|
|
|
Justice Ginsburg's future plans closely watched
Lawyer Blog News |
2011/07/05 13:12
|
Democrats and liberals have a nightmare vision of the Supreme Court's future: President Barack Obama is defeated for re-election next year and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at 78 the oldest justice, soon finds her health will not allow her to continue on the bench.
The new Republican president appoints Ginsburg's successor, cementing conservative domination of the court, and soon the justices roll back decisions in favor of abortion rights and affirmative action.
But Ginsburg could retire now and allow Obama to name a like-minded successor whose confirmation would be in the hands of a Democratic-controlled Senate. "She has in her power the ability to prevent a real shift in the balance of power on the court," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California at Irvine law school. "On the other hand, there's the personal. How do you decide to leave the United States Supreme Court?"
For now, Ginsburg's answer is, you don't.
There are few more indelicate questions to put to a Supreme Court justice, but Ginsburg has said gracefully, and with apparent good humor, that the president should not expect a retirement letter before 2015.
She will turn 82 that year, the same age Justice Louis Brandeis was when he left the court in 1939. Ginsburg, who is Jewish, has said she wants to emulate the court's first Jewish justice.
While declining an interview on the topic, Ginsburg pointed in a note to The Associated Press to another marker she has laid down, that she is awaiting the end of a traveling art exhibition that includes a painting that usually hangs in her office by the German emigre Josef Albers. |
|
|
|
|
|
In Strauss-Kahn case, DA weighs limited options
Lawyer Blog News |
2011/07/04 06:50
|
At first, prosecutors said their sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn was growing more formidable by the day. Six weeks later, they said his accuser's history of lying raised major red flags, but they weren't dropping the case, at least for now.
With the former International Monetary Fund leader freed from house arrest because the case has weakened, prosecutors aren't saying what their next move may be.
Some legal experts say prosecutors will all but have to abandon the case because of the damage to the accuser's overall credibility, even if they believe Strauss-Kahn attacked the woman, a housekeeper at a New York City hotel where he was staying. Still, at least one former high-level prosecutor thinks the case isn't doomed.
For now, Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr. is saying only that prosecutors will keep investigating "until we have uncovered all relevant facts."
"Sometimes the road to get to the truth has twists and turns in it, which are not always apparent at the outset," he said in a statement Sunday. "What is important is not a win or a loss, but rather to ensure the criminal justice system balances the rights of all those who come before it."
Prosecutors have a number of options, including going ahead with the current charges or reducing them.
They could try to negotiate a plea deal, though it's unclear whether Strauss-Kahn would entertain one. He has asserted his innocence, and the doubts raised about the woman's trustworthiness would likely improve his chances at a trial. While prosecutors haven't questioned her account of the alleged attack itself, they say she's been untruthful about a number of other things, including what she did right afterward. That could make potential jurors reluctant to take her word over Strauss-Kahn's. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lawyer: Mladic to boycott court appearance
Lawyer Blog News |
2011/07/03 06:50
|
Former Bosnian Serb military chief Ratko Mladic plans to boycott Monday's hearing at the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal, where he is scheduled to enter pleas to charges including genocide, his Serbian lawyer said.
Mladic is boycotting to demand the power to choose his own defense attorneys, lawyer Milos Saljic said.
"Mladic has decided not to attend the court session to insist on his defense team choice," Saljic told The Associated Press.
The court in the Hague, Netherlands has asked for more time to vet the list of lawyers Mladic has submitted to verify their qualifications and eligibility. Saljic said that Mladic wants him and a Russian lawyer.
Mladic was extradited to the tribunal from Serbia on May 31 after being captured following 15 years as a fugitive. He is charged with orchestrating atrocities committed by Serb forces throughout the 1992-95 Bosnian war. He faces a maximum life sentence if convicted. |
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals court dismisses nuclear waste suit
Lawyer Blog News |
2011/07/01 22:08
|
The Obama administration won a legal battle Friday in the long-standing fight over where to bury the nation's nuclear waste, but it's not likely to be the last. The federal appeals court in Washington ruled against South Carolina, Washington state and others that want to ship radioactive spent nuclear fuel they are temporarily storing to a repository 90 miles from Las Vegas at Yucca Mountain. Congress chose Yucca Mountain as the leading candidate for waste disposal. But opponents are concerned about contamination, and the Obama administration said it would not consider the site and would look for alternatives. The appeals court ruled that it's not an appropriate time for it to intervene because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hasn't made a final decision yet on the status of Yucca Mountain. So the court threw out the case. But the court pointed out that the commission is required under the law to issue a final decision within four years of an application, which will come in 2012 for the Bush administration's application for construction at Yucca Mountain. The court noted the commission's decision can be reviewed by the court and that it can also be sued for failing to act by the deadline. Other than Yucca Mountain, the United States has no long-term plan for disposing of its nuclear waste. A federal report issued early in June said the U.S. has generated more than 82,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste, which it was storing at 80 sites in 35 states. |
|
|
|
|
|
Google Wi-Fi snooping lawsuits can proceed
Lawyer Blog News |
2011/07/01 07:46
|
A federal judge has refused Google's plea to dismiss several class-action lawsuits accusing the Internet search giant of illegally collecting online information from unencrypted wireless networks while working on its "Street View" map feature.
Google has acknowledged that its fleet of specialized "Street View" vehicles inadvertently gathered about 600 gigabytes of Wi-Fi data in more than 30 countries while photographing neighborhoods.
The Mountain View, Calif.-based company apologized and maintains it never used the data. It also argues it did nothing illegal because the Wi-Fi data was publicly available like radio transmissions. |
|
|
|
|
|
High court undoes Scalia's pro-tobacco order
Lawyer Blog News |
2011/06/30 14:55
|
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia exercised a rarely used power last fall to let Philip Morris USA and three other big tobacco companies delay making multimillion-dollar payments for a program to help people quit smoking. Scalia, a cigarette smoker himself, justified acting on his own by predicting that at least three other justices would see things his way and want to hear the case, and that the high court then would probably strike down the expensive judgment against the companies. This week, the court said he was wrong about that. On a court that almost always acts as a group, Scalia singlehandedly blocked a state court order requiring the tobacco companies to pay $270 million to start a smoking cessation program in Louisiana. The payment was ordered as part of a class-action lawsuit that Louisiana smokers filed in 1996. They won a jury verdict seven years ago. Scalia said in September that the companies met a tough standard to justify the Supreme Court's intervention. "I think it reasonably probable that four justices will vote to grant certiorari," Scalia said, using the legal term to describe the way the court decides to hear most appeals, "and significantly possible that the judgment below will be reversed." Not only did the justices say Monday they were leaving the state court order in place, there were not even four votes to hear the companies' full appeal. And the court provided no explanation of its action. |
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|