More Court decisions

welsh

welsh

Junkmaster
More decisions-

This confusing one about the seperation of church and state-
Court Limits Ten Commandments Displays
AP - 33 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commandments on government land, but drew the line on displays inside courthouses, saying they violated the doctrine of separation of church and state. Sending dual signals in closely-watched cases, the high court said displays of the Ten Commandments — like their own courtroom frieze — are not inherently unconstitutional. But each exhibit demands scrutiny to determine whether it goes too far in amounting to a governmental promotin of religion, the court said in a case involving Kentucky courthouse exhibits.
Click to expand...

Case-by-case basis = confusion.

So images of God is kind of like pornography- you know it when you see it?

Then this one that goes back to the "who leaked the name of the CIA agent" case-

Supreme Court Won't Hear CIA Leak Case By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 5 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court rejected appeals Monday from two journalists who have refused to testify before a grand jury about the leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity.

The cases asked the court to revisit an issue that it last dealt with more than 30 years ago — whether reporters can be jailed or fined for refusing to identify their sources.

The justices' intervention had been sought by 34 states and many news groups, all arguing that confidentiality is important in news gathering.

"Important information will be lost to the public if journalists cannot reliably promise anonymity to sources," news organizations including The Associated Press told justices in court papers.

Time magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller, who filed the appeals, face up to 18 months in jail for refusing to reveal sources as part of an investigation into who divulged the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame.
Click to expand...

So did divulge the name of CIA officer Valerie Plame?

The ruling effectively ends Cooper and Miller's appeal on free-speech grounds, although Time said in a statement it would seek a new hearing in federal court on other grounds.

Plame's name was first made public in 2003 by columnist Robert Novak, who cited unidentified senior Bush administration officials for the information. The column appeared after Plame's husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, wrote a newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq sought uranium in Niger.
Click to expand...

Does this mean Novak gets to go to jail too?

Disclosure of an undercover intelligence officer's identity can be a federal crime and a government investigation is in its second year. No charges have been brought.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago, the special counsel handling the probe, told justices that the only unfinished business is testimony from Cooper and Miller.

Cooper reported on Plame, while Miller gathered material for an article about the intelligence officer but never wrote a story.

A federal judge held the reporters in contempt last fall, and an appeals court rejected their argument that the First Amendment shielded them from revealing their sources in the federal criminal proceeding.

Every state but Wyoming recognizes reporters' rights to protect their confidential sources of information, justices were told in a brief filed on behalf of 34 states, and without those privileges "reporters in those states would find their newsgathering abilities compromised, and citizens would find themselves far less able to make informed political, social and economic choices."
Click to expand...

What do you think? Should journalists be entitled to keep the names of their sources confidential?

But Fitzgerald said in his own filing that the federal government is different. "Local jurisdictions do not have responsibility for investigating crimes implicating national security, and reason and experience strongly counsel against adoption of an absolute reporter's privilege in the federal courts," he said.

"That 49 states and many countries around the globe provide broad protection for journalists who have promised confidentiality to their sources, makes today's decision even more disappointing," said Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The New York Times.

In the last journalist source case at the Supreme Court, the 1972 Branzburg v. Hayes, a divided court ruled against a Louisville, Ky., reporter who had written a story about drug trafficking and was called to testify about it. Justices said that requiring journalists to reveal information to grand juries served a "compelling" state interest and did not violate the First Amendment.

That decision has been interpreted differently and clarification is needed because dozens of reporters around the country have been subpoenaed over the past two years, said Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada, representing Time magazine.

Still pending before a federal appeals court is a contempt ruling against five journalists — including Associated Press reporter H. Josef Hebert — who have refused to identify their sources for stories on Wen Ho Lee, the nuclear scientist whose career was cut short when his name surfaced as an espionage suspect.

Lee is suing the government for leaking his name to the news media during a political frenzy late in the Clinton administration when Republicans accused the White House of ignoring China's alleged theft of U.S. nuclear secrets. The other journalists include Los Angeles Times reporter Robert Drogin, James Risen and Jeff Gerth of The New York Times, and Pierre Thomas, formerly of CNN and now of ABC.

The cases are Miller v. United States, 04-1507, and Cooper v. United States, 04-1508.
Click to expand...


So what do you think? How far should the press's ability to keep confidential sources secret go? What about the danger of the press being used for political purposes?
 
Privacy is a hot spot, really.
States try to keep it low to improve security, or so they say. Then they hold secret every info considered dangerous for security (again). In fact, the State wants to know everything about you, but you shouldn't know anything about the State, and they tell you it's for your own good. The same goes with the press, especially in some countries, like mine or yours, in which State and information are closely related (well, at least here, most of the mass media are non officially state-controlled, how' the situation in the US?).
The Italian government created a privacy commission not long ago, and are trying to create a coherent system of rules to be applied to press, product information, private documents, institutional issues. The intentions look good, but will these rules be used? I don't buy it, if you ask me.
 
Dresnar said:
America is becoming more communist everyday :P.
Click to expand...
Please explain how any of those decisions indicate that, because I'm genuinely baffled.
 
Well the government is democratic and therefore I think its the peoples right to have a say in this. Sure there will always be a few people that don't like the involvement of church and state but overall as far as I know thats one of the things that makes our country free.
 
Dresnar said:
Sure there will always be a few people that don't like the involvement of church and state but overall as far as I know thats one of the things that makes our country free.
Click to expand...
That statement is wrong on so many levels.

How does limiting (and constraining) your justice system by intertwining it with religious values make you free?
 
Ok, well it doesn't make "one" free but its what our country was founded on. Not that in particular but freedom from religious prosecution and I guess those values don't play a part in todays world unfortunatly.
 
Dresnar said:
Sure there will always be a few people that don't like the involvement of church and state but overall as far as I know thats one of the things that makes our country free.
Click to expand...
This suggests that you favour the involvement of church and state. Correct?
Dresnar said:
Not that in particular but freedom from religious prosecution and I guess those values don't play a part in todays world unfortunatly.
Click to expand...
Surely involving religion in "state" (ie. the justice system) destroys any possibility of freedom from religious prosecution (persecution?) as all court decisions will be influenced (however minutely) by religious standards?
 
"Separation" should be fairly obvious, even for those who make it onto a judicial bench, but I'm fairly certain many of them are bible thumpers to begin with. The fact that the Ten Commandments is posted at all at a courthouse, inside or not, clearly violates this. Hellooo, Judge Morons, you're DISPLAYING IT. It is therefore indicative or being brought into iconic representation in conjunction with the courthouse.

The presence of any religion within courts is also predominantly Christian, which also goes against the purpose of the doctrine, in freedom of religion without it being imposed a la the old Church of England. Putting any kind of religious doctrine, in whatever form, at any govt. institution, clearly violates the Constitution.

Simply put, there is no purpose for having anything with religious material in a court house, because it embodies the same kind of prejudicial bullshit the founding fathers were trying to avoid. The only way I could see this being fair is if other religions were likewise able to post their own religious doctrine upon court property, but that's assuming that the court isn't already established as a Jewish-Christian institution, so that possibility will likely never see the light of day.

Freedom of Religion in the US is bullshit for the most part, it is more like Freedom to be Christian/Jewish.
 
Big T said:
Dresnar said:
America is becoming more communist everyday :P.
Click to expand...
Please explain how any of those decisions indicate that, because I'm genuinely baffled.
Click to expand...

Let me guess that bafflement has not been alleviated by Dresnar's explanatory posts.
 
What about the Bible the witnesses swear on? Do you still have those?
Anyways this is bullshit on several level, most important is that some sins the commandments forbid are not illegal...
 
DirtyDreamDesigner said:
Anyways this is bullshit on several level, most important is that some sins the commandments forbid are not illegal...
Click to expand...
And many of the illegal acts are not covered by the Ten Commandments (unless you use a rather wide interpretation of "Thou Shalt Not Steal").
If you were using a faith based system, then surely adding any extra laws would be saying the Bible was incomplete. Is that not blaspheming? Or probably somewhere approaching that act.
 
Idk I am not anti-government nor pro-religion. I just think there is a better way then totally eradicating it from our judicial system. Like DirtyDreamDesigner said, placing your hand on the bible and swearing to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, could be hard to get rid of.
 
Dresnar said:
Idk I am not anti-government nor pro-religion. I just think there is a better way then totally eradicating it from our judicial system. Like DirtyDreamDesigner said, placing your hand on the bible and swearing to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, could be hard to get rid of.
Click to expand...
Could you not swear on the constitution, or somesuch?
 
Actually, it'd be cooler if you could swear at the procurator.
 
I guess, but if they are going to be changing the judicial system there are plenty of changes they could also make in the constitution. Its due for a rebuffing anyhow.
 
It would probably remind people of what they're swearing to uphold. You know, becuase swearing to uphold it isn't enough, they need a visual aide.
 
Funny thing.

I don't see the Chinese courts put Buddha statues outside their courts.

Actually, I think it's bad for your political career if you are religious in China. I've seen a few of them have statues of GuanGon which is deemed ok because what he symbolizes.

What if a US court tried to put a Buddha statue or a transcription of the GinGanGin(Guardian scripture) in front of it?

My Canadian law prof told me that you can swear on any religious artifacts of you choosing in Canada. Pujabi scriptures, Koran, Buddist scriptures and so on. He recalls one case where a witness demanded a gold inked, blessed, prayed upon Koran(I think it was Koran), and it could only be handled by virgins.

As for Journalists, maybe they should just do what the Chinese do. I recalled that I posted an article about that.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top