Kennedy v. Louisiana, an important and closely followed case is being argued today in the Supreme Court: Can the death penalty be imposed as a punishment for child rape, if the child isn't murdered.

Colorado is considering such a law and I outlined the reasons against it here. I agree with this law review article (pdf)that:

First, there is a strong national consensus against imposing the death penalty for child rape. In addition, the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for the crime of rape, regardless of the age of the victim, because it does not cause death. Moreover, imposing the death penalty for child rape would fail to serve, and would likely inhibit, the retribution and deterrence functions of the U.S. penal system.

The Sex Crimes blog has a full resource page devoted to the Kennedy case. Also check out Dahlia Lathwick in Newsweek, The Supreme Penalty for Rape.

The Scotus Wiki page for the case with briefs and synopsis and other links is here.

When Massachussetts federal bankruptcy judge Robert Somma tendered his resignation after being arrested for D.U.I while wearing women's clothing, members of both sides of the bankruptcy bar, those representing creditors as well as debtors, embarked on a letter writing campaign to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, asking it to reject the resignation.

"Recent events do not in any manner diminish Judge Somma's ability to fulfill his duties and to remain as a highly respected member of the bench with the overwhelming support of the community of bankruptcy practitioners," said the letter, which Moore helped write. More than 200 bankruptcy lawyers signed the letter, one of several sent to the court by Somma's supporters in the legal community after he submitted his resignation.

On Tuesday, Somma wrote in a letter to the editor of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly that the outpouring of support had caused him to reconsider his resignation, which he said he submitted following a "media frenzy."

The times, they are a changing.

The letter-writing campaign illustrates how perspectives have changed about behavior such as cross-dressing. Twenty years ago, several lawyers acknowledged, it was highly unlikely that the legal community would have rallied around a judge who was arrested under circumstances like those in the Somma case

People for the American Way warns that Republicans are bringing pressure on Senators to confirm President Bush's remaining judicial nominees. It has written this letter(pdf) to Sen. Patrick Leahy, Chair of the Judiciary Committee, suggesting the "Thurmond Rule" be invoked. From the letter:

There is no justification for the Judiciary Committee to accede to demands that it speed up the processing of controversial nominees, particularly at this point in a presidential election year. To the contrary, we believe the time has come for the Committee to invoke the Senate’s longstanding practice, popularly known as “the Thurmond Rule,” of processing only non-controversial judicial nominees during a significant portion of the year leading up to a presidential election. While there has never been a precise date upon which the Thurmond Rule is deemed to take effect, there is ample basis for the Committee to invoke that Rule now.

During much of President Clinton’s Administration, Republican leaders in the Senate blocked the President’s efforts to fill judicial vacancies, particularly on the Courts of Appeals, stranding 60 judicial nominees at the end of the Clinton presidency.2 Through such tactics as secret holds and refusals to schedule hearings or votes, Senate Republicans held judicial vacancies open literally for years in the hope that a Republican would be elected President.

More...

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the case involving the DC handgun bill which should decide whether the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms.

The Supreme Court appeared ready Tuesday to endorse the view that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own guns, but was less clear about whether to retain the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.

...Several justices were skeptical that the Constitution, if it gives individuals' gun rights, could allow a complete ban on handguns when, as Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out, those weapons are most suited for protection at home.

"What is reasonable about a ban on possession" of handguns?" Roberts asked at one point.

That's my problem with the D.C. bill and politicians who claim to support an individual rights' theory but then support every restrictive bill on gun rights. The "reasonableness" test is too vague and open to interpretation.

Where does reasonable regulation end and infringement on an individual's rights begin? [More...]

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the D.C. Handgun ban case, District of Columbia v. Heller, this week.

A decision isn't expected until the end of the Court's term in June. Will we get a definitive statement on the meaning of the Second Amendment?

Via Instapundit, here's a recent poll from USA Today on where Americans stand on the issue:

Nearly three out of four Americans — 73% — believe the Second Amendment spells out an individual right to own a firearm, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of 1,016 adults taken Feb. 8-10. Yet for decades, federal judges have seen the Constitution differently, allowing a range of gun-control measures imposed by governments seeking to curb gun violence."

TalkLeft is a strong supporter of the belief that the Second Amendment conveys an individual right to bear arms.

ABC News has picked up on a matter reported by a Denver local news station last week involving a Colorado federal judge. I've obviously been aware of it since then.

I have many cases in front of this Judge, including some coming up for sentencing.

There will be no posts about this matter here, no comments about it allowed on any thread, including open threads, and no reference to it on TalkLeft. I hope someone e-mails me if I miss one so I can delete it.

Other blogs will discuss it and you can express your opinions there.

Thank you all for understanding. Comments have been disabled for this post.

Via Mother Jones:

Tennessee's next trial court judge might be a prison company executive who has less courtroom experience than most inmates.

His name is Gustavus Adolphus Puryear IV:

Puryear has spent the bulk of his legal career at the Tennessee-based Corrections Corporation of America, the nation's largest private prison company. As its general counsel since 2001, Puryear has made millions of dollars working for a company that profits from the country's incarceration boom, particularly through his recent sale of more than $3 million worth of the company's stock. (His financial disclosure form shows a net worth of more than $13 million.

...According to his written questionnaire for the committee, of the two cases he has tried in the entirety of his legal career, he was lead counsel on one of them. The last time he litigated a case in federal court was more than a decade ago.

Puryear oversees the defense of Correction Corps of America to inmate lawsuits. [More...]

Update: McJoan at Daily Kos and the ACLU has just issued a press release.

The Supreme Court today declined to review a case by the ACLU and other groups and individuals, including criminal defense lawyers, over Bush's warrantless NSA wiretapping. A lower court had dismissed the case holding the ACLU and other plaintiffs hadn't established they were directly affected by the wiretapping.

The high court's action means that Bush will be able to disregard whatever legislative eavesdropping restrictions Congress adopts as there will be no meaningful judicial review, the ACLU attorneys said.

The Sixth Circuit decision in ACLU v. NSA is here (pdf). Some explanatory quotes are below:

Via Pensito Review: U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Robert Somma, 63, has resigned after pleading guilty to a D.U.I.

He was in his Mercedes and wearing a cocktail dress, fishnet stockings and high heels at the time of his arrest last week -- which was occasioned by his allegedly rear-ending a pick-up truck in Manchester, N.H. last week. His wife was out of town at the time of the incident.

The Boston Herald notes:

“He was serving a 14-year appointment. This will leave him without a pension.”

If you've forgotten what happens when Republican Presidents appoint Supreme Court Justices, and why it's so important we not elect another one in November, check out this BBC interview with Justice Anton Scalia.

In a wide-ranging discussion, he defends his often controversial positions on issues like Guantanamo Bay, argues that torture may be legal and attacks the "sick" practice of televising trials.

...Justice Scalia says that it is far from clear that torture is unconstitutional and says that it may be legal to "smack [a suspect] in the face" if the suspect is concealing information which could endanger the public.

On abortion and the death penalty:

He says there is nothing in the Constitution that grants women the right to an abortion.

The death penalty, he argues, is not covered by the 8th Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment."

John McCain promises to appoint more judges in the mold of Scalia, Roberts and Alito. We get the Government we elect.

In a 5 to 4 split decision, the Supreme Court has held that inmates can't sue prison guards for destruction of property under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The case is Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 06-9130.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia joined Thomas. The dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

"The seizure of property by an officer raises serious concerns for the liberty of our people and the act should not be read to permit appropriation of property without a remedy," Kennedy said.

Background on the case is here and the Court's opinion, authored by Clarence Thomas, is here.

Bump and Update: The New York Times reports that the Justices seemed inclined to uphold voter ID laws.

Original Post (1/9/08):
Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Voter ID Card Cases

The Supreme Court today will hear oral arguments in the Indiana voter identification card cases.

The justices will hear diametrically opposite depictions of Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation voter identification law, which requires every voter to present a photo ID card.

Democrats and civil rights groups charge that the law is a Republican ploy to prevent thousands of poor, elderly and minority citizens from casting ballots. Republicans say that it won't prevent any qualified person from voting. Instead, they say, it guards against vote fraud and heightens public confidence in the integrity of elections.

More...