 |
|

Legal news from Thursday, November 15, 2007 |
 |
|


Bush slams unfair Senate review of judicial nominees
Alexis Unkovic on November 15, 2007 9:44 PM ET

[JURIST] US President George W. Bush on Thursday criticized the Senate's judicial confirmation process as overzealous and said the legislature's constitutional mandate to "advise and consent" can be turned into a method by which to "search and destroy" a nominee's reputation. In a speech [text] Thursday evening at the 2007 National Lawyers Convention [event information] hosted by the Federalist Society [website], Bush said: Unfortunately, the Senate has failed to act on many of my other nominees. At times it has imposed a new and extra-constitutional standard, where nominees who have the support of the majority of the Senate can be blocked by a minority of obstructionists. As a result, some judgeships go unfulfilled for years. This leads to what are called "judicial emergencies" -- vacancies that cause justice to be degraded or delayed. When Americans goes to court, they deserve swift and fair answers -- and the United States Senate should not stand in their way.
Three of my nominees to the Courts of Appeals have been waiting for a vote for more than a year. ... These delays are wrong. It is an abdication of the Senate's responsibilities under our Constitution. And I call on Senate leaders to give these nominees, and all my nominees, the up and down vote they deserve on the floor of the United States Senate.
Senate confirmation is a part of the Constitution's systems of checks and balances. But it was never intended to be a license to ruin the good name that a nominee has worked a lifetime to build. Today, good men and women nominated to the federal bench are finding that inside the Beltway, too many interpret "advise and consent" to mean "search and destroy."
As a result, the Senate is no longer asking the right question -- whether a nominee is someone who will uphold our Constitution and laws. Instead, nominees are asked to guarantee specific outcomes of cases that might come before the court. If they refuse -- as they should -- they often find their nomination ends up in limbo instead of on the Senate floor. This is a terrible way to treat people who have agreed to serve their nation. It's a sad commentary on the United States Senate. And every time it happens, we lose something as a constitutional democracy. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

France Constitutional Council approves DNA testing for immigrants
Mike Rosen-Molina on November 15, 2007 5:56 PM ET

[JURIST] The Constitutional Council of France [official website] Thursday approved a controversial amendment to an immigration law [text; dossier, both in French] that would allow voluntary DNA testing to establish family ties between recent immigrants and relatives already living in France. The Council also rejected an amendment that would have allowed for the collection of ethnic data to promote diversity. The French Parliament passed [JURIST report] the immigration bill in October, and it will take effect after French President Nicolas Sarkozy [official website, in French] signs it and it is published in the official register.
The bill was passed by French Senate [official website] in a 185-136 vote last month after French Immigration Minister Brice Hortefeux [official profile, in French] made last-minute changes [Reuters report] to the DNA test section and the lower parliamentary house, the National Assembly [official website], passed the bill 282-235. Under the version adopted, the tests will be optional, sponsored by the state, will test only an applicant's maternal side so as to avoid potential disputes over paternity and will require the approval of a magistrate. Earlier versions of the bill [JURIST report] provided for mandatory testing. The DNA tests are meant primarily to verify family ties to French residents for potential immigrants who lack family records and to speed up the immigration process, but that provision has proved highly controversial. Critics argue that genetics should not be used to determine citizenship eligibility and opposition lawmakers have promised to challenge the law before France's Constitutional Court. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

US appeals court throws out proposed fuel emissions standards for light trucks, SUVs
Kiely Lewandowski on November 15, 2007 4:09 PM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] threw out planned federal fuel economy standards [NHTSA materials] for light trucks and SUVs Thursday, ruling that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) [official website] did not adequately consider the environmental impact of the proposed standards. The ruling came in a lawsuit [JURIST report] brought by several states and environmental groups, which argued that the NHTSA ignored the effects of carbon dioxide emissions and certain SUV and truck classes when calculating the new fuel emissions standards. The new standards were due to go into effect next year and require an increase in the average fuel economy for all US passenger trucks from 22.2 miles per gallon to 23.5 miles per gallon by 2010.
In its opinion [PDF text], the Ninth Circuit wrote: We hold that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to the [Energy Policy and Conservation Act] in its failure to monetize the value of carbon emissions, failure to set a backstop, failure to close the SUV loophole, and failure to set fuel economy standards for all vehicles in the 8,500 to 10,000 gross vehicle weight rating ("GVWR") class. We also hold that the Environmental Assessment was inadequate and that Petitioners have raised a substantial question as to whether the Final Rule may have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, we remand to NHTSA to promulgate new standards as expeditiously as possible and to prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Eleventh Circuit lifts stay of execution for Florida death row inmate
Joshua Pantesco on November 15, 2007 10:56 AM ET

[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a per curiam opinion [PDF text] on Thursday overturning a district court order to stay the execution of Florida death row inmate Mark Dean Schwab [FCCD profile, DOC]. The federal district court blocked Schwab's execution [AFP report] on Wednesday pending the US Supreme Court's decision in Baze v. Rees (07-5439) [docket; cert. petition, PDF; JURIST report], where the court has been asked to rule on the constitutionality of lethal injections. The Eleventh Circuit reversed: The district court's action in granting the stay is contrary to the unequivocal law of this circuit that because grants of certiorari do not themselves change the law, they must not be used by courts of this circuit as a basis for granting a stay of execution that would otherwise be denied. ...
The grant of certiorari on an issue does not suggest a view on the merits. We don't know how the Supreme Court is going to decide the issues on which it has granted review in the Baze case, and the Supreme Court itself probably does not know given the fact that briefing has not even been completed in that case. Schwab is scheduled to be executed at 6 PM ET on Thursday. AP has more.
The Florida Supreme Court last week denied a motion to stay Schwab's execution, consistent with the court's recent ruling [JURIST reports] that Florida's revised lethal injection protocol does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Florida Governor Jeb Bush suspended all executions in the state [JURIST report] last December after a medical examiner said that the execution earlier that month of Angel Diaz was botched. Diaz endured a 34-minute-long execution as a result of the improper insertion of needles during the first injection. The ban was lifted [JURIST report] in July after a review of lethal injection procedures.
Lawyers for the inmate in Baze v. Rees have argued that the three-drug mixture [DIPC backgrounder] used in Kentucky, and several other states, constitutes cruel and unusual punishment because the first drug fails to make the inmate fully unconscious, thereby making the inmate suffer excruciating pain when the heart-stopping drug is injected. Since the US Supreme Court accepted the Baze case in September, courts have stayed executions in Texas, Arizona, Nevada, Virginia, Georgia, Mississippi, and Alabama [JURIST reports].
1:56 PM ET - The US Supreme Court has now stayed Schwab's execution. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

Former Pakistan Supreme Court judge challenging new bench as unconstitutional
Bernard Hibbitts on November 15, 2007 9:43 AM ET

[JURIST] The retired Supreme Court of Pakistan judge who unsuccessfully challenged General Pervez Musharraf in his recent bid for legislative re-election as president of Pakistan is bringing an application before the current high court challenging its constitutional status to rule on the pending case concerning Musharraf's eligibility for re-election [JURIST report] while still Army chief of staff. Justice (retd) Wajihuddin Ahmad [Wikipedia profile] left the court in 1999 after refusing to swear an oath under the Provisional Constitution Order imposed when Musharraf initially seized power in a military coup. He originally filed his application over the weekend, but it was rejected by the new Supreme Court registrar as "non-maintainable". Ahmad insists it will be reintroduced, however. Pakistani legal experts cited by Pakistan's News daily say that the application cannot be preemptively rejected and requires a court ruling. According to the petition quoted by the News, Ahmad contends that that the new Supreme Court bench staffed by judges who have sworn oaths under Musharraf's Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) [text] is in no legal position to rehear the case, as the Constitution doesnt recognise it and argues in the alternative that "If this court has the same legal status [as its predecessor led by Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry], no more arguments are required as the SC bench has already heard the parties and completed the process up to Nov 3, 2007.
Admad told the News: exposing the existing judiciary is important. We might be losing something by not pursuing the case, that is, throwing away an opportunity to expose the black sheep amongst us, but we will be losing all if we plead the case before these judges who have no legal and constitutional status. The politics of Admad's application are not clear-cut, however, as some critics of emergency rule would actually prefer to have the new high court rule on the eligibility case in favor of Musharraf as now anticipated, hoping that that will make its bias transparent and completely undermine any appearance of legitimacy. The News has more.
The reconstituted court has meanwhile adjourned further arguments in the case [APP report] until Friday.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|

US military says leaked Guantanamo operations manual out-of-date
Joshua Pantesco on November 15, 2007 9:16 AM ET

[JURIST] A US military spokesperson on Wednesday acknowledged that a 238-page operating manual for the US facility at Guantanamo Bay [JURIST news archive] was leaked on the Internet, but said the document is out-of-date and does not reflect current procedures. The manual, titled Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) [PDF text], is dated March 28, 2003, and is labeled "Unclassified/for official use only."
According to a report [text] in WIRED.com, the manual was leaked on wikileaks.org, a site established in January 2007 to encourage government whistleblowers to release and verify documents. ACLU lawyer Jamil Dakwar said two passages in the manual were of particular concern from a human rights standpoint: one section concerning the use of dogs to "enhance physical security and as a psychological deterrent," and another section regulating the amount of contact different prisoners are permitted to have with representatives from the International Committee of the Red Cross. The US military spokesperson said dogs are no longer used at Guantanamo, and that many other procedures have changed since 2003. AP has more.


Link |
|
subscribe |
|
latest newscast |
archive |
Facebook page

|
| For more legal news check the Paper Chase Archive...
|
|
|