SCOTUS Thoughts

The author (GM) of an upcoming book on Justice Robert Jackson's concurrence in Youngstown has been blogging about research for a new project involving the Bayh Subcommittee on constitutional matters. 

The first link talks about Justice Robert Jackson's concern about limiting executive power. The current Justice Jackson has also been quite vocal about that. Rightly so. She has also talked about it in interviews.

(There was a third Justice Jackson, but no one cares about him. Still, it's a good trivia question.) 

GM also cited something involving a college student's interview of five justices involved in Miranda v. Arizona. I was able to find it for free via the NYPL research database. 

Justice Harlan referenced justices being "umpires" on constitutional matters. The framers of the Constitution used the term as well, including about Congress. John Roberts didn't invent the term, though he did use it misleadingly as a matter of restraint. 

Justice Clark noted the Constitution as a "living document." At least one other justice said so during the Brown v. Board of Education oral argument.  This should be deemed obvious. 

Justices Black, Douglas, and Stewart also contributed. Justice White changed his mind about doing so. Justice Brennan turned down a request, noting he felt it improper. The student worked for someone in Congress, who helped smooth things along.  

Upcoming Execution

Michael Bernard Bell is scheduled to be executed by Florida next Tuesday. He murdered two people accidentally, thinking he was killing the person who took the life of his brother (officially in self-defense). 

(Since he killed two people, even if he was right, Bell would have murdered someone else in the process.)

Bell also fired into the crowd while running away. Plus, he was separately serving time for killing three people, including a toddler. So, yes, few people are going to be crying about his death.

His lawyers' latest bit is alleging testimony used to prosecute him was coerced and overall tainted. 

There is a final appeal pending at the Supreme Court on this issue. I will be shocked if it amounts to anything but a "brief" order merely stating the petition is denied. I will update when that happens.  

The primary problem (in my view) is that he was prosecuted thirty years ago. Breyer (see here) continues to be correct in flagging the problem was executing people after so much time. Ginsburg joined his dissent there, and Stevens talked about it separately. I wish another justice would flag the issue. Jackson is busy. What about Sotomayor?

Michael Bell is not reportedly causing trouble in prison (at least in the articles I saw). He should continue serving time for his heinous murders.