Duking It Out in the Naderhood Duking It Out in the Naderhood
As Bush and Gore battle for the Northwest, Nader's power grows.
Oct 12, 2000 / Feature / Marc Cooper
If Politics Got Real… If Politics Got Real…
To Nader or not to Nader, that is the question. A debate over whether Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader is a savior or a spoiler has raged for months among progressi...
Sep 28, 2000 / Rob Richie and Steven Hill
Questions From the Floor Questions From the Floor
A new poll has found that strong majorities of Americans have high levels of interest and concern about a range of issues that are rarely being discussed in the current politic...
Sep 28, 2000 / The Editors
Questions From the Floor Questions From the Floor
On the eve of the first presidential debate, a new poll has found that strong majorities of Americans have high levels of interest and concern about a range of issues that are ra...
Sep 28, 2000 / The Editors
The Killing Machine The Killing Machine
For many of the 3,682 men and women on death rows across the nation, and their families, this election is literally a matter of life or death. With one or more appointments to the Supreme Court, the next President will probably change the balance of power in the Court's review of capital cases. The Court could play a greater role in restricting the use of the death penalty, or it could give the states free rein to carry out more and more executions. Neither George W. Bush nor Al Gore is going to appoint Justices like the late William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, who believed that capital punishment violates the Constitution's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. But the next President's appointments will have an enormous impact on how much death is used as a punishment in the next several decades and the fairness of the process by which people are denied their lives and liberty in the criminal courts. Bush has expressed his admiration for Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who have vigorously maintained that the Constitution allows states to execute just about anyone--children, the mentally retarded, even the innocent--and provides virtually no protections, not even a decent court-appointed lawyer, to a person facing death. Their approach to capital cases is much like the one taken by judges in Texas, which dispatches people to its busy execution chamber in assembly-line fashion. Bush has defended the Texas system, claiming that the condemned had "full access to the law," while presiding over 144 executions during his six years as governor. No other state has carried out more than eighty executions in the past twenty-five years. Al Gore will probably appoint moderates like the two Justices appointed by Bill Clinton, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, whose votes reflect their views that the Constitution restricts the ways in which states may impose death and that the federal courts have a role to play in deciding what those restrictions are and in keeping the death penalty within them. Many of the Court's most important capital decisions have been decided by a 5-to-4 vote. In those cases the outcome has usually been determined by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy. When they join with Scalia, Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the death sentence is upheld--as in two 5-to-4 decisions in Virginia cases this year. In one of these, Weeks v. Angelone, they upheld a death sentence even though the judge misled the jury regarding how it was to reach its sentencing decision. In the other, Ramdass v. Angelone, the defendant was not allowed to tell the jury that he would not be eligible for parole if sentenced to life in prison instead of death. Ginsburg, Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter dissented in both cases. If either O'Connor or Kennedy joins the Court's four moderates, the outcome is different. Just how delicate the balance is was illustrated by the 1989 case of Penry v. Lynaugh. John Paul Penry is a mentally retarded man sentenced to death in Texas. Justices O'Connor and Kennedy were part of a 5-to-4 majority holding that the Constitution does not prohibit the execution of the mentally retarded, but Justice O'Connor cast the critical fifth vote for setting aside Penry's death sentence because the jury was not instructed that his retardation should be considered in mitigation. ]]> ]]>
Sep 25, 2000 / Feature / Stephen B. Bright
Color and the Court Color and the Court
The project of racial reconciliation and historical correction is "constitutional" in the deepest, multiple senses of that word.
Sep 25, 2000 / Feature / Christopher Edley Jr.
For Some, Choice Gets Harder For Some, Choice Gets Harder
Right now, there are three votes on the Court to get rid of Roe altogether and often four or five to impose costly, chilling and burdensome regulations on the exercise of...
Sep 25, 2000 / Feature / Susan Estrich
Putting a Radical Right Team on the Bench Putting a Radical Right Team on the Bench
The future of the Supreme Court is the most important issue in the most important election year since 1932. Progressive Americans should treat it that way. The radical right does. ...
Sep 25, 2000 / Feature / Ralph G. Neas
First Amendment for the Rich? First Amendment for the Rich?
At stake is whether the twenty-first-century First Amendment will be a protector of the powerful or a resource for the weak and disfranchised.
Sep 25, 2000 / Feature / Burt Neuborne
Earth in the Judicial Balance Earth in the Judicial Balance
To date, the Rehnquist Court's environmental record has been mixed. While no darling of the greens, neither has it been consistently "brown."
Sep 25, 2000 / Feature / James Salzman