Law & Justice: October 2005 Archives

I agree with the many commentators on all sides who think it's inappropriate for President Bush to be pushing Harriet Miers' Christian religious views as a motivation or argument for placing her on the Supreme Court. In theory. As Largo from Type R Caston wrote, religion should be irrelevant for an ideal nominee.

I do not consider it much of a stretch to conclude that by selling a nominee based on their religious views, that one has hopes in seeing those views come into play during their stay on the court.

Personally, I could care less what Mier’s believes, she could be a Zoroastrian Communist for the clubbing of baby seals with tire irons and I could support her provided I was to believe that she would be a good steward of the Constitution. The point here is that a person’s views are irrelevant when a Justice on the high court is performing their duties as originally conceived by our founding fathers.

Unfortunately, there are no "ideal" nominees, there are only nominees who hide their ideological biases and nominees who reveal them. One of my biggest criticisms of both recent Supreme Court nominations has been that the nominees have had very little "track record" -- apparently this is seen as a virtue by some politicians, but most of us would like to know more about the people whose rulings we'll be subject to for the next several decades. (As everyone knows, the courts have become political despite the life tenure of judges, which was intended to reduce the politicalization.)

Knowing that Miers is a conservative Christian is a piece of her track record. I'd really prefer if she had written extensively on, oh, let's say Constitutional law before being nominated, but I guess we'll have to extrapolate what we can from what she has revealed. The President wouldn't have to play up Miers' Christianity so much if he had nominated a person with more relevant credentials, but given Miers' background it's hard for me to identify any aspect of her behavior that will help us predict her future more accurately than will her Christianity. So, since that's all there is, it's rational for her religion to be the focus.

Based purely on my perception of history and on religious stereotypes, Catholics seems to make good justices, and I bet Jews would also. There haven't been many (any?) conservative Christian justices, but based on my own perception of the group I think that a conservative Christian nominee is likely to do a better job interpreting the Constitution properly than would a Zoroastrian Communist. Most of the Christians I know are honest, hard-working and sincerely interested in the welfare of others. Those Christians I know who are intelligent are also intellectually honest, consistent in their views, rational, and able to make hard decisions that conflict with their preferences. One of the tenets of Christianity is that we make decisions based on what's in the Bible and not on our own selfish desires, and the principle of applying the Constitution literally and faithfully is very similar. Furthermore, a well-read Christian will have an important perspective on the context our framers lived in that may not be readily available to those of other backgrounds.

So, while I know very little about Harriet Miers personally, I know a lot about one of the groups she belongs to, and from that I can infer some important bits of information. These inferences are not nearly as useful as if she had written about such matters herself, but I hope they illustrate that Miers' selected religious affiliation can tell us something about how she might behave in the future.

In August of 2001 me, my brother and a friend of ours were backpacking across Europe. While in Paris we went to visit the Palais de Justice on a Thursday afternoon around 3pm and found the entire building essentially deserted. I'm not exaggerating when I say that we strolled through just about every hall and office in the building without seeing anyone, French or otherwise. We even found our way to the roof through a service passage and up a dingy spiral staircase hidden behind a "secret" disguised door in one of the offices. It was really bizarre to us that the building was apparently vacant on a weekday afternoon, but we made the most of the opportunity. Fortunately we didn't get caught and thrown into French prison.

The European Council's commissioner for human rights has described conditions in the prison in France's most august court building as the worst he has seen.

Alvaro Gil-Robles said the cells in the historic Palais de Justice in Paris were squalid and inhumane.

Describing them as "dungeons", he said: "It is incredible that people are imprisoned in such conditions, without ventilation and without natural light. I have never seen a worse prison." Mr Gil-Robles, 60, an academic lawyer and Spain's former national ombudsman, spent 16 days in France last month inspecting prisons, detention centres and mental hospitals.

In a meeting last week with Nicolas Sarkozy, the interior minister, he said he was astonished that such "squalid and inhumane conditions" should exist at the Palais de Justice, the vast complex that houses the supreme court of appeal and criminal courts.

I'm glad we went to the roof rather than the basement.

(HT: James Taranto.)

Random shootings are a perfect example of why society needs capital punishment.

Mark Kelly, 20, and Junior Andrews, 24, were found guilty today at Birmingham Crown Court of murdering Danielle as part of an inner-city gang feud. ...

Both were members of The Waterfront Gang, who, the prosecution said, have a hatred for people from St Ann’s. They had been out burgling in the more affluent Clifton area, and went to St Ann's at midnight intending to "shoot up" people from the estate.

Kelly, driving his mother's gold Xsara, dipped his headlights as the pair come across Danielle and her friends making their way home along Rushworth Close. He pulled alongside and slowed down long enough for the gunman, thought by the prosecution to be Andrews, to open fire.

Realising she had been hit, the terrified youngsters dragged Danielle into a nearby alleyway where she lay fighting for life as the gunmen sped off. Witnesses saw Andrews make a victory salute out of the car window, forming a "W" sign with his gloved hand, showing his allegiance to the Waterfront Gang.

Danielle's friends fetched Paula Platt, who was at her daughter’s side within minutes of the fatal shot. In an emotional statement, she recounted Danielle’s last moments, revealing that her last words were ’I’m not going to make it... I’m dying’.

Despite her mother’s best efforts to keep her conscious, Danielle died a short time later on the operating table at the Queen’s Medical Centre in Nottingham.

To me it's pretty simple: everyone knows that if you kill someone without justification you forfeit your own life. Society doesn't bear any blame for sentencing a murderer to death, the blame belongs to the murderer. Justice demands no less. But what passes for justice in Britain these days seems a bit weak.

"You robbed a bright young girl of her life and blighted forever the lives of her family and friends," said Mr Justice Butterfield, jailing them.

"It was a random killing involving the use of a firearm and the appropriate starting point is 30 years."

30 years to life for randomly murdering an innocent girl? What's the point? Just be rid of them for good.

Although Britain has no death penalty, being a signatory to the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights since 1999, they engage in other sorts of law enforcement practices that Americans who favor the death penalty would probably believe to be out of line, such as publically identifying suspects that can't be successfully prosecuted.

AN EXCLUSION zone has been imposed on a suspected serial rapist who police believe has attacked three women at knifepoint in the past six months.

Residents groups in Edgbaston, Birmingham, have been shown a photograph and given descriptions of the man. Police believe that they do not have enough evidence to prosecute him, but have taken the unusual step of banning the man from the area where the attacks occurred.

I don't think that sort of thing is allowed in the United States, is that right? Or at least it isn't practiced.

Only slightly more absurd than the "fundamental right" to wireless internet access is the claim to publicly funded prostitution. Aside from the moral issues, this should serve as an example of why it's important to limit the role of government.

A disabled Danish man is fighting for the state to pay for him to have a prostitute visit him at home.

Torben Hansen, who has cerebral palsy, which severely affects his speech and mobility, believes his local authority should pay the extra charge he incurs when he hires a sex worker - because his disability means he cannot go to see them. His case is currently being considered.

In Denmark, local authorities compensate disabled people for extra costs incurred because of their disability.

"I want them to cover the extra expenses for the prostitutes to get here, because it's a lot more expensive getting them to come to my home rather than me going to a brothel," Mr Hansen told BBC World Service's Outlook programme.

"It's a necessity for me. I can't move very well, and it's impossible for me to go there."

Prostitution isn't illegal in Denmark, so if the public funds other expenses, why not house call girls? One politician appears to appreciate the conundrum.

Kristen Brosboel, a Social Democrat member of the Danish Parliament, is among those who have argued against Mr Hansen.

"Obviously I recognise that he has a problem that people without a disability may not have - but I disagree with the fact that we should support his visits with a prostitute with tax money," she told Outlook.

"We also spend tax money on trying to prevent prostitution, helping women out of prostitution - and we have a clear policy that this is a social problem that we want to solve.

"So I think that's very much in contradiction with spending tax money on requiring prostitutes."

When the public funds everything, contradictions are inevitable. The only solution is to limit the scope of government. The real problem in Denmark is that the public already pays for so much, how can anyone say no?

Fiancee JM reminds me that it's the 10th anniversary of the OJ Simpson verdict!

Ten years ago today, an estimated 150 million people gathered in living rooms, newsrooms, classrooms, storage rooms, department stores, restaurants and wherever they could find a television set to watch the conclusion of a true crime story that had riveted the nation for more than a year.

Americans were spellbound by the case of the People of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, with its hot button issues of race, fame, wealth and domestic violence. It turned the cast of characters into household names, shaped future media coverage and presented a distorted view of criminal proceedings.

The former NFL star running back, B movie actor and rental car pitchman was on trial for the murder of his former wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, a casual acquaintance. Both were found stabbed to death outside her Los Angeles home.

What has happened to this "cast of characters"?

Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman: still dead.

Johnnie Cochran: also dead, thought not (apparently) at the hands of OJ Simpson.

OJ Simpson: endangering manatees and stealing DirecTV. With Johnny Cochran out of the picture, he's sticking to petty crimes.

Marcia Clark: wrote Without a Doubt, a book about her inept prosecution.

Kato Kaelin: took up Brad Pitt impersonation after a brief talk-radio career failed.

Lance Ito: still a Los Angeles Superior Court judge, after the failure of his "Dancing Itos" troupe.

Mark Fuhrman: life ruined by accusations of racism, Detective Fuhrman resigned from his job after the case and started solving crimes freelance, such as that of Martha Moxley.

Who else?