Good morning . . .
This column reported that the US Supreme Court will hear in the next term whether the federal government can withhold federal funds to colleges and universities that do not allow on-campus recruitment by the US military. The schools argue it is a free speech matter.
I wonder how many of those college and universities have active ROTC units? If any, my belief is the case is moot since the school already allows the ROTC unit. On-campus recruiting would be a natural extension of the program. If not, there may be a case, but shouldn't there be some "strings" attached to accepting taxpayer funds?
The case is Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, 04-1152.
--
The Indiana Democratic Party sued in federal court seeking to overturn a law that will require voters to show a photo ID before casting a ballot.
The law which is scheduled to become law on July 1 is among the strictest in the country. The lawsuit claims that it violates the US Constitution and federal election laws.
The opponents of the law continue to use the tired arguments that any law requiring a photo ID will harm the poor. elderly, and minorities that often to not have a photo ID.
Dan Parker, chairman of the state party, says there is no record of voter fraud that could be corrected by this bill. Parker must not travel the entire state. Complaints of voter fraud, voting by felons and the dead are rampant in northwest Indiana.
The Indiana ACLU has joined the suit.
There are 19 states that ask for voter identification, but only 5 require a photo.
Las Vegas SUN: Democrats Sue Over Indiana Voter ID Law
--
The Colorado Supreme Court is considering whether questions submitted by jurors during a criminal trial can harm a defendants right to a "fair trial."
Public Defender Tracy Renner said Monday that giving the jurors the ability to ask questions turns them into "mini investigators or mini prosecutors," distracts then from listening to testimony, and helps the prosecution prove their case.
"If jury questioning creates an unfair trial in just one instance, it's one instance too many," Renner said. "There's nothing wrong with our system that jury questioning will fix."
The case stems from a 2000 conviction of a woman who was convicted of attacking her boyfriend. During trial the woman's attorney argued that inconsistent statements from the ex-boyfriend and his new girlfriend -- the two main witnesses -- could not be believed.
A juror asked how often witnesses change their answers. A prosecution investigator could only guess at an answer.
Renner wants the court to overturn the woman's conviction and bar the practice of juror questioning.
This seems like a no-brainer to this reporter. By taking the time to develop questions, jurors are, obviously, deliberating and discussing the case before all the evidence is available. It is likely that this case could reach the US Supreme Court.
Colo. Court Considers Juror Questions - Yahoo! News
--
More later.
No comments:
Post a Comment