Post by thinkinkmesa on May 30, 2009 22:22:09 GMT -5
Obama Needs to Do More Than Swap Liberal Justices
By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive
Posted on May 29, 2009, Printed on May 29, 2009
www.alternet.org/story/140305/
While everyone’s talking about how the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor
may affect the Supreme Court, we need to keep our eye on the current
court — and on Obama’s arguments in there.
For on the same day that Obama nominated Sotomayor, the Court came
down with a horrendous decision on a defendant’s Sixth Amendment
right to counsel.
By a 5 to 4 vote, the Court said that a defendant who has already
been appointed counsel may be interrogated by police without that
counsel present.
Amazingly, Obama’s Justice Department argued in favor of the decision
that Justice Scalia handed down. It said the 23-year-old precedent,
Michigan v. Jackson, "serves no purpose."
Distressed, Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the Michigan
decision, took the unusual move of reading his heated dissent aloud
from the bench.
"The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner’s
Sixth Amendment right to counsel," he said, adding that the court, by
overturning a previous Supreme Court ruling, engaged in a "gross
undervaluation" of precedent.
Stevens made the unassailable point that "if a defendant is entitled
to protection from police-initiated interrogation under the Sixth
Amendment when he merely requests a lawyer, he is even more obviously
entitled to such protection when he has secured a lawyer."
Sotomayor won’t shift the balance on such issues, since David Souter,
whom she’s replacing, was also in the minority here.
But Obama needs to do more than just swap one liberal justice for
another. He needs to make sure that his Justice Department goes into
the Supreme Court to uphold the Bill of Rights, not undermine it.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.
By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive
Posted on May 29, 2009, Printed on May 29, 2009
www.alternet.org/story/140305/
While everyone’s talking about how the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor
may affect the Supreme Court, we need to keep our eye on the current
court — and on Obama’s arguments in there.
For on the same day that Obama nominated Sotomayor, the Court came
down with a horrendous decision on a defendant’s Sixth Amendment
right to counsel.
By a 5 to 4 vote, the Court said that a defendant who has already
been appointed counsel may be interrogated by police without that
counsel present.
Amazingly, Obama’s Justice Department argued in favor of the decision
that Justice Scalia handed down. It said the 23-year-old precedent,
Michigan v. Jackson, "serves no purpose."
Distressed, Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the Michigan
decision, took the unusual move of reading his heated dissent aloud
from the bench.
"The police interrogation in this case clearly violated petitioner’s
Sixth Amendment right to counsel," he said, adding that the court, by
overturning a previous Supreme Court ruling, engaged in a "gross
undervaluation" of precedent.
Stevens made the unassailable point that "if a defendant is entitled
to protection from police-initiated interrogation under the Sixth
Amendment when he merely requests a lawyer, he is even more obviously
entitled to such protection when he has secured a lawyer."
Sotomayor won’t shift the balance on such issues, since David Souter,
whom she’s replacing, was also in the minority here.
But Obama needs to do more than just swap one liberal justice for
another. He needs to make sure that his Justice Department goes into
the Supreme Court to uphold the Bill of Rights, not undermine it.
Matthew Rothschild is the editor of The Progressive.