I’m still trying to figure out what this googler was looking for, but I appreciate the traffic.
liberals in california willing to give up seventh amendment rights to help obama and speed up marathon bombing trial
At the White House Correspondents Dinner, Nino and Bill O’Reilly chat it up.
This isn’t the first time Justice Breyer has injured himself on two wheels. In fact, the first major tussle he had may have cost him a shot at the Supreme Court in 1993.
In her book Supreme Conflict, Jan Crawford (who was still then also a Greenburg) relays this account:
Clinton’s aides contacted Ginsburg about a week before the nomination, when she was at a federal judicial conference in Maryland. Several times that week, Nussbaum called her, asking questions about her background and then about her upcoming travel schedule, which Ginsburg took as a positive sign. He wanted to know where she would be that weekend. She was supposed to attend a wedding in Vermont, she said. Nussbaum told her she shouldn’t go; she should plan to be in Washington. But then he called back. “It’s okay to go,” he told her.
Ginsburg assumed the White House had moved on. That Friday, Clinton interviewed Boston-based federal appeals court judge Stephen Breyer, who had strong support on Capitol Hill, having worked there as chief counsel for the Democratic-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee when Ted Kennedy was chairman. The meeting quickly leaked to the press, and White House Secretary Dee Dee Myers confirmed the interview.
But Breyer, a Harvard Law School professor, hadn’t been at the top of his game. He’d just left the hospital with bruised ribs and a collapsed lung, which he’d suffered in a bicycle accident. His injuries prevented him from flying to Washington from Boston, so he was driven to New York and took the train down from there. He stayed in Washington after his lunch with President Clinton, waiting to get the nomination. Clinton wasn’t sold on Breyer.
He decided not to offer him the nomination and asked to meet with Ginsburg. Saturday, shortly after she and her husband arrived in Vermont, Nussbaum called her again. “We need you to come back.”
You’d think he would’ve learned his lesson by now. Stay off the bike!
The Crisis Magazine has a startling image of Justice Scalia, wearing a Confederate Flag bandana over his face, with a headline, “Racial Entitlements? Really?” The cover is referring to Scalia’s comments during arguments in the Voting Rights Act case. The magazine is surely seeking attention–it worked. I had never heard of The Crisis, yet I am blogging it.
What do you think?
Update: Thanks to commenter David for reminding me that Crisis is the official NAACP magazine. The cover-article in question, by NAACP President Benjamin Jealous is here. Jealous also was quite critical of SG Verrilli–to his face.
The grilled shrimp appetizer had just arrived at the 128th annual press-pols Gridiron dinner Saturday night when NAACP President Benjamin Jealous fell into conversation with a fellow white-tied dinner guest about the Supreme Court’s recent argumentover the Voting Rights Act.
The distinguished-looking gentleman told Jealous he thought the NAACP Legal Defense Fund lawyer, Debo P. Adegbile, had done a fine job arguing that the law needed to be continued.
Sure, but what happened to the solicitor general? Jealous wondered aloud, he was just awful.
Well, I am the solicitor general, Donald Verrilli Jr. replied.
An apparently mortified Jealous apologized profusely and excused himself from the table for what seemed to folks at the table an awfully long time, returning just about when the famous Gridiron petits fours arrived with coffee.
Jealous resumed apologizing on his return.
In Maryland v. Shatzer, the Supreme Court held that a 14-day gap between when a suspect requests an attorney and when the police resume interrogations, is reasonable:
We think it appropriate to specify a period of time [at which time the clock is reset]. It seems to us that period is 14 days. That provides plenty of time for the suspect to get reacclimated to his normal life, to consult with friends and counsel, and to shake off any residual coercive effects of his prior custody.
At the time, Orin Kerr, with some jest, asked: “Have you heard of the “14-Day Clause” of the Constitution? If not, you should take a look at the Supreme Court’s opinion today in Maryland v. Shatzer . . . . It’s particularly notable in that it introduces a very rare (but not unprecedented) numerical rule to implement constitutional protections.“
Why 14 days? Orin opined:
As a matter of policy, I think that’s a pretty good rule. But why precisely 14 days? That is, 336 hours, or exactly 20,160 minutes? There is no 14-day Clause in the Constitution. (I checked.) Why not 15 days? Or 13.491 days? . . . And how did the Justices know that 14 days would be about right? Based on their extensive experience being arrested, perhaps? Presumably not. But no matter. Fourteen days seemed about right, and so the 14-day rule became the law.
If you’re wondering how Justice Scalia could end up writing an opinion that sounds so legislative — picking 14 days out of thin air — you need to know Justice Scalia’s history with Miranda. Justice Scalia intensely dislikes the entire line of Miranda cases.
Imagine if the Supreme Court, for whatever reasons, has occasion to consider if the 16-hour interrogation of Tsarnaev violated the Constitution.
Will the Justices agree with Emily Bazelon and others that 16 hours is too long? Does the Constitution have a 16-hour clause? At what point does the public safety exception to Miranda fade, such that the delay is too long?
Does anyone what is the longest period in which a court sanctioned a delay in reading Miranda warnings under the public safety exception?