Tag Archives: justice

What We Wont Learn from the Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings

By Marc Seltzer; originally published on July 9, 2009, at politicsunlocked.com.

(Linda Greenhouse’s New York Times piece about the confirmation hearings for Elena Kagan raised the issue of whether a justice can be forthcoming in their testimony to congress.  Interestingly, Kagan has articulated her belief that the executive brach has largely unfettered authority in the areas of national security, the point that I wrote about in reference to the Sotomayor hearings.  Still, I do not see any reason for Kagan to speak openly in the upcoming confirmation hearings in light of the intense politicization of the process.  My early post is reposted below.)

. .

If there is one legal question that is profound and topical, the discussion of which would be deeply thought provoking and educational in the Supreme Court nomination hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, it is the constitutional division of power between the different branches of government.

The power struggle between the branches is most notably implicated in the national debate over the Bush administration’s conduct of foreign policy and war.  President Bush and Vice-President Cheney asserted generally exclusive executive branch authority in the conduct of intelligence, detention of prisoners and avoidance of oversight in national security operations after 9/11.

Now that Bush and Cheney are out of power and more information is coming out about their conduct, opponents of such policies are on the attack, calling for investigation.  Only the most recent issue is whether Vice-President Cheney directed that the CIA withhold information from Congress that Congress has by law, demanded that the executive branch provide.  Other red-hot manifestations are whether the use of torture by the administration can be subject to explicit laws banning such activity, and whether the President was in fact required to brief congress regularly on its conduct of foreign policy and military action, as Congress has demanded.

Underlying this and other such conflicts is the question of constitutional authority in the different branches of government.  The President is the Commander-in-Chief.  Does this grant the President sole authority for decisions relating to national security, or is it an authority shared by the peoples’ representatives in Congress?

In the same vein, what are the limits of such Presidential authority?  Can the President authorize torture if he believes it is necessary for national defense?  If Congress requests that the President provide information on on-going military operations, can the President ignore the request if he believes that to follow it will harm the operations?

The ultimate answers to these questions cannot be known until the U.S. Supreme Court decides each issue in the context of specific facts presented in a lawsuit.  But a Supreme Court nominee could give us her reflections and a certain education.  This would be far more meaningful then the competing assertions of power by the administration and congress.  Of no more use are the pundits and professors who weigh in.  Almost universally, commentators take political positions based on desired outcomes, but give no real insight into what the Supreme Court would be likely to do.  The Supreme Court is deeply aware of its profound power and cautious about its legitimacy in asserting its authority over other branches of government – being the unelected branch.   Pundits have none of this real world caution.

Consequently, the Supreme Court tends to go to great lengths to avoid constitutional questions, instead deciding cases on smaller technical matters whenever possible.   There is nothing wrong with this judicial approach, except that it leaves many of us wondering where the bounds of legislative or executive power really are.

I, for one, have no doubt that they are not where the President and Congress say they are.

Advertisements

Redefining America: Constitution and Leadership 2010 – Nominee Elena Kagan

Marc Seltzer and Jessica Pieklo discuss:

The merits of a Kagan nomination to the Supreme Court (click to listen — loads in a few seconds)

Judge Sotomayor — Target of Newfound McCarthyism?

By Marc Seltzer; originally published on June 9, 2009, at care2.com

. .

Is it all right that Newt Gingrich called a sitting federal judge with a stellar record a “racist”?

How about Rush Limbaugh rallying the conservative base by demonizing Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s opinions as racially biased?

Isn’t this more like 50s’ McCarthyism, bullying your political enemies with politically loaded names — even when they don’t fit?

There should be no concern about Judge Sotomayor’s prospects for confirmation by the Senate. Senate Republican Jeff Sessions, top republican on the Judiciary Committee, which will conduct hearings, is a former federal prosecutor and can tell the difference between political mudslinging and a real issue about a biased judge.  Her opinions, which I will go into in my next post, are highly regarded by lawyers and judges.  Conservatives should be applauding Judge Sotomayor because she is tough, judicially restrained, and respectful of legal authority.  You will see many Republican Senators honor her extensive resume of public service, her judicial philosophy and her meticulous opinions during the hearings and confirmation process to come.

But in the lead up, before she has the opportunity to testify before the Senate, is it fair game to call her names, whether justified or not?  “Racist” is one of the ugliest terms to label an American citizen.  The spirit of the country is that “all men are created equal,” and while it is obviously an evolving picture, the ideas of equality are core beliefs in what it means to be American.

McCarthy called people “un-American.”  And some of his targets indeed held loyalties to our enemy’s political beliefs or systems.  Others did not, but were tarred just the same until, in the most famous of McCarthy’s eventual dressing downs, counselor Welch for the U.S. Army interrupted McCarthy during televised hearings: “I think I never gauged your cruelty or recklessness….Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?.”

Gingrich’s and Limbaugh’s conservative political philosophy includes fundamental truths as did McCarthy’s, buy they suffer from the same problem as McCarthy as well:  Power corrupts.  They have such power over their followers that they can at times cross the line into injustice, indignity, and mistruth without paying for it.  This is no slight against Libertarian or Conservative political beliefs.  There are many nuggets of truth in a philosophy seeking control over government, strict constitutional interpretation, and fiscal responsibility.

But Limbaugh and Gingrich are attacking now while there is no accounting.  When the hearings come and real analysis is laid on the table, their early words will look foolish, although they will have been disavowed or revised by then.  They would not want to risk a real head to head match up of ideas on this one.

At the end of six weeks of hearings in June of 1954, Senator Stuart Symington said to McCarthy, “The American people have had a look at you for six weeks. You are not fooling anyone.”  America won the Cold War against Communism, but we didn’t do it by attacking each other for political advantage.  It was won by better ideas facilitated by honest government and real democracy.

Taking this lesson forward:  America would benefit from an education about judicial philosophy, but personal attacks, on esteemed public servants without credible justification and outside of a hearing process, lower both the level of public discourse and respect for our democratic institutions.

Military Tribunal or Civilian Courts for Terrorists?

By Marc Seltzer; originally published on January 6, 2009, at care2.com

. .

The recent decision to treat the perpetrator of the December 25, 2008, terrorist attack on a commercial airline flight as a criminal defendant, rather than as an enemy combatant, again raises questions about the use of civilian courts for terrorists.

A foreign national enemy soldier in U.S. federal court, will not, in fact, receive all the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.  Still they will receive more substantial legal protections than likely to be provided in a military tribunal.  Why then provide all the rights and process of U.S. civilian courts, rather than simply relying on military courts and justice?

The answer relates more to the failure of the Bush administration to effectively establish and use military tribunals than to the appropriateness of federal court for terrorists.  The Bush administration created secret prisons and harsh interrogation techniques but no workable process for judging enemy prisoners.  Under the circumstances, Republican criticism of the Obama administration decision to prosecute Abdulmutallab in civilian court is hypocritical.

This case is different in key ways from the case of the five Guantánamo detainees, who will be tried in federal court.  For example, the government will seek the death penalty for the five Guantánamo detainees.  After the damage to the government’s reputation because of treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and questions about interrogation and legal authority for detention without trial at Guantánamo, the execution of these detainees without a traditional civilian trial would have aroused international outrage and significant domestic criticism.

However, the December 25th attempt to destroy a plane as it descended towards Detroit failed, and no injuries resulted.  Thus, the government will likely seek incarceration, not the death penalty.  Moreover, Defendant Abdulmutallab has not been interrogated using enhanced techniques and his detention will be at the hands of the Obama administration, which has disallowed torture.  Therefore, there is not the same need to demonstrate the legitimacy of the process as there was with the Gauntanamo detainees.

The Bush administration proposed to deal with detainees outside of the civilian legal process, but parts of its plans were rejected by Congress and the courts.   After scandals at Abu Ghraib and questions about the administration’s treatment of prisoners and judgment in reviewing detainee cases without judicial oversight, the Bush administration lost some credibility in its role as authority over detainees.  This also cost the executive branch authority to use what should have been an ordinary process in time of war, the military tribunal.

The Obama administration has asserted that it will use tribunals in some cases.  For example, where evidence against a detainee is not sufficient to achieve a conviction in a civilian court, the administration will still seek to incarcerate people it believes are a threat, using a military tribunal.  Similarly, if a large number of foreign soldiers needed to be tried, it would overwhelm a civilian court, but be easily accommodated in the more flexible rules of a tribunal.

It makes no sense to try every enemy soldier in a civilian court. But the Obama administration will have to pick up where the Bush administration failed.  It will have to demonstrate to Congress and the courts that it can conduct military tribunals with the right mix of prosecutorial judgment and judicial process.

For now, the December 25, bomb attempt left an obvious trail of evidence and only one defendant.  This is an easy case for a federal court to handle.  Moreover, the defendant started providing information to the law enforcement officials immediately upon his arrest.  CIA or military intelligence officials could have been called in, but the defendant cooperated and provided detail immediately, according to the administration.  Under these circumstances, the administration’s decision to prosecute Abdulmutallab in civilian court was sound, although the greater challenge will come as the administration tries to prosecute some of the remaining Guantánamo detainees in military courts.

Follow me on Twitter

January 6th, 2009, UPDATE:  In depth discussions on foreign policy and detentions on C-Span; President Obama discussing security issues.