His Supreme Court appeal turns on the role played by Ronald Castille, chief justice of the state Supreme Court until his retirement last year. Castille was Philadelphia district attorney when Williams was tried and authorized the pursuit of a death sentence against Williams.
Castille rebuffed Williams' request that he step aside from the case when it reached Pennsylvania's top court.
Williams' case came before the state Supreme Court after a lower court threw out his death sentence in 2012, five days before Williams was scheduled to be executed. The judge found that Philadelphia prosecutors withheld evidence that the victim was molesting boys.
But last year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously reinstated the death sentence in a ruling that said Williams had the information in question and perjured himself when he claimed not to know 56-year-old deacon Amos Norwood and denied involvement in his killing.
Castille wrote a separate opinion that criticized the judge who ruled in favor of Williams and the public defenders who represented him. He also defended his former colleagues in the prosecutor's office.
The justices will consider whether Castille's decision to remain involved in the case violated Williams' rights and also whether it matters that Castille did not cast the deciding vote in the case.
Oi, that's pretty bad. Beyond the obvious major implications for this dude, it really bothers me when lawyers don't understand what conflict of interest means.
it might be a bit generous to say they just don't understand what it means
I think the WBC just have a meeting every month where they put anybody who has been in the news into a hat, draw out a name, and that's who they picket.
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
+6
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Are the WBC going back to SCOTUS for something?
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I think the WBC just have a meeting every month where they put anybody who has been in the news into a hat, draw out a name, and that's who they picket.
I've heard they don't even show up to half the protests they announce. They get attention for announcing it and that's all they really want.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Magus`The fun has been DOUBLED!Registered Userregular
What is it with these religious types thinking that filling out a form is equal to commission of the sin?
In the Catholic case, Papal Dogma. Like, Germany had a law that to get an abortion you had to have a counseling session first, it could be with a therapist or a spiritual advisor. Whoever would sign a piece of paper proving that the session happened so the woman could move forward with the process. Some Catholic priests were uncomfortable signing it and asked the Vatican for advice and the response was to keep doing what they were doing. Accept the request for the session, try and talk the woman out of it but refuse to sign the paperwork that was the whole reason the woman was there. That was pretty horrible to me.
As far as legally, it sounds like most of these cases are stupid because it is literally submitting a form but in the Little Sister case apparently the insurance is directly run by a church or something and was not part of the deal Obama brokered. If there is gonna be any wiggle room it seems like that is where it'd start from.
By an 8-1 vote, the justices tossed out an excessive force suit against a Texas police officer who ignored his supervisor's warning and took a high-powered rifle to a highway overpass to shoot at an approaching car. The officer said he hoped to stop the car but instead shot and killed the driver. The ruling bolsters previous decisions that give police the benefit of the doubt when they encounter a potentially dangerous situation. The court noted in an unsigned 12-page opinion that it has "never found the use of deadly force in connection with a dangerous car chase to violate the 4th Amendment."
The case decided Monday involved a man in Tulia, Texas, who fled from a drive-in restaurant when police tried to arrest him. He was believed to be drunk and carrying a gun. He led officers on a nighttime chase that reached 110 mph. Texas state Trooper Chadrin Mullenix heard about the chase over his radio and drove to a spot where officers were putting a strip of spikes across the highway to puncture the tires of the fleeing car. He had been criticized for not reacting decisively in the past, and he decided on his own to shoot at the fleeing car. His commander advised him to "stand by" and "see if the spikes work first." But Mullenix fired six shots and killed the driver, Israel Leija Jr. His family sued, and a federal judge ruled the case could go to a jury to decide whether Mullenix's actions were reckless or reasonable under the circumstances. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in a 2-1 decision and said the officer was not entitled to immunity.
The only justice who dissented was Sotomayor, the one justice with actual criminal law experience, and boy did she have something to say in her dissent:
Sotomayor said the court "renders the protections of the 4th Amendment hollow" by sanctioning the officer's "rogue conduct." She noted he had not been trained in shooting at a fleeing car and was told not to shoot before the vehicle encountered the spikes across the highway. "When Mullenix confronted his superior officer after the shooting, his first words were, 'How's that for proactive?'" she wrote. "The glib comment … seems to me revealing of the culture this court's decision supports when it calls it reasonable — or even reasonably reasonable — to use deadly force for no discernible gain and over a supervisor's express order to 'stand by.'"
So... unless a court has previously ruled a use of force unconstitutional police can't be sued, but if they can't be sued how do you ever get that court ruling?
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
We'd be lucky if we ended up with someone as competent as Judge Dredd since this case was covering future Judge Yahoo Who Ignores Orders and Can't Shoot Straight.
But these organizations say this is insufficient for a number of technical reasons, the most important being that they believe filling out the form still amounts to complicity in providing people with contraception.
Technically anything that doesn't prevent someone from getting contraception is complicity in providing people with contraception. Something something Griswold.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
Out of curiosity, has SCOTUS ever actually applied scrutiny to immunity doctrines vs. the right of petition?
It seems like there should be an.argument that there is no immunity because the constitution guarantees the right to bring a lawsuit.
Right of petition does not mean right to bring a lawsuit, as the concept of standing makes clear. It's usually interpreted as the right to protest against the government.
Immunity clauses actually serve a very important purpose - imagine what would happen to civil service if it made you liable personally! The issue is that they're crafted and interpreted to be way too broad.
Out of curiosity, has SCOTUS ever actually applied scrutiny to immunity doctrines vs. the right of petition?
It seems like there should be an.argument that there is no immunity because the constitution guarantees the right to bring a lawsuit.
Right of petition does not mean right to bring a lawsuit, as the concept of standing makes clear. It's usually interpreted as the right to protest against the government.
Immunity clauses actually serve a very important purpose - imagine what would happen to civil service if it made you liable personally! The issue is that they're crafted and interpreted to be way too broad.
Exactly, there are still plenty of ways the police, as an institution, could still be protected from immunity and still allow going after officers who disobey orders.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
Out of curiosity, has SCOTUS ever actually applied scrutiny to immunity doctrines vs. the right of petition?
It seems like there should be an.argument that there is no immunity because the constitution guarantees the right to bring a lawsuit.
Right of petition does not mean right to bring a lawsuit, as the concept of standing makes clear. It's usually interpreted as the right to protest against the government.
Immunity clauses actually serve a very important purpose - imagine what would happen to civil service if it made you liable personally! The issue is that they're crafted and interpreted to be way too broad.
So the police say "we're not liable we told him not to do it" and the officer says "I have immunity".
It seems like breaking orders should break the liability immunity, if the point is to protect officers following orders/protocol/not explicitly against orders then they shouldn't need it unless they done f'd up.
SCOTUS has in fact rules that right of petition includes access to the courts, i.e. lawsuits.
Immunity should be a matter of saying you.need to sue the agency rather than the individual, not that you can't sue. So yeah, officer acting against orders should be liable because he is then no longer acting in an official capacity (and if he has immunity it just means the police as a whole should be liable).
The police probably aren't' too happy with this ruling if rogue officers make them liable.
0
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
There are always two ways to look at these cases: what it says on the tin / what it says in actual legal standing.
My guess is if they revoked immunity in this case it would actually also revoke immunity in other grounds of legal cases of police enforcement, hence the near unanimous support here. If it were just an issue of police brutality coverage versus not we would likely have seen a split 5-4 decision like most issues of that nature.
Scotusblog is pretty good about giving the actual meaning of the ruling.
This wouldn't be an issue if the ruling was narrower, but wording it as "no court had previously issued a binding ruling finding that exact circumstance unconstitutional" is the problem - it implies imminity is.basically impossible to get around now. And that's bullshit.
SCOTUS has in fact rules that right of petition includes access to the courts, i.e. lawsuits.
Immunity should be a matter of saying you.need to sue the agency rather than the individual, not that you can't sue. So yeah, officer acting against orders should be liable because he is then no longer acting in an official capacity (and if he has immunity it just means the police as a whole should be liable).
Is this not the way it works already?
I mean, when I worked for a union job that had many similarities to how police work (ie - dealing with the public, lots of procedures for what to do and plenty of talk about legal liability and issues because of the work) that's exactyl how it worked. (though obviously, this was in Canada)
You had defined procedures for how you were supposed to handle situations. As long as you behaving according to those procedures, you were fine. The union and/management had your back the whole way. If you stepped outside the bounds of established procedure, you were on your own and more then likely fucked. If there was an issue with procedures, that was something you had to take up with the organization itself, not any specific individual. But one or the other was always accountable.
We'll get a good ruling before the election, I hope.
So It Goes on
0
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
Maybe Clinton and Sanders should go out and say right now that if Kennedy tries to undo Roe v. Wade, contraception rights etc. they will use the oval office to undo his legacy ASAP. Not sure about the game theory here.
Maybe Clinton and Sanders should go out and say right now that if Kennedy tries to undo Roe v. Wade, contraception rights etc. they will use the oval office to undo his legacy ASAP. Not sure about the game theory here.
Probably not worth feeding the "Weakling Democrat God-King" image.
It's a gamble, of course. If they rule in favor of health care, a broad ruling could have strong implications for states where abortion has been all but strangled.
It's a gamble, of course. If they rule in favor of health care, a broad ruling could have strong implications for states where abortion has been all but strangled.
A ruling against could hand the Democrats Congress with the right timing. Imagine THAT as an October surprise.
Agree. It's a wedge issue like gun control, and as such has been so thoroughly poisoned that it does little except reinforce control in areas where one party is already dominant.
Yeah, I don't think I know a single person who hasn't already made up their minds and encased them in stone on abortion.
Only thing it might affect is turnout, and only if one side was running heavily on pro-abortion, which could heavily backfire, since it would hand conservatives their own rallying cry.
It'd be a presidential election year so turnout would be about as high as it would get anyway. If it was happening during a midterm and they ruled against abortion then it maybe could get the liberal voters out more, shown an example of what happens when conservatism gets its way. Or they could throw up their hands and not bother, as per usual.
Conservatives always vote no matter what so their turnout would be unaffected.
Posts
it might be a bit generous to say they just don't understand what it means
...Onion 0, reality 1.
and then shook their head, put it back, and grabbed vodka instead.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I've heard they don't even show up to half the protests they announce. They get attention for announcing it and that's all they really want.
SCOTUS makes another long play
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
So is the goal to keep the cycle of poverty going cause.. that's a pretty shitty thing to do, nuns.
Steam Profile | Signature art by Alexandra 'Lexxy' Douglass
Because they should be allowed to force their morality upon their employees, even outside of the workplace.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
In the Catholic case, Papal Dogma. Like, Germany had a law that to get an abortion you had to have a counseling session first, it could be with a therapist or a spiritual advisor. Whoever would sign a piece of paper proving that the session happened so the woman could move forward with the process. Some Catholic priests were uncomfortable signing it and asked the Vatican for advice and the response was to keep doing what they were doing. Accept the request for the session, try and talk the woman out of it but refuse to sign the paperwork that was the whole reason the woman was there. That was pretty horrible to me.
As far as legally, it sounds like most of these cases are stupid because it is literally submitting a form but in the Little Sister case apparently the insurance is directly run by a church or something and was not part of the deal Obama brokered. If there is gonna be any wiggle room it seems like that is where it'd start from.
The only justice who dissented was Sotomayor, the one justice with actual criminal law experience, and boy did she have something to say in her dissent:
That ruling is bullshit.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
At least the path to Judge Dredd and Megacity One is clearer now.
Technically anything that doesn't prevent someone from getting contraception is complicity in providing people with contraception. Something something Griswold.
It seems like there should be an.argument that there is no immunity because the constitution guarantees the right to bring a lawsuit.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Right of petition does not mean right to bring a lawsuit, as the concept of standing makes clear. It's usually interpreted as the right to protest against the government.
Immunity clauses actually serve a very important purpose - imagine what would happen to civil service if it made you liable personally! The issue is that they're crafted and interpreted to be way too broad.
Exactly, there are still plenty of ways the police, as an institution, could still be protected from immunity and still allow going after officers who disobey orders.
So the police say "we're not liable we told him not to do it" and the officer says "I have immunity".
It seems like breaking orders should break the liability immunity, if the point is to protect officers following orders/protocol/not explicitly against orders then they shouldn't need it unless they done f'd up.
Immunity should be a matter of saying you.need to sue the agency rather than the individual, not that you can't sue. So yeah, officer acting against orders should be liable because he is then no longer acting in an official capacity (and if he has immunity it just means the police as a whole should be liable).
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
My guess is if they revoked immunity in this case it would actually also revoke immunity in other grounds of legal cases of police enforcement, hence the near unanimous support here. If it were just an issue of police brutality coverage versus not we would likely have seen a split 5-4 decision like most issues of that nature.
This wouldn't be an issue if the ruling was narrower, but wording it as "no court had previously issued a binding ruling finding that exact circumstance unconstitutional" is the problem - it implies imminity is.basically impossible to get around now. And that's bullshit.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
We've seen how hard it is to find a single officer liable for anything, an entire department seems even more impenetrable.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Which is why it's so confusing that the texas AG appealed
Is this not the way it works already?
I mean, when I worked for a union job that had many similarities to how police work (ie - dealing with the public, lots of procedures for what to do and plenty of talk about legal liability and issues because of the work) that's exactyl how it worked. (though obviously, this was in Canada)
You had defined procedures for how you were supposed to handle situations. As long as you behaving according to those procedures, you were fine. The union and/management had your back the whole way. If you stepped outside the bounds of established procedure, you were on your own and more then likely fucked. If there was an issue with procedures, that was something you had to take up with the organization itself, not any specific individual. But one or the other was always accountable.
Oh boy.
So the future of abortion access in the country rests in Kennedy's hands. God help us all.
Probably not worth feeding the "Weakling Democrat God-King" image.
A ruling against could hand the Democrats Congress with the right timing. Imagine THAT as an October surprise.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Agree. It's a wedge issue like gun control, and as such has been so thoroughly poisoned that it does little except reinforce control in areas where one party is already dominant.
Only thing it might affect is turnout, and only if one side was running heavily on pro-abortion, which could heavily backfire, since it would hand conservatives their own rallying cry.
Conservatives always vote no matter what so their turnout would be unaffected.