Privileges and vendettas in the courtroom

"The gavel allows you to push issues" according to Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Senator Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and he added that he missed being the one holding the gavel.

At The Heritage Foundation discussion on "Attorney-Client Privilege: Repairing the Damage," Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Senator Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) focused on the Department of Justice's policies regarding the right to counsel and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Sixth Amendment sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts.


When asked if courts would ever allow cameras into the courtrooms, Specter said that courts today decide all "cutting edge authority." Specter noted that the print media has accessibility and a shift to electronic media was inevitable. Specter said that, as always, there was the question of security, but it was something that simply needed to be dealt with. Specter said he understood the public's desire for transparency and accessibility in institutions such as the Supreme Court.

Specter also discussed the case of Kent Wakefield from Virginia. According to Specter, Wakefield had written him a letter detailing his six year ordeal with the courts. Quoting Wakefield, Specter said that his employer at America Online (AOL) demanded to waive his attorney-client privilege. In addition, Specter said that Wakefield's assets were frozen. Specter said this was an example of a "vendetta being carried out."


Specter explained the importance of full disclosure between attorneys and their clients. Specter said that if the client did not feel comfortable telling his attorney everything, the attorney would not be able to sufficiently represent his client and the client would not get the full value of his attorney. Specter also emphasized that attorney-client privileges ensure fair trials and the government wins when justice is done.

NRA means "No rentals available."

My sister is a proud Republican. She loves lower taxes, big business (She has told me "what's good for business is good for people." repeatedly) and an individual-rights approach to the Second Amendment. She's among the many that are thrilled by the Supreme Court's ruling to lift the handgun ban in the District of Columbia, especially since she 's living in DC for the summer. To celebrate she and a family friend went to the National Rifle Association's shooting range this past week.

They toured the museum and paid for the range. My sister had to fill out paperwork and get a 30-minute evaluation on using a hand gun. She's been shooting before and has had training. When she passed the written test they indicated a lane for shooting. She asked how much for gun rental. And that is when she got a shock.

There are no guns for rental at the National Rifle Association's shooting lanes.

Many shooting ranges provide rental for a variety of handguns for those who are recreational shooters but don't bring or own guns. The leading lobby for gun-owner's rights takes their mission quite literally-- it is helpful to be an actual gun owner if you are interested in shooting there. Hearing this story from my sister was pretty amusing, especially since they had administrated the whole vetting process with her plainly standing there in a tank top and jeans. How many 20-year-old interns do YOU know with a conceal and carry permit? And in that clothing where on earth was she supposed to be packing heat?

Beyond defending the right to keep and bear arms, the NRA kindly suggests you bear them if you want to shoot on their range. Bring your own or go home.

Supreme scrutiny

The Heritage Foundation hosted a panel discussion this morning taking a look at the recent Supreme Courts term. Featured were Seth Waxman, the former Solicitor General of the United States under former President Clinton, Ronald Rotunda a constitutional treatise author, and Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz. No one case dominated discussion but the issue of preemption and its reference to treatises were dominated by Waxman who believes the issue is “predicated on the supremacy clause.”

Panelists also argued that the Supreme Court left many of the complicated opinions to states and lower courts. “They [The Supreme Court] leaves all the complicated problems to the lower courts, there’s no clear decisions sometimes,” said Rotunda. Rotunda believes that it is Justice Kennedy whose court opinions have left many “ambiguous” wordings that would only cause more problems for the lower courts.

But with the recent decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun ban in the case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller, the question of the second amendment was front and center. According to Cruz, the case was fundamental to demonstrating that even in a modern society there is “right to bear arms.” But Cruz added that unlike Heller, most cases were not decided on a 5-4 vote, rather many cases came down to a 6-3 decision thus making this courts term less divided than years past, argued the panel.

A year of controversy for the Supreme Court

The Brookings Institution held a briefing on U.S. Supreme Court rulings where high-profile cases, such as gun control, Guantanamo Bay detentions, and the death penalty, were discussed. Brookings Fellow Benjamin Wittes moderated the Judicial Issues Forum. Wittes explained that the Supreme Court has experienced a varied last couple of terms making it hard to discern an aggregate pattern from their rulings.

Stuart Taylor, a Nonresident Senior Fellow at The Brookings Institution, talked about the recent gun control case. When dealing with this case, Taylor explained that it was the first time in history that the Supreme Court definitively interpreted the Second Amendment. Taylor said that the Court produced a ruling which struck down the Washington, D.C. gun control law, holding the individual right to bear arms. However, Taylor also explained that this ruling has only limited impact because there aren’t many really tough gun control laws.

Taylor also talked about the Guantanamo Bay case. He explained that this case produced the first decision in which the Supreme Court ever overturned a previous decision made by the President during a time of war. Congress re-established habeas corpus at Guantanamo, but the Court also made it clear that the U.S. government is not holding a single person illegally at the base. Taylor said that even though the decision has been very controversial, the most important part of it is the fact that it didn’t require anyone at the base to walk free. Taylor explained that Congress needs to design a system open enough for the public to know how scary some detainess really are.

Randolph Moss, a partner at WilmerHale, talked about the lethal injection case regarding a prison in Kentucky and the Eighth Amendment. Moss explained that in most states lethal injection is administered with a process of three different drugs. The argument in this case said that this process was not the most humane way. However, Moss said that there was not enough evidence or facts produced to show that the inmate experienced any unnecessary pain.

Today at Talk Radio News

Today the Talk Radio News Service will attend a briefing on U.S. Supreme Court rulings at the Brookings Institution in Washington. An event on climate change’s effects on Gulf Coast transportation and waterworks in New York held by the American Meteorological Society will be covered on Capitol Hill. In preparation for the G8 Summit in Hokkaido, Japan, the Washington Bureau will also participate in a conference call discussing the summit’s agenda which includes global warming.