Why liberals should love the Second Amendment
A well argued case for a strong liberal defense of the right to bear arms: Daily Kos: Why liberals should love the Second Amendment.
I have to say, I am a contradiction. I was an expert marksman in the Army, but I haven’t shot a weapon before or since or outside of duty. I don’t really care for guns much and I don’t own a gun, don’t plan to. Yet my sense of civil liberty (and all the reasons stated here) causes me to lean toward a strong defense of the right to own guns. As with all civil liberties there are instances of reasonable regulation (can’t shout fire in a theatre, can’t threaten the president with death, can’t discriminate in the public square in the name of religion), and there is with the 2nd amendment. I’ll agree with much of what is said here, we should be defending the 2nd amendment as vigorously as the others.
Defense against McCarthyism
One of the great things about this nation is a legal system that codifies a guarantee of a fair trial. I always assumed the 6th amendment in the Bill of Rights was pretty clear
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Of course there are interpretations, ruling precedence and jurisprudence that can make it a bit more nuanced than this layperson has a full grasp of, but it seems, at least in principle, that a speedy and public trial, knowing what you are accused of, being able to confront the witnesses against you, allowing you to obtain witness in your favor and have the assistance of counsel, are an excellent basis for which to form a just legal system.
Yet, even given our history and founding documents, Liz Cheney and her ilk (from her “Keep America Safe” organization, Fox News to Kristol) have decided that perhaps instead the 6th amendment and 234 years of American experience don’t matter. She and others have been attacking the lawyers that have defended terrorist suspects. Attacking them in a McCarthyesque manner to brand them with the label of “terrorist” (“the Al Queda 7?”).
Neal Katyal, one of these lawyers, gave an eloquent explanation on Steven Colbert of why this country’s legal system’s foundation is nothing short of “magnificent,” in his words. Of course, Colbert gave a hilarious over-the-top satirical impression of an authoritarian fanatic. Sadly, from Liz Cheney’s performance, you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference. A case of life imitating art perhaps as Luban says quite well.
Well, it is good to see that a group of lawyers, including Republican and conservative ones such as Ken Starr and David Rifkin, have come out with a firm and well-spoken defense of these lawyers and an attack on Liz Cheney’s and the “Keep America Safe” cadre’s tactics and views:
The American tradition of zealous representation of unpopular clients is at least as old as John Adams’s representation of the British soldiers charged in the Boston massacre. People come to serve in the Justice Department with a diverse array of prior private clients; that is one of the department’s strengths…
To suggest that the Justice Department should not employ talented lawyers who have advocated on behalf of detainees maligns the patriotism of people who have taken honorable positions on contested questions and demands a uniformity of background and view in government service from which no administration would benefit.
Such attacks also undermine the Justice system more broadly. In terrorism detentions and trials alike, defense lawyers are playing, and will continue to play, a key role. Whether one believes in trial by military commission or in federal court, detainees will have access to counsel.
Read the whole thing: Statement on Justice Department Attorney Representation of Guantánamo Detainees – Brookings Institution.
Hat tips (and an excellent read): David Luban at Balkinization
Follow-up: Charging Candy With A Crime
After Warren’s post re: DNA warrants being used to work around various statutes of limitations, I thought it would be interesting to see how courts have addressed it so far. It turns out that the California Supreme Court upheld their validity very recently, in People v. Robinson. Recently as in January 25th of 2010.
Tort Reform: Concerns
The Supreme Court is scheduled to announce today whether or not it will hear the Haliburton Rape Case. The case, basically, centers on whether or not an arbitration clause in a Haliburton employee’s contract will prevent her from seeking a civil action in a court of law for alleged violations of her rights surrounding an alleged gang rape. After this Court’s decision in the Citizens United case and the way it was handed procedurally, this case makes me nervous. I keep getting paranoid thoughts of the Court using this case to call the constitutionality of Franken’s “Anti-Rape Amendment” into question.
It also makes me think of the noise being made about “Tort Reform.” It’s usually brought up in the debate about health care reform. The idea–I think–being that frivolous lawsuits and out-of-control damage awards are crippling our health care system and raising its costs dangerously. I’ll look at that more specifically over the next week or so, but the projected impact of Tort Reform on health care costs –while not negligible– is likely minimal.
There is talk of tort reform on a more general level as well. The talk about tort reform is usually well-padded with references to that most evil of creatures, the Trial Lawyer, and quotes of outrageous amounts given in supposedly ridiculous and frivolous law suits. I have serious concerns about all of this.
Charging Candy with a Crime
Well, candy with DNA that is. As reported in the Kansas City Star, Police, without suspect, charge DNA on evidence before statute of limitations expires .
As described in the article:
A SnapShot of Judicial Activism in its Natural Environment
The Washington Post today published a poll showing that a large majority of respondents opposed the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United.
While my own issues with the decision could fill many pages written in an insanely small font, there are some that can be quickly, if not thoroughly addressed:
1. The problems with the Citizens United decision go beyond its immediate probable effects on elections and campaigns. It demonstrates this Court’s willingness to stretch to bring issues before it that the Court itself wants to address, in order to overturn decisions and statutory law that it simply does not agree with.
Obama Was Right: A Response to Hatch and Others
Senator Orrin Hatch published an opinion piece at politico.com on February 3rd.
In it, he makes assertions that have become regular talking points regarding Obama’s State of the Union address and his characterization of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Obama was, according to Hatch, “flat wrong.”
Here’s Obama’s statement: “Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections…. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”
In trying to demonstrate that Obama was wrong with his statement, Hatch first mis-characterizes it, implying that Obama was making an assertion about political contributions: “This case had nothing to do with contributions by anyone to political campaigns.”
What the Citizens United case did do was allow corporations to use general treasury funds as they wished in “electioneering communications,” that is, to run ads specifically advocating for or against a particular candidate for national office in the days leading up to an election. That is what Obama was addressing, and he was right. The ruling potentially turns federal elections –and soon state and local elections, because of the ruling’s impact on some state’s laws– into a corporate free-for-all.
