There is a glaring error on p. 18 of the transcript in Kansas v. Nebraska. Rather than writing “Justice Scalia,” the Court Reporter wrote “Mr. Scalia.” And that mistake has been there for a full week! Earlier on the page, the Justice is accurately referred to as “Justice Scalia.”
H/T Jacob Berlove who notes that Chief Justice Rehnquist may not have been as forgiving for such an error.
Towards the end of his interview with the President, Jeff Toobin asks whether he would like to repeat the role of President Taft and become Justice Obama.
As Marine One thundered overhead, about to land on the White House lawn and take Obama to a series of political fund-raisers, I asked him if, like William Howard Taft, he entertained thoughts of serving as a judge later in his career. “When I got out of law school, I chose not to clerk,” he said. “Partly because I was an older student, but partly because I don’t think I have the temperament to sit in a chamber and write opinions.” But he sounded tempted by the idea.
“I love the law, intellectually,” Obama went on. “I love nutting out these problems, wrestling with these arguments. I love teaching. I miss the classroom and engaging with students. But I think being a Justice is a little bit too monastic for me. Particularly after having spent six years and what will be eight years in this bubble, I think I need to get outside a little bit more.”
I have little faith in Justice Obama’s ability to interpret statutes and executive powers, based on some of the positions his administration has taken.
Joan Biskupic’s excellent new book, Breaking In, brings us deep insights into the most important constitutional law decisions of our era. But one bit that seems to have escaped the media was coverage over Justice Sotomayor’s concurring opinion in all-important-jurisdiction case Daimler AG v. Bauman. Forget affirmative action or the Fourth Amendment. We’re talking about RBG and Sotomayor dueling on personal jurisdiction!
Biskupic explains some of the background of the decision:
For weeks, Sotomayor had seen drafts of Ginsburg’s opinion as it circulated among the justices. She knew she was about to be a public target. But she would have the courage of her convictions— perhaps stubbornly, misguidedly— yet with confidence enough to be the one in an 8– 1 vote. A week before the Daimler opinion was handed down, in January 2014, Sotomayor told an audience of more than a thousand that to bolster her courage, she often thought about the worst thing that could happen when she undertook a challenging endeavor. She would conclude: “You know something … so what?”
In a footnote that takes up almost entire page in Daimler v. Bauman, Jusice Ginsburg singles out Justice Sotomayor for “selectively referring to the trial court record” in Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Mining Co. (1952). Justice Sotomayor had the opportunity to pull back her dissent, in the face of withering criticism from 8 Justices, but she said, “so what.”
“So what.” That was more-or-less my reaction to reading Sotomayor’s dissent.
President Obama reveals to Jeff Toobin that the best decision of the Supreme Court was to deny certiorari in the same-sex marriage cases.
I asked him to name the best Supreme Court decision of his tenure. When the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, in 2012? When it struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, a year later? Neither, it turned out.
“In some ways, the decision that was just handed down to not do anything about what states are doing on same-sex marriage may end up being as consequential—from my perspective, a positive sense—as anything that’s been done,” the President said. “Because I think it really signals that although the Court was not quite ready—it didn’t have sufficient votes to follow Loving v. Virginia and go ahead and indicate an equal-protection right across the board—it was a consequential and powerful signal of the changes that have taken place in society and that the law is having to catch up.” In the Loving decision, from 1967, the Court held that states could no longer ban racial intermarriage.
In other words, Obama’s favorite decision was one in which the Court allowed the political process to go forward, one state at a time. Not long ago, the President described his foreign-policy doctrine as one that “avoids errors. You hit singles, you hit doubles.” On same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court had hit a single, or maybe a double, and that was fine with him.
Obama opposed marriage equality until May of 2012. He told me that he now believes the Constitution requires all states to allow same-sex marriage, an argument that his Administration has not yet made before the Supreme Court. “Ultimately, I think the Equal Protection Clause does guarantee same-sex marriage in all fifty states,” he said. “But, as you know, courts have always been strategic. There have been times where the stars were aligned and the Court, like a thunderbolt, issues a ruling like Brown v. Board of Education, but that’s pretty rare. And, given the direction of society, for the Court to have allowed the process to play out the way it has may make the shift less controversial and more lasting.
This is a remarkable answer. When he says “strategic,” he means “political,” in the sense of the Warren Court making calculated decisions of how best to advance policy. By the way, I’m not sure that anyone actually believes he had this constitutional epiphany in May of 2012. Rather–as I wrote at the time–Vice President Biden forced his hand.
Update: A colleague on Facebook made an important point. It is simply not true that the “Court allowed the political process to go forward, one state at a time.” This is an instance where the judicial process went forward, one court at a time. All of the states that eliminated their bans on same-sex marriage by legislative process did not need to rely on the judicial process. Here, it is the courts that started the process, but the Court did not complete it. Obama’s explanation betrays a startling lack of concern for the difference between the political and judicial process–this is very much in keeping with his critical view of the law.
In Jeff Toobin’s latest article, he interviews President Obama, and offers a number of insights into how he has made a mark on the Judiciary. This bit about Halbig confirms what we all knew about his strategic appointments to the D.C. Circuit:
By a vote of two to one, the court held, in Halbig v. Burwell, that the insurance subsidies that allow millions of Americans to buy health insurance were contrary to the text of the law and thus were illegal. If such a decision had been made earlier in Obama’s tenure, lawyers for his Administration would have been left with a single, risky option: an appeal to the politically polarized, and usually conservative, Supreme Court.
This year, the lawyers had another choice. When President Obama took office, the full D.C. Circuit had six judges appointed by Republican Presidents, three named by Democrats, and two vacancies. By the time of the Halbig decision, Obama had placed four judges on the D.C. court, which shifted its composition to seven Democratic appointees and four Republicans. In light of this realignment, the Obama Administration asked the full D.C. Circuit to vacate the panel’s decision and rehear the Halbig case en banc—that is, with all the court’s active judges participating. The full court promptly agreed with the request, and the decision that would have crippled Obamacare is no longer on the books. Oral argument before the full court is now set for December.
The transformation of the D.C. Circuit has been replicated in federal courts around the country.
This is the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments, authored by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and other leading suffragists at the Seneca Falls Convention in July of 1848. Relevant to our discussions are the provisions concerning coverture, and the inability of women to own, use, and dispose of property. Among the other “”injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman”:
- He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.
- He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.
- He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women—the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a man, and giving all power into his hands.
The 19th Amendment, which prevented states from denying the franchise to woman, was ratified on August 18, 1920.
Today we continue talking about zoning, and focus on non-conforming uses, variances, special exceptions, and other ways of making zoning codes more flexible. The lecture notes are here, and the live chat is here.
And on the topic of zoning of adult book stores, see this case where the New Jersey Supreme Court case held that it was unconstitutional for a town in New Jersey to ban strip clubs because patrons could go to a strip-club in nearby Staten Island. I swear, I didn’t make this up.
ABC News ran a story with the headline “Most Americans Back Supreme Court on Gay Marriage — Including in the Affected States.” It begins:
Most Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll support the recent U.S. Supreme Court action allowing gay marriages to go forward in several states – including a bare majority in the 11 states in which such marriages have begun in the past week and a half.
Overall, 56 percent of Americans support the court’s action, while 38 percent oppose it – exactly matching opinions on whether or not gay marriage should be legal, asked in an ABC/Post poll in June. These results reflect the public’s dramatic shift in support of gay marriage the past decade.
The story goes on to explain that a majority approved of the Court’s denial of certiorari, which lifted stays in a number of states to allow same-sex marriages to proceed.
But the poll itself offered no such clarification. Here is the question posed to the those poled:
On another subject, do you support or oppose the Supreme Court action this week that allows gay marriages to go forward in several more states? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?
Taking as a given that most people are rationally ignorant about the Supreme Court, and have no idea who the Justice are, or what they do, I find this poll unhelpful. When a poll asks about “Supreme Court action,” invariably the interviewees would think that there was some sort of decision on gay marriage. Instead, as we know, the Court issued no decision, and by declining review, allowed gay marriages to proceed in some of the affected states, but not in other states absent a petition for certiorari. I understand it would be very difficult to explain this complicated dynamic to non-experts, the question was poorly worded, as it suggested something that did not happen–a decision on gay marriage.
The flipside to this criticism, is that Americans don’t seem particularly bothered by a Supreme Court decision invalidating bans on same-sex marriage. This undercuts Justice Ginsburg’s oft-expressed concern about moving too quickly.
After the initial kerfuffle of the City of Houston’s subpoena request to Pastors asking for copies of their sermons about the Equal Rights Ordinance, Mayor Annise Parker has issued revised subpoenas. They are effectively the same, but eliminated the word “sermon.” In other words, they want the same information provided by any other means.
In a press release, the Mayor Explains why she is seeking this information:
““I support the right of the clergy to say whatever they want to say, even if I disagree with them. This is not about what they may be preaching from the pulpit. It is about proving that the petition gathering process organized by these pastors did not meet the requirements of the City Charter. This information is critical to proving the city’s contention that the petition was ineligible for placement on the ballot and that the organizers knew this.”
The relationship between guns and mental health is much trickier than those who support gun control laws would have you think. First, most people who have mental health conditions are not dangerous. Second, singling out people with mental health conditions stigmatizes them, and could further harm their mental health. Third, requiring doctors to disclose to the state anyone who may have mental health conditions, with the consequence of depriving them of a civil right, may chill the doctor-patient relationship, and inhibit people who are in need of help from talking to a professional.
New York’s Safe Act requires doctors to report to the state anyone who is “likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others.” Then, as the NY Times reports, the state “rubber stamps” those names and puts them on a no-gun list, where they remain for 5 years. Any existing permit is immediately revoked, and all firearms are seized. Only after the permit is revoked–likely with no notice–can someone go to court and petition a judge to remove the name. Already, over 40,000 people have been added to this list. This program exacerbates all three problems I mentioned above.
First, as the Times (not me) explains, most people who are diagnosed with mental health conditions that may harm others are not dangerous.
But the number of entries in the database highlights the difficulty of America’s complicated balancing act between public safety and the right to bear arms when it comes to people with mental health issues. “That seems extraordinarily high to me,” said Sam Tsemberis, a former director of New York City’s involuntary hospitalization program for homeless and dangerous people, now the chief executive of Pathways to Housing, which provides housing to the mentally ill. “Assumed dangerousness is a far cry from actual dangerousness.” …
Mental health professionals and advocates point out, however, the vast majority of people with mental illnesses are not violent. Accurately predicting whether someone will be violent, they said, is also a highly fraught process.
Second, singling out these people may frustrate their treatment:
Similar laws in other states have raised the ire of gun rights proponents, who worry that people who posed no threat at all would have their rights infringed. Mental health advocates have also argued that the laws unnecessarily stigmatized people with mental illnesses.
Third, making the doctors must-reporters means the doctor-patient relationship will suffer:
Several mental health experts said the data obtained by The Times renewed their fears that the reporting requirement would discourage patients from seeking help.
“The threshold for reporting is so low that it essentially advertises that psychiatrists are mandatory reporters for anybody who expresses any kind of dangerousness,” said Dr. Mark J. Russ, director of acute care psychiatry at Zucker Hillside Hospital in Glen Oaks, Queens, which has filed many reports to the state.
Finally, the process seems designed to maximize the number of people on the list, without any meaningful oversight.
Under the 2013 law, the reports prepared by doctors, psychologists, nurses and social workers are first sent to county officials. If they agree with the assessments, the officials then input the names into the state database. The information is retained for five years. If the authorities find a person in the database has a gun permit — necessary to purchase a handgun in New York — they are required to revoke the license and seize any guns. The people in the database are barred from obtaining a permit until their names are purged.
The way the law has played out, local officials said, frontline mental health workers feel compelled to routinely report mentally ill patients brought to an emergency room by the police or ambulances. County health officials are then supposed to vet each case before it is sent to Albany. But so many names are funneled to county health authorities through the system — about 500 per week statewide — that they have become, in effect, clerical workers, rubber-stamping the decisions, they said. From when the reporting requirement took effect on March 16, 2013 until Oct. 3, 41,427 reports have been made on people who have been flagged as potentially dangerous. Among these, 40,678 — all but a few hundred cases — were passed to Albany by county officials, according to the data obtained by The Times.
As of Saturday, the state updated the database to 42,900 reports, and said that roughly 34,500 of those were unique individuals. The rest of the names were duplicates because people had been reported more than once.
One such state officer admits that he is just the “middleman” and he doesn’t even read most of the applications.
Kenneth M. Glatt, commissioner of mental hygiene for Dutchess County, said that at first, he had carefully scrutinized every name sent to him through the Safe Act. But then he realized that he was just “a middleman,” and that it was unlikely he would ever meet or examine any of the patients. So he began simply checking off the online boxes, sometimes without even reviewing the narrative about a patient.
“Every so often I read one just to be sure,” Dr. Glatt, a psychologist, said. “I am not going to second guess. I don’t see the patient. I don’t know the patient.” He said it would be more efficient — and more honest — for therapists to report names directly to the Division of Criminal Justice Services, which checks them against gun permit applications.
This is hardly consistent with due process, as serious deprivations of civil rights are being made without eventt he care of checking the decision of a doctor to report. And remember, the individual receives no notice in advance.
I also don’t have much faith in the New York judiciary, if this example is indicative of how courts treat revoked permits:
Patients can challenge the revocations of their gun permits in court, and at least one has: a man in Otsego County, in central New York, who lost his gun license after being admitted to a hospital because he had threatened to harm himself, according to court papers. He also said he had accidentally exposed himself to a young girl and was racked with guilt. The county judge ruled the license could be revoked.
Supporters of this law will say something to the effect of, if a single live is saved, then this law is worth it. See the Brady Campaign:
Gun control supporters argue a wide net is appropriate, given the potentially dire consequences. Even if just one dangerous person had a gun taken away, “that’s a good thing,” said Brian Malte, senior national policy director of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence.
I don’t accept this calculus. As I’ve documented elsewhere, the number of mass shootings by people with diagnosed mental health conditions is extremely small. The overwhelming majority of gun violence is by people who have never been diagnosed by mental health professionals. Extreme steps are being taken that can deprive thousands of people of their rights of due process, to say nothing of the Second Amendment, with the slim chance of possibly keeping a single gun out of the hands of someone who may be dangerous.
In two recent Supreme Court cases, the sheer size of Texas has played into the constitutional calculus. First, with respect to Texas’s new abortion laws, the District Court, in finding an undue burden, noted that some people would have to drive up to 5 hours to visit a clinic. Second in her dissent from the Court’s denial of a stay in the Texas Voter ID case, Justice Ginsburg noted that some people in Texas would have to drive up to three hours to a government office in order to obtain a new ID. (Having to go to any DMV should be an undue burden in my eye. Forget the 5 hour drive. I’ve waited 3 hours once I got there! But I digress).
In this post, I won’t draw any conclusion of whether these laws are unconstitutional. Rather, I want to draw attention to a fact that most people are aware of, but maybe haven’t connected in the context of the state imposing burdens on people by making them travel further. Everything is bigger in Texas. The state is huge. In various parts of the state, you will have to drive very, very far to go anywhere.
Simply stating the number of hours one has to drive to get somewhere, in my mind, is not sufficient to illustrate how big of a burden someone suffers as a result of some law. Rather, that distance must be viewed in the context of where this place is. When someone chooses to live in a remote area of a humongous state, quite remote from many of the comforts readily available along the I-95 Amtrak Corridor, they generally accept the fact that they will have to drive far to go places they may need to go. I’ve done the math, and in various parts of Texas, the nearest Wal-Mart is a 2 hour drive. Now, I am not suggesting that visiting a Wal-Mart is on the same constitutional plane as the right to vote. Rather, I am trying to set a baseline for expectations of what would constitute a burden to people living in these remote areas, accustomed to traveling huge distances.
Let’s call this an “Everything’s Bigger in Texas” principle of undue burdens. An undue burden to travel 5 hours in a small state like New Hampshire or Maine cannot be considered along the same lines as 5 hours in a huge state like Texas. Any analysis that looks at distances has to consider how large the state, how densely populated an area is, and how far that area is from other essential services. The people are generally accustomed to driving longer distances.
Now there is an obvious rejoinder to that. The poorest people–who are most likely to be impacted by these laws–may not have the means to drive this far, nor take that much time out of the day for a 10-hour roundtrip. That is absolutely true, and is a factor that can be considered when assessing the burden imposed by requiring someone to travel to a further destination. But that rejoinder must be tempered by the general understanding that people of all socio-economic classes living in certain sparsely populated areas have to travel further, when having to go somewhere that is not available locally.
Monday at 5:00 p.m., I am speaking to the Philadelphia Federalist Society Chapter on the constitutionality of the President’s Executive Actions, aptly titled “ISIS, Immigration, and Obamacare.”
On Tuesday at 1:35 p.m., I am speaking at the Forbes 30 under 30 Summit, also in Philadelphia, on millennials and politics. Here is the panel description:
- The Lost Vote
Studies have shown that younger voters no longer feel a major draw to a political party and don’t trust their government given the recent barrage of party politics occurring in DC. But how will politicians sell themselves to voters in the upcoming elections? And how are they going to win back the trust of young voters?Josh Blackman, Assistant Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, Houston
Nate Levine, Founder, OpenGov
Nathaniel Loewentheil, Policy Advisor, The White House National Economic Council
Moderator: McKay Coppins, Senior Political Writer, Buzzfeed
If anyone is in the City of Brotherly Love on Monday and Tuesday, I hope to see you around.
Today, a Federal District Court, in a 4-page decision (it was not necessary to write a “lengthy and detailed opinion”), invalidated Arizona’s ban on same-sex marriage. The judge denied any request of a stay, citing the Supreme Court’s “deaf ear” to any relief, explaining it would be “futile.”
A stay of this decision to allow defendants to appeal is not warranted. It is clear that an appeal to the Ninth Circuit would not succeed. It is also clear—based on the Supreme Court’s denial of petitions for writs of certiorari filed in connection with several circuit court decisions which held that same-sex marriage must be recognized in Indiana Oklahoma,Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin—that the High Court will turn a deaf ear on any request for relief from the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
In a remarkable statement, Attorney General Tom Horne–who has to date defended the law–said he would not appeal the judgment. Why? Rule 11.
“A number of Attorneys General have refused to defend laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I have not been among that group. I have fought to defend the laws as passed by the voters of Arizona, which I believe is the duty of the Attorney General.
Both the Federal District Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled against us, and the United States Supreme Court has shown an unwillingness to accept review in the case of three other circuits in essentially identical circumstances.
The decision I make today has to be based on legal considerations rather than policy considerations. I believe the first duty of the Attorney General is to be a good lawyer.
Lawyers live under a rule called Rule 11, which provides that it is unethical for a lawyer to file a pleading for purposes of delay rather than to achieve a result.
The probability of persuading the 9th circuit to reverse today’s decision is zero. The probability of the United States Supreme Court accepting review of the 9th circuit decision is also zero.
Therefore, the only purpose to be served by filing another appeal would be to waste the taxpayer’s money. That is not a good conservative principle.
I have decided not to appeal today’s decision, which would be an exercise in futility, and which would serve only the purpose of wasting taxpayers’ money.
I am issuing a letter today to the 15 county clerks of court with the directive that based on today’s decision by the Federal District Court, they can issue licenses for same sex marriages immediately.”
The effect of the Court’s denial of certiorari is stunning. Now, a conservative state AG would find it sanctionable to appeal a judgment that the Supreme Court would not reverse.
Six days ago I blogged that appealing a same-sex marriage decision to the Supreme Court was not sanctionable. While I think that was correct a week ago, I don’t think it is correct anymore! It is stunning how fast things have changed.
A similar event unfolded in Wyoming. A federal district court invalidated Wyoming’s ban, citing the 10th Circuit’s decision in Herbert v. Kitchen. The court, also citing 10th Circuit precedent (after the Supreme Court’s previous intervention), initially put the judgment on hold until October 23 to give the government time to appeal. But the Governor said he would not appeal.
In related news, Alaska unsuccessfully appealed the 9th Circuit’s judgment to the Supreme Court. The Court denied review in a one sentence order. Unlike with the Idaho appeal, it does not seem that Circuit Justice Kennedy even bothered asking for a response from the challengers. It was referred to the Court for denial in less than a day. Will this be the *last* appeal to the Supreme Court? Could it possibly be that the Court will avoid this entire issue by denying certiorari.
“The Shooting Cycle,” co-authored with my law-school bound friend Shelby Baird, has now been published in the Connecticut Law Review, as part of a symposium on the Second Amendment. Our article focuses on the perception of mass shootings, and how legislatures react, or don’t react to these tragedies. You can download it here. Here is the abstract:
The pattern is a painfully familiar one. A gunman opens fire in a public place, killing many innocent victims. After this tragedy, support for gun control surges. With a closing window for reform, politicians and activists quickly push for new gun laws. But as time elapses, support decreases. Soon enough, the passions fade, and society returns to the status quo.
We call this paradigm “the shooting cycle.” This article provides the first qualitative and quantitative analysis of the shooting cycle, and explains how and why people and governments react to mass shootings.
This article proceeds in five parts. First, we bring empirical clarity to the debate over mass shootings, and show that contrary to popular opinion, they are fairly rare, and are not occurring more frequently. Second, relying on cognitive biases such as the availability heuristic, substitution effect, and cultural cognition theory, we demonstrate why the perception of risk and reaction to these rare and unfamiliar events are heightened. Third we chronicle the various stages of the shooting cycle: tragedy, introspection, action, divergence, and return to the status quo. During the earlier stages, emotional capture sets in, allowing politicians and activists to garner support for reform. But, after the spike, soon support for reform fades, and regresses to the mean. Fifth, with this framework, we view the year following the horrific massacre in Newtown through the lens of the shooting cycle. We conclude by addressing whether the shooting cycle can be broken.
You can read the other articles in this symposium issue here.
In Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court sanctioned the state performing tubal ligation surgeries on undesirable persons. Now, in Buck v. Cornell, the Ivy League college is performing tubal ligation on undesirable deer. Three generation of white tail deer is enough!
The Washington Post reports on Cornell’s ineffective methods of sterilizing deer in an effort to cull the surging deer population.
Typically, a deer boom is dealt with through hunting. Often, sharpshooting riflemen or archers are brought in to bait the animals into zones where shots can safely be taken. Cornell’s administrators took a different approach: They chose to experiment with sterilizing many of the wild deeron campus while allowing periodic hunting on nearby land — and the result was something that nobody anticipated.
Washington’s deer population has surged in recent years, particularly in Rock Creek Park, where last year an estimated 335 deer lived.
Much like Carrie Buck, the deer had their fallopian tubes cut:
The method of contraception chosen by Cornell was tubal ligation, in which a doe’s fallopian tubes are either blocked or severed. This prevents egg cells from reaching the uterus. Unlike chemical forms of birth control, tubal ligation is typically permanent and avoids the expense of capturing the same deer each year to maintain their infertility. At a cost of roughly $1,200 per deer, 77 does were captured and sterilized though tubal ligation. (Without the help of the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, the costs would have been higher.)
But it didn’t work! How can it be that the population increased after performing tubal ligation on the deer?!
Bucks and does form temporary pairs for a few days in order to mate. Bucks can travel for miles to seek out does in heat, which means that a large number of females would need to be targeted for sterilization. …
Under normal conditions, all female whitetails go into heat within several weeks of each other and become pregnant at around the same time. This annual event is called the rut. However, if a doe is not impregnated during the rut, it will enter heat again the following month and again the month after that. Because the ligated does were unable to become pregnant, they continued to produce chemical signals of readiness to reproduce — signals that can attract bucks from miles away.
By preventing pregnancy in does, Cornell had accidentally invented a population of buck magnets that regularly drew in new deer from the surrounding area.
And, here’s the kicker–even deer that were sterilized still managed to give birth. So they gave them ovariectomies! And that still didn’t work! How is this even possible?
Cornell has begun experiments with ovary removal in deer, but Curtis’s team has already had a surprise.
“Three of the 77 tubal ligation deer gave birth to fawns,” Curtis said. “These three deer were recaptured and later were given ovariectomies. All three had ovarian anomalies, and at least one experienced tissue regrowth post-surgery.”
Even after the surgical removal of their ovaries, one of the three deer became pregnant again. It is not clear how this was possible. One supposition is that some ovarian tissue may have escaped the scalpel and regrown into a functioning ovary.
If we learned nothing from, Jurassic Park, we can’t dinosaurs, and deer, from reproducing. As Jeff Goldblum said, life finds a way.
I have an idea. Invite Justices Scalia and Kagan to Cornell Law School, and they’ll take care of the excess population, and entertain the students. Boom. (Pun intended).
In his order dissenting from the denial of Alaska’s request for a stay, Judge O’Scannlain cited Herbert v. Kitchen (2014).
Is Herbert v. Kitchen still good law? How should we understand it? Is the precedent valid because it is still on the books? Is it invalid because we now know that (at least) 5, and perhaps 6 Justices no longer support that decision to stay the judgment? Is there a difference between Hebert granted a stay in an emergency context, but a stay is not appropriate following the formal certiorari process? Have the circumstances changed to render this precedent obsolete?
On the one hand, nothing the Supreme Court has done would, in the least, cast doubt on that precedent of super-recent vintage. On the other hand, what the Court has *not* done casts serious doubt on this precedent. By denying certiorari on the petition for certiorari from the 10th Circuit, the stay originally granted in Herbert v. Kitchen has been lifted.
I don’t think this is a valid citation. And,unless the Court says otherwise, Herbert should not be relied on in this context. Barely a year old, Herbert v. Kitchen (January 6, 2014), has been superseded before it even made it into the U.S. Reports. How often does that happen?
Yesterday I was interviewed by the local ABC affiliate about a story that has since gone national–the City’s decision to subpoena pastors for copies of any sermons discussing “homosexuality.”
Here are my quotes:
South Texas College of Law Professor Josh Blackman says the current wording of the subpoena is definitely problematic.
“If the subpoena is narrowed I think that would be much better, but to the extent they’re still asking about sermons, that may have First Amendment problems depending on how broad it is,” said Blackman.
Feldman says that when the city responds to the response of the subpoena, it will revise the wording and narrow the scope. Whether that will satisfy the critics remains to be seen. Woodfill says he didn’t feel like anything said from the pulpit should be part of the lawsuit.
Blackman says in his opinion, the additional controversy on this issue could have been avoided, if the attorneys working for the city were more precise.
“I think if the city had taken the care about why they’re going after these four or five preachers it would be much less blundersome. Now it seems the city didn’t even know what they’re requesting in the first place and dialing it back.”
Allow me to elaborate. The City is represented pro bono by Susman Godfrey, one of the top litigation firms. They know what they are do. It would have been legal malpractice for them to subpoena the pastors without the City’s permission. I think the Mayor and City Attorney are now parsing words, and saying they didn’t approve the precise language. While this may be technically true, it is a shallow defense. They no doubt agreed to subpoena non-parties, and wanted to find out whether any instructions were provided concerning the referendum process. It is unavoidable that this would include “sermons.” These subpoenas should be withdrawn, and if not, quashed, with attorneys fees.
Six months after building a large custom house with an ocean view, Missouri residents Mark and Brenda Voss learned of a big problem – it’s on the wrong lot.
Their three-story vacation rental house with an estimated construction value of $680,000 actually sits on the lot next to the one they own in the gated Ocean Hammock resort community.
How did this happen? A mistaken survey.
The Vosses, who own 18 other residential lots in the Hammock Dunes master-planned community, paid $160,000 for one with a street address of 23 Ocean Ridge Blvd. North in June 2012, according to Flagler County property records. They hired Keystone Homes to design and build a 5,000-square-foot house there to use as a vacation rental managed by Vacation Rental Pros in St. Augustine.
The builder and Voss each say the error can be traced to the first survey in 2013. East Coast Land Surveying in Ormond Beach misplaced stakes, and the foundation survey and other documents and building activity were based on the error. During construction, dozens of subcontractors arrived each day to work at the wrong lot. And a final survey failed to note the error.
“We require a preliminary plat, foundation and final survey and they all indicate it’s the right lot where the house sits,” said Mark Boyce, Flagler County’s chief building official. “We rely on the surveyor. They are state licensed professionals and we count on them to get it right.”
Calls to East Coast Land Surveying last week were unreturned.
It was another survey who discovered the problem.
It wasn’t until September, six months after the Voss house was completed, that a survey crew working nearby uncovered the error and notified the community manager, who then called Keystone Homes.
And because they are aware of this error, there is no chance they could ever claim an adverse possession.
When Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law, who encouraged jihad against the United States, was arrested and flown from Jordan to this country last year, it might have seemed unlikely that he would be willing to say much.
But whatever reticence he might have had was quickly lost.
“I am willing to tell you anything, and will not hold back,” he said. He soon waived his Miranda rights, according to an F.B.I. summary of his interrogation. He also said, “You will hear things of Al Qaeda that you never imagined.”
The defendant, Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, who was sentenced to life in prison last month, offered a trove of information, some of which was later used against him in court.
And he was far from alone. …
Faisal Shahzad, the Pakistani immigrant who tried to detonate a car bomb in Times Square in 2010, spent two weeks being questioned about “sensitive national security and law enforcement matters,” after waiving his right to a lawyer and a speedy court appearance, the government said. He laterpleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison.
In his book, Leon Panetta explained that after the Underwear Bomber was Mirandized, he confessed and told everything. Panetta made it seem like good police work.
Less noted was what happened after Abdulmutallab was informed of his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer. After first shutting up, he then relented and talked at length. It was Abdulmutallab who revealed that Anwar al-Awlaki had personally sent him on his terrorist mission. And it was Abdulmutallab who told FBI agents that the person who made the bomb that he carried in his underwear that day was Ibrahim al-Asiri, brother of the young man who had tried to kill Prince bin Nayef. Those statements helped us better understand the workings of Al Qaeda in Yemen and ultimately led to Awlaki’s elimination. Importantly, investigators coaxed those admissions from Abdulmutallab without duress. He was not denied sleep or stripped naked, much less waterboarded. His confessions were the result of patient, clever interrogation of a suspect who had been read his rights and who nevertheless elected to cooperate with skillful questioners— proof that civil liberties and expert, aggressive investigations can and do coexist.
Or maybe they were just terrified of being waterboarded at a Black Site.
Some defendants in the civilian court system cite the specter of the government’s methods of torture, like waterboarding, at secret C.I.A. sites, for the extraction of information.
Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai, an alleged Libyan Qaeda operative who was captured last year in Tripoli, waived his rights and gave an incriminating statement while being questioned by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, prosecutors have said.
He has pleaded not guilty and moved to suppress his statement on the grounds that it followed “countless hours of abusive interrogation” by the C.I.A. that left him confused, afraid and vulnerable to being pressured into waiving his rights, his lawyer wrote in a court filing.
“I was convinced that I would end up in one of C.I.A.’s black site torture prisons,” Mr. Ruqai, whose nom de guerre is Abu Anas al-Libi, said in a separate filing. By the time he spoke to the F.B.I., he said, his ability to make a voluntary decision about whether to speak “was long since gone.”
Prosecutors say that Mr. Ruqai’s statement was made only after he “knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights.” A judge is holding a hearing on the matter on Wednesday.
Fascinating and disturbing report.
Whenever I address any high school students, the first, middle, and last thing I tell them, is that if they are ever arrested to demand a lawyer immediately and not talk to the police without one. I even recorded this ultra-hip YouTube video teaching this lesson. Unfortunately, not enough teenagers heed this advice.
The Times reports on a new study about teenagers who are interrogated–none ask for lawyers, many make confessions or incriminating statements:
What none did, however, was exercise his constitutional rights. It was not clear whether the youths even understood them.
Therefore none had a lawyer at his side. None left, though all were free to do so, and none remained silent. Some 37 percent made full confessions, and 31 percent made incriminating statements.
These were among the observations in a recent study of 57 videotaped interrogations of teenagers, ages 13 to 17, from 17 police departments around the country. The research, published in Law and Human Behavior, adds to accumulating evidence that teenagers are psychologically vulnerable at the gateway to the criminal justice system. Youths, some researchers say, merit special protections.
The study shows that police, as they often do, are allowed to lie, but the teens don’t know this. Whenever I tell teenagers that the police can and do lie, they are appalled. Remember when they taught us in school that we should always trust the police. Ha!
Teenagers, he added, are also less likely than adults to know that the police can lie during interrogations.
“The police often promise kids things in the present. ‘If you just tell me you did it, you can go see your mom,’ ” he continued. “And because the brain’s reward systems are hypersensitive during adolescence, that immediate reward of confessing will trump the thinking of, ‘What will happen when I come back to court in a month?’ ”
Moreover, research shows that teenagers aged 15 and younger will unwittingly comply with authority figures. They are very suggestible, so that during an interrogation, they are more likely than adults to change their answers in response to interviewers.
Also, I make sure to tell the teens that they demand a lawyer, not just their parents. Why? Their parents have no clue either.
In Dr. Cleary’s study, only 12 suspects were accompanied by parents during portions of the interviews, whose duration ranged from six minutes to five hours, with the average about 45 minutes.
But if parents are not legally savvy, their presence may not serve young suspects well.
In the videos, five parents remained largely silent. Some lectured their children and then questioned them, taking on the interrogator’s role. A few parents urged their children to come clean, inadvertently sealing their fate.
Parents have conflicting roles, Dr. Cleary said. “They want to defend their children against accusations of wrongdoing. But we also socialize children to obey the law and tell the truth.
“Some parents might have felt compelled to use the situation as a teachable moment, or they might have felt their parenting skills were being threatened.” Dr. Cleary said. “It’s not fair to put parents in that situation, particularly without a lawyer.”But how do parents balance encouraging children to respect authority against the harm that can befall them by speaking with interrogators?
Dr. Steinberg suggests that parents tell teenagers: “If you’re being questioned by police because they think you’ve done something bad, say you need to talk to your parents first.” Parents can decide whether to call a lawyer.
No. You always call a lawyer. Even if your kid is in trouble, your first duty as a parent is to make sure the child is adequately represented. Parental punishment can always come later.
The Court recently held in J.D.B. v. North Carolina that age was a relevant factor in deciding whether a person is in custody for purposes of Miranda. Children should always know that they are required to ask for a lawyer.
Watch the video!