Tag: california supreme court
The House That Scalia Built

The House That Scalia Built

WASHINGTON — Two waves broke this week: a pair of deaths on our national shore that changed everything. They are inseparable in the annals of our time. Goodbye to all that a Supreme Court Justice wrought, and the House of Bush brought.

If only it were that simple.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is dead at 79, the Dickensian, most opinionated character on the bench. Friends — many of whom knew him as an operagoer, a city denizen, and an avid socializer — called the father of nine children Nino. His burial is Saturday.

The “master of invective,” as one put it, Scalia was considered brilliant, and was often callous in withering dissents on, for example, gay marriage. Taking a dim view of President Obama’s lead in the delicate Paris Agreement on climate change, his last vote was to immobilize the emissions standards. How nice of five Republican men to disrespect the Democratic president in the world’s eyes. As it happens, the Folger Shakespeare Library is staging “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” — fitting, considering Titania’s haunting lines that warn of global warming.

Nobody on the creamy marble Court was more polarizing since the Civil War. The unabashed carrier of the conservative cross, Scalia seldom let up on his pounding force and lashings, even in victory.

On “60 Minutes,” Scalia scolded half the American people, saying: “Get over it!” He referred to the infamous 2000 Supreme Court decision that swung the presidency from Al Gore to George W. Bush by one vote. He had a chance to be civil; he didn’t take it.

Meanwhile, the Bush dynasty hangs onto its last breath with Jeb Bush’s floundering presidential campaign. His brother, former President George W. Bush, left Texas to campaign, but the magic was missing. The 43rd president looked aged. Jeb has a penchant for saying their father, Bush senior, is the “greatest man alive,” or some such.

Here’s the double knell: The House of Bush is the House that Scalia built. At least, he was an architect. Now a tragic link ties those names together.

Their historical cadence will join other follies. “Sophocles long ago/Heard it on the Aegean,” English poet Matthew Arnold wrote in “Dover Beach.” Now I know what Arnold meant when he saw an elegiac sadness in ages and armies.

All we need to do is go back to 2000 — when our known world ended — when five Republican Supreme Court justices gave new meaning to “one man, one vote.” The deciding votes were out of the citizens’ hands; nine officials voted 5-to-4 — freezing a close vote count in Florida to determine the true winner. They shut democracy down.

That rude decision changed the course of the 21st century. George W. Bush swerved into war in Iraq, giving rise to ISIS today. Remind me: What were we fighting for? Following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, were the pretext to war, when 19 men (15 Saudis) were hijackers in a clever plot. The unprepared U.S. Army and the American viceroy, Paul Bremer, destroyed civil society in Iraq. What a mess.

The Court outrage for the ages must not be forgot in Scalia’s dramatic death, political to the end. The decision is full of rich contradictions. Scalia, who often mocked “nine unelected lawyers” in democracy, sprang into action by stopping vote counting in Florida. The governor of Florida then was Jeb Bush. In unseemly partisanship, Scalia departed from his so-called “originalist doctrine” to strongly urge the Court to stop counting. He also abandoned his emphasis on states having a say in governance by shortchanging the Florida Supreme Court. Hs loyal colleague, Clarence Thomas, followed him every step — Thomas who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1991.

Justice Scalia died on a West Texas luxury ranch during a hunting trip. His death was apt, given his pugilistic style in upholding gun rights and every conservative cause in creation. Washington can’t get over that he’s gone, friends and foes alike. The senior sitting justice loomed large as the fiercest player, in every word he spoke and wrote. The vacancy gives President Obama one more try to work his will on a hostile Senate.

It will take time for the country to heal from the bitter beginning of the 21st century that Scalia and the Bush dynasty gave us. And for the record, I will never get over it.

To find out more about Jamie Stiehm and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit Creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM

Photo: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia speaks at an event sponsored by the Federalist Society at the New York Athletic Club in New York October 13, 2014. REUTERS/Darren Ornitz 

Justice Marvin Baxter Of California Supreme Court To Retire

Justice Marvin Baxter Of California Supreme Court To Retire

By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times

SAN FRANCISCO — Supreme Court Justice Marvin R. Baxter announced Wednesday that he will retire at the end of his current term in January, opening the way for a more liberal majority on the state’s highest court.

Baxter’s departure will give Gov. Jerry Brown, if re-elected, three seats on the seven-member court, which for decades has had only one Democrat.

Brown appointed Justice Goodwin Liu earlier this term and has yet to fill a vacancy created by the departure of Justice Joyce L. Kennard in April.

Brown’s appointees, along with Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, a moderate Republican appointee, could form a new majority in contentious cases.

“This is a game changer,” said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald F. Uelmen, an expert on the court. “I think it is going to have a significant impact.”

The court now has no Latinos or African-Americans, and Brown could change that all at once.

Baxter, 74, a native of Fresno County, is considered the most conservative member of the court. He has long been counted as a reliable vote for prosecutors and business, but he is not viewed as an activist. His rulings tend to be limited to the issues at hand, and he does not reach out to broaden their scope. He also is regarded as a procedural stickler who relies on the plain meaning of the laws.

Known within the court as a consummate gentleman, Baxter has worked respectfully with colleagues of differing views and has not allowed disagreements to become personal.

“He was the anchor of the conservative wing, very consistent, very predictable, and he was a workhorse,” Uelmen said. “He consistently led the court in the production of majority opinions, and his opinions were quite well-crafted.”

In an interview, Baxter said he wanted “to open a new chapter” and fill it with family, travel and hobbies, which includes restoring antique cars.

“We have four grandchildren, ages 17, 16, 15, and 14, a senior, a junior, a sophomore and a freshman in high school,” Baxter said. “We certainly want to keep in close contact with them. I have offered to be a chaperon, but no takers yet.”

Baxter grew up on his family’s farm in Fowler, Calif., and began his legal career in 1967 with a two-year stint as a Fresno County prosecutor. He practiced civil law for 13 years before then-Gov. George Deukmejian made him his appointments secretary in 1983.

Deukmejian appointed Baxter to the state Court of Appeal in 1988 and elevated him two years later to the Supreme Court.

Baxter declined to discuss his favorite rulings — “I have really never kept a hit parade of opinions” — or rulings he now wishes he had written differently.

He opposed legalizing same-sex marriage in 2008, and joined five of his colleagues the following year in voting to uphold Proposition 8, the ballot measure that reinstated the marriage ban.

The U.S. Supreme Court has twice rejected Baxter rulings, Uelmen said. In 2006, Baxter wrote a 4-3 decision in People vs. Brendlin, which denied a passenger in a car stopped by police the right to challenge the detention as a violation of search and seizure. The high court later overturned the ruling, concluding the passenger could challenge the stop.

In People vs. Frazer, a 1999 decision that split the court 4-3, Baxter wrote that prosecutors could bring charges for child sexual abuse under an extended statute of limitations enacted after the expiration of the original deadline. The U.S. Supreme Court later repudiated that holding.

Among his best rulings, in Uelmen’s view, was last year’s City of Riverside vs. Inland Empire, which held that the state’s medical marijuana law does not prevent local governments from regulating cannabis dispensaries within their boundaries.

“It was so clear,” Uelmen said. “It didn’t leave any ambiguity, and I think he was right on the law.”

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said she would miss Baxter’s “sage advice” on the court and on the Judicial Council, which sets policy for the statewide court system.

Among the contenders mentioned by judges as possible successors to Kennard and Baxter are Thomas Saenz, the Los Angeles-based president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; Stanford University law professor Mariano-Florentino Cuellar; Jeffrey W. Johnson, an African-American state appeals court justice; and U.S. District Judges Edward J. Davila and Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, both Obama appointees.

Other candidates Brown may be eyeing include: Justice Miguel Marquez, a former county counsel Brown appointed to the state appeals court; Elena Duarte, an appeals court justice; Rachel Moran, dean of UCLA School of Law; Kevin Johnson, dean of UC Davis School of Law; and Court of Appeal Justices Martin Jenkins, Maria P. Rivera and Dennis M. Perluss.

If Brown appoints Baxter’s successor before Sept. 15, the nominee would go before voters in November for confirmation to a 12-year term.

Photo via WikiCommons

Interested in political news? Sign up for our daily newsletter!

Key Teacher Job Protections Violate California’s Constitution, Judge Rules

Key Teacher Job Protections Violate California’s Constitution, Judge Rules

By Howard Blume, Los Angeles Times

LOS ANGELES — A Los Angeles Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday that key job protections for teachers in California are unconstitutional, in a major loss for unions.

The verdict represents a complete victory by attorneys who argued that state laws governing teacher layoffs, tenure and dismissals harm students by making them more likely to suffer from grossly ineffective instruction.

If the preliminary ruling becomes final and is upheld, the effect will be sweeping across California and possibly the nation.

“The law was on our side and the evidence was overwhelming,” said Marcellus McRae, an attorney for the plaintiffs. “Whatever happens, we can’t go backward. The time of defending the status quo and business as usual — those days are over. We have to re-create a system that focuses on placing children’s interests at the forefront.”

Judge Rolf M. Treu ruled, in effect, that it was too easy for teachers to gain strong job protections and too difficult to dismiss those who performed poorly in the classroom. If the ruling stands, California will have to craft new rules for hiring and firing teachers.

During a two-month trial in the case, Vergara vs. California, both sides asserted that the interests of students were at stake.

The Silicon Valley-based group Students Matter brought the lawsuit on behalf of nine students, contending that five laws hindered the removal of ineffective teachers.

The result, attorneys for the plaintiffs said, is a workforce with thousands of “grossly ineffective” teachers, disproportionately hurting low-income and minority students. As a result, the suit argued, the laws violated California’s constitution, which provides for equal educational opportunity.

The laws were defended by the state of California and the two largest teacher unions — the California Teachers Association and the California Federation of Teachers. Their attorneys countered that it is not the laws but poor management that is to blame for districts’ failing to root out incompetent instructors.
Job protections benefit students by helping districts recruit and retain teachers, the state and the unions contended.

“This decision today is an attack on teachers, which is a socially acceptable way to attack children,” said Alex Caputo-Pearl, the president-elect of the Los Angeles teachers union. Instead of providing for smaller classes or more counselors, “you attack teacher and student rights.”

Seniority and due process are part of the democratic process, he added. Limiting teacher job protections won’t improve accountability, he said, because that must be accomplished by administrators doing their jobs at schools.

Both sides made their arguments inside and outside of court, fully expecting the case to reach the state Supreme Court.

The effort embodied a “broader communication goal,” said Felix Schein, a spokesman for the group that brought the case. “Our hope is that the trial sets a moral imperative for legislators or other policymakers,” Schein said.

Much of the case was a tutorial on school reform and competing theories of what works best to help students.

The evidence clearly showed that, in some cases, the teacher dismissal process can be long and expensive — and that teachers have more protections against wrongful termination than other state employees.

The plaintiffs’ side argued that the current situation was bad for students, forcing them to endure poor teachers and the state to squander educational resources trying to fire them.

The other side asserted that the rules resulted in fair outcomes for teachers, which helps students in the long run.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

California’s High Court Gives Judges More Leeway In Sentencing Juveniles

California’s High Court Gives Judges More Leeway In Sentencing Juveniles

By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times

SAN FRANCISCO — The California Supreme Court decided Monday that teenagers may be sentenced to life without parole for some crimes, but judges also are free to hand down lighter sentences of 25 years to life.

Prior to the unanimous ruling, California law had been interpreted as requiring judges to lean toward life without parole for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds convicted of certain offenses. The decision overturned decades of lower-court rulings.

The court’s action gave two men who were 17 at the time they killed the opportunity to have their sentences reconsidered by trial judges.

The court said the sentences should be reviewed because they were handed down before the court clarified state law and before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that judges must consider a juvenile’s immaturity and capacity for change.

The ruling, written by Justice Goodwin Liu, stemmed from appeals in two separate cases.

In one, Andrew Lawrence Moffett robbed a store and his accomplice killed a police officer in Pittsburg, Calif Moffett was convicted of murder, robbery and driving a stolen vehicle.

Because the victim was a police officer and Moffett used a gun during the crime, he was subject to life without parole.

In the other case, Luis Angel Gutierrez killed his uncle’s wife while living with the family in Simi Valley. He received life without parole because the jury determined he had murdered Josefina Gutierrez while also raping or to attempting to rape her.

“Because Moffett and Gutierrez have been convicted of special circumstance murder, each will receive a life sentence,” wrote Justice Goodwin Liu for the court. “The question is whether each can be deemed, at the time of sentencing, to be irreparably corrupt, beyond redemption, and thus unfit ever to re-enter society.”

Some juvenile offenders became subject to life without parole when voters passed Proposition 115, the 1990 “Crime Victims Justice Reform Act.”

State appeals’ courts ruled that the law required judges to favor imposing life without parole over a life sentence that allowed for release after 25 years.

For two decades, those rulings stood.

But Monday’s decision said the lower courts had erred in the interpretation of the law.

“Proposition 115 was intended to toughen penalties for juveniles convicted of first-degree murder by making them eligible for life without parole upon a finding of one or more special circumstances,” Liu wrote.

But he said neither the wording of the ballot measure nor any of the official analyses resolved whether “the initiative was intended to make life without parole the presumptive sentence.” The court concluded it was not.

Four justices wrote separately to stress that California judges may still sentence older juveniles to life without parole, despite the 2012 Supreme Court ruling. In that ruling, which involved 14-year-olds, the high court said it expected life without parole to become uncommon for juveniles.

Photo: Steakpinball via Flickr