Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to et_al's blog Subscribe


Special Features

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Thought I would throw out that bit of sarcasm.

But seriously; Washington, DC (Oct. 21, 2014) – The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), the nation's preeminent organization advancing the mission of the criminal defense bar to ensure justice and due process for persons accused of crime or wrongdoing, has been selected by Koch Industries, Inc. to receive a major grant in support of NACDL's efforts to address the nation's profound indigent defense crisis.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

The Supreme Court early Saturday denied a last-ditch effort to block the enforcement of Texas' controversial voter ID law in the upcoming elections. The ruling comes two days before the start of early voting. Election Day is Nov. 4. Three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented with the majority, arguing that the law's impact would be to disenfranchise "more than 600,000 registered Texas voters" due to their lack of having a photo ID that complies with the law.

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

A U.S. Appeals Court has ruled to put Texas' strict voter ID law back in place for the upcoming election. A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday afternoon unanimously stayed an order issued Saturday by U.S. District Court Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos that had blocked the controversial law. Gonzales Ramos last week struck down the law, finding that it discriminates against racial minorities under the Voting Rights Act. Gerry Hebert, a lawyer for the plaintiffs challenging the measure, said in response that they would appeal the ruling. "We are going to the U.S. Supreme Court," Hebert said.

Saturday, October 11, 2014

David Post: It does seem to me that John Oliver is in the process of inventing some interesting new kind of political/social commentary – the 20-minute single-issue rant that is both hilariously funny, well put-together, and often quite devastatingly effective, as argument. ... I particularly recommend his recent piece on the truly outrageous "civil asset forfeiture" regime that prevails in many local law enforcement agencies around the country these days. read more

Friday, October 10, 2014

Election Law Blog: A federal court has struck down Texas's voter ID law. It violates the Voting Rights Act, it violates the constitutional prohibition on poll taxes, it violates the constitutional prohibition of unjustified burdens, it violates the constitutional prohibition on intentional racial discrimination: indeed, in 147 pages of opinion, there's little that the ID law doesn't violate. "There has been a clear and disturbing pattern of discrimination in the name of combatting voter fraud in Texas," the opinion notes. "This history of discrimination has permeated all aspects of life in Texas."


Show me some statistics from REAL news sources, not right wing nutblogs, showing that voter fraud was a real problem that needed solving.

From whence comes the delusion that for voter fraud to be "a real problem" the problem requires something greater than one before voter ID is judged constitutional?

The only kind of voter fraud that SEA 483 addresses is in-person voter impersonation at polling places. The record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history. Moreover, petitioners argue that provisions of the Indiana Criminal Code punishing such conduct as a felony provide adequate protection against the risk that such conduct will occur in the future. It remains true, however, that flagrant examples of such fraud in other parts of the country have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists,11 that occasional examples have surfaced in recent years,12 and that Indiana's own experience with fraudulent voting in the 2003 Democratic primary for East Chicago Mayor13 -- though perpetrated using absentee ballots and not in-person fraud -- demonstrate that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.

There is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State's interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters. Moreover, the interest in orderly administration and accurate recordkeeping provides a sufficient justification for carefully identifying all voters participating in the election process. While the most effective method of preventing election fraud may well be debatable, the propriety of doing so is perfectly clear. www.law.cornell.edu

I suggest the Supreme Court weigh in on the issue rather than continue to skirt the subject.

They did, in Windsor albeit indirectly. Since that decision every court (except one, a district court in LA) confronted with the issue has taken the Court's hint and struck down same sex marriage bans. As long as all the Circuits agree, there is no reason for the Court to take the issue. The wild card is what the Fifth Circuit will do with the appeals of the LA case and the TX case striking such ban.

Decide if it is states rights issues or a Federal decree issue.

A false choice. Traditionally, determination of marital status is a state matter. Yet, even within that realm, the states are constrained by "court decree" under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Constitution.

The District Court got it wrong. Another thing, a cert. petition is not authority for anything.

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster. supreme.justia.com

Drudge Retort

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable