And most interesting of all is the fact that it was the normally squishy David Souter who wrote the toughly worded decision of the court.

The Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a blow to some longtime illegal residents, upholding the deportation of a Mexican man who lived in the United States for 20 years.

By an 8-1 vote, justices said that Humberto Fernandez-Vargas, who was deported several times from the 1970s to 1981, is subject to a 1996 law Congress passed to streamline the legal process for expelling aliens who have been deported at least once before and returned.

After his last deportation in 1981, Fernandez-Vargas returned to the United States, fathered a child, started a trucking company in Utah and eventually married his longtime companion, a U.S. citizen.

But by the time he applied for legal status _ after his marriage in 2001 _ Congress had passed the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which revoked the right to appeal to an immigration judge an order of removal.

Fernandez-Vargas was sent back to Mexico in 2004, and wanted to return to his family in the United States. He argued that the 1996 law should not be applied to him because he last entered America more than a decade before Congress passed the statute.

"Fernandez-Vargas continued to violate the law by remaining in this country day after day and ... the United States was entitled to bring that continuing violation to an end," Justice David Souter wrote in the decision.

One more sign that we can round up illegals and send them back – if our elected officials have the will to do so.

Posted by: Greg at 11:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 284 words, total size 2 kb.

In April, 2001, my wife and I were house-hunting. We drove through one neighborhood, about 10 minutes from our apatment and about 20 minutes from wehre we eventually bought, looking at the available houses. It seemed like a nice family neighborhood -- especially when we saw the guy about our age in the yard of one of the neighboring houses with his four boys, and the somewhat odd-looking mom holding a little baby.

Two months later we saw them again, on the news. The mother had murdered the children. Her name would become a household word -- Andrea Yates.

Her retrial begins today.

Five years to the day after Andrea Yates systematically drowned her five children in a bathtub, a new panel of potential jurors will be summoned to downtown Houston on Tuesday in preparation for her new trial.

The first half of a 120-person panel will begin answering questionnaires intended to help attorneys gauge who can fairly and impartially decide whether Yates knew right from wrong when she killed her children in their Clear Lake-area home.

The remaining panelists will go through the process Wednesday, with jury selection to begin the following day. The trial, which is expected to last about a month, will begin June 26.

Few, if any, of those involved in the case might have imagined they would have to repeat this laborious task when Yates first went on trial four years ago. But everything changed when the state's sole mental health expert testified mistakenly about a TV program he claimed had been broadcast just before the drownings.

Forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz — a consultant to the Law & Order TV series — told jurors in Yates' first trial about an episode portraying a woman who drowned her children and was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

After Yates' conviction, it was discovered that no such episode existed.

As a result, an appeals court threw out Yates' capital murder conviction last year, citing concerns that Dietz's error may have swayed the jury's judgment. With recent plea negotiations going nowhere, a new trial was inevitable.

"This is a classic case that probably has to be tried," said Gerald Treece, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law. "The government's doing its job and the defense is doing its job. And there's no compromise."

I don't think the Dietz error made a big diffeence -- not with five little kids dead. But justice seems to require that the reset button be pressed and the case be submitted to a jury again. So be it.

May justice be done on behalf of her murdered children.

Posted by: Greg at 10:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.

Over teh last couple years, i've come to appreciate a number of "blawgers" out there -- lawyers and law professors who blog on the serious issues of the state and federal courts. One of those blogs, SCOTUSblog, offers a look at what remains to be done by the Supreme Court in the next three weeks.

With no more than three weeks left in the Supreme Court's current Term, the Justices are expected to move more rapidly in the coming weeks toward clearing the remaining decisions on their docket. There are 32 cases to be decided, but multiples on several issues indicate that all cases can be decided with 24 rulings. At the moment, there appears little likelihood that any of the cases will be put over for reargument in the next Term. The Court heard three re-arguments during this Term, but that was due to its change in membership, with Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., arriving at about mid-Term.

Since completing oral argument with a special sitting on May 18, the Court has continued to issue opinions only one day a week. Now that the middle of June is approaching, the Court is likely to begin releasing rulings on two or more days in the remaining weeks. Next Monday, at the close of the public session, the Court's marshal may announce whether there will be another decision day in the coming week. At last once a week, the Court will issue orders granting or denying new cases; any newly granted cases will be heard in the next Term.

So we are looking for about two dozen decisions -- which to my way of thinking means that we are likely to see at least two decision days each of the next three weeks, one on Monday and one later on in the week, with the possibility of three or more during the final week. After all, the Justices (or their clerks) are drafting opinions, making revisions to meet the objections of other Justices as they seek a majority, and writing concurring and disenting opinions. A couple of the cases are seen as really big deals that are no doubt getting heightened consideration from the Justices -- and there is always a chance that some case will come down in a way that will make it a blockbuster.

What cases are left?

04-607 -- Laboratory Corp. v. Metabolite Laboratories (patentability of a naturally occuring process)

04-1034 (and a companion case) -- Rapanos v. U.S. (Clean Water Act application to wetlands)

04-1170 -- Kansas v. Marsh (constitutionality of a death penalty law that
requires death if plus and minor factors are in balance) (re-argued case)

04-1360 - Hudson v. Michigan (remedy for violation of knock-and-announce rule for police entering a home) (re-argued case)

04-1376 -- Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales (right of deported alien to return to U.S.)

04-1528 (and two companion cases) -- Randall v. Sorrell (constitutionality of state ceilings on campaign expenditures)

04-1739 -- Beard v. Banks (right of dangerous prison inmates to have access to newspapers, magazines and photographs)

04-8990 -- House v. Bell (scope of right to present new evidence to show innocence of crime)

04-9728 -- Samson v. California (authority to search parolee without a warrant or suspicion)

04-10566 (and a companion case) -- Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (state court duty to obey World Court ruling on arrested foreign nationals' access to consular officer)

05-18 -- Arlington School District v. Murphy (parents' right to recover fees for expert witness in disabled child education case)

05-83 -- Washington v. Recuenco (harmless error analysis for error in sentence enhancement)

05-128 -- Howard Delivery v. Zurich American Insurance (priority in bankruptcy of claim for workmen's compensation premiums)

05-184 -- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (Supreme Court power to decide constitutionality of war-on-terrorism war crimes tribunals, and the merits of that constitutional question)

05-200 -- Empire Healthchoice v. McVeigh (private contractor right to enforce benefits for federal government employees)

05-204 (and three companion cases) -- League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (validity of Texas congressional redistricting plan)

05-259 -- Burlington Northern Railway v. White (proof needed to show retaliation claim under Title VII job bias law)

05-352 -- U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez (remedy for denial of access to counsel of choice in a criminal case)

05-409 -- Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust (federal appeals court power to review remand of securities case to state court)

05-416 -- Woodford v. Ngo (scope of exhaustion of claims requirement under Prison Litigation Reform Act)

05-5224 and 05-5705 (two cases, perhaps one opinion) -- Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (exclusion of evidence of "excited utterances" in 911 calls or at a crime scene, under Crawford v. Washington)

05-5966 -- Clark v. Arizona (right to make an insanity defense to disprove criminal intent)

05-7053 -- Dixon v. U.S. (burden of proof on defense of duress or coercion in criminal case)

05-8794 -- Hill v. McDonough (procedures available for challenges to lethal injection method of execution)

The two I am most interested in are Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. The former would effectively overturn the unanimous decision rendered during WWII in Ex Parte Quirin if it were decided that military tribunals for unlawful combattants in the war on terror are unconstitutional. The latter has the potential to upset the entire congressional map here in Texas, and to make radical changes in the rules regarding congressional redistricting.

It should be a fun three weeks.

Posted by: Greg at 02:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 918 words, total size 6 kb.

Back in January, I wrote about this miscarriage of justice involving property just a couple of miles down the road from my house, in which Judge Lynn Bradshaw-Hull rolled over for the Port of Houston and gave the owner of 100 acres of property $1 (that's right -- ONE DOLLAR) for his land when he protested that it was worth more than the $1.9 million he was initially offered -- and then awarded the publicly funded Port its legal fees, meaning the owner was effectively required to pay for the privilege of having his land taken from him.

As you may recall, I ended my post with these words.

Let us hope that this decision does not stand -- and that this judge is off the bench.

Well I don't know what is going on in the way of appeals, but the grassroots of the GOP dumped Lynn Bradshaw-Hull on primary day back in March, despite the strong backing of the Establishment Wing of the party. It was close, but for a sitting judge to be dumped by her own party is a major thing, and indicates a real lack of confidence in her competence and judicial philosophy.

Quite frankly, I was pleased.

But now it turns out that there is a move afoot to make sure that Lynn Bradshaw-Hull remains a judge -- and not only that, but gets a promotion after the people rejected her at the polls!

How is this possible? Following a gubernatorial appointment, the judicial seat n the 80th District Court is open, and the Harris County GOP has to select a new candidate for the November ballot. Judge Bradshaw-Hull wants that seat, which would be a promotion to a state court from a county court.

Today I received a letter from Lynn Bradshaw-Hull, soliciting my endorsement and bragging that 102 precinct chairs have endorsed her for the seat on the 80th District Court!

Dear Precinct Chairs,

Since I wrote to you, I have received more precinct chair endorsements and have attended the Republican State Convention. Please see the attached list, which includes most of the new endorsements. There are some precinct chair endorsements who requested their names not be listed at this time. What a great time to be a "grass-roots politician"!

I am most grateful to those who have given their support. To the remaining chairs, I ask for your endorsement today and your vote at the upcoming Executive Committee meeting. As of today, that meeting has not been scheduled.

There are now approximately 418 Precinct Chairs on the rolls. 210 constitute, for statute purposes, the number required to conduct business. A simple majority of 210 voters is 106. Hopefully, more will attend this vital meeting so the, numbers may well increase.

I cite these numbers to impress how important it is that every precinct chair attend and participate in this election. If we fail to place a name on the ballot, we can be assured the Democrats will win this bench by default.

It has been an honor to serve in one of Harris County's busiest courts. I hope to continue serving the law and the people of Harris County. If you have not already done so, please return the enclosed postcard today or contact me at email@judgebradshawhullcom with your pledge of support. You may want to visit my website at www.judgebradshawhull.com. Please feel free to call me at XXX-XXX-XXXX with questions.

Sincerely yours,
Lynn Bradshaw-Hull

Frankly, I find this sickening.

Not just because I disagree with her on one judicial decision in which she ignored the constitutional principle of just compensation for private property taken by government for public use.

More because it is offensive that so many of the precinct chairs of Harris County, who are supposed to represent the grassroots of the party, are ignoring the voice of the people as expressed at the polls in March and working to promote a judge they rejected.

There are at least three other candidates out there, and possibly a fourth. Former Judge Scott Link, who chose not to run for reelection to the 80th District Court in 2002 because of serious illnesses in his family is seeking the chance to regain his former post. Former HISD School Board Member Jeff Shadwick has contacted precinct chairs seeking endorsements I've also heard from attorney and fellow precinct chair Marilyn Griffin, who is seeking support. There is also a rumor that attorney Patrick Pacheco may be interested in the nomination.

I'm not sure yet who i will support -- but I would like to urge all of my fellow precinct chairs to reconsider this rejection of the voter's will as expressed on primary day. I also encourage all Harris County Republicans to contact their precinct chairs and insist that they not support Lynn Bradshaw-Hull for the nomination to the 80th District Court.

We can do better.

OPEN TRACKBACKED TO: Mudville Gazette, Outside the Beltway, Stuck on Stupid, Conservative Cat, Bacon Bits, Samantha Burns, Adam's Blog, Is It Just Me?, Passionate America, Blue Star Chronicles, Dumb Ox, 7 Deadly Sins, Free Constitution, Uncooperative Blogger, Stop The ACLU, Wizbang, Cao's Blog, Euphoric Reality

Posted by: Greg at 12:58 PM | Comments (55) | Add Comment
Post contains 873 words, total size 7 kb.

Any person with an ounce of sense would answer that it is indeed part of the time to which a felon is sentenced.

Which is, of course, why the Colorado Supreme Court is considering the issue in relation to a voting rights suit on behalf of Colorado felons on parole.

The state Supreme Court has agreed to consider a case that could determine whether parolees can vote in Colorado.

In an announcement late Monday, the court said it would review a ruling by a Denver District Court judge who upheld a state law prohibiting Colorado's nearly 6,000 parolees from voting.

Judge Michael Martinez had concluded convicted felons haven't completed their sentences until their parole ended, therefore those on parole aren't eligible to vote.

The American Civil Liberties Union appealed. It had sued on behalf of two nonprofit groups and Michael Danielson of Fort Collins, who was ordained a pastor while in prison on drug and theft charges. Danielson, who now runs a ministry for released prisoners, said restoring parolees' voting rights would help them with the transition.

In their appeal, attorneys argued that under the state Constitution, prisoners' voting rights should be restored when they are released from prison, even if they are still on parole.

Kristen Hubbell, a spokeswoman for Attorney General John Suthers, said the state will defend the law.

Seems pretty clear to me -- you have been sentenced to 25 years in prison. you are givn parole after 15 years. Your sentence runs for another 10 years. Duh! No shit! Where is the ambiguity that the courts need to adjudicate?

Now maybe Rev. Danielson has a valid point. Maybe the restoration of voting rights would help felons reintegrate. But that is a decision to be made by the legislature, not the courts.

But if the Colorado Supreme Court DOES rule contrary to sense, reason, and the commonly understood definition of the word "sentence", there remains a solution out there for the Colorado legislature. Eliminate the possibility of parole completely by requiring that all felons serve 100% of the term to which they are sentenced.

Posted by: Greg at 10:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 366 words, total size 2 kb.

Budgeting decisions, the last time I checked, belong to the legislative branch on both the national level and in all 50 states. Why, then, is a court even involved in this case, which seeks to overturn the budgeting decisions of the Maryland legislature? Does this not violate the notion of separation of powers?

Attorneys for a group of immigrant children dropped from the state's medical assistance program because of budget cuts asked Maryland's highest court yesterday to restore the benefits.

But an attorney for the state said that courts do not have the authority to override budget decisions made by lawmakers and that Maryland was justified in cutting a state-funded medical assistance program for recent legal immigrants.

Last year, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) decided to cut $7 million from the program that provided heath care for about 4,000 pregnant women and children classified as permanent legal residents for less than five years.

In response, attorneys for 13 sick children -- ranging in age from 2 to 17 and suffering from a variety of health problems, including asthma, West Nile virus, a crippling hip disorder and a rare blood disease -- sued the state, asking that benefits be restored.

In January, a Montgomery County Circuit Court judge granted a preliminary injunction, opening the way to reinstate the children's health-care benefits. The state, however, was granted a stay, pending appeal, from the Court of Special Appeals. The matter was then taken up by the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The seven-judge panel heard arguments yesterday and will issue a written decision.

I thought that federal law required that immigrants be self-supporting, and not on the government dole, as a condition of staying here. Perhaps we need to reinstitute that requirement as part of our “comprehensive immigration reform” package. But setting that matter aside, Maryland is acting in a manner consistent with the Federal government’s decision (dating back to the Clinton administration) to exclude aliens in the country less than five years from federal medical programs such as Medicaid. This has been upheld on the federal level, and there is therefore no legitimate reason for ruling that the state action is invalid.

Now one can question the wisdom of such a budgetary decision, though I believe most Americans would support policies like this if asked. But even if one decides the legislatureÂ’s action is unwise, that does not equate with unconstitutional.

Posted by: Greg at 05:07 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 420 words, total size 3 kb.