Supreme Court Rules On Identity Theft

By Suzia van Swol, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, a Mexican citizen, gave his employer a fake Social Security number and alien registration cards which had his name but numbers belonging to other people. He was arrested and charged with two immigration offenses and aggravated identity theft. The key word in the statute is the adverb “knowingly” because Flores said that it could not be proved that he knew the fake numbers belonged to other people instead of being made up of random digits.
Justice Breyer, who delivered the unanimous decision to the court, cranked up appetites in the courtroom today when he made the analogy that when “knowingly” eating a B.L.T sandwich, it is fair to assume that one is aware it will contain bacon, lettuce and tomato.
A federal statute imposed a mandatory two year sentence on anyone who “knowingly” uses an identity belonging to another person. The Supreme Court decided that prosecutors must prove that Flores didn’t know the false documents belonged to someone else.
The Supreme Court limited the use of the identity theft law in a unanimous court decision, ensuring that the law can no longer be used against workers who need false identification to get a job unless they use someone else's I.D.

Specter’s Spectacle

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Senator Arlen Specter
Photo by Michael Ruhl

Senator Arlen Specter (Penn.) says that he left the Republican Party because they had stuck their nose into party affairs to the point of breeding extremism. Ironically the Democrats are doing the exact same thing to their newest member. Micromanaging from the highest level doesn’t seem to be exclusive to the Republicans.

Yesterday Specter walked away from the party he has been with for nearly four decades, because he felt they were ignoring moderate voice. Specter announced his decision to defect to the Democratic Party, only the twenty-first time that a Senator has done such a thing since 1890.

President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have both said they will fully support Specter in his 2010 election, but Congressman Joe Sestak (D-Penn.) was not sure that the party establishment should be backing Specter in this way.

“If decisions and candidates are being chosen in Washington, you may just reemphasize that divisive barrier that’s between the parties,” Sestak said. “I think we cannot afford to have a decision that is so important to Pennsylvanians be decided by the party establishment,” and that the voters should be the ones to choose their candidate.

Sestak is rumored to be considering running for the Pennsylvania Senate seat, and would come up against Specter in the Democratic primary. When asked directly, Sestak said he had not decided yet whether or not he would run. Another contender, Representative Allyson Schwartz (D-Penn.) said today that she would not run for the seat.

The republican response has ranged from anger to confusion. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steel likened Specter to Benedict Arnold.

“Clearly, this was an act based on political expediency by a craven politician desperate to keep his Washington power base - not the act of a statesman,” Steel said. “Arlen Specter handed Barack Obama and his band of radical leftists nearly absolute power in the United States Senate.”

Specter responded, “I have not represented the Republican Party, I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.” He was referencing the fact that in the past months there has been an exodus from the Republican Party in Pennsylvania, where over 100,000 individuals changed their party registration from Republican to Democrat.

Specter is defending his position as being one of riding with the tides of his constituency, instead of bowing to the will of a national political party. Critics see it as a survival move of a desperate politician.

Speaking today with President Barack Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden, Specter said that staying in the Senate would allow him to carry forward important initiatives for his constituents, speaking specifically about expanding medical research.

Specter would prove to be the 60 Democrat in the Senate, provided that comedian Al Franken prevails in his court case for the Minnesota Senate. Sixty votes, called a supermajority, is enough to override a Republican filibuster. Specter said previously, though, that he was not going to simply back the Democrats automatically, and President Obama acknowledged that, saying, “I don’t expect Arlen to be a rubber stamp.” According to Obama, he and Specter agree in the areas of health care, education, medical research

Supreme Court upholds fines for "fleeting expletives"

In what is being seen as a set-back for the TV industry, the Supreme Court Tuesday morning tentatively gave the Federal Communications Commission license to regulate the use of curse words during live broadcasts. Opponents of the close 5-4 ruling say the FCC did not adequately explain its policy shift.

The court explicitly refused to discuss freedom of speech concerns about the regulation, saying that discussion would have to come in another case.

The FCC has long regulated obscene and indecent language on broadcast television, but until 2006 it did not take action over so-called “fleeting expletives,” such as using the F-Word and S-Word spontaneously in a non-literal sense.

In 2006 the FCC issued fines for Fox’s broadcast in 2002 of a live appearance by Cher in which she said, “I’ve also had critics for the last 40 years saying that I was on my way out every year. Right. So f*** ‘em.” The FCC also fined a 2003 broadcast in which Nicole Richie said, “Why do they even call it ‘The Simple Life?’ Have you ever tried to get cow s*** out of a Prada purse? It’s not so f***ing simple.”

Fox appealed the fine to the courts, arguing that the FCC had not justified the change in their policy, since in 2004 the FCC allowed a broadcast of Bono using a fleeting expletive to go without fine.

Death-row Inmate's "Mental Retardation" To Be Re-examined

The Supreme Court Monday heard arguments from an Ohio man who claims that he has already been found to be mentally retarded, a status which renders him ineligible for the death penalty. The state of Ohio is trying to reopen examination into his mental capacity so that it can carry out his death sentence.

In 1992 an Ohio jury convicted Michael Bies of beating and murder of a 10-year-old boy near Cincinnati. The jury sentenced Bies to death, even though he had an IQ of about 68. Doctors generally define mental retardation as having an IQ below 70, having significant limitations in two or more areas of adaptive behavior, and presenting evidence that the limitations became apparent before the age of 18. Bies filed several appeals to higher courts, and each found that Bies's borderline mental retardation was a mitigating factor, but aggravating factors made the death penalty still appropriate.

In 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Atkins v. Virginia that the 8th Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment" prevented states from executing the mentally retarded.

Yesterday, Bies brought his case to the Supreme Court, arguing that because the appeals courts had earlier said he was mentally retarded, the state could not revisit that issue. Ohio wants to hold a hearing to show that he is not mentally retarded, and therefore that he is eligible for the death penalty.

Ohio's Solicitor General, Benjamin Mizer, argued that lower courts had not yet considered factors other than Bies's IQ, so a new hearing should be held to examine Bies's mental state for Atkins purposes. Further, Mizer argued that the lower courts had examined Bies's mental capacity as part of a variety of factors, so the intermediate determination that Bies is mentally retarded should not be considered binding.

Justices Souter and Ginsburg are normally the most liberal of their colleagues on the bench. Both drove home the point that only if a court's conclusion on a single point is "necessary" to its final decision can that intermediate conclusion be binding on later courts. If the court could have sentenced Bies to death without concluding he was mentally retarded, the conclusion on his mental capacity was not necessary to the final decision.

The Court will issue a ruling before its term ends in early June.

Breaking News: Arlen Specter Switches Parties (Update)

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

Senator Arlen Specter
Photo By Michael Ruhl

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, a long-time Republican, is defecting to the Democratic Party. This switch potentially gives Democrats in the Senate more leverage in passing their legislation and overriding Republican filibusters, if Al Franken is found to win the Senate seat in Minnesota. It's also a crippling blow to the Republican Party, which has been struggling to have its voice heard since the beginning of the 111th Congress.

Specter, 79, is Pennsylvania's longest serving senator, elected in 1980

Specter said that the increasing "extremism" within the Republican Party over the past few years has put both him and his constituents in a difficult position.

"I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Specter said. "I think it is very important to have a two party system, and a moderate wing of the two party system...The extremes in both parties are taking over."

He highlighted the partisanship which was amplified in Congress by the stimulus vote, saying, "it has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable."

Specter said that his defecting would not make him the "automatic sixtieth vote" for the Democrats, and that he would not be a "party-line voter" who is used to break filibusters.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that he anticipates continued disagreements with Specter, but both of them hope to work together towards common causes. One area that Specter already said he would be opposed to most Democrats on is in reigning in executive power.

Although Specter will run as a Democrat in the 2010 election, he has not decided whether or not he will caucus with the Democrats immediately.

He informed Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) of his decision last night. He then released a written statement at noon today, sending shock waves through the halls of Congress. Specter said that he made the decision gradually over the past few months, and that numerous Democrats encouraged him to defect, including Reid, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and Vice President Joe Biden. Reid said that he has been trying to convince other Republicans to switch party as well.

Reid said that both he and President Obama would personally campaign for Specter in his 2010 election after today's events. When President Obama found out, he reportedly telephoned Specter and welcomed him to the party. Specter was one of the few Republicans to vote for President Obama's stimulus package and budget.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Photo by Michael Ruhl

Commentators are already shouting down Specter's move as one of political strategy, as the Senator said that he would find a strong challenger in a Republican primary to be a big threat to his career. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) called it "nothing more, nothing less, then political self-preservation." He continued by saying Specter's, "Own pollster told him that he could not win the Republican primary in Pennsylvania, so his only options were to leave the Senate or join the Democratic Party.”

“I’m not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate, not prepared to have that record decided by that jury,” Specter said.

Former Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Toomey was seen as a strong candidate who could possibly have defeated Specter in the Republican primary. Additionally, Toomey is widely acknowledged as the more conservative candidate, and Specter said he did not want his career ended in a primary by his own party. He said that the Republicans don't want moderates anymore, which is why he was being targeted. "There ought to be a rebellion, an uprising," Specter exclaimed.

Incumbents in Congress have a significant advantage in winning reelection, but Specter was concerned after seeing recent polls. He said that his full constituency does not turn out to vote because the Republican party breeds extremism. Specter said that there are plenty of his constituents who agree with his positions, "but they're non-participants."

McConnell called this a "threat to the country," because it would allow the majority to "have whatever it wants, without restraint, without a check or a balance."

Reid said that with Specter's seniority within Congress, it would be as if he were elected as a Democrat in 1980. Reid was careful to say, however, that committee assignments would only be changed voluntarily, and that Specter's presence on the Democratic side would not bump any other Senators off a particular committee.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), a longtime friend of Specter, doesn't believe that this is going to affect judicial confirmations or any potential Supreme Court vacancies that might surface in the near future.

Specter is "just as independent as ever," Leahy said.

Specter's said that in his time in the Senate, he has exercised "independent judgment to do what [he] thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation," and that it was not his party that defined him.

Updated 5:00pm EST