nt terms: Provide clear guidance for the lower courts and the other branches of government.
Nowhere has the Supreme Court copped out more than in the area of terror law. Five terrorism related appeals have reached the justices since the Twin Towers fell. And the court already has issued two namby pamby rulings that did little to help the White House or Congress figure out how to process the hundreds of detainees still held at Guantanamo Bay.
This term, the court will hear a case about whether "enemy combatants" may challenge their detentions in federal courts under the writs of habeas corpus. I believe that detainees deserve that right. But whether or not the justices agree, they should at least state their view on the latest congressional effort to restrict habeas. Otherwise, Guantanamo will continue to be a recurring feature of each term.
The justices should also provide clarity and consistency in the area of capital punishment. The court this term will hear two death row inmates' challenge to Kentucky's lethal injection protocols. To resolve confusion, not just in the Bluegrass State but in many of the 36 other states that use lethal injection, the court should offer clear direction on which drugs should be administered, in which order, and under what conditions. Additionally, the justices owe the condemned a series of baseline protections cleaner and well <a href=http://www.uggminipascher.fr>ugg australia classic mini pas cher</a> lit death chambers, for example, and better training for the prison officials who administer the lethal cocktail.
Also touching on capital punishment is a case the court will consider for a second time. In Snyder v. Simpson card" comparing Simpson and African American defendant Allen Snyder, accused of murdering his wife's companion, allegedly to encourage a death penalty verdict. In 2004, the Supreme Court sent the case back to Louisiana. This time, it must provide greater clarity about race based jury discrimination.
Yet another area that could use greater clarity is that of federal sentencing, which the justices made all the more chaotic in 2005 when they declared sentencing guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. This term, the court will hear Kimbrough v. Many federal <a href=http://www.uggmagasinparis.fr>magasins ugg paris</a> judges are incensed by the rule it creates great inequality, even absurdity, in sentencing and publicly frustrated by the court's slow response in fixing it. Again, the time has come for unambiguous direction.
What's standing in the way of clarity? Well, the court is made up of nine brilliant men and women who deal in nuances and technical distinctions, it's as ideologically split as it has been in generations, and it traditionally affords "deference" to the more proactive branches of government.
But enough is enough. One of the Supreme Court's <a href=http://www.boutiqueuggs.fr>www.boutiqueuggs.fr</a> most important functions is to help society understand what's within and what's beyond the rules. Now, <a href=http://www.ventepriveeugg.fr>www.ventepriveeugg.fr</a> more than ever, the high court needs to be true to that high ideal.
By Andrew Cohen
October 1, 2007; 7:00 AM ET
I think by using the word "should" Andrew Cohen subtly reminds us that many <a href=http://www.venteuggpascher.fr>vente ugg maroc</a> think the Supreme Court has
|
News on the D.L.
New Joints
Mixtape D.L.
Videos
