I Think, Therefore I Blog » Justice

Good news/bad news

fsherman — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:59:44 +0000

On trying Khalid Sheik Mohammed in court: Good news! Because the American justice system can actually convict terrorists, and the whining of Sarah Palin and others to the contrary, that’s the way it should be done. And if they get off (which is unlikely), that would be tragic, but that’s why it’s the “justice” system, not the “conviction” system.
On the Obama administration’s decision that other terrorists will either go the military commissions route or be held indefinitely: Bad news! As several bloggers have pointed out, it amounts to trying everyone we can convict and finding alternative procedures for everyone else.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Greenwald again

fsherman — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:06:29 +0000

His post from this Saturday discusses how unsurprising it is that the CIA directors object to prosecutions for CIA employees who engaged in torture–and how noteworthy it is that they’re demanding the president pull the AG off the case, given that the AG decisions to prosecute are supposed to avoid politics.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Monday morning quote

fsherman — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:26:11 +0000

“If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.” ~ Desmond Tutu

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

An idle thought

fsherman — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:54:32 +0000

Daily News letter-writer Richard Sirmons: “Do you wonder why some of our leaders are so lackluster? They are lackluster, yet incumbent, because they pander successfully for votes from the affirmative-action crowd?”

So is Sirmons suggesting that leaders who pander to the votes of white bigots, or religious extremists successfully are spared the curse of being lackluster?

Also: “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supposed to end the double standard but affirmative action has created a double standard of greater magnitude.”

First, let’s be clear, the Civil Rights Act (and the Equal Employment Act of a couple of years later) were written because American minorities and women were massively discriminated against. It’s good to keep in mind that it wasn’t a general longing for racial equality but specific, ugly discrimination.

And affirmative action isn’t even remotely comparable to the discrimination under Jim Crow, let alone of greater magnitude. Heck, if you accept the statement in many career guidebooks about how many jobs are acquired through networking and personal contact, rather than just talent, then affirmative action has much less effect on merit-based success than networking does (and it counts less at some schools than legacy admissions).

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Good for the Supremes!

fsherman — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:50:27 +0000

The court ruled 8-1 that strip searching a student out of suspicion she had ibuprofin hidden in her underwear was a Constitutional violation.
The one dissenter, Clarence Thomas, argued it was a reasonable search because she could have hidden pills there, “nor will she be the last after today’s decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school.” (which would seem a problem with any restrictions on any searches under any circumstances).

According to USA Today, “Francisco Negron, lawyer for the National School Boards Association, said the decision could be confusing for school officials, who typically lack formal training in drugs yet would have to consider whether the contraband they seek is dangerous enough to do to a strip search.”

I think that’s a good thing.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

I like Stephen Chapman but …

fsherman — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:28:02 +0000

In quoting Judge Sotomayor’s statement that “a wise Latina woman” might make a better decision than a white male, he should have added the closing statement to her speech: “I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that, to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires.”

That seems to answer conservative complaints that she’s going to be making decisions based on identity politics. Check out Glenn Greenwald for examples of Sotomayor decisions based on law rather than her racial perspective.

In one case, for example, an NYPD computer guy was fired for emailing racist anonymous letters to various charitable groups (Negros are rapists! Jews control the media instead of real Americans! and similar sentiments). Sotomayor wrote a dissent arguing that since the letters were anonymous, on his own time and there was nothing to link them to the department but its own investigation, this was a violation of the guy’s free speech rights.

I doubt the right wing will give her any credit for that, of course, since the real issue is that she’s neither white nor male. And everyone knows that white males are the most qualified for everything.

One NRO writer, for instance, argued that sure, white people get special treatment—well-connected parents, legacy admissions to top colleges—but they use them to make something of themselves, whereas nonwhite people who get preferential treatment just use to skate through life and have everything handed to them. Because, you know, they’re just that way. As expressed here

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

This post is four years late

fsherman — Wed, 20 May 2009 19:54:09 +0000

But while browsing, I came across this 2005 story about Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester winning a Silver Star in combat. An MP in Iraq, she led her team through an enemy ambush to take down the insurgents attacking them.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Just one note on Ron Hart’s latest

fsherman — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:45:17 +0000

When he refers to David Souter as a “turncoat Republican,” what the heck does he mean?

The only way that makes sense is if Hart means that since a Republican put Souter in office, Republicans were entitled to a quid pro quo and Souter didn’t deliver (I’ve no idea what ruling Hart particularly objects to, since he doesn’t specify—he rarely bothers with such trivialities as specific details and facts).

Which would mean that Hart is endorsing both unethical judicial behavior and rejecting the idea judges should rule on things like evidence.

Or he was just opening his mouth and spewing out whatever he thought would be funny.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Boo for Obama, yay for the courts

fsherman — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:26:06 +0000

Obama on the state secrets privilege: “I actually think that the state secret doctrine should be modified. I think right now it’s overbroad. . . . [S]earching for ways to redact, to carve out certain cases, to see what can be done so that a judge in chambers can review information without it being in open court, you know, there should be some additional tools so that it’s not such a blunt instrument.”

Which is a good statement. But completely contradicts his administration’s efforts to shut down lawsuits over wireless eavesdropping by claiming the privilege means the cases can’t even be heard by the court (the traditional approach was that they could be heard, but some evidence could be redacted). As one blogger put it, it amounts to “The state secrets privilege is overbroad—I should know, I’ve used it so much.”

Happily the appeals court recently shot down the administration’s extreme version of the state secrets privilege. Showing once again why the balance of powers is a good thing.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Good for Obama & Co.

fsherman — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:05:01 +0000

AG Eric Holder says the Justice Department will no longer be busting medical marijuana operations that are sanctioned under the laws of their states (unless they break the laws by selling to minors and such).

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog