FLASH UPDATE
One time Ku Klux Klan leader and former preacher Edgar Killen was sentenced to 60 years in prison for the 1964 slayings of three civil-rights workers.
Circuit Judge Marcus Gordon gave Killen 20 years for each count of manslaughter. Gordon said the terms would run consecutively.
Killen, 80, was convicted Tuesday for the killings of Michael Schwemer, James Chaney, and Andrew Goodman.
Judge Gordon said he took no pleasure in the task and that the law makes no distinction of a defendants age at sentencing.
"I have taken that into consideration that there are three lives involved in this case and the three lives should absolutely be respected," Gordon said.
Defense attorney James McIntyre said he will appeal, arguing the jury should not have been given the manslaughter option. Judge Gordon will hear motions for a new trial on Monday.
The slayings in 1964 helped to spur the civil-rights movement and were the inspiration for the film "Mississippi Burning."
Ex-Klansman Gets 60 Years for 1964 Murders - Yahoo! News
Tags: Civil Rights, Edgar Killen
--
Top Story
The Supreme Court ruled on a case this morning that has been anxiously awaited by cities, homeowners, and business.
In a sharply divided 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that cities may seize property over the objections of homeowners and businesses for private development.
As a result of today's decision, cities may now condemn or seize property slated for development into shopping malls and other revenue generating venues.
Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
At issue was the scope of the 5th Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
In a sharply written dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor writes, ""Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes - Yahoo! News
Tags: Supreme Court,
Eminent Domain
--
The US Supreme Court struck down a Michigan law that barred criminal defendants from receiving state-paid who plead guilty or no contest who later want to appeal.
The one-of-a-kind 1994 law, designed to clear a backlog of thousands of cases, barred automatic appeals to defendants who plead guilty or no contest. Those defendants may ask the Michigan Supreme Court for permission to appeal, but permission was rarely granted.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing a 6-3 decision, said the defendant in the case was entitled to an attorney.
"Navigating the appellate process without a lawyer's assistance is a perilous endeavor for a layperson, and well beyond the competence of individuals, like Halbert, who have little education, learning disabilities, and mental impairments," she wrote.
Had the justices upheld the law, it would have been copied by several states to relieve the backlog of cases at the appellate level. Seventeen states filed arguments supporting Michigan.
Supreme Court Strikes Down Michigan Law - Yahoo! News
Tag: Supreme Court
--
Always seeking publicity, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) revealed the existence of a letter sent to the White House to encourage the President to consult with Senate Democrats "before" selecting a nominee to the US Supreme Court.
"The way to avoid the divisiveness and discord that occurred over past judicial nominations is through consensus and cooperation in the selection of future candidates," the Senate Democrats said in a letter sent to the White House on Thursday.
While the letter speaks of "bipartisan cooperation," it is not what the Senate Democrats want. They want to control the selection of a judicial nominee. They want to ignore the Constitutional right of a president to select judicial appointments. They wan a liberal on the high court.
The Senate Democrats believe that the "advise and consent" clause of the Constitution means "let us decide who should nominate or we will filibuster them."
Fortunately, the White House is, for the most part, going to ignore the Senate Democrats.
Sen. John Cormyn (R-TX) responded to the Democrats saying they were trying to politicize the process before there was a vacancy on the high court.
"Senior Democrats continue to demand a future role in selecting the president's judicial nominees, while preventing the confirmation of current nominees," Cornyn said.
Both liberal and conservative groups are gearing up for a protracted fight over the next Supreme Court nominee. Depending on who retires, it could be as easy as elevating a current Justice to Chief Justice or it could be another game of "obstruction" and the "agenda of no" to however the president nominates.
A conservative group, Progress for America, has begun to air television ads saying the Senate Democrats "will attack anyone the president nominates." It has been true for almost every appellate judge, it will be true for anyone nominated to the Supreme Court.
Senate Dems Want Consult on Court Pick - Yahoo! News
Tags: Supreme Court,
Politics
--
More later.
No comments:
Post a Comment