Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Sun

17

Jun

2007

Term Limits on the Supremes
Sunday, 17 June 2007 17:12
by Jayne Lyn Stahl

For many, the idea of term limits for members of Congress is a good one, and three terms sounds about right. But, in light of Thursday's draconian ruling by the Supreme Court, as well as other recent rulings, it might be time to consider imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices, too.

Yesterday, consistent with what appears to be a trend, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 to throw out the challenge to his murder conviction by an Ohio inmate, Keith Bowles, who was sentenced to 15 years to life, back in 1999. Mr Bowles sought to appeal his sentence on constitutional grounds, but the federal court denied his application due to a technicality β€” he was 3 days late in filing his papers. After being denied on first appeal, he reopened the case years later, and a federal district judge erroneously gave him 17 days instead of 14 to file. So, his appeal was thrown out of appeals court as he passed the deadline, and the Supreme Court upheld their ruling which precluded Bowles from legal remedy to challenge his sentence. Bottom line: regardless of whether Mr. Bowles deserves to do the time he was given, his Eighth Amendment appeal was tossed because of a mistake made by a federal judge, and he missed out on his legal right to appeal. (NYT)

The decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the U.S. Court of Appeal ruling was, in a word, callous, and calluses are for feet not courts. Indeed, since the president's appointment of two new justices to the court, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Samuel Alito, recent rulings increasingly demonstrate that the hard, bony tissue which often develops around the ends of a fractured bone now exemplifies the body politic, too. After all, what is it if not crude and callous to deny someone the right to appeal because he was 3 days late for filing his paperwork due to a mistake by a district judge?

So it is then that we can no longer talk about the composition, but the decomposition of the Supreme Court in light of this ruling, as well as one, in mid-April, in which the court upheld the ban on partial birth abortions, also by a 5-4 ratio, again reflecting a slim majority. And, here, too,, we can thank the usual suspects, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, for a ruling that represents the first step in overturning the constitutional amendment that protects reproductive choice. But, whether you're for choice or against it, think that the inmate in Ohio was guilty and had no case for appeal, this literalism, and rigid adherence to technicality, may someday jeopardize your rights, too.

Notably, the minority justices, in the challenge to the Bowles' appeal, did not go gently into that good night. Justice David H. Souter argued that "It is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, and there is not even a technical justification for condoning this bait and switch." (NYT) Souter also suggests that it would have been completely reasonable for the Supreme Court to make an exception, in this case, and decide to allow the appeal to go through and, in effect, "to rely on an order from a federal judge."

But, arguably, there is a subtext at work here. By challenging the ruling by a district federal judge who clearly made a mistake in allowing for three extra days in which to file the appeal, the majority in the Supreme Court asserts its power, its "unitary" judicial rights, not unlike the argument made by its colleague in the executive branch. So, not only is this a Supreme Court on steroids, but one that is setting the stage for validating only those district court rulings, down the road, that support its ideological mindset.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in speaking for his conservative colleagues in the court, effectively said that those who think the rules are "inequitable" should look to Congress to change them: "Congress may authorize courts to promulgate rules that excuse compliance with the statutory time limits." This is wishful thinking on the part of Justice Thomas as, since the midterm election in November, Congress seems to be capable only of passing water, not legislation.

While a prisoner in Ohio just lost out on his constitutional right to appeal what he thinks is a sentence that imposes "cruel and unusual punishment," fifteen years ago, the Supreme Court heard arguments about executing a Texas man who was convicted of murder despite the fact that new evidence surfaced, 10 years after the crime, which strongly supported his claims of innocence. Leonel Herrera was sentenced to be put to death for murdering two police officers. He was scheduled to be executed back in 1992, but won a stay of execution while his attorneys went before the Supreme Court to decide the constitutionality of executing an innocent man. While Herrera confessed to the murders, he later recanted. And, more importantly, his nephew came forward and told authorities that it was Herrera's brother, Raul Herrera, who killed the officers.

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration supported the Texas argument that the defendant had no "constitutional claim to a new hearing," (NYT) and it was the argument of a Texas assistant attorney general, at the time, Margaret P. Giffey, that it was not unconstitutional to execute someone convicted of murder, and sentenced to die, even if indisputable exculpatory ev idence were to emerge that vindicates him when that evidences surfaces after an established time limit. Ms. Giffey stood by Texas law which only allows new evidence to be considered when it is presented within 30 days before the trial ends. So, despite powerful proof that the state of Texas was executing an innocent man, and as a result of the court's refusal to reopen Herrera's case, 45 year old Leonel Herrera was put to death in Texas on May 12, 1993, while crying out that he was innocent until his dying breath.

This barbaric adherence to rules and regulations is not merely medieval, and callous, it is barbaric, and an insult to common sense, justice, and and basic human rights. Moreover, this attitude from the highest court in the land is not only "intolerable," as Justice Souter contends, but flat out unacceptable.

While there is much talk, in progressive circles, about impeaching Mr. Gonzales, and Mr. Cheney, their terms as attorney-general and vice president are nearly over. On the other hand, we are only beginning to see the direction in which the newest members of the Supreme Court are taking us, and their rulings will affect, and shape, our constitutional protections, and civil liberties, but for generations to come.

So, given that the majority justices, on the court, appear to be such sticklers for sticking to strict deadlines, and time limits, it seems only fair that they, too, comply with term limits, should they be applied . Justice Thomas was right to suggest that it is Congress that makes the rules, and it is Congress that must soon decide to put an expiration date on any appointment to the Supreme Court.
More from this author:
Following in the Footsteps... (6459 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl The manic warriors, in Washington, are at it again, only now they've found someone who can manage more than one syllable at...
Worldwide Open Season on the Press (9686 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl On an otherwise quiet street in Istanbul, this morning, a 53 year old Turkish citizen of Armenian descent was gunned down...
On Hillary's announcement... (5632 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl You may have read the transcript of a speech given by George McGovern in The Nation last week in which he rightly...
An Open Letter to "The Decider" (5971 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl While the odds are probably better of getting a response from Santa, there are a few things I'd like to say if you can...
"Notes from the Undergrown: State of the Oilman Address" (5962 Hits)
by Jayne Lyn Stahl The president's speech last night was more important for what it didn't say than for what it did. In an address that could...
Related Articles:
The Limits of Outrage: Part I (4146 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler SETTING THE STAGE On a previous, little-attended thread, an interesting conversation took place. It began with...
Term Limits For Congress - Let's Restart The Discussion (5583 Hits)
by Linda Milazzo Last week I turned on CSpan. I planned to watch the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on the FISA Amendments Act of 2007,...
The Limits of Power – The End of American Exceptionalism - Book Review by Jim Miles (5979 Hits)
by Jim Miles The Limits of Power – The End of American Exceptionalism. Andrew J. Bacevich. Metropolitan Books, Henry Holt & Company, New...
Obama: Say One Term Is Enough (1617 Hits)
by Joel S. Hirschhorn Admittedly, I never was a fan of President Obama, either as a candidate or now as president.  I always suspected,...
Dred Scott Redux: Obama and the Supremes Stand Up for Slavery (1775 Hits)
by Chris Floyd While we were all out doing our Christmas shopping, the highest court in the land quietly put the kibosh on a few more of the...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (3)add comment

a guest said:

0
Thomas is evil
Clarence Thomas is a Nazi traitor, and deserves to be fully lynched, and a lampshade be made of his foreskin, stripped off of him before he is dipped naked in lye, branded with a 666 and swastika, and hung from a tree until the maggots devour his Satanic body.
 
June 17, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
First We Must Revamp The Congress, Than The Supreme Court
Getting the Washington scoundrels out of Office is no easy task. They are part of and/or agents for the wealthy ruling class that actually set the policies of this nation. They have had a long time to rig the political process. Short of a French style revolution, consider the following:

Unfortunately, history teaches that incumbency almost guarantees reelection. Another sad truth is that tenure in office almost invariably corrupts; there are always well resourced entities standing by to achieve this purpose. Life terms for any public official is a medieval concept which is unworthy of a society claiming to be modern and democratic.

So then, how do we get control of the present detrimental undemocratic system, how do we develop a strategy so simple that every one can use it while the strategy itself remains immune to constraints by powerful interests?

There is no dearth of talented people who are willing to serve one term in public office and then return to their professions. It is well known that it is the staffs of congressman and senators who actually do the work. Many elected officials do not even bother to read legislation that they must vote on. It is unimaginable that one-term members of congress can be anymore destructive to the democratic process then the career politicians have proven to be.

Legislators are unlikely to approve legislation that would limit terms of office. And, if such a law were to pass, the Supreme Court is likely to strike it down. Remember that this is the court that has determined that money is speech. Remarkably, it would seem, the court believes those with the most resources should have the most influence in elections and the legislative process.

Despite the enormous resources leveraged against the public by special interests, there is a remedy to the costly corruption represented by the duopoly Democrat/Republican party. Frankly, I am amazed that those interested in authentic democracy have not embraced the idea before.

If one believes in participatory democracy, it follows that they must also believe that as many citizens as possible should have the opportunity to serve in public office. My idea does not require time or resources. There are no financial contributions to be made no meetings to attend no speeches to endure. A citizen need only make the following pledge to himself then herald what he has done to others. The formation of a One Term and Out political party would also help impede the current pay-to-play governmental system.

The Pledge:

β€œWith the recognition that there are huge numbers of intelligent, talented and qualified citizens who are prepared to limit their public service to one term, I hereby pledge that I will not vote a second term for any United States Senator or United States Congressman.”

Lew Walsh (Mega73@rock.com)

 
June 18, 2007
Votes: +0

a guest said:

0
A contrary view on Supreme Court term limits
Please see "[http://simplyappalling.blogspot.com/2005/04/stealth-attack-on-courts-with-allusion.html]A stealth attack on the courts, with an allusion to Schiavo" for other considerations on Supreme Court term limits.
 
June 22, 2007 | url
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top