The ACLU Freedom Files is a collection of ten 1/2 hour episodes covering many subjects that the organization handles. It provides various stories, lessons and dramatic portrayals to do this in a creative way. For instance, we meet Lindsay Earls, who lost a lawsuit against mandatory drug testing for involvement in after-school activities. [Justice Breyer's concurrence suggests the troubling nature of his pragmatism, if left too unbounded.] Also, the mother who lost three children in a horrible domestic violence incident, but in an arguably "activist" (overruling a lower court to provide a "better" understanding of state law) ruling, lost a chance to sue for damages.
The case heading alone suggests what is at stake, Jessica Gonzales (now Lenahan) serving as "best friend of her deceased minor children." Deceased as in "murdered by a father who then committed suicide by cop." Legal minds can determine if the 10th Circuit of Appeals and Stevens' dissent here were wrong. But, it is notable that what was at stake was a chance to make a claim. There is no guarantee she would win. In fact, when the matter went in front of an international body, the U.S. argued there is evidence that suggests she would lose her case.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held that it had jurisdiction to examine the claim, but I could not find (though one citation noted a ruling was due earlier this year) any decision on the merits.* Since the U.S. never signed a treaty that would give any bite (see penultimate link), the ruling would at best provide "declaratory relief, attention to an issue, and international shaming." Some audio here reminds us also that the treaty involved isn't generally involved with the imperfections of domestic violence enforcement. Still, the lack of seriousness given to restraining orders does result in tragedy, if thankfully rarely this horrible. And, if her case is weak on the merits, why not grant -- surely given the breadth of the injury -- a hearing to her?
I know -- suits against states will not just arise in cases involving such gigantic injuries and/or when the liability of the government is clear and convincing. I still find the case troubling and Stevens' dissent convincing. A libertarian institution also shows this is not merely a "liberal" sentiment. The value of a hearing was addressed in a story, the details of which escape me. The idea was that a farmer or some such person accepted a loss in a lawsuit -- he felt he had a chance to be heard, fairly so. This inability to be heard, a gateway to justice, repeatedly was an issue in matters that came up to the Supreme Court of late.
Anyways, though at times I wanted to know more about the stories told, the series was well done. And, see here for an interesting discussion (using a cute animation software also used for some amusing videos) on privacy and Facebook.
---
* As one account noted:
The case heading alone suggests what is at stake, Jessica Gonzales (now Lenahan) serving as "best friend of her deceased minor children." Deceased as in "murdered by a father who then committed suicide by cop." Legal minds can determine if the 10th Circuit of Appeals and Stevens' dissent here were wrong. But, it is notable that what was at stake was a chance to make a claim. There is no guarantee she would win. In fact, when the matter went in front of an international body, the U.S. argued there is evidence that suggests she would lose her case.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights held that it had jurisdiction to examine the claim, but I could not find (though one citation noted a ruling was due earlier this year) any decision on the merits.* Since the U.S. never signed a treaty that would give any bite (see penultimate link), the ruling would at best provide "declaratory relief, attention to an issue, and international shaming." Some audio here reminds us also that the treaty involved isn't generally involved with the imperfections of domestic violence enforcement. Still, the lack of seriousness given to restraining orders does result in tragedy, if thankfully rarely this horrible. And, if her case is weak on the merits, why not grant -- surely given the breadth of the injury -- a hearing to her?
I know -- suits against states will not just arise in cases involving such gigantic injuries and/or when the liability of the government is clear and convincing. I still find the case troubling and Stevens' dissent convincing. A libertarian institution also shows this is not merely a "liberal" sentiment. The value of a hearing was addressed in a story, the details of which escape me. The idea was that a farmer or some such person accepted a loss in a lawsuit -- he felt he had a chance to be heard, fairly so. This inability to be heard, a gateway to justice, repeatedly was an issue in matters that came up to the Supreme Court of late.
Anyways, though at times I wanted to know more about the stories told, the series was well done. And, see here for an interesting discussion (using a cute animation software also used for some amusing videos) on privacy and Facebook.
---
* As one account noted:
The admissibility phase of this case was the first of a two phase process. In the second phase, the merits phase, the Commission decided whether the U.S and the State of Colorado violated the human rights of Jessica Gonzales and her children, specifically the rights to life, nondiscrimination, family life/unity, due process, petition the government, and the rights of domestic violence victims and their children to special protections. The merits brief was filed on March 24, 2008.She is a pioneer in using the commission to address domestic violence.