Summer+2010+Commentary+on+the+Judiciary

Leah Wood Supreme Court Gun Rights Decision

Restraining government limits on gun ownership while also allowing for the possibility of some governmental regulation was the 5-4 supreme court decision. This decision doesn’t completely shut down laws banning handguns but does possibly provide hope that one day those laws will be dissolved. The majority opinion concluded that local governments are subject to the Second Amendment, this limits their power to create solutions to social issues that suit local needs and values. Although many anti-gun advocates do not necessarily see this as a set back for their cause, but rather saw it as a confirmation of the language in the District of Columbia v Heller that the second amendment allows citizens the right to bear arms in their own homes for self defense purposes. They believe that this will not hinder law makers from being able to push common sense gun laws to help protect our communities from gun violence. Americans should have a right to protect themselves from intruders who are bearing arms, with rights or no rights. The NRA president is calling this a victory for their side as well, they are refusing to allow activist judges, defiant city councils, or cynical politicians to twist the words, reverse or abolish the Supreme courts decision in the case of McDonald vs. Chicago. The NRA has plans to move forward with lawsuits on laws that seem overly restrictive according to the supreme courts findings. The decision proves that the second amendment stands behind our inalienable rights to bear arms in self defense. Although this ruling has great potential to be subjected to judicial review, facing a possibility of being overturned, this has given Americans the right own guns in their own homes. Anti gun activists argue that banning guns will lower crime and deaths in the U.S. but will it really lower it or lower our safety in our own homes? Do we really think that banning guns is going to stop any criminal from obtaining a gun to accomplish whatever it is they want to accomplish? Your posing a law on someone that does not abide by the laws. They will only find another way to get these guns and the only ones that will be at a disadvantage are the everyday law abiding citizens.

It is our fundamental right to bear arms and protect our families, our property. The government needs to re-direct their focus on how to stop the illegal sales of gun on the black market and then once you’ve tackled that, then re-visit the common sense gun laws. When did politicians decide that their power overrides that of the U.S. Supreme court? Why don’t they want us to have the right to be able to defend ourselves and our loved ones if we choose to do so? It is no the law abiding citizens that need protection from guns. Chicago has to follow the ruling but is making it very hard for citizens to obtain and maintain guns. They are requiring safety classes, permits, registrations, fees, etc.

**Christian Legal Society v. Martinez**
 * __Sarah Denney__**
 * Judicial Commentary**

The Judicial branch differs from both the Executive and Legislative because its members are “appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate,” rather than being elected by the people. ([|http://www.whitehouse.gov]) The main function of the judiciary or judicial branch/system is to create “a system of courts which interprets and applies the law in the name of the sovereign state and provide a mechanism for the resolution of disputes” ([|http://en.wikipedia.org]). In other words, its function is to apply and uphold justice. The judiciary doesn’t make (legislative) or enforce (executive) the law, “but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case” ([|http://en.wikipedia.org]). The Judicial branch is made up of a court of final appeal (the Supreme Court) and lower courts. “The judicial branch has the power to change laws” ([|http://en.wikipedia.org]). “Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch, leaves Congress significant discretion to determine the shape and structure of the federal judiciary” ([|http://www.whitehouse.gov]). For example, the number of Supreme Court Justices is left for Congress to decide. At its lowest point there were only six Supreme Court Justices, and now the current number is nine (which has been in place since 1869). ([|http://www.whitehouse.gov]) Congress also has the power to create courts inferior to the Supreme Court, such as the US district courts that try federal cases and the 13 US courts of appeals that review appealed district court cases. ([|http://www.whitehouse.gov]) Federal judges and justices don’t serve a fixed term. They may “serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate” ([|http://www.whitehouse.gov]). They can only be removed “through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate” ([|http://www.whitehouse.gov]). This is supposed to protect them from the swaying opinions/passions of the public at large, and “allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns” ([|http://www.whitehouse.gov]). “The courts only try actual cases and controversies – a party must show that it has been harmed in order to bring suit in court” ([|http://www.whitehouse.gov]). One such recent Supreme Court case is CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOC. CHAPTER OF UNIV. OF CAL.,HASTINGS COLLEGE OF LAW v. MARTINEZ ( No. 08-1371 ). This case was argued on April 19, 2010, and decided on June 28, 2010. This case deals with Registered Student Organizations (RSOs) at Hastings College of Law, which is a school within the University of California public –school systems. The Christian Legal Society is a RSO that affiliates with a national Christian association that charters student chapters at law schools throughout the country. The chapters have to adopt bylaws and one of CLS’s is that all members and officers have to sign a “Statement of Faith” and follow these principles in their lives. “Among these tenets is the belief that sexual activity should not occur outside of marriage between a man and a woman” ( [] ) “CLS interprets its bylaws to exclude from affiliation anyone who engages in unrepentant homosexual conduct or holds religious convictions different from those in the Statement of Faith” ( [] ). Hastings College rejected CLS’s application for RSO status because the group’s bylaws didn’t comply with the college’s open-access policy “because they excluded students based on religion and sexual orientation”( [] ). CLS filed suit because they believed that the college’s refusal to grant them RSO status violated their “First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion” ( [] ). The district court ruled for Hastings and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, “ruling that the all-comers condition on RSO recognition was reasonable and viewpoint neutral” ( [] ). This ruling was held by the Supreme Court. “The Court considers only whether a public institution’s conditioning access to a student-organization forum on compliance with an all-comers policy violates the Constitution” and found that it did not ( [] ). The case was about nondiscrimination vs. free speech.

[]

[]

[] /

**---**

Judicial Commentary **
 * Kathie O'Donovan

**Marijuana and the Pissing Contests ** Some things don’t make sense to me. I ‘get’ the purpose of having local judicial courts, and a system of appeals that work their way through a hierarchy of courts that ends if a case reaches the US Supreme Court. I also ‘get’ the wisdom of local jurisdictions having the autonomy to have laws that govern their area alone, and this being separate from Federal laws. I’m confused by situations like the medical marijuana issue. My adolescence took place in the 70’s, a time renowned for the initiation of young people’s experimentation with marijuana and more potent drugs. I made it through that period and the rest of my adulthood without ever trying it. So it’s not that I have an agenda for legalizing it in any way. What confounds me is that I do not understand how there can be a Federal law that makes marijuana selling and possession a crime, but a local jurisdiction can have a law sanctioning marijuana prescribed, sold, and used for medical purposes. In California, medical marijuana is largely legal. A doctor won’t be arrested for prescribing it, a marijuana store owner won’t be arrested for selling the prescribed amount, and patients will not be arrested for smoking the prescribed marijuana…. unless the Federal government decides to enforce //__its__// law that does not recognize the exception local law makes for medical marijuana. It seems there is a crack in the system .

Being exempt from prosecution in California does not protect a physician or patient from the Federal law, even if they never step foot outside the state. Physicians have been raided and arrested by the DEA, and patients with brain cancer and other terminal illness have been arrested. Federal authorities have attempted to enforce the Federal law in California, apparently to make an example of them, demonstrating that state laws are inferior to Federal laws. Just a few days ago, on July 6, 2010, a man and his fiancée were arrested less than a week after they organized a public protest. The man operates a facility that provides care for patients who use medical marijuana. A picture with the article showed the man holding a vial of hemp oil, extracted from marijuana plants and taken orally to treat pain and aid in sleep. The Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that anyone distributing medical marijuana can be prosecuted. In 2005, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that Federal anti-drug laws trump state laws that allow the use of medical marijuana. Parties to the suit were told that rather than going through the appeals system, they need to take the issue to Congress.

Interestingly, Federal authorities have run into trouble enforcing the law, because they often rely on local police to facilitate the initial federal investigations, arrests and prosecution. Local jurisdictions in California have reacted to the Federal authorities’ attitudes about their superiority by not being especially cooperative in helping them investigate and raid California residents who are not violating state law. I just think that our judicial system in general is overly complicated. The innocent are too frequently convicted, the guilty too frequently go free, and a lot of resources are spent on little pissing contests like this. --

__**Crystal Cross**__ (NOTE: All information was taken from the Fort Bend County Court public records website and no HIPAA laws were violated by using the names of the parties involved.)
 * __Judiciary__**

The Judicial Branch

The Judicial Branch of the government is the branch that interprets the law. Many cases are brought to trial every year in the United States to have these laws interpreted by the courts and decisions made by a jury with the judge merely being the person that keeps “order” in the court to make sure due process is carried out. Some cases are heard and decided in county courts and it stops there. Other cases make it all the way to the United States Supreme Court by going through the process of appeals and moving up the court ladder so to speak. Most cases that are heard about on the news are mostly criminal cases, however, many of the cases we don’t normally hear about are medical malpractice cases.

When we go into the hospital to be treated for an illness or to have a procedure done, most of us probably don’t think twice about anything going seriously wrong. We put all of our trust in the hands of the doctors and nurses to take care of us and to not make any mistakes. Besides, these people have gone to school for years and are highly educated. Surely, they won’t make any mistakes, right? In a perfect world, this would be true. However, in reality, doctors and nurses are human and capable of making mistakes just like anyone else. Sometimes the errors are caught before any harm can be done to a patient. However, sometimes errors, or lack of following appropriate protocol, can lead to permanent life-changing damage to the patient or even death. That is when the judicial system comes in and decides whether or not the doctor or nurse was negligent or if they were acting within the scope of their practice and something just went terribly wrong. The following is an example of a typical medical malpractice case that resulted in the death of a patient.

On June 6, 2009, a petition was filed in the 400th District Court in Fort Bend County by Ronald Thomas Senn as a representative of the estate of his late wife Tiffany Ann Senn. The petition was filed against Bryan Blonder, D.O. (an OB/Gyn physician), Sweetwater OB/GYN Associates (the group that employed Dr. Blonder), and OakBend Medical Center (a hospital where Dr. Blonder has privileges and where Mrs. Senn subsequently passed away).

According to court documents, an expert witness, Dr. Ezell Autry, was brought in to give his analysis of what took place and whether or not the defendants were responsible for the untimely death of this 36-year-old mother of three. His testimony was based on the autopsy report and medical records provided to him. Dr. Autry attested to the fact that indeed all three defendants were “the direct and proximal causes of the death of Tiffany Senn”. In his written testimony, he described how Mrs. Senn went into Dr. Blonder’s office to have a minimally invasive procedure, and then subsequently died five days later.

According to Dr. Autry’s written testimony, on March 1, 2007, Dr. Blonder cultured Mrs. Senn and found her to have a vaginal strep infection, which was not unusual for this patient as she had been treated for multiple yeast and strep infections by Dr. Blonder dating back to at least April of 2006. On June 14, 2007, Mrs. Senn went to Dr. Bryan Blonder’s office to have Thermachoice endometrial ablation, a procedure done to remove/destroy the lining of the uterus and used to treat heavy menstrual periods and other problems related to the uterine lining. Although he had not done a vaginal culture on her since March, Dr. Blonder chose not to do a culture before her endometrial ablation even though the literature that accompanied the equipment states that endometrial ablation is contraindicated in a patient with a vaginal infection. Dr. Blonder’s argument was that Mrs. Senn felt fine and was showing no signs of infection. However, a woman can have an infection and have no outward signs or symptoms, and given her history of chronic infections, Dr. Autry stated that a culture should have been done 1-2 weeks prior to the procedure. Nonetheless, the procedure went well, and Mrs. Senn went home feeling fine. The next day, Mrs. Senn called Dr. Blonder’s office complaining of diarrhea, gas pains, nausea, abdominal pain, and cramping. According to Dr. Autry, as Mrs. Senn was one day postop, Dr. Blonder should have had her come in to his office to be examined or had her go to the ER to be evaluated as the symptoms she was describing warranted an assessment for endometritis (an infection of the lining of the uterus) or peritonitis (an infection of the lining of the abdominal wall that can occur after any sort of invasive procedure). Both situations can lead to serious consequences, but if caught early, can be treated with IV antibiotics. Instead, Dr. Blonder blamed the symptoms on the antibiotic Flagyl and told her to stop taking it and to go to the ER if her condition worsened.

On June 16, 2007 (postop day 2), Mrs. Senn arrived at the ER of OakBend Medical Center feeling drowsy, lethargic, and weak. Although she arrived at 08:30, she was not taken to the operating room until around 15:00. By this time, she was in respiratory failure and septic shock with an acute abdomen (meaning a very painful abdomen which is usually indicative of an abdominal infection). During the operation, the surgeon removed 500 cc of pus from her abdominal cavity and also removed her uterus and ovaries as her uterus was found to have ischemic changes (meaning the tissue of her uterus was essentially dead, which more than likely lead to the infection in the abdomen). Postoperatively she continued to have multi-system failure, but was stable until the evening of June 18, 2007, and a decision was made to transfer her out of OakBend Medical Center. On June 19, 2007, while being transferred from OakBend Medical Center to Methodistal Hospital, Mrs. Senn went into cardiac arrest in the elevator at OakBend Medical Center and soon thereafter died in the Emergency Room. As it turns out, blood cultures on admission showed that Mrs. Senn had a severe strep infection. Had Dr. Blonder done a culture on her before the procedure, this could have been discovered. Therefore, the procedure would have been cancelled and the domino effect that lead to her death could have been prevented.

When the allegations were made against the doctor and the hospital, they of course denied that they were negligent in the care of this patient and made a motion that all allegations be dismissed. In short, the letters between the lawyers and the objections by both parties as to what the other party had said or done went on for about a year. During that time, a hearing was set and rest three times, and the case never made it to court. On 6/22/10, the case was dismissed by the plaintiff taking a non-suit as to his claims and causes of actions against the defendants. There is no documentation as to why the plaintiff dismissed the case after a year, but I can only guess that he could no longer afford the attorney’s fees.

Had the case gone to trial, both sides would have had a chance to argue their case in front of a judge and a jury. In my opinion, had the case actually been heard, Mr. Senn would have won this case, hands down. Dr. Autry’s written testimony screamed negligence on the part of Dr. Blonder for, first of all, not doing a culture one to two weeks before Mrs. Senn’s procedure in a patient with known chronic infections, but also not paying more attention to her severe gastrointestinal symptoms on the first postop day. Even as a student nurse, if I had a patient that had those complaints on postop day one, my first thought would be infection, not a reaction to an antibiotic. As far as OakBend, the patient’s condition should have been treated as an emergency and she should have been taken to the operating room as soon as she got there. Waiting seven hours to do the exploratory laparoscopy was just plain negligence. It was also stated in Dr. Autry’s testimony that while Mrs. Senn was in recovery, her vital signs were very unstable. Given her unstable condition that reoccurred on the evening of June 18, 2007, there should have been an ICU doctor accompanying the patient (or at the very least a nurse) during the transfer in case something went wrong in the process. Instead, the patient was on the elevator with only paramedics who had no equipment or medications with them in case an emergency arose.

In researching many malpractice cases, I noticed that the plaintiff eventually ends up filing a non-suit. Perhaps this is a ploy by the doctors and hospitals to drag out the situation until the plaintiff can no longer afford to fight them. It’s a sad situation, but with the new malpractice cap in the state of Texas, each plaintiff can only receive $250,000 for non-economic damages. A person could spend that much just in attorney’s fees alone. While I agree that doctors and hospitals should not be sued for every little thing that goes wrong, in this case, Mr. Senn and his three children deserved to at least have their case heard in court. In the end, all one can hope for is that if this doctor continues to do this procedure, he has learned from this case so no other young woman has to leave behind a husband and three children.

__**Jessica Flores The Judiciary Branch**__ The many branches of the government come with many responsibilities but in addition to the responsibilities, you must meet certain qualifications and requirements. What are the qualifications and requirements to become a Supreme Court Judge nominee? Unlike the legislative and executive branches of the government, there is not a set of standard requirements or qualifications needed to be a nominee of the Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court Justice is the highest judicial body in the United States and leads the Federal Judiciary. Meaning they can overrule the judgment passed in other judicial systems including the Court of Criminal Appeals. To become a nominee the President must nominate the person; then, the nominee faces the United States Senate where they vote for or against the nominee leaving the general public without a vote.

The Constitution does not specifically state any requirements to become a Supreme Court Justice even though it does establish basic minimum criteria for the President and members of Congress. Although many of the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention were educated in law, they chose not to require too many specific qualifications for justices on the Supreme Court. This may have been because becoming involved in a legal career can take several forms, including apprenticeship to a lawyer rather than a formal legal education. As a result, some early Justices were Founding Fathers born outside the United States, while others never earned an academic law degree. The Constitution does establish the basic framework for the Supreme Court and federal court system, as well as the process for selecting Supreme Court justices.

Elena Kagan is the most recent nominee for this position. She was the Dean of Harvard’s Law School, a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall, and most of her positions have been in Democratic administration Some of Ms. Kagan’s Democratic positions have included President Obama’s Solicitor General and a legal adviser for former President Bill Clinton. She has never been a judge what-so-ever, and according to Sessions, Alabama Republican Senator, stated in the Politics Daily, “She has the least experience of any nominee at least in the last 50 years. And so I think that raises questions.” Sessions has the right to be upset about the nomination because how is a Supreme Court Justice supposed to deal with the tough and delicate issues if she has not even been a judge. Many of the recent nominees have not been a judge but they have a judicial background unlike Kagan. Kagan’s lack in the judicial branch is because she has only worked for the executive branch. She is not the typical expected nominee because of her very thin record in this field. Her legal experiences have not given Kagan the opportunity to oversee a trial for a case from a Judge’s point-of-view, and therefore she has never argued before a jury, and is just now having her first appearance in the appellate court just a year ago.

The decision of Elena Kagan’s confirmation has left Americans concerned about their courts and the future of their government. But also her expression towards Aharon Barak, a retired president of the Supreme Court of Israel who has been depicted by conservative critics as a proponent.

__**Pamela A. Morris Staigle** What is a United States Supreme Court Judge and what qualifications go along with that duty? Well a United States Supreme Court Judge is a person that sits and presides on the highest court of the land, the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the final decision over any other court in the United States. I guess you could say they trump everyone else, even the Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals of the State of Texas. The only way to become a Supreme Court Justice is to be nominated by the President of the United States. Once you have been nominated by the President you go before the United States Senate for a judiciary review process. Upon the completion of this review process a vote is taken of the United States Senators, two from each of the 50 states. So you are nominated by one person; and voted on by 100 people. It is the position most removed from the discretion of the American people. The average person has nothing to do with the appointment of a Supreme Court Justice.
 * JUDICIARY**__

The Constitution of the United States establishes no requirements to be appointed a Justice on the Supreme Court. The Constitution stipulates no minimum or maximum age for judicial service. Although most people nominated are in their 40s or 50s when nominated. This is to ensure that they have a long tenure of service. The Constitution provides that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean that judges may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they may resign or retire voluntarily. A judge may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote. Presidents usually appoint people who have been lawyers or judges or in some way trained in the law. Education is not specified neither is service in the United State Justice System a requirement. Members of the Supreme Court must be experts on the Constitution, Constitution Law and on federal law; therefore all past and present members of the Supreme Court have been attorneys. Since the establishment of the Judicial branch of our government there have been 111 Justices. Only 46 have held degrees from accredited law schools. Today, nominees are judged by the quality of the law school attended and the extent of their experience on the bench. Twenty-two of the forty-seven candidates graduated from Harvard or Yale. Of the Justices currently serving 5 attended Harvard, 2 attended Yale, 1 attended Columbia and 1 attended Northwestern.

Elena Kagan is the most recently nominated person to be going through the process of becoming a Supreme Court Justice. Not only did she attend Princeton University, Oxford, and Harvard Law School; she later became the 11th Dean of Harvard Law School. Today, education and credentials do matter. Kagan completed federal Court of Appeals and Supreme Court clerkships. She later became a professor at the University Of Chicago Law School, leaving to serve as an Associate White House Counsel and policy adviser under President Bill Clinton. She became a professor at the Harvard Law School and was later named its 11th Dean. She was appointed Solicitor General by President Barack Obama on January 26, 2009; becoming the first women to hold this position. On May 10, 2010, Obama nominated Kagan to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy from the impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. If Kagan is confirmed by the Senate, she would be the first justice in nearly four decades without any prior experience as a judge; she would become the fourth female justice in the Supreme Court’s history, and the third on the current bench.

Currently serving of the United States Supreme Court are Justices: __Chief Justice__ [|John Roberts] appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005, attended Harvard Law School. __Associate Justices__ [|Samuel Alito] appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1990, attended Yale Law School, [|Stephen Breyer] appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, attended Harvard Law School, [|Ruth Bader Ginsburg] appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1993, attended Columbia Law School, [|Anthony Kennedy] appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988, attended Harvard Law School, [|Sonia Sotomayor] appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009, attended Yale Law School, [|John Paul Stevens] appointed by President Gerald Ford in 1975, attended Northwestern, [|Clarence Thomas] appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, attended Yale Law School.

As you can see the seat as a Supreme Court Justice is now heavily weighed by what college they attended and by the relationship of their personal experiences, who is president at the time and their known association to the president. This is a matter of not only what you know but who you know and who are you affiliated with.

__ Megan Keesler __
 * //Nursing Shortage//**

The judicial branch is called upon disputes and decisions that have to be made within the courts. This is the highest court system, and the third branch of government that the law has to face before becoming into law. Judges and members of the judicial branch are appointed by the president and approved by the Congress. The courts are called to decide on disputes that have been passed by the legislative branch and make decisions on the constitutional meaning of the issue becoming a law. The issue must the judicial courts to be decided if it can become a law. The supreme court passed the bill of NACNEP, National Advisory Council and Nursing Education and Practice to have set regulations of the amount of nursing care for each patient in the hospital or nursing home. There have been many issues that the nurse to patient ratio is not being met, and patients are not getting the adequate care that they should be getting. The court system is designed to carry out the law and justify why this law is being put into action. This law of having one on one patient care in the ICU units and having one to twelve in normal units is being pushed to provide the proper amount of attention and facilitated care for the patients. There are many hospitals that have not been following these rules, which is why congress wanted to pass the law to ensure the safety and quality care for the people. Now, hospitals are enforcing this law more strictly and provided proper care with the correct amount of nurses to benefit the needs of the patients. Because of these bills and laws that have been passed by the Supreme Court, the hospitals, nursing homes, and facility care units have greatly benefited. They have now been enforcing a requirement on nurse to patient care and have been supplying their patients with adequate care. Because the hospitals have been putting their patients in jeopardy of harm, they can then bring the case to the courts because the issue is a major controversy. The courts job is to use judicial review to make sure that the law is constitutional and follows the guidelines of the United States constitution. Now that the law has gone through each of the branches, it can now be made into a law. It has gone through the legislative process of law making, the executive process of the presidential decision, and now the judicial process of the courts that decides whether the law is constitutional and then brings it to action. There are many processes that the law goes through, and can even take years for a law to become an actual law. Because they made regulations pertaining to the nursing shortage, there can now be more educational training which results into more nursing staff for each of the specialty units. These regulations have greatly improved the way we train and the way we serve our patients each and every day.

Lindsey Stunson Judcial Commentary: Vacancy on the Court The members of the United States Supreme Court are appointed for life.The only way a person may become Supreme Court Justice is to be nominated by the President currently serving in office.In the midst of President Obama’s Presidency he has recently been given his second opportunity to nominate a Supreme Court Justice due to the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens. After going through his options President Obama has chose Elena Kagan to succeed Justice John Paul Steven in his position as the Supreme Court Justice. She will have to go through a process in order to become the Supreme Court justice in 2010. It is said that with this appointment the outcomes of court cases will be about the same as if John Paul Stevens still held the position In the recent presidencies there have only been three justices nominated by a democratic president, one of which being Sotomayor.If the conservative bloc of the court should start to be replaced by a democratic president then the contisutional and legislative issues will become more liberal. Over the years justices have been known to retire so that the presidential agenda will be met among the court. With this being said President Obama will need many vacancies in the court to come available in order to make any changes in his court.

Judiciary - Michael Nemitz

The punishment is the effect of a crime, usually an equal punishment to fit even the most heinous of crimes. Yet all too often in our society, the innocent can be brought under the righteous hammer of justice. The most frequent and worst of the ways to be wrongly set with a criminal record for life is the bait and bail, lawyers will push you to admit to the crime, to plead guilty and pay a bail fee so you can go home immediately. Unfortunately, admitting to the crime makes you guilty of it whether you did the act or not, there’s no grey area or wiggle room, granted this tightfistedness is required to put down wanted criminals, but what about the innocent who claim guilt, so they can return to their families?

**Ronald Vavra SB1070**

Question: How does a state deal with a law that is regulated by the federal government but the federal government doesn’t want to enforce that law? Answer: Make your own law. Well…maybe not, at least when it comes to the political hot button called immigration. The federal government has filled suite against Arizona to stop SB1070 from going into effect on July 29th. The suit lays out why the government believes that immigration laws passed by Congress and enforced by a range of federal agencies must take precedence to any passed by a state Legislature. The lawsuit goes on to say that a “state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country  .” Some people argue that the law is needed because the federal government won’t enforce its own laws. Others say the law is not needed and that it will only encourage racial profiling. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with the necessity of Arizona’s new law, what does matter.. is it constitutional. According to article IV - The States, Section 3: (Paragraph 2) “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” (www.dailypaul.com). A stick interpretation would lead us to believe that only the federal government can make immigration laws but what it doesn’t say is who is supposed to enforce the laws and what can a state do to force compliance. According to proponents of the law SB1070 it only mirrors and enforces existing federal law. Some pro-immigration groups are calling for the DOJ to drop the suite. They are afraid that the lawsuit will only grow the anti- immigration reform movement, calling the lawsuit a bad political move. I on the other hand think it’s a brilliant move by the Obama administration. With high unemployment, massive debt and two unpopular wars this lawsuit will keep the American public distracted long enough to get through the mid-term elections. No matter what happens in Phoenix this will defiantly make its way to the Supreme Court. The real argument will be can a state make its own laws concerning its borders. I think Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch summed it up best when he said “in the end this fight comes down to those who want our laws against illegal immigration enforced and those who don’t”.

**__Whitney Hoffpauir __** The Judicial branch sets itself from the other three branches of government. While the Legislative and Executive branch are elected by the people the Judiciary branch is appointed by the President. The reason the President appoints the Supreme Court Justices tend to grant the longest influence on the governmental process. This branch is to reconcile disputes, interprets the constitutional law and checks the executive and legislative branch. On June 26, 2008 the Governor of Louisiana Bobby Jindal signed legislation allowing judges to force convicted rapists to undergo chemical castration or surgical castration; the sex offenders can have the choice. According to Wikipedia the meaning of chemical castration is the administration of medication designed to reduce libido and sexual activity, usually in the hope of preventing rapist and child molesters and other sex offenders from repeating their crimes. Or, the offender can choose surgical castration; this is where the testes are removed through an incision in the scrotum. Does such a procedure seem painful? My personal opinion is YES! The same day Governor Bobby signed senate Bill 144 into law was the day the United States Supreme Court ruled Louisiana cannot execute people who rape children under the age of 12. This decision was based on the court case Kennedy VS. Louisiana. In 2008 the Supreme Court decided that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause did not permit a state to punish the crime of rape of a child with the death penlty; more broadly, the power of the state to impose the death penalty against an individual for committing a crime that did not result in the death of the victim is now limited to crimes against the state. This topic has many people talking about the importance of this bill being passed. Many believe that this serves the offenders right and it would protect the children, women, and other victims from such abuse. According to the Governor of Louisiana “I am glad we have taken such strong measures in Louisiana to put a stop to these monsters' brutal acts” Would this law violate the eighth amendment or serve as justice to sexual predators that could threaten our children? The governor also states “If people want to come to Louisiana to violate the law and prey on our children maybe now they might think twice.” To some this statement rings some sort of truth. If a person is convicted of a sexual crime they should pay for their mistakes. The people of Louisiana want to make them go one step more in making sure this type of behavior will never happen again. They not only want the offenders to pay for the crime they have committed but insure the public they will no longer be capable of committed such a heinous crime. On the other hand some people argue that this law would violate a person’s right and could not be forced to accept a medical procedure. This piece of legislation is in the bill making process as we speak and we will soon find out if the United States Supreme Court will rule in favor of this bill and make a law.
 * __Governor of Louisiana Authorizes Chemical Castration for Sex Offenders __**

Harpreet Singh <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Cambria','serif'; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; text-align: center;">Judicial Review The strongest power in the U.S. government, the power of judicial review, lies within the judicial branch. Judicial review is the principle check that the judiciary has over the executive and the legislative branch. The courts decide if an executive action or legislative law is in accordance with the Constitution. Since the judicial branch is the weakest in the government, it was best to give it judicial review, so as to limit the chance of abuse of power. This was the key argument presented by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #78. An interesting point of controversy is brought up in Hamilton’s Federalist #78. Hamilton said as long as the judiciary branch implements judgment and not their own will, there will be no abuse of the judicial review power, but it is hard to determine what is will and what is judgment. Judgment in my own words would mean looking at a conflict, the nature of it, the relevant laws and delivering a common sense resolution or punishment. Judgment should be free of anybody’s opinion or political, religious, or ethical views. Will means implementing your personal opinion and views, and changing something to fit you personally. If the courts implemented will in the courts, the judicial branch would become politicized, which it currently is. When a case comes to Supreme Court, they haven’t always implemented good judgment which abuses their power of judicial review. The Democratic justice will rule the case on a democratic mindset, and the Republican justice will rule the case on a republican mindset. The Supreme Court justices’ allegiance to a political party brings in politics into the courts, which leads to the exercise of will and the misuse of their powers. Many of the presidents nominated Supreme Court justices who shared their own political views. This is another example of politics in the courts. When the Supreme Court starts misusing judicial review they can gain control of legislative power. With the power of judicial review, the judicial branch gets to interpret the Constitution however they like, and the executive or the legislative branch cannot challenge their decree. Although some people might say the judicial branch is fair and the weakest branch, the judiciary is way too political and they have the potential of gaining significant control over the other two branches. Judges are not bound by precedence, which used to limit their arbitrary decisions. Since they can interpret the constitution, the supreme law, however they choose they have the ability of turning past rulings void and creating new law. In the Constitution, Congress was given the task of designing the courts, and also confirms the Supreme Court nominee, but legislative and executive control of the courts only politicizes the courts. The judicial branch is headed by 9 people, which makes the judicial branch an oligarchy. The oligarchic, political nature of the courts could most likely lead to misuse of judicial review. They have the strongest power in the U.S. government, judicial review. Also the judicial branch is very detached to the public, meaning the public has no say in the courts, maybe except for jury power. The judicial system will not listen to what the people want, even though the judges are public servants. . Most people fear the executive branch and think that it will lead to tyranny, but the judicial branch should be equally feared and inspected.

__**Tiffany Summerville**__ =** The Judicial Take on the WBC **=

Although they are well known for picketing the funerals of war Veterans, the Westboro Baptist Church deals with more than just that. They gather at different genres of concerts, Jewish churches, Jewish camps, and Holocaust museums, and protest against gay rights. Gay rights are the Westboro Baptist Church’s main reason for the protests at War veteran’s funerals. The Westboro Baptist Church claims that God is punishing the United States by killing our troops, because the US is supporting gays and lesbians. Many cases have been brought to the courts regarding the protests that the Baptist church has organized at funerals, including one Albert Snyder. Snyder’s son, Mathew, died while serving in Iraq. In October 2007, Snyder sued Fred Phelps, the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, for protesting at his son’s funeral and posting personal information regarding his son on the WBC’s website. Phelps apparently wrote an essay on Matthew, which he posted on the website for the church. The things posted on the website from the essay included the following: ““raised [Matthew] for the devil,” and “taught Matthew to defy his Creator, to divorce, and to commit adultery.” Snyder sued on charges of invasion of privacy, defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy. In late 2007, a federal jury ruled that Albert Snyder was to receive $2.1 million dollars for harm suffered because of the protest and $8 million in ‘punitive damages’. The decision was changed in September 2008, when Phelps filed an appeal to the decision and the judgment was changed to be in favor of the WBC. The awards to Snyder were reversed and the court found the charges against Phelps for the protests and information posted on the website to be protected by the first amendment.

Another case involved Fred Phleps’ daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, going against Attorney General Jay Nixon and Gov. Matt Blunt. Phelps-Roper claimed that Missouri’s funeral protest law went against her first amendment rights. The law placed a three hundred foot border around which picketers could not protest the funeral of a fallen soldier. At first the court ruled against the claim. But Phelps-Roper appealed the judgment and it was ruled in Phelps-Roper’s favor.

The cases go back and forth, further concluding that it is hard to rule on something so blatantly protected in the U.S. Constitution. In my opinion, something needs to be done to corner these hateful, close minded people. And Nixon agrees, "I will take every legal step necessary to see that this law is upheld," Nixon said. "Missouri has the right to protect the families of our fallen military members from these intrusive and disgusting protests." But if the courts were to rule on something so protected like free speech, what stops them from ruling that one could not say that you love another. It is sad that there are people so close minded and hateful towards another group of people and it seems as if justice needs to be done to confine this group of people.

Nicolas Garza Kagan and the Constitution Elena Kagan's responses to the questions put to her by the Senate are worthy of comment since she has been nominated for a significant position. A companion piece to this article will review some of her answers and check them against the standard handed down to us by our noble Founding Fathers — namely, the Constitution of the United States. Apart from that analysis, however, there is the equally compelling question of just whether this whole business of the modern nomination hearing circus was ever anticipated by the Framers or provided for by the provisions of the Constitution itself. Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution sets forth the power of the President to "nominate ... judges of the Supreme Court" "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." The plain language of the text reveals no legal or constitutional mandate that a candidate nominated by the President testify before the Senate or any particular committee thereof. In truth, such an elaborate system as the one being played out today seems incongruous with the simplicity of the black letter of the Constitution. In the letter, Hamilton reassures those readers concerned that the Senate would have too great a sway over the nomination of officers (judges, secretaries, and the like) that it is the President alone who is endowed by the Constitution with the choice of whom to nominate. The Senate sole anticipated contribution in the operation is to "ratify or reject the choice he [the President] may have made."

That is a very simple and seemingly very black and white role. The Senate, bringing to bear their collected wisdom and experience, is to ratify or reject the nominee. While they may, if the choice was left to them, have chosen another person to fill the position, such is not within their province and such an exercise is not provided by the Constitution. Given the choices made by recent Presidents, it seems they are less concerned with selecting a man or woman who is the most well qualified than with one who is most likely to survive the confirmation gauntlet. Furthermore, with the ever-increasing politicization of the Supreme Court, the process of vetting the President's nominee has become a tug of war between the President on one side and the Congress on the other. Both sides pulling mightily to prove they are the more powerful branch. Historically, in fact, Presidents have nominated friends to the federal bench. Such is within their constitutional right, as a fair reading of Article 2 reveals. A majority of the Senate must confirm the nominee, that is true, but it is not left to them constitutionally speaking to act as bloodhounds tracking down any tell-tale scent of a nominee's political posture or legal disposition. Besides, as evidenced by the televised confirmation hearings of the past couple of decades, nominees are generally cagey enough to evade all attempts by Senators to elicit any substantive response to a policy query. They, and we, have witnessed the hearings of the past and are prepared to duck and dodge their way right onto the bench without ever revealing anything more significant than their vocabulary and their wit. Therefore, as the nomination dog and pony show carries on, it would be wise to detach oneself from partisan alignment and political disagreement and recall the wisdom of the Founding Fathers as enshrined in our national charter. The Senate is empowered with the right of "advice and consent" and regardless of one's own disdain for the (possible) politics of a nominee, the Senate should be neither expected nor allowed to exert more control over the process than that wisely allotted to them in Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution.