The Iranian woman whose sentence of stoning for adultery provoked an international outcry could be hanged instead. The head of the judiciary in East Azerbaijan has said the prison does not have the facilities to stone Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. So he is investigating whether it is legally and religiously permissible to hang her. Her sentence was originally postponed last year after international protests.

View original post here:
Iranian Woman Could Be Hanged

Several lawmakers expressed support Wednesday for a controversial bill aimed at curbing online piracy as lobbying over the issue reached a fever pitch. In a House Judiciary Committee hearing on a bill proposed by committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Tex.), a bipartisan group of lawmakers said new laws are needed to help media outlets, software makers and retailers fight the illegal distribution of movies, songs and software. Read full article > >

See the article here:
SOPA, controversial online piracy bill, gains support as lobbying intensifies

The White House on Monday ended the twisting-in-the wind nomination of Charles Bernard Day to be federal district judge for the District of Maryland. Day’s nomination hung around the Senate for ten months, but he never got a Judiciary Committee hearing. Meanwhile, the administration also named a few other nominees, including Rebecca Blank to the perch of Deputy Secretary at the Commerce Department (on the heels of the confirmation of new Commerce head John Bryson ). Blank was acting deputy. Read full article > >

Read more:
Obama judge withdrawn, a slate of nominees, plus some embassy shuffles (Revolving Door)

G.O.P. presidential candidates are issuing attacks on the federal courts, stoking skepticism among conservatives about the judiciary.

See the rest here:
Republicans Turn Judicial Power Into a Campaign Issue

Google dominates Internet searches, online advertising and now mobile devices. But one of the biggest threats to the tech juggernaut these days isn’t another competitor. It’s Washington. Enter Eric Schmidt, Google’s former chief executive and the man tasked Wednesday with reassuring lawmakers on the Senate Judiciary antitrust subcommittee that the search company is not illegally abusing its power, even as government antitrust officials have begun investigating the firm. Read full article > >

More:
Google faces antitrust glare on Capitol Hill

TEHRAN — Iran’s judiciary on Wednesday denied President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statements that two American men convicted of spying were being pardoned and would be released within two days. In a statement published in Farsi on their Web site, the judiciary, which constitutionally is independent from other powers in the Islamic Republic of Iran, denied that Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal would be released. Read full article > >

Follow this link:
Iran’s judiciary says U.S. hikers not being released

BAGRAM AIRFIELD, Afghanistan — The United States will remain in control of Afghanistan’s highest-profile prison well beyond January 2012, missing a key milestone in the plan to transfer judicial and detention operations to Afghans, U.S. military officials say. The transfer of the prison and its burgeoning population of detainees had been regarded as a critical marker of the war’s endgame — a sign that Afghan officials are ready to inherit institutions essential to the nation’s future. But U.S. officials decided that the Afghan legal system is still too weak to permit the hand-over of the Parwan Detention Center, even after the United States spent millions attempting to improve the country’s judiciary. The United States will now be unable to relinquish authority at Parwan until at least 2014, just as the last foreign troops are scheduled to leave Afghanistan. Read full article > >

Read more from the original source:
Afghan prison transfer delayed

British author Alan Shadrake, 76, loses his appeal against a six-week prison sentence imposed by Singapore for insulting the judiciary.

See the rest here:
Singapore rejects author appeal

As if our political system were not having enough trouble already, we now confront the possibility that a highly partisan judiciary will undo a modest health-care reform that is a first step toward resolving a slew of other difficulties. As you watch the suits against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act work their way through the courts , consider that what you are really seeing is a great republic tying itself into as many knots as possible to avoid facing up to a challenge that every other wealthy capitalist democracy in the world has met. Read full article > >

Original post:
Health-care lawsuits: Delaying the inevitable

Lawmakers pressed representatives from Apple and Google to explain their privacy policies Tuesday, questioning whether the companies’ practices ensure that mobile-phone users control their personal data. “I believe that consumers have a fundamental right to know what data is being collected about them,” Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) said at a hearing of the new Senate Judiciary subcommittee on privacy, technology and the law. “I also believe that they have a right to decide whether they want to share that information, and with whom they want to share it and when.” Read full article > >

See the rest here:
Apple, Google answer mobile privacy questions

United States Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, the junior justice, dove right into her first dissent Monday in a case involving the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. She was blunt, she was pointed, and she brought three of her senior colleagues along with her in full. It’s probably a little too early to make any predictions  but Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court’s legendary dissenter , may finally have some company in that rarefied air. The case was Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn  and it generated the sort of 5-4 ideological split we’ve seen so often from the Court in recent years. The Court’s conservative majority, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy,  ruled that taxpayers in Arizona had no legal standing to challenge a state law that gives tax credits for contributions to “school tuition organizations” which then provide scholarships to students attending private schools and (here is where the First Amendment comes in) religious schools as well. Justice Kennedy and his colleagues concluded that because the state created the incentive by offering a “tax credit,” as opposed to making a ”government expenditure,” there was no standing for taxpayers to complain about the hundreds of millions of dollars diverted each year from the general budget for such purposes. He made the distinction because he needed to get around longstanding Court precedent that allows such lawsuits to proceed in case involving “expenditures.” Justice Kennedy wrote: It is easy to see that tax credits and governmental expenditures can have similar economic consequences, at least for beneficiaries whose tax liability is sufficiently large to take full advantage of the credit. Yet tax credits and governmental expenditures do not both implicate individual taxpayers in sectarian activities. A dissenter whose tax dollars are “extracted and spent” knows that he has in some small measure been made to contribute to an establishment in violation of conscience. In that instance the taxpayer’s direct and particular connection with the establishment does not depend oneconomic speculation or political conjecture. The connection would exist even if the conscientious dissenter’s tax liability were unaffected or reduced.  W hen the government declines to impose a tax, by contrast, there is no such connection between dissenting taxpayer and alleged establishment. Any financial injury remains speculative. And awarding some citizens a tax credit allows other citizens to retain control over their own funds in accordance with their own conscience . That quote is one of the most important quotes a Supreme Court justice has offered all term because its rationale opens the door to state legislation across the nation that would codify tax incentives for religious schools. In essence, it broadens by an order of magnitude an exception to the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which is designed to separate church and state. It was a point, and a demarcation line, that Justice Elena Kagan recognized and attacked. In dissent, she wrote: This novel distinction in standing law between appropriations and tax expenditures has as little basis in principle as it has in our precedent. Cash grants and targeted tax breaks are means of accomplishing the same government objective–to provide financial support to select individuals or organizations. Taxpayers who oppose state aid of religion have equal reason to protest whether that aid flows from the one form of subsidy or the other. Either way, the government has financed the religious activity. And so either way, taxpayers should be able to challenge the subsidy. Still worse, the Court’s arbitrary distinction threatens to eliminate all occasions for a taxpayer to contest the government’s monetary support of religion. Precisely because appropriations and tax breaks can achieve identical objectives, the government can easily substitute one for the other. Today’s opinion thus enables the government to end-run Flast ‘s guarantee of access to the Judiciary. From now on, the government need follow just one simple rule–subsidize through the tax system–to preclude taxpayer challenges to state funding of religion. The ” Flast” of which Justice Kagan wrote is Flast v. Cohen , a 1968 Supreme Court ruling  which allowed the sorts of taxpayer lawsuits sought here. That case didn’t determine an outcome, mind you, it just merely allowed plaintiffs like the ones in this case to be able to have the merits of their claims heard by the Court. That will not happen in this case. Again, Justice Kagan: [Justice Kennedy's] distinction finds no support in case law, and just as little in reason. In the decades since Flast , no court–not one–has differentiated between appropriations and tax expenditures in deciding whether litigants have standing. Over and over again, courts (including this one) have faced Establishment Clause challenges to tax credits, deductions, and exemptions; over and over again, these courts have reached the merits of these claims. And that is for a simple reason: Taxpayers experience the same injury for standing purposes whether government subsidization of religion takes the form of a cash grant or a tax measure. The only rationale the majority offers for its new-found distinction–that grants, but not tax expenditures, somehow come from a complaining taxpayer’s own wallet–cannot bear the weight the Court places on it. If Flast is still good law–and the majority today says nothing to the contrary–then the Plaintiffs should be able to pursue their claim on the merits. She was even willing to spend some time offering a “hypothetical” to make her point — just like they taught her at Harvard Law School. Justice Kagan wrote: Our taxpayer standing cases have declined to distinguish between appropriations and tax expenditures for a simple reason: Here, as in many contexts, the distinction is one in search of a difference. To begin to see why, consider an example far afield from Flast and, indeed, from religion. Imagine that the Federal Government decides it should pay hundreds of billions of dollars to insolvent banks in the midst of a financial crisis. Suppose, too, that many millions of taxpayers oppose this bailout on the ground (whether right or wrong is immaterial) that it uses their hard-earned money to reward irresponsible business behavior. In the face of this hostility, some Members of Congress make the following proposal: Rather than give the money to banks via appropriations, the Government will allow banks to subtract the exact same amount from the tax bill they would otherwise have to pay to the U. S. Treasury. Would this proposal calm the furor? Or would most taxpayers respond by saying that a subsidy is a subsidy (or a bailout is a bailout), whether accomplished by the one means or by the other? Surely the latter; in d eed, we would think the less of our countrymen if they failed to see through this cynical proposal. Contrast Justice Kagan’s dissent with those of her newly-minted colleagues. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who came to the Court in 2009, authored her first major dissent in a case involving the narrowing of the Miranda warning. It was solid but had little of the rhetorical flair or bite that Justice Kagan offered up Monday. Justice Samuel Alito, who came to the Court in 2006, also authored his first major dissent in a case involving the rights of criminal defendants. But he did not dissent alone in that case. And Chief Justice John Roberts, who came to the Court in 2005, authored his first dissent in a case involving search warrants. The first two lines of his work were good. The Chief Justice wrote: The Court creates constitutional law by surmising what is typical when a social guest encounters an entirely atypical situation. The rule the majority fashions does not implement the high office of the Fourth Amendment to protect privacy, but instead provides protection on a random and happenstance basis, protecting, for example, a co-occupant who happens to be at the front door when the other occupant consents to a search, but not one napping or watching television in the next room. So good, in fact, that the ol’ dissenter himself, Justice Scalia, joined in. I guess that’s the next milestone to wait for from the High Court — the day when Justices Scalia and Kagan join together in dissent. What a doozy that might be.

Original post:
Justice Kagan’s First Dissent

A Senate Judiciary subcommittee is planning to hold a hearing next week examining the issue of American Muslims’ civil rights, less than three weeks after a House committee hearing led by Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) on the radicalization of American Muslims drew widespread controversy.

See the original post here:
Senate Judiciary panel sets hearing for next week on protecting Muslims’ civil rights

Once again proving the well-worn axiom IOKIYAR (“It’s okay if you’re a Republican”), disgraced former U.S. Attorney, Karl Rove protege and the Republican Party’s 2004 vote cager, Tim Griffin has not only been elected as a Representative to the U.S. House from Arkansas’ 2nd district, he’s also been assigned to a leadership position as deputy whip and has been given a seat on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee, of all places. read more

See the original post here:
2004 RNC "Vote Cager," Disgraced US Attorney Rep.-Elect Tim Griffin Assigned to House Judiciary Committee