Tag Archives: Supreme Court

Speaking Up to Remain Silent

Posted on by

Anyone who has seen a police show probably has heard these words: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have a right to talk to a lawyer before answering any questions, and you have the right to have a lawyer present with you while you are answering any questions.”

A Border Patrol agent reads the Miranda rights to a suspect.

A Border Patrol agent reads the Miranda rights to a suspect.

This speech, commonly called the Miranda rights after the 1966 court case Miranda v. Arizona, reminds people of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and their right to legal counsel. But a more recent case before the Supreme Court, Berghuis v. Thompkins, refines how suspects can invoke or waive those rights.

During a three-hour police interrogation about a shooting in 2000, suspect Van Chester Thompkins Jr. stayed mostly silent. Because Thompkins never expressly said he would not speak to the police, though, the police did not interpret his actions as exercising his Miranda rights, which would have required an end to the interrogation. The police continued to question Thompkins until he gave a one-word answer they took as a waiver of his Miranda rights, and as a confession. Thompkins was tried and convicted, but appealed his case, saying that his refusal to speak constituted an invocation of his Miranda rights and that the police had violated them.

In a 5-4 decision (PDF, 284KB), the Supreme Court sided with Thompkins’ conviction. Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that suspects must invoke the right to remain silent “unambiguously” — they must clearly state their refusal to talk to the police — just as they must clearly state their desire for an attorney, as decided in Davis v. U.S. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, calling the decision “an unprecedented step away from the ‘high standards of proof for the waiver of constitutional rights’ this Court has long demanded” — one that “ignores the important interests Miranda safeguards.” (You can read more about the case in this analysis on the SCOTUS blog, a privately run site.)

What do you think of the Supreme Court’s decision? And are there laws similar to the Miranda rights in your country?

Judging Elena Kagan

Posted on by

President Obama announced this week that he had chosen Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens when he retires. In his remarks to the press, Obama highlighted Kagan’s ability to work with both conservatives and liberals throughout her career.

“Elena is respected and admired not just for her intellect and record of achievement, but also for her temperament — her openness to a broad array of viewpoints; her habit, to borrow a phrase from Justice Stevens, ‘of understanding before disagreeing’; her fair-mindedness and skill as a consensus-builder,” he said.

Although Obama has voiced his preference, the Senate has the final say as to who will serve on the court, according to the U.S. Constitution. Kagan already has won Senate confirmation once, as solicitor general, drawing the support of seven Republicans as well as all Democrats and Independents. But her confirmation in that temporary, political position does not guarantee she will win Senate approval for one she could hold the rest of her life.

“Ms. Kagan is currently a member of President Obama’s administration and serves at his pleasure in a position that lasts no longer than the administration itself,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said a few hours after Obama’s announcement. “By contrast, today she was nominated for a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court.”

“The standard of scrutiny is clearly much higher now. Now we must determine whether someone who is a member of the President’s administration will be an independent and impartial jurist on the nation’s highest court,” he continued.

What do you think?

Obama Announces Supreme Court Nominee

Posted on by

President Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan Monday to fill the upcoming vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“[Kagan] is an acclaimed legal scholar with a rich understanding of constitutional law,” Obama said. “She is a former White House aide with a lifelong commitment to public service and a firm grasp of the nexus and boundaries between our three branches of government.”

Obama said Kagan was the first woman to serve as Dean of Harvard Law School and the first woman to serve as solicitor general – the country’s chief lawyer representing citizens before the Supreme Court.

Kagan is the nominee to replace Justice John Paul Stevens, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1975. (He was nominated by President Gerald Ford.) Stevens announced he is retiring after 35 years at age 89.

The U.S. Supreme Court has nine life-long positions assigned to interpret the law and evaluate the constitutionality of legislation. It is a branch of government equal in power to the presidency and Congress.

Congress will have to approve the president’s nomination in the coming weeks before Kagan is sworn into the office.

Women Lawyers Beating the Odds

Posted on by

Last week I had an opportunity to go see the documentary film Courting Justice, which tells the  story of seven South African women who fought against all odds to win judgeships in the country’s highest courts.  These women judges had – and continue – to face discrimination because of their race and because of their gender.   But still they fight on because they believe women have an important role to play in the judiciary of their country.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia SotomayorDemocracy is for everyone – male and female – and the Obama Administration has placed heavy emphasis on the importance of women in every aspect of the social, professional and economic lives of their countries.  And yet I remember the huge outcry surrounding Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic woman (actually the first Hispanic of either sex) to serve as U.S. Supreme Court Justice.  If you recall, Sotomayor said it was not only her deep knowledge of the law but her personal background that helped qualify her for a seat on the highest court in the United States.  Some people vehemently opposed the idea that gender, ethnic and socio-economic background should be factored into selecting a Supreme Court judge. 

Although lots of women complete law school and many enter the profession, many drop out because they face discrimination in being promoted as well as daunting challenges in balancing work with family responsibilities.  Some feel that women, because of family responsibilities and the “weakness” of their sex, have no place in the law profession.  Others say that it is precisely because women often have more personal experiences with fighting discrimination that they make better judges. 

What do you think is a “woman’s place” in the law profession?

You can watch a clip from Courting Justice here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rT85-zhnWY

No “litmus tests” for Supreme Court nominee

Posted on by

Today, President Obama met with Congressional leaders of both parties to talk about his plans for nominating a new justice to the Supreme Court when Justice John Paul Stevens retires at the end of the court’s term in June.

“I don’t have litmus tests,” the president said, when asked if he would be willing to select a nominee who opposed abortion rights. “Litmus test” is a common phrase used to describe the process of determining a nominee’s viewpoint on a specific issue.

However, the president added, “I want somebody who is going to be interpreting our Constitution in a way that takes into account individual rights, and that includes women’s rights.”

After Obama selects a nominee, he or she will appear before the Senate Judiciary for questioning, which can sometimes get heated. Then the Senate must confirm the nomination with a majority vote.

“I take this process very seriously,” Obama said, which is why he is meeting with Senate leaders ahead of making his nomination. “I’m going to be interested in hearing their thoughts and concerns before any final decisions are made.”

Balance of Power

Posted on by

As young students, one of Americans’ first lessons on democracy is about balance of powers. We learn that the United States government is made up of legislative, executive and judicial branches, each with its own unique powers.

But as an older student of democracy (and really, aren’t we always students of democracy?) you realize that maintaining that balance is not easy. The lines of power get blurred all the time.

And when you try to determine what is appropriate behavior among the members of each branch, things get really tricky.

For example, the judicial branch, headed by our Supreme Court, has the authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law. But can the president publicly state that he thinks the court made the wrong decision? Well, during his State of the Union address in January, President Obama said basically that about a court ruling. Six of the court’s members were in attendance, and as the president spoke, one justice appeared to mouth the words, “not true.”

Chief Justice John RobertsJohn Roberts, chief justice of the court, recently spoke about that incident, saying that criticizing the court in that forum is “very troubling.” The State of the Union is an event filled with decorum and standards of behavior that require the court members in attendance to remain quiet, and not a fair venue to air concerns, the justice argued.

But Roberts also clearly stated that criticizing the court in itself is not wrong. “First of all, anybody can criticize the Supreme Court without any qualm,” he said. Going one step further, he said, “some people, I think, have an obligation to criticize what we do, given their office, if they think we’ve done something wrong.”

Do you agree with Roberts’ comments?

A Lot to Carp About

Posted on by

On January 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments to force the state of Illinois to immediately close two shipping locks connecting a Mississippi River tributary with Lake Michigan. Plaintiffs say the step is necessary to prevent four species of Asian carp from invading and destroying the Great Lakes ecosystem.

On the other side of the case are members of the shipping industry, who say shutting down the locks in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal will cause major disruptions and economic hardship for them. The closure would also generate higher prices for oil, coal, iron ore, grains and other commodities as companies look for new ways to move cargo, they say.

Two things I find interesting about the case are the plaintiffs and the legal basis for their lawsuit. Although the case brought against Illinois sounds like the work of environmental activists, in actuality the states of Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio and Wisconsin are the ones suing, not individuals. In addition to talking about the impact on the ecosystem, Michigan’s attorney general worries about the damage to the $7 billion fishing and tourism industries in the area should Asian carp work their way into the Great Lakes.

Another thing I find interesting about the case is that, rather than being based on anything recent, it builds on complaints Wisconsin, Michigan and New York brought against Illinois in 1929 for removing water from Lake Michigan. Technically, the carp-related dispute is a request to reopen a case, not file a new one.

The Supreme Court ultimately declared the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal unlawful in 1930, but did not order its closure. What do you think the court should do this time?

Sotomayor’s hearings begin

Posted on by

Sotomayor

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee this week are questioning Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate must confirm the nomination and if they do, Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic to serve on the highest court in the nation.

For more about Sotomayor, the White House has provided information about her in both English and Spanish.

Choosing a Supreme Court Justice

Posted on by

In his announcement today of his plans to nominate Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, President Obama outlined his vision for a good Supreme Court Justice.

According to Obama, a Supreme Court Justice must have a:

1. “Rigorous intellect — a mastery of the law, an ability to hone in on the key issues and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.”

2. “A recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge’s job is to interpret, not make, law; to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice.”

3. “A respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.”

4. “Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers. It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live.”

Do you agree with President Obama? What other qualities must a Supreme Court Justice have? Share your ideas!