law

The House Judiciary Committee today, Friday, July 25th, will put Impeachment squarely back "on the table" and restored to its prominent place in our Constitution.

Wednesday 07/25/2008 - 10:00 AM
2141 Rayburn House Office Building
Full Committee
By Direction of the Chairman

Visit my blog to view a brief filed on behalf of five North Carolina death row inmates (Jerry Conner, James Campbell, Archie Billings, Marcus Robinson, and James Thomas).

The death penalty news coming out of the General Assembly this session is not all good. Senator Brock (R-Davie and Rowan) has proposed a bill which would make it a capital offense to kill a pregnant woman - whether or not she or anyone else is aware of the pregnancy.

At a time when so many are calling for the narrowing of the capital statute, Senator Brock (and his co-sponsors Allran (R-Catawba and Iredell), Apodaca (R-Buncombe, Henderson, and Polk), Berger (R-Guilford and Rockingham), Blake (R-Harnett and Moore), Brown (R-Jones and Onslow), East (R-Alleghany, Stokes, Surry, and Yadkin), Goodall (R-Mecklenburg and Union), Hunt (R-Wake), Jacumin (R-Burke and Caldwell), Pittenger (R-Mecklenburg, Preston (R-Carteret, Craven, and Pamlico), and Smith (R-Johnston and Wayne)) are trying to expand the statute in a way that is both unnecessary and unfair.

Common sense isn't sexy. It's hard to get all worked up over something that seems perfectly reasonable. Maybe that's why so little attention has been paid to House Bill 341. That, and explaining the death penalty appeals process in a soundbite is about as easy as carrying a rhinocerous in your purse.

North Carolina is one of three states that automatically treat 16-year-olds as adults. A proposal by the North Carolina Sentencing Commission, the group designated to advise the General Assembly on matters involving sentencing, would give district attorneys the discretion to treat 13 to 16-year-olds as either jeuveniles or adults. The N&O has a good summary of the proposal, but the gist of the controversy is that due to youth, young teenagers may make poor decisions based on youth that might not justify being sent to adult prisons while young teenagers tend to commit the most violent crimes, again due in part to youth.

Whether these recommendations are good policy is a much different question than whether they will be adopted, which is not very high given the "law and order" demands of the populace.

listen to the ad here

Congressman Charles Taylor is in the pocket of Big Oil, and an independent group is spending $500,000 to tell the voters. Via MyDD comes a radio ad from the Association of Trial Lawyers of America highlighting Taylor's oil money addiction. The ad makes explicit Taylor's support for oil industry subsidies using a southern fried 'Harry and Louise' format.

I felt hope reading this article, despite the headline. And there's a North Carolina angle! To summarize the article: A former Vietnam P.O.W. lobbied Congress in 1996 to pass the War Crimes Act which criminalizes abuses of the Geneva Conventions for civilian leadership. I didn't realize that this Act is the only recourse for domestic prosecution of these crimes. Although, I have always dreamed of dubyass and cheney at The Hague...
I've excerpted highlights, but watch the commercial and enjoy the rest of the day at Salon. :) I really enjoy the Ask the Pilot columns at Salon, just in case you need more than one reason to watch the ad.... ;)

In the 2003-‘04 election cycle, NC Congressman Charles Taylor (R-11) received three times as much in donations from energy-related political action committees (PACs) as he had in the three previous election cycles, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

In 2003-04, Taylor received $51,531 from energy PACs. From 1997-2002, Taylor averaged $14,995 in oil, gas, mining, and power company PAC donations. In the 2005-06 cycle he has so far received $22,750.

And surprise, surprise! In a remarkable coincidence with absolutely no relationship to all that lovin’ from the energy industries, in 2003 Taylor just “happened” to write two particularly controversial pieces of legislation for their benefit.

[Lance: I front-paged this because it raises questions that need answering—is Gore advertising deceptively? Or what? Max, can you chime in here?]

I just got this e-mail from an entity called "Rachel for Supreme Court Committee" But, guess what?

When I clicked on it these were the first words I read:"VOTE BILL GORE on MAY 2" So I looked up Bill Gore.

You can go here to read his answers to a questionnaire by the Family Policy Council. Go here to read how he compares to the Republicans he's running against.

If you don't wish to follow the links, let me tell you that the only way he differs from the two Republicans in the race is that his favorite Supreme Court Justice is Roberts instead of Scalia.