November 13, 2007
Some of the amici filings in Baze
Over at Lethalinjection.org, the project of the Death Penalty Clinic at U.C. Berkeley School of Law, everyone can now find some of the amicus briefs filed today in Baze v. Rees on this page. Here is what appears on the page as of this writing:
Amicus Briefs Filed in Support of Petitioners
- Amicus Briefs Filed in Support of Petitioners Brief for Michael Morales, Michael Taylor, et al.
- Brief for The Fordham University School of Law, Lewis Stein Center for Law and Ethics
- Brief of The American Civil Liberties Union and the Rutherford Institute
- Brief of Critical Care Providers and Clinical Ethicists
- Brief of the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists Amicus
Amicus Briefs Filed in Support of Neither Party
- Brief of the Anesthesia Awareness Campaign, Inc.
UPDATE: Also now appearing on this page are these additional friendly efforts:
- Brief of Drs. Kevin Concannon, Dennis Geiser, Carolyn Kerr, Glenn Pettifer, and Sheila Robertson
- Brief of Human Rights Watch
- Brief of the American Society of Anesthesiologists
November 13, 2007 at 02:32 PM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some of the amici filings in Baze:
Why no brief from "Citizens for Painful Deaths" or "Citizens for a more Barbaric Society" or the Torquemada Society ?
Posted by: S.cotus | Nov 13, 2007 4:08:33 PM
S.Cotus, the Republican party will file its brief after the State files its brief.
Posted by: | Nov 13, 2007 7:34:43 PM
S.cotus, your snark is so cute.
It's amazing the lack of perspective you have. Barbarism is what happened to Daniel Pearl, not what happened to Angel Diaz. And I understand that calling things "barbaric" may influence legal giants such as Rosemary Barkett, and that's all you profess to care about; however, if American judges continue to flout the limitations on their power, one day they may find themselves stripped of it. Andrew Jackson's taunt is as much a part of our system of government as is the power of judicial review. And if push ever really came to shove, the courts would lose.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 13, 2007 10:44:35 PM
I doubt the Republicans really want to get involved in this. Writing an incompetent brief makes one accountable. When talking to non-lawyers in the political context, it is far better just to declare that the courts are doing evil things.
If the captors of Daniel Perl were facing justice in the US, I would want them sent to jail. However, since those people are not bound by the US Constitution, and probably do not share our values, I don’t think too much about them.
The “limitations” on power that you claim that American judges ignore are creatures of your own making (or maybe you read it on a blog somewhere). In the US, individuals can seek relief from unconstitutional acts from courts, and judges are within their power to enjoin them.
You had made a bizarre argument that somehow the anti-injunction act deprives a federal judge of habeas jurisdiction (or even 1983 jurisdiction) in a death penalty case. But, as is the tradition with you people, you did not provide a cite for that concept. In fact, you provided no citations for your assertions regarding judges overstepping their power. See, if you wanted to make a serious argument, you would have had to 1) provide the precise citation (and text) which you find in error; 2) provide the authority which you say contradicts it; and 3) show what happened on appeal (again, with precision and citation). But, because you don’t really take this exercise as seriously as others do, you did not.
I don’t really know what you mean by “if push ever came to shove.” The reason we went to law school is so that we – the lawyers – could decide these big issues. The reason the lay people always lose is because they simply don’t understand (nor do they want to) what is being debated. The courts are merely the scene for the debate. Whatever the case, you can rest assured that on a daily basis “courts” are putting a steady stream of people in jail, and lawyers can always convince juries to convict people of just about anything.
Posted by: S.cotus | Nov 14, 2007 6:30:28 AM
I never said that the AIA deprives fed courts of habeas jurisdiction. I said that the AIA should deprive fed courts the ability to stay executions in suits authorized by Section 1983. Section 1983 does not expressly authorize the stay, and the AIA contains a requirement that the authorization of the stay be express. Hart & Wechsler's treatise rightly criticizes the Supreme Court's contrary holding.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 14, 2007 11:39:37 AM
There is the law, and there is what you want the law to be. There might be something in H&W (which you did not provide a cite or the relevant text) that says that they join in your desires about what you want the law to be, but it is not the law.
Posted by: S.cotus | Nov 14, 2007 4:37:52 PM
Notice how the goalposts have moved, S.cotus. You criticized me for a "bizarre argument", but apparently that criticism is no longer valid, so now you choose to point out to me that the law is the law. Thanks for the tip. I know well that, as a practical matter, the law is what the Supreme Court says, and that in this case it differs from my view. So what?
Posted by: federalist | Nov 14, 2007 5:38:56 PM
Oh, and by the way, S.cotus, speaking of bizarre, here's some gibberish from a previous post of yours.
"Anyway, let me be clear on my point. It isn’t that complicated. 14th amendment equal protection post-dates the signing of the constitution and the ratification of the bill of rights by over a century. While the constitution was envisioned as a compact between the states and allocation of some federal and state power, and the bill of right was envisioned as a means to protect people from federal power, the post-civil war amendments were viewed as a way to reign in the evil in the south. It was not until later that the “rights” recognized in the “bill of rights” began being “incorporated” to the states (i.e. applied to the states as well as the federal government). The extent to which they applied is not 100% clear, though most people will always say, “sure, they all do.” Off the top of my head, the following are questionable areas of selective incorporation: 1) establishment clause (maybe this is just Justice Thomas); 2) the 2d amendment; 3) 8th amendment prohibition against unreasonable bail); and 4) the interrelationship between the ADA and the 11th and 14th amendments (i.e. Congress’s ability to abrogate state sovereign immunity in the name of the 14th)."
Posted by: federalist | Nov 14, 2007 5:42:55 PM