The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

From ScotusBlog, which keeps track of recent actions on the nation’s highest court:

Read the rest of this entry »

\

It’s the 1st Monday in October

..& that means the Supreme Court is back in session. The LA Times takes a look at cases the high court will hear this year.

Here are two headlines this session’s already produced:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has given abortion opponents a defeat and a victory by turning away two cases.
For the third time, the high court rejected an appeal from anti-abortion activists trying to overturn a 16 million dollar judgment. They had used “wanted” posters to identify abortion clinic doctors, declaring them guilty of crimes against humanity and listing their addresses and telephone numbers. Earlier appeals were rejected in 2006 and 2003.
But the Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling that will let people in Arizona get license plates that say “choose life.” A federal appeals court ruled that denying the slogan on license plates would be a violation of free speech.

&

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court is refusing to consider a murder case in which a jury foreman read passages of the Bible to hold-out jurors who subsequently voted to impose the death penalty.
Without comment, the justices declined to consider whether the jury foreman’s conduct violated the rights of Jimmie Lucero, an Amarillo, Texas, man sentenced to death after being convicted in the shotgun slayings of three neighbors at their home in 2003.
The state of Texas argued that the Bible passage merely duplicated instructions of the trial court.
A Texas jury took about five hours to decide on the death penalty for ¼.

A reminder: there’s a good chance that 3 Supreme Court Justices will retire in the next presidential term.

Are you smarter than the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate?

Apparently, if you can name more than one Supreme Court case, the answer is yes.

Read the rest of this entry »

I’m on a different schedule this week (11pm newscast instead of the 5:30) + have been a bit under the weather so I apologize for the dearth in posts. Big news from the Supreme Court today, which ruled that Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns is unconstitutional.

This of course has reverberations within the presidential campaign. 

Obama praised the ruling as “well-needed guidance.” 

But that seems to contradict what he said about the DC handgun ban earlier in the campaign. 

McCain was quick to pounce on that. & here’s his official statement reacting to the ruling.

What do you think? Post a comment now!

Yesterday in a 5-4 ruling the Supreme Court ruled that terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

The dissenters, including Justice Antonin Scalia, were quite vituperative. Scalia went so far as to say that “more Americans will die because of this ruling.” President Bush, from Europe, also said he sided with the dissenters.

Let’s hope that’s not the case. But let’s also celebrate the apparent return of the ideals that have made this country the greatest in the world.

There are two kinds of power: hard power & soft power.

We have seen examples of the former in droves for the past 8 years. We are in desperate need of a return to “soft power,” which is akin to leading by example.

We should not be afraid of our American way of life as spelled out in the Constitution. I have always been under the impression that those who would lock up terrorist suspects & throw away the key are doing the American image considerable damage abroad.

Yes, trying terror suspects under our U.S. court system will be messy - justice always is. But for more than two centuries we have handled “the worst of the worst” in our jail system & there is no reason that can’t be the same for these suspects.

The alternative, keeping them indefinitely detained, denying them the chance to see the evidence against them (again - a right spelled out in the Constitution), or not allowing them to have legal representation, presents the United States as a hypocrite.

Colin Powell had a great line on Meet the Press about habeas corpus in the last couple of years with which we heartily agree:

“The concern was, well, then they’ll have access to lawyers, then they’ll have access to writs of habeas corpus. So what? Let them. Isn’t that what our system’s all about? And by the way, America, unfortunately, has too many people in jail, all of whom had lawyers and access to writs of habeas corpus. And so we can handle bad people in our system.”

The Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson nails our view on the matter, read it here.

Hugh Hewitt encapsulates the opposing view, calling it “an astonishingly dangerous decision.”

If we suffer because we stick to our long tradition of adhering to the inalienable rights of human beings - even those who aren’t citizens of our country - we will not only make our country stronger, we will also achieve a “soft” victory that would actually reduce the number of terrorists in the world.

That’s our take … what’s yours?

Gary Poole of Athens, TN writes:

“It is one thing for an enemy to kill our soldiers. Although I do not like it in the least, I can respect the man who did it and the his courage. It is quite another thing for an enemy to kill innocent civilians. I have no respect for them or their lack of courage. As far as I am concerned, when they joined a conspiracy to kill non combatant women and children, they lost all legal rights in our judicial system. I will agree that we need to do away with the detainee camps at Guantanamo…execute all the detainees and let Allah have them.”

Thanks for commenting, Gary! Here’s my question for you, though: in what way do you determine beyond a doubt that a suspect in custody “joined a conspiracy to kill non-combatant women & children?” How do you do this without a court hearing? Who is the person who decides a person’s guilt or innocence (& if guilt, decides if that guilt warrants death?) That’s the problem right now - we have no way of making the leap from terrorist suspect.. to proven terrorist. Some of the suspects held at Guantanamo have been proven to be completely innocent of charges - they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Should these people be executed, too? If you say yes, how can you call that justice?

Mr. Poole responded later in the day to me via e-mail:

 ”Lieutenant Calley from the Vietnam era comes to mind.  I wonder if he had the time to be that analytical as to what the proper response should be while his platoon was taking the majority of fire coming at his platoon from the rear, from the village he was supposed to be defending?  Which was the higher obligation…the rights of the villagers or the lives of his men?  I am not trying to be cute,  all I am saying is that the man wearing the uniform and carrying the rifle looks at it a little differently than a courtroom lawyer or judge acting with months/years of hindsight.  For the vast majority of situations, I am in complete agreement with you but I am of a completely different mindset when it comes to someone trying to destroy my country.  Like the old English toast”To Great Britain… and to hell with her enemies”"

Now it’s your turn! What do you think?

‘

Hard to believe.. but the Iowa caucuses were just 34 days ago. Since then, it’s been a manic sprint to get more than half the country to pick their presidential candidate, with narratives changing by the week, and in some cases, by the day. Now that Super Tuesday is in our rearview mirror, the campaign is switching from a sprint to a marathon. It could still be another full 75 days before we know the outcome of the Democratic race to the nomination, though as we noted yesterday, Republicans seem to have wrapped up their half of the contest.

Vote08 has its running shoes on and is pacing itself for the long haul. You can depend on us to bring you the major issues in the Presidential campaign - & its impact on the Tennessee Valley. I hope you check back on a daily basis to get a rundown of where the candidates & the campaign stands each morning. & I hope you weigh in often with your opinion. All political viewpoints are welcome here, & we hope to maintain a continual discussion to find out who will be the 44th president, how we can best turn around an apparent long-term slide as a world superpower, & how best to address the other issues & challenges this nation faces.

Let’s start the morning with a look at what we can glean from the latest Presidential webpoll at NewsChannel9.com. (The poll has now closed).

Which of these major presidential candidates would you most like to see win the White House in November?
Hillary Clinton - 31%
Mike Huckabee-32%
John McCain-17%
Barack Obama-14%
Mitt Romney-7%
Total Votes: 1244

This poll is unscientific, but NewsChannel9 is able to limit it to one vote per computer. 1244 votes is a higher-than-normal amount for a web poll, so it’s great that you are paying attention!

As often happens, the numbers did not significantly change with the number of votes. These percentages stayed on track throughout the 6 days the poll was up. Can we divine what this means for the Tennessee Valley’s general election vote in November? Sure we can!

-We’re living in Huckabee country. If John McCain names him as the Vice Presidential nominee, he’s all but assured a win in these three states.

-But if he keeps Huckabee off the ticket, that could mean good news for Hillary Clinton — despite her loss in Hamilton County to Barack Obama.

-Mitt Romney never would have had a chance here as the nominee, & if Obama’s the nominee he either needs to cede the state to his rival or spend a lot of money.

Of course this is a Super Tuesday snapshot; the Tennessee Valley’s opinions on all of these candidates will change over time.

We’ll have some interesting points to ponder after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »