us, restricting in-person voting tends to reduce turnout among minorities, the elderly, voters with disabilities, the poor, and the young - all of which, though CC is too polite to mention it, tend to vote Democratic. Absentee voters, by contrast, tend to vote Republican.

Today’s bald-faced lie:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia lays the blame for the 2000 Florida recount fiasco on Al Gore, claiming Gore said, “I want this to be decided by the courts.”

The fact is, it was Bush’s legal team that was first to go into federal court to try to block by-hand recounts in some Florida counties.

Scalia also states that he is conservative, but not biased. By all rights, the man’s nose should be ten-foot long.

Surprise, surprise! Bush’s conservative Supreme Court is pro-pain, pro-death. I guess we now know how they feel on the issue of torture.

Supreme Court Allows Lethal Injection for Execution

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld Kentucky’s method of putting criminals to death by lethal injection, not only clearing the way for Kentucky to resume executions but ending an unofficial moratorium in the 35 other states that have the death penalty.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, while concurring reluctantly with the judgment of the court, wrote that he now believed capital punishment itself is unconstitutional, and that Wednesday’s ruling might serve to reignite the debate over whether it should exist in the United States.

By 7 to 2, the court rejected challenges to the Kentucky execution procedure brought by two death-row inmates, holding that they had failed to show that the risks of pain from mistakes in an otherwise “humane lethal execution protocol” amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, which is banned by the Constitution.

You put a handful of people on a bench, most of whom clearly partial, influenced, biased towards big money and big business, and JUSTICE takes a big fucking leap right out the damn window!

At the High Court, Damage Control

Exxon Mobil, the giant oil corporation appearing before the Supreme Court yesterday, had earned a profit of nearly $40 billion in 2006, the largest ever reported by a U.S. company — but that’s not what bothered Roberts. What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion — roughly three weeks’ worth of profits — for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.

“So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?” Roberts asked in court.

The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. “Well,” he said, “it can hire fit and competent people.”

The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.

Of course Roberts was upset by the comment. Fisher took a well deserved swipe at some of his buddies. Maybe not actual buddies, but buddies none the less.

The people of Alaska, those affected by the 1989 tragedy, haven’t gotten justice from the oil giant. And seeing as how the United States Supreme Court is now made up of mainly conservative, pro-business, golf course buddies to America’s elite, they never will.

Impeach…..

Two years and 142 cases have passed since Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas last spoke up at oral arguments. It is a period of unbroken silence that contrasts with the rest of the court’s unceasing inquiries.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas says he’d like to be known as the “listening justice.”

Hardly a case goes by without eight justices peppering lawyers with questions. Oral arguments offer justices the chance to resolve nagging doubts about a case, probe its weaknesses or make a point to their colleagues.

Left, right and center, the justices ask and they ask and they ask. Sometimes they debate each other, leaving the lawyer at the podium helpless to jump in. “I think you’re handling these questions very well,” Chief Justice John Roberts quipped to a lawyer recently in the midst of one such exchange.

Leaning back in his leather chair, often looking up at the ceiling, Thomas takes it all in, but he never joins in.

More at CNN

Their stand on torture should have been a giveaway.

Baze v. Rees, 07-5439

Justices Divided Over Lethal Injections

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court appeared divided Monday over whether the drugs commonly injected to execute prisoners risk causing excruciating pain in violation of the Constitution.

Several justices indicated a willingness to preserve the three-drug cocktail that is authorized by three dozen states that allow executions. Such a decision would allow lethal injections, on hold since late September, to resume quickly.
[...]

Recent executions in Florida and Ohio took much longer than usual, with strong indications that the prisoners suffered severe pain in the process. Workers had trouble inserting the IV lines that are used to deliver the drugs.

Scalia, Roberts and Alito have no problem lavishing last-minute pain onto prisoners. Big surprise! Republicans are the pro-torture party, after all. An even bigger surprise… the Bush administration agrees!

(Please feel free to close your mouths now)

A possibility? According to Douglas Kmiec, of Pepperdine Law School, “The former president would be intrigued by court service and many would cheer him on.”

Would President Hillary name Bill to the Supreme Court?

“That provocative possibility has long been whispered in legal and political circles ever since Sen. Hillary Clinton became a viable candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.”

Bill Clinton would make a great anything, in my book. He certainly has as much, if not more, integrity than the “we promise not to challenge precedent” Bush appointees. But I can’t imagine this would be something Bill would like to do. As am matter of fact, I see it more as a political ploy to get more folks out to vote… republican! CNN commenter to this article, “Son of Frank”, writes:

(typos ignored)

Pretty much sums it all up.

From an editorial in the New York Times: