Trial Nazi says, 'No Trial For You!'

The contours of President Obama's program to dispose of Guantanamo detainees and future terrorism suspects continue to take shape. This past Monday the Detention Policy Task Force announced that it would need an additional six months to complete the individual evaluations that would determine the forum in which each detainee would be prosecuted...or not prosecuted. Officials are also backing away from President Obama's deadline for closing the facility, the unspoken sentiment being, 'Gee, this is tougher than we thought...'

Accompanying the announcement of the extension, the Task Force released a preliminary report summarizing its work to create the legal framework in which each detainee would be brought to justice...or not brought to justice. The report provides additional confirmation that some Guantanamo residents will never see their day in court, or appear before a military commission, instead being kept in a legal limbo of indefinite detention without charges.

It should go without saying that this is a lead balloon of an idea that completely betrays the founding principles of our country. However, seeing as though we live in crazy times, here is a post by someone much smarter and far more articulate than myself, explaining why the arguments for military commissions and indefinite detention totally suck.

A breath of fresh air.

Yesterday, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the Michigan Court of Appeals decision in McNeil v Charlevoix County. According to the Michigan Supreme Court, local health departments may promulgate regulations that restrict smoking so long as they "[are] at least as stringent as the standard established by state law applicable to the same or similar subject matter." McNeil v Charlevoix County, No. 134437, slip op. at 6 (Mich., July 21, 2009) (citing MCL 333.2441(1)).

What's more, a Michigan health department regulation may provide employees with a private right of action to seek the regulation's enforcement and prohibit employers from retaliating. Regulations like the one at issue in McNeil fall within a public policy exception to Michigan's at-will work doctrine. See McNeil at 7 (stating that "[i]t is well settled [in Michigan] that an employer is not free to discharge an employee at will when the reason for the discharge contravenes public policy").

Living in glass houses?

This week's hearings on Sotomayor's nomination are a landmark of sorts. For the first time since 1962, Senator Edward Kennedy will not be sitting on the Judiciary Committee. And Biden will be sitting the hearing out as well.
Still, commentators believe that Sotomayor will almost certainly be appointed to the Court, albeit only after the Republicans first make their case for labeling Sotomayor a radical judicial activist.

But, as Washington Post columnist, E.J. Dionne Jr., points out, the Republican's case is much harder to make after the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to:

• postpone hearing Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,


• request new briefs, and


• expand the question presented to encompass whether corporations should be allowed to finance elections campaigns and counter-campaigns.

What ever happened to deciding cases on narrow grounds, if possible?

...And who do you think the real judicial activists are now?

To learn more about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, visit Scotus Wicki.