|
|
|
Chile OK's extradition bid for ex-US Navy officer
Court Watch |
2012/10/24 16:49
|
Chile's Supreme Court has approved an extradition request for a former U.S. military officer wanted in the 1973 killings of two Americans, including one whose disappearance was the focus of the movie "Missing," a lawyer said Wednesday.
Former U.S. Navy Capt. Ray E. Davis was charged last year in the deaths of journalist Charles Horman and student Frank Teruggi, who were killed during the 1973-1990 dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet.
Attorney Sergio Corvalan, who represents Horman's widow, told The Associated Press that the Supreme Court approved by a 4-1 vote a request by judge Jorge Zepeda to seek Davis' extradition to face trial in Chile.
A court official, who agreed to discuss the case only if not quoted by name, said the vote would be formally announced Thursday.
After Davis was charged a year ago, the AP contacted his wife, Patricia Davis, at her home in Niceville, Florida. She said her husband previously denied any involvement in killings. She said he no longer talked because of Alzheimer's disease and was in a nursing home that she declined to identify. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Minn. Supreme Court to hear suicides case appeal
Law Center |
2012/10/22 13:42
|
The Minnesota Supreme Court has agreed to hear the appeal of a former
nurse convicted of searching out suicidal people in online chat rooms
and encouraging them to commit suicide.
William Melchert-Dinkel of Faribault was convicted in 2011 on two
counts of aiding suicide. The Minnesota Court of Appeals in July
rejected his argument that he was merely practicing free speech.
In an order Tuesday, the state Supreme Court agreed to review the
case. A date for oral arguments has not been set.
Melchert-Dinkel was convicted in the deaths of 32-year-old Mark
Drybrough, of Coventry, England, and 18-year-old Nadia Kajouji, of
Brampton, Ontario, in 2008.
Melchert-Dinkel faces about a year in jail unless his conviction is
overturned. He remains free pending appeal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Supreme Court views not 'liberal or conservative'
Headline News |
2012/10/19 13:42
|
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Wednesday that
people shouldn't think the high court's justices make decisions in
terms of a liberal or conservative agenda.
Roberts told a crowd of nearly 4,800 people at Rice University in
Houston that many of the court's close votes have had nothing to do
with politics.
"We look at these cases and resolve them ... not in terms of a
particular liberal or conservative agenda," he said. "It's just easier
for reporters to say that justice is liberal and that justice is
conservative."
From reading some of the court's opinions, Roberts added, people may
think that justices are "at each other's throats." But he said all the
justices are "extremely close."
Roberts, taking a break from the high court's current term in
Washington, talked in general about his work leading the nation's
highest court. But he didn't discuss some of the court's more recent
high-profile cases — including voting to uphold much of President
Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, made headlines
when he voted with the liberal justices in that 5-4 landmark decision.
After that ruling, Roberts became the focus of criticism from some of
the nation's leading conservatives while liberals applauded his
statesmanship. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feds seek full court review of cigarette warnings
Court Watch |
2012/10/12 10:40
|
The U.S. government is asking a federal appeals court to rehear a challenge to a Food and Drug Administration requirement that tobacco companies to put large graphic health warnings on cigarette packages to show that smoking can disfigure and even kill people.
The Justice Department filed a petition Tuesday asking for the full court to rehear the case after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington affirmed in August a lower court ruling blocking the mandate, saying it ran afoul of the First Amendment's free speech protections. However, the court rarely grants such appeals.
Some of the nation's largest tobacco companies, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., sued to block the mandate to include warnings to show the dangers of smoking and encouraging smokers to quit lighting up. They argued that the proposed warnings went beyond factual information into anti-smoking advocacy. The government argued the photos of dead and diseased smokers are factual. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court looks at race in college admissions
Law Center |
2012/10/10 10:39
|
Nine years after the Supreme Court said colleges and universities can use race in their quest for diverse student bodies, the justices have put this divisive social issue back on their agenda in the middle of a presidential election campaign.
Nine years is a blink of the eye on a court where justices can look back two centuries for legal precedents. But with an ascendant conservative majority, the high court in arguments Wednesday will weigh whether to limit or even rule out taking race into account in college admissions.
The justices will be looking at the University of Texas program that is used to help fill the last quarter or so of its incoming freshman classes. Race is one of many factors considered by admissions officers. The rest of the roughly 7,100 freshman spots automatically go to Texans who graduated in the top 8 percent of their high school classes.
A white Texan, Abigail Fisher, sued the university after she was denied a spot in 2008.
The simplest explanation for why affirmative action is back on the court's calendar so soon after its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger is that the author of that opinion, Sandra Day O'Connor, has retired. Her successor, Justice Samuel Alito, has been highly skeptical of any use of racial preference.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, a dissenter in the 2003 decision, probably holds the deciding vote, and he, too, has never voted in favor of racial preference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court begins new term with human rights case
Court Watch |
2012/10/06 16:04
|
The Supreme Court opened its new term Monday with a high-stakes dispute between businesses and human rights groups over accountability for foreign atrocities.
The justices appeared ready to impose new limits on lawsuits brought in U.S. courts over human rights violations abroad.
The argument was the first in a term that holds the prospect for major rulings about affirmative action, gay marriage and voting rights.
Meeting on the first Monday in October, as required by law, the justices entered the crowded marble courtroom for the first time since their momentous decision in late June that upheld President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
The lineup of justices was the same as in June, but the bench had a slightly different look nonetheless. Justice Antonin Scalia was without the glasses he no longer needs following cataract surgery over the summer.
Chief Justice John Roberts formally opened the term and the court turned quickly to its first argument.
The dispute involves a lawsuit filed against Royal Dutch Petroleum over claims that the oil company was complicit in abuses committed by the Nigerian government against its citizens in the oil-rich Niger Delta. |
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
