Camera has place in Supreme Court (Dan Abrams)
Bravo to the Senate Judiciary Committee for finally telling the U.S. Supreme Court enough is enough, that it's time to open their doors to the rest of us. The bill, which passed by a vote of 12-6 would require the Supreme Court to permit television coverage of all open sessions unless a majority of the justices decide that in a particular case it would violate the rights of a party.
Well this could mean Justice Souter will be taken out on a gurney. After all, he once said, “The day you see a camera in our courtroom is going to be over my dead body.” All the justices who have spoken out about the issue have announced their opposition to it, including Justices Kennedy and Breyer. It seems they believe staying out of the public eye can help them maintain a sort of grander than life mystique.
Their opinions, they say, ought to be the sole basis for judgment.
One justice even talked of not wanting to be recognized at the supermarket. Too bad. Then find a lower profile, a less important job. The justices need to remember they're being paid by us. Their opinions shape our everyday lives. In fact, apart from the president, in a time of war, I would argue the nine justices choices impact Americans more than any other government officials.
They bring their own sensibilities to the interpretation of laws, so why should they be permitted to cloak their professional activity in secrecy. Unlike the argument we hear opposing cameras in trials, there are no witnesses who might be intimidated, no jurors who might be affected. They just think it's unseemly. Then there's Justice Scalia who said he would not be opposed to a camera if and only if somehow the media could be forced to present the arguments from beginning to end.
Justice Ginsburg has echoed a similar sentiment about gavel-to-gavel coverage. Well, it's nice to hear they wanted to be editors in another life, thereby allowing them to decide what makes it in the newscast and what doesn't. But that's not the way it works and it's also not an issue unique to a camera. Think about it, when a print reporter writes an article about a Supreme Court argument, he or she picks and chooses which quotes to put in the article. They don't print the argument from beginning to end.
TV reporters do the same thing. The distinction makes no sense. I've got the utmost respect and admiration for the Court and its members, but when they're making all-important decisions about all of our lives, I say they need to emerge from that marble covered bubble.
Comments? Email [email protected]
Scalia hand gesture obscene? (Dan Abrams)
There is a serious debate currently brewing between United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the Boston Herald pitting the conservative, controversial American jurist against a member of the free and uncensored American press.
A precedent-setting first amendment case? Well not quite... Justice Scalia and the Boston herald are grappling over Scalia taking his four fingers and placing them under his neck, then moving his hand forward. The issue: Does that constitute an obscene gesture?
The ambiguous hand motion came at a Boston cathedral after a Herald reporter asked Scalia how he responds to those who question his decision to practice his Catholic faith publicly, Scalia says he responded quote "jocularly" with the gesture.
The Herald saw it differently, it reported the sitting justice made an obscene gesture to a reporter. Scalia then responded with a letter to the editor, explaining that in Sicilian culture it means "who cares?"
He said "from watching too many episodes of the Sopranos, your staff seems to have acquired the belief that any Sicilian gesture is obscene - especially when made by an 'Italian jurist.'"
In response today, the Herald released the photo, with an eyewitness account from the photojournalist who confirmed that in his opinion yes, Justice Scalia was being obscene.
I ask... without making the gesture myself... who cares?
You've got the Boston Herald consulting professors of nonverbal studies and psychologists who study human gestures to get to the root of what the gesture means. One expert told the Herald it means "I don't know" in Portugal, "no!" in Naples, "you are lying" in Greece, "I don't give a damn" in Northern Italy, France and Tunisia...
And in Boston, Massachusetts, when you're a Supreme Court Justice and a reporter is nagging you on a Sunday while you're at church, it could mean any of those things. Or possibly something else, but why the need for nearly a full week of commentary and analysis from the Herald about Scalia's intent?
They might just want to look to Supreme Court precedent on this one. In Jacobellis v. Ohio, Justice Potter Stewart wrote about obscenity "I know it when I see it."
Enough said.
Comments? Email [email protected]
No-snitching mentality is harmful (Dan Abrams)
Yesterday in our segment about two young boys missing in Milwaukee, it became clear one of the reasons the police are having such a hard time cracking the case is a stigma associated with helping the authorities. It's reprehensible. Apparently across the country, a stop snitching campaign has gone mainstream from T-shirts to music to DVDs, with those who agree to help can quickly being pariahs in their communities. Hip-hop music stars like Busta Rhymes, Lil' Kim and Jamal Shyne Barrow are now considered more credible because they wouldn't “snitch.”
Some in the media don't help when they refer to those who do cooperate with authorities as rats or skunks or even snitches, particularly in mob cases. I guess they believe it would have been better to have allowed mob bosses like Al Capone and John Gotti to reign over their criminal enterprises rather than go to prison. And yet, some don't seem to get it. That is as long as the victims are not their own kids or parents or wife or husband.
Supporters of a Pennsylvania drug dealer wore T-shirts with a photo of the primary witness in the case imprinted with the slogan “stop snitching” underneath. A U.S. attorney told “USA Today” that one informant in a case had a $100,000 price on his head. A homicide case in Pittsburgh was thrown out after a key witness showed up in a stop snitching t-shirt.
It's hard to accept that this ridiculous no-snitching mentality might be the reason these little two boys haven't been found in Milwaukee. Just a few months ago, police there weren't able to figure out who had beaten a 50-year-old man almost to death because none of the witnesses would come forward. The mayor attributed it to the no-snitching movement. In a recent article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel called the no snitching T-shirts one of the hottest new fashion trends. An assistant district attorney told the paper the T-shirts were evidence of a trend that threatened to destabilize the whole criminal justice system. I don't want to hear people complaining about the police or their relationship with the community, not now. You can have that discussion after these two innocent little boys are found.
Comments? Email [email protected]
|
John Kerry's hotel preferences (Dan Abrams)
Last week I poked some fun at a list of Vice President Cheney’s requirements for when he stays at a hotel. Now the Smoking Gun’s website has uncovered former presidential candidate John Kerry’s “preferences” for when he’s on the road. Their advance teams’ respective letters to hotels may reflect the differences in the men. Kerry’s were suggestions. You never do know which way he’s going to go. Cheney’s? Requirements. Kerry staffers said thank you for doing such a great job, a bit more touchy-feely than the V.P.’s letter.
But it turns out Senator Kerry’s list of preferred road grub is much longer than Vice President Cheney’s. While Cheney demanded diet Sprite, a 68-degree room, all TV’s tuned to FOX News, and a private bathroom; Kerry, on the other hand, needs an exercise bike in his hotel room and not one of those “old stationary bikes.” The ranking member of the Senate’s Small Business Committee needs a recumbent bike. And make sure to stock the cup holder with plenty of bottled water and vanilla and strawberry flavored Boost shakes. Water and Boost shakes must be “every place that J.K. is” and make sure it’s Poland Spring. No Evian for “J.K.” as Kerry is referred to in the memo.
And J.K. must be able to use the phone and watch movies as soon as he gets to the room. These things “make J.K. very happy.” Watch movies? Maybe that’s why he lost the election. What was he doing watching Movies On Demand at the hotels?
The best part? Who knew the husband of Teresa Heinz Kerry of the Heinz Ketchup empire refuses to eat any “tomato-based products or sandwiches?” While the hotel staff is picking tomatoes out of the Cobb salad and holding the ketchup, it’s apparently worse if Teresa joins him. She won’t drink bottled water unless it’s been reverse-osmosis filtered. I don’t even know what that means. And she won’t stay in a room that has “blowing heat” and doesn’t have good air circulation. And don’t think about making her a good old-fashioned peanut butter and jelly sandwich. No, no, the aspiring first lady only eats flax bread with peanut power butter, apparently so difficult to find that her staff had to carry it around with them.
So, after reading both lists, Vice President Cheney suddenly sounds like a pretty good guy to shack up with.
Comments? Email [email protected]
Where is the outrage? (Dan Abrams)
Where is the outrage over 46 members of the Duke University Lacrosse team being asked to provide DNA samples to the local police? All but one player provided samples after a dancer, hired by certain members of the team for a party, claimed she was sexually assaulted, sodomized, and beaten in the bathroom. Why did only 46 of the 47 players offer up samples? Because one wasn’t asked. The alleged victim told police she was positive the suspect or suspects were white, so the sole black member of the team was exempt. That makes perfect sense to me.
The alleged perpetrator was definitely white, why bother asking for DNA from someone who wasn’t responsible? When police put together a lineup and the suspect is a white man, white men are included in the lineup. It’s a race-based decision, but in my mind not simply profiling. But that’s not how some civil liberties groups have seen it when black men have been asked voluntarily for samples.
In Omaha, Nebraska, efforts to find a serial rapist where the victims claimed he was black met with public outrage when police asked nearly two dozen black men to give DNA. In Charlottesville, Virginia, efforts to find a different serial rapist led police to swab the cheeks of 187 black men. In those cases, the American Civil Liberties Union called the DNA sweep racial profiling. Where is the same ACLU that decried profiling when random men in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, were asked for DNA in connection with the murder of former fashion writer Christa Worthington?
Look, sometimes the police are wrong.
Back in 2002 in Baton Rouge, they took DNA swabs from over 1,000 white men, believing a serial killer stalking the area was white. When the suspect was finally arrested, he was black.
But I fear the outrage here is muted because the alleged victim is black, the alleged perpetrators white. When we contacted the North Carolina Chapter of the ACLU earlier they claim today was the first time they had heard of this story. This even though the story about the DNA has been plastered all over North Carolina papers for almost a week.
My alma mater Duke University has condemned the actions of the young men that night, but say the facts surrounding the alleged assault remain in dispute. But I think it’s hard to dispute that certain cases provide better fodder for civil liberties groups. Or maybe they’re just realizing that these dragnets actually make sense.
Comments? Email [email protected]
It's time for baseball great Barry Bonds to stop playing the game-the legal game that is. He's challenging the publication of the book “Game of Shadows,” which details Bonds' alleged use of steroids and performance-enhancing drugs. Now Bonds is not challenging the truthfulness of the allegations made by the book's authors instead he has consistently refused to address whether the rumors and evidence of his steroid use are true. Bonds and his attorneys are trying a little legal curve ball, trying to prevent the book's authors from making money.
I can understand why they don't like the book. After all, in front of a grand jury, Bonds denied knowingly taking steroids. He suggested that maybe something he took was something other than what it seemed to be, effectively the “they might have slipped me a mickey” defense. The authors cite other evidence that Bonds used steroids, human growth hormone, insulin, and other banned substances for at least five seasons beginning in 1998. His lawyers argue that because the authors of the book base some of their reporting on what are supposed to be secret grand jury transcripts, they shouldn't be able to make any money off the book.
Well we just learned that their initial efforts struck out in court. So he apparently knows he's got no case, challenging the substance of the book or I'm sure he would have filed it, and he apparently knows he has no case asking the books be pulled off the shelves. Rather he's trying to appear noble by asking that all profits from the book be forfeited by the authors and given to a children's charity.
He makes many, many millions in part due to his use of illegal steroids, at least according to the book, and he wants to prevent these authors from making any money, not for lying about him, not for defaming him, not for stealing anything, but for exposing what they say are his lies. No question in my mind he will ultimately lose this case and might even have to pay the other side's attorney fees. So rather than searching for legal technicalities, Bonds might want to just come clean. Did he use the illegal steroids or not? If he did, maybe he could compensate all his fans by donating one year's salary to that same children's charity that he cares so much about.
Comments? Email [email protected]
|
Cheney's suite specifics (Dan Abrams)
I’m here in Chicago. When I travel, if I have to get up early, I want a hotel close to the airport, preferably a nice one. I need to know where I'm going when I get there and hopefully, get a ride.
When I hear about people who make specific demands--what has to be in a hotel room--I think pampered rock stars who only eat a particular color M&M or certain divas who require a particular type of flower in their suite.
But Vice President Cheney? The web site “requires for his downtime. It lists what must be in his hotel rooms when he is on the road, everything from the type of bed to the brand of soda.
The lights must be turned on and the room must be at 68 degrees. OK, fair enough. I wonder if someone comes in and looks at the thermostat to check and then goes down and complains to the manager, “We said 68 degrees!”
Then he wants brewed decaf coffee and just so he does not succumb to his innate desire to watch the program about justice, all the televisions must be tuned to the home team: Fox News. Horrors to think he might encounter other networks while flipping the channels himself on his way over. Can't have that.
For some of the demands, it’s a bit surprising they even had to ask. A private bathroom? Can you imagine? Welcome Vice-President Cheney, we have you in a lovely room today. You will be sharing a bathroom with Steve Robbins in 202 and a lovely couple in 203. Please have the secret service wait outside. .
And they add: “If the hotel would like to put a gift in the suite let the advance office know.” Might want to let the IRS know as well.
It’s got me thinking. I should make some demands of my own. . From now on whenever I travel, I want a bottle of wine waiting--not just any wine, but fine wine. I want the TV tuned to MSNBC. I want extra pillows and one of those really soft beds. And if those things are not there, well then I guess I will just take a private bathroom.
Comments? Email [email protected]
What happened to all the people who claim to be defenders of the victim? It seems, in the case of the teacher who had sex with her fourteen-year-old student, “they”--including a judge involved in the case--have decided that this victim comes second to the system.
I understand the anger over the fact that Debra LaFave will not face any jail time, only three years of house arrest. I was the first one out there criticizing her yesterday when she spoke out for the first time. But let’s not forget that the victim did not want to testify. And his mother and he are apparently satisfied with the outcome of the case. So leave them alone!
The judge and some pundits suggest the boy should have been subpoenaed and forced to testify. To what end? To make more of a spectacle out of the case? To put the boy through more pain? To those who say, well, that happens in many sex assault cases and it’s crucial the case be brought to trial, I say that’s generally true, but not here.
There is no comparison between this case and a forcible rape or even a case where a woman is severely battered by her husband, after which the victim fears testifying. I disagree with those who suggest the boy will look back on this with some sort of macho pride and I believe it will likely be damaging to him in the long run. But it would be far more damaging to force him to testify. And let’s not forget she is being punished--house arrest is a type of confinement, though not a particularly tough type.
As I have said before, I also believe that it’s more important as a society to send a message to male sexual predators than females. There are just far more of them out there. Call it a double standard, I'll call it doing what the system does every day--making choices about the message to send. This was not a sentence that “shocked the conscience,” as the judge claimed.
I would not have shed a single tear if Debra LaFave had served time. But to suggest this boy should have been forced to help in that effort is in the words of his mother, a revictimization of her son. She said, "I couldn't protect him when the time came from what she did to him, but I can protect him now."
Comments? Email [email protected]
There is a landmark legal battle of constitutional proportions being fought down in Mississippi. It involves fundamental rights protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, not to mention the rights of certain small business owners to satisfy their customers. This week, another court refused to recognize Mississippians’ right to find companionship for 29.99 and so a law outlawing the sale of sex toys will stand.
“A person commits the offense of distributing unlawful sexual devices when he knowingly sells, advertises, publishes or exhibits to any person any three-dimensional device designed or marketed as useful primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs or offers to do so or possesses such devices with the intent to do so.”
Well, I am glad to see that the local legislators are focusing on the most pressing issues of the day. I’ve long believed that a three-dimensional, possibly battery-operated device is far more menacing than a handgun. In Mississippi, people can buy guns at a gun show with no background check and certain weapons can be carried almost anywhere. Sure, guns and toys can bring joy and a sense of comfort to the user, but apparently the legislators concluded that a genital replica is a far greater threat to society.
This, from a state that levies only an 18-cent tax on cigarettes, 55 cents below the national average and where 62 percent of residents are overweight, making it the fattest state in the country. Yet still the public schools don’t make gym class compulsory. Mississippi’s laws would make you believe sex is the single greatest threat to public safety and well-being. After all, it’s illegal in Mississippi to have sex with someone you’re not married to or to live with someone other than your spouse.
Both can result in a $500 fine and six months in jail. And men are not permitted to be aroused in public. But at least good people are protected from the disfigurement that could result from an accidental electrical overload from a defective toy.
Georgia and Texas have passed similar bans and courts have repeatedly ruled the legislators have the power to do it. I guess the Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about the right to bear a stimulation device.
But the sex activists are not closing up shop in the South Pole just yet. They formed a lobbying group based in Florida called the National Alliance of Adult Trade Organizations or NAATO. Not, of course, to be confused with the other NATO, which is based in Brussels.
I don’t mean to pick on Mississippi. I love the state and the people, but I just don’t get why the legislators are fighting so hard for this law. We’re talking about adults here. It’s not that I really care about ensuring that these toys are ready accessible. Really. It’s just that you have to wonder, is one of these toys really a greater threat to the community than what real live people do to each other every day?
Comments? Email [email protected]
You may want to think twice before going to sleep.
Not really, but that’s how I feel reading recent news reports that sleeping can be hazardous to our health and to those around us. Recent studies indicate the popular prescription sleeping pill Ambien, prescribed to 26.5 million people last year, is leading some to “sleep eat” or “sleep drive.” A scientific paper is being prepared that cites patients who take Ambien suffering from sleep munchies, raiding the fridge while still asleep, and then not remembering it later. And some state toxicology laboratories count Ambien among the top 10 drugs found in impaired drivers, some saying they don‘t remember going out for a drive after taking an Ambien pill.
You have to wonder whether in certain cases it‘s just ,oh honey, I know I‘m not supposed to be eating little Janie‘s cupcakes, but I don‘t remember doing it or officer, I have no idea why I ran into that tree. I just—I don‘t remember it. I‘m not saying it‘s not true, but I certainly want to read those scientific papers closely.
And even those who don‘t take Ambien could be in danger in their beds tonight. “Details” magazine reporting in its new issue on sexsomnia, i.e., “sexual behavior driven by abnormal arousal during deep sleep.”
Abnormal arousal? Again, I am dubious, particularly when you read this from the article. “It is thought to be rooted in genetics, but controllable factors like sleep deprivation, stress, drug or alcohol use can also play a role.” I think in non-medical terms, that is also known as beer goggles, but I guess some will be relieved to hear there is a scientific explanation for sleeping during sexual activity.
Look, sometimes this is all too serious. Some men have been using it as a legal defense saying they don‘t remember sexually assaulting women--the “sexsomnia defense.” While it‘s worked on occasion, many still look at it the way I do--skeptically. There is a lot we still have to learn about sleep and the effects it may have before the “I was sleeping when I did it” defense becomes reliable.
Comments? Email [email protected]
Slam-dunk for U.S. Supreme Court (Dan Abrams)
A slam-dunk for the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices ruled unanimously that universities, in particular, certain elite law schools, must welcome military recruiters onto their campuses if they want federal funds. The military must be treated like other recruiters—which, by the way, always seemed like a no-brainer to me. The universities filed suit to keep the military out claiming the don‘t ask, don‘t tell policy with regard to homosexuals is discriminatory.
The suit argued that higher education institutions should not be forced to associate with military recruiters or promote their campus appearances. Chief Justice Roberts writing for the court said: “A military recruiter‘s mere presence on campus does not violate a law school‘s right to associate, regardless of how repugnant the law school considers the recruiter‘s message.” As I‘ve said before, the don‘t ask, don‘t tell policy doesn‘t make any sense to me. But why shouldn‘t the government be allowed to say no to funding for schools that exclude them from campus?
Somehow, the lower court ruled the school should be able to make a statement and pronounce it doesn’t want to associate with organizations that discriminate. So the solution is to prevent recruiters from speaking on campus? It‘s not just any organization. It‘s the federal government--whose money they want and need. I love the irony.
The solution to the school‘s First Amendment problem is to prevent students from hearing what the military has to say. The recruiters want a room, not a soapbox. Anyone can protest outside. The military just wants to be treated like every other employer. And a federal law says they should get it. I‘ve never understood why this is even a close case and was stunned the lower court ruled for the universities. I‘m glad to see the court unanimously knock some legal sense into some of the country’s greatest law schools.
Comments? Email [email protected]
Don't blame the victim (Dan Abrams)
Many people have been writing in effectively blaming Imette St. Guillen for her own murder. Imette was out drinking until 4:00 a.m. in New York City about a week ago. She was abducted and killed and so it seems many believe that she has no one to blame but herself for being brutally raped and killed. I just read a number of e-mails to that effect.
As I said last night, I just will not let it go unanswered. I was stunned how many people wrote in saying I'm not blaming the victim, but what was she doing out that late or I'm not blaming the victim, but why is a single woman out drinking so much? Well I hate to break the news to you but you are blaming the victim. You're only asking the question to suggest she could have, maybe should have prevented her own murder.
That's despicable. There's only one person to blame and that is the brutal killer. If you want to use this case to provide a morality lesson in your own home, fine, tell your kids what can happen to them if they're not careful, great. But to suggest that this lovely young woman somehow brought this on herself is unacceptable. Was it the smartest decision to let her friend go home without her? No.
In retrospect, should she gone on to a second bar alone? No. But should she or anyone else have expected that she might likely be raped, mutilated and suffocated, her head wrapped in duct tape, her naked body dumped on the side of the highway if she did? Absolutely not.
Thousands of women do it every day in this country, many of them in New York, and it does not get them killed. I'm sure some of you believe that young women should never be drinking at bars late at night no matter you know where they are.
Others probably think young women shouldn't be drinking at all. Fine. You're welcome to those opinions. But it's just downright insulting to this family for you to provide a morality lecture on how Imette could have saved her own life. Blaming the victim, particularly female victims, has become an all too common practice in this country and I for one don't intend to sit on the sidelines and watch it happen to Imette or to anyone else.
Now you can all feel free to write me back and complain again about my comments here, but I'm going to continue to defend Imette on this program as long as we cover this story and until the killer is found. Because that's the only person to blame.
Comments? Email [email protected]
