Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) tells Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor that her previous speeches are troubling to him. He specifically highlighted her “wise Latina woman” comment and said that it is important to see how a judge thinks about life, even when they’re outside of the court room and out of the robe. He says if he had made a statement even remotely like that, his career would have been over. (0:24)
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) explains that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s record shows her judicial modesty. He says it is the judicial record, more than speeches, statements and backgrounds, that measures judicial modesty. Sotomayor “more than measures up,” in Schumer’s opinion. (0:31)
By Celia Canon- Talk Radio News Service
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that West Virginia Justice Brent Benjamin should have recused himself when holding a Court hearing in 2007, which involved an important contributor to Benjamin’s election campaign conducted three years prior.
The decision came after the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 on whether Justice Benjamin Brent, who had been elected in 2004 following a $3 million donation from Massey Coal Company’s Chairman Don Blankenship, should have recused himself when ruling over the Hugh M. Caperton, et al. v. Massey & Co case.
In 2002, a West Virginia jury found Massey Coal & Co. liable for fraudulent misrepresentation, concealment and tortious interference with existing contractual relations. The jury condemned Massey & Co to $50 million to be awarded to the plaintiff, Caperton et al. in June, 2004. Massey & Co filed for appeal but its demand was rejected by the state trial court.
In 2004, West Virginia held it judicial elections. Massey & Co sponsored Brent Benjamin rather than the incumbent Justice so as to renew the possibilities of appealing but before Massey & Co filed its appeal, Caperton moved to prevent this by calling attention to the Due Process Clause and to the State’s Code of Judicial Conduct based on Massey & Co’s campaign involvement.
The Due Process Clause under the 14th amendment of the U.S constitution ensures that no state should “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Additionally, the Code of Judicial Conduct states that “A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved,” according to the U.S Courts online.
Despite receiving important funding from the party found liable in the Caperton v. Massey case during his judicial campaign, Justice Benjamin refused to recuse himself, and this for a total of three times.
The controversial topic involved whether or not to trust Judicial figures’ capability to remain unbiased when ruling on a question that involves a personal dimension.
In an interpretation Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered, he said “Under our precedents there are objective standards that require recusal when ‘the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decision-maker is too high to be constitutionally of this case,” adding that the judgment of the State Supreme Court of West Virginia is dissented “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.”
Kennedy cited “risks of biases”, impartiality and “personal involvement” and the the foundations for the Supreme Court’s decision.
By Annie Berman, Talk Radio News Service
With the recent announcement of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the US Supreme Court, Annie Berman talks to Professor Gregory Magrarian of Washington University in St. Louis about her qualifications and the Republicans who criticize her legal opinions as being too liberal.
Magrarian believes that she is well qualified and that her liberal personal leanings should not interfere with her legal decisions, and thus should not stand in the way of her confirmation. (1:00)
By Courtney Ann Jackson-Talk Radio News Service
A unified approach to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay will be crucial in order to meet the one-year deadline signed into law in January by President Obama, according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who testified before the House Judiciary Committee Thursday.
Holder said the Department has “no choice but to release” some of the detainees. He said they must be released because otherwise an order from the In terms of release, we have to release them or an order from the U.S. courts would be defied.
The Department of Justice is taking the lead from the work set out by President Barack Obama to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and ensure that the policies going forward “live up to our nation’s value,” said Holder.
The Guantanamo Review Task Force will make decisions about where detainees will be housed on an individual basis. Holder said that Task Force’s decisions will be guided by “what is in the interest of national security, the foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice.”
Ranking Member U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) said “the President has announced the closure of Guantanamo Bay without any plan for the terrorists detained there and has admitted that he cannot guarantee that those detainees who are released will not seek to attack our country again.”
In response, Holder reiterated that the Department isn’t going “to do anything, anything that would put the American people at risk. Nothing.”
By Courtney Ann Jackson-Talk Radio News Service
Attorney General Eric Holder discusses the changes being made to the Department of Justice. The top priority remains to be the safety of the American public but the Department is currently pursuing a very specific set of goals.(0:51)
Attorney General Eric Holder discusses the qualifications that he believes the next Supreme Court Justice will have. He believes that President Obama ought to choose a lawyer, but no necessarily a judge. (0:24)
By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service
Ken Boehm believes that justice has been miscarried in the case of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. Today the Department of Justice dropped charges of wrongdoing against the Stevens, after a drawn out legal battle concerning financial disclosure. Boehm, chairman of the watchdog group the National Legal and Policy Center, said that because the Justice Department failed in its handling of the case, an elected official is not going to be brought to justice after violating the public trust.
Boehm, a former prosecutor, stated how the Department of Justice sould have done it differently.
(03:38)
By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service
Today one of Enron’s former executives found himself back in the lime light as the Supreme Court heard his case of being unjustly prosecuted. F. Scott Yeager, an executive at Enron Broadband Services, was caught up in the hunt for white-collar wrongdoing after the Enron scandal. He was charged with wire fraud, securities fraud, insider trading, money laundering, and conspiracy to engage in securities fraud and wire fraud. The original trial saw Yeager acquitted of three of the charges, but the jury couldn’t agree on the charges of insider trading and money laundering.
The United States government then tried to re-try the insider trading and money laundering charges, since the jury was undecided on the matter, something that Yeager says violates his rights against being prosecuted twice for the same matter. Yeager moved to have the case thrown out. He argued that he is protected by collateral estoppel, which prohibits the same issue from being tried twice, and is similar to double jeopardy. Yeager’s legal team relied on a good-faith defense in his initial trial, saying he was not guilty because he had a reasonable belief in his company’s financial stability. The argument for collateral estoppel was that since he was acquitted based on the good-faith defense, it would not be possible to prosecute him on insider trading, since the jury established he could not have illegality at the heart of his actions.
Both the District and Circuit Courts denied Yeager’s motion to have the case thrown out. Yeager then took the matter before the Supreme Court, in Yeager v. United States.
The Justices were undecided in the courtroom about whether or not the acquittal on the similar charges was enough to remove Yeager from any shadow of wrongdoing. Justices Samuel Alito and David Souter felt that he might have been acquitted for other reasons than simply the good-faith defense, although it was self evident that they could not know with certainty why the jury did what it did. The counsel for the United States said that the jury should have said Yeager was not guilty on the two undecided charges if they really meant it. Chief Justice John Roberts showed concern at the effect this decision could have on the Seventh Amendment in the Constitution, which protects the right to jury trials. Roberts questioned whether or not retrial of the undecided charges would undermine the jury’s decisions in the acquitted charges. Although Justice Stephen Breyer did not display a firm position on the case at large, he did say that he can’t think of why this wouldn’t be a second trial, and why collateral estoppel should not apply.
The Court is expected to return a decision on this case in May or June of this year.
By Kayleigh Harvey – Talk Radio News Service
Jeremy Travis, President of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice tells the The House Appropriations Committee: “America stand apart from the rest of the Western world, worse, in terms of our levels of incarceration, how we treat people while they are in prison and the approach to reintegration.” Mr. Travis suggested that America look at reintegration strategies used in the United Kingdom and Germany at a Subcommittee hearing today on “What Works for Successful Prisoner Re-entry.”
