Despite Right-Wing Stacking, Court Rulings Reassuring
Recent rulings made at the circuit level have been reassuring for those who treasure civil liberties, and the rights of individuals and states. The most resounding judgments have been those that reinforce 6th Amendment rights to legal representation, as well as a host of other constitutional protections. The 2nd circuit ruled that the U.S. must protect and uphold these rights for citizens held in the U.S., while the 9th circuit ruled that those held outside of the U.S.–at Gitmo in Cuba, most notably–must also be accorded those rights. The Bush administration, meanwhile, is still arguing “Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges” and trying to say that as long as we are “at war” (a permanent state by their definition) that some of our most prized freedoms must be abridged. The courts, it seems, beg to differ. The big question will come when, inevitably, the Supreme Court will rule on the matter (or do the equivalent by not hearing the cases).
Meanwhile, other encouraging judgments have been forthcoming. The D.C. appellate court ruled that the RIAA can’t act as its own arm of the judicial system and subpoena private Internet access records from ISPs. The 9th circuit ruled, at long last, that the federal government may not prosecute people on drug charges for marijuana marijuana if the state they are in has legalized its use–one of the key issues that highlights the far right’s hypocritical stance on states’ rights.
I would think that the Supreme Court would be inclined to agree with these rulings, given that detaining prisoners without an indictment, trial or counsel is so clearly unconstitutional. Also, since when does one have to be a “citizen” to have these rights? Take a look at the 6th amendment:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
This refers to simply “the accused” in a criminal prosecution, which does not specify that it applies *only* to citizens.
So, that said, I am abnormally optimistic about this one. What does worry me, though, is that the same people whose policies are being put to the constitutional test–namely the Bush administration–are the ones filling the judiciary with the most ideological judges they can find. That might make things more complicated somewhere down the road.
This is not a comment about this posting specifically, but about the website in general.
I am extremely grateful for this site.
I thoroughly enjoy reading opinions buttressed with background and fact, that have a clean separation between personal opinion and information.
I like the informed and often witty input from the readers.
And, since I’m from the northeast (now residing in Los Angeles), I truly understood what you meant about the loss of open space you used to enjoy as a kid. My favorite times were spent in sunny fields and woodlands.
Kathy:
Thank you so much for the compliment, and I would like to thank everyone else who has complimented the site so generously. Getting notes like this is very uplifting and encouraging, and helps provide the motivation for keeping this site going. Again, thanks.
–Luis