Posted on 06/20/2002 7:46:20 AM PDT by Howlin
Court Disallows Executing Retarded Thu Jun 20,10:37 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court reversed itself Thursday and ruled that executing the mentally retarded is unconstitutionally cruel.
The 6-3 ruling is confined to mentally retarded killers, and does not address the constitutionality of capital punishment in general.
The majority's view reflects changes in public attitudes on the issue since the court declared such executions constitutional in 1989. Then, only two states that used capital punishment outlawed the practice for the retarded. Now, 18 states prohibit it.
"It is not so much the number of these states that is significant, but the consistency of the direction of the change," Justice John Paul Stevens ( news - web sites) wrote for the majority.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia ( news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas ( news - web sites) dissented. The three, the court's most conservative members, telegraphed their views earlier this month, when they complained bitterly about reprieves the court majority had granted to two Texas inmates who claim they are retarded.
The court ruled in favor of a Virginia inmate, Daryl Renard Atkins, who was convicted of shooting an Air Force enlisted man for beer money in 1996. Atkins' lawyers say he has an IQ of 59 and has never lived on his own or held a job.
The most immediate effect of the ruling will be in the 20 states that allowed execution of the retarded up to now. Presumably, dozens or perhaps hundreds of inmates in those states will now argue that they are retarded, and that their sentences should be converted to life in prison.
In the future, the ruling will mean that people arrested for a killing will not face a potential death sentence if they can show they are retarded, generally defined as having an IQ of 70 or lower.
The dissenting justices said the majority went too far in looking at factors beyond the state laws.
The majority puts too much stock in opinion polls and the views of national and international observers, Rehnquist wrote.
"Believing this view to be seriously mistaken, I dissent," Rehnquist said. Rehnquist omitted the customary word "respectfully" before "dissent."
|
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court affirmed a 40-year-old population estimating technique on Monday, turning back a challenge to census numbers that Utah claims robbed it of a House seat.
The ruling is good for Democrats, who stand to benefit from the seat going to North Carolina instead of Utah.
The Supreme Court ruled that the technique used by the Census Bureau ( news - web sites) to gather population data was not unconstitutional. The method, known as "imputation," allows headcounters who can't reach anyone at a home to use data from a neighbor's household.
The court ruled 5-4 that the technique was not sampling, which justices said in 1999 could not be used to apportion the 435 House seats. The Supreme Court did not rule then that sampling was unconstitutional for other purposes, such as distribution of federal dollars.
Again in this case, the court stopped short of saying that census counters are limited to a traditional nose count under the Constitution's requirement of an "actual enumeration" every 10 years.
Census takers first mail a questionnaire to every known household, then make personal visits. Imputation is a last resort, after as many as six visits fail to find anyone, the Census Bureau says.
The technique applies to only a tiny fraction of the nation's 105 million households. It added less than a half percent to the population of 286 million people.
The case had put justices in an awkward position, reopening the 2000 census two years after the fact and drawing questions of whether the court had the power to intervene and force Congress and the president to change the congressional map.
Justice Stephen Breyer ( news - web sites), writing for the majority, said that when "all efforts have been made to reach every household," a technique like imputation is allowed. He noted that it involved a tiny percent of the population.
He was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices John Paul Stevens ( news - web sites), David H. Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg ( news - web sites).
The Census Bureau has used imputation to divvy congressional seats since 1960. The bureau, backed by the Bush administration, maintains that the estimating method is a proven, commonsense tool that makes the census more accurate.
Census numbers are used to parcel out House seats, government money and more.
Utah came within 900 people of getting an additional House seat, which went to the fast-growing North Carolina. Utah was given three seats, and North Carolina 13 after the latest count.
Utah contended that part of the final 2000 data should be thrown out.
The court's decision halted Utah's second effort to get a fourth member of Congress. Last year, Utah lost a Supreme Court case that claimed the state should get credit for large numbers of Mormon missionaries not included in the census because they were working overseas.
The case is Utah v. Evans, 01-714.
Supreme Court rejects lawsuit rights in student privacy violations
GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, June 20, 2002
©2002 Associated Press
URL: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/06/20/national1042EDT0579.DTL
(06-20) 07:42 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --
Students cannot use a federal privacy law to sue schools that divulge their personal information, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The 7-2 decision protects public and private schools and universities from costly court judgments for breaking the law requiring them to keep educational records secret.
The main punishment is the threat of loss of federal money, the court said in siding with a college accused of leaking unproven date rape accusations.
©2002 Associated Press
By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - A heavily divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that states can help patients fight their HMOs, a decision that could increase requests for second opinions.
The state laws are intended to let people get second opinions, and sometimes force health maintenance organizations to pay up if an independent review shows a surgery or other care is justified.
The Supreme Court said that states, in trying to better arm patients in their battles with big HMOs, did not conflict with a federal law.
The ruling comes months after patients rights legislation stalled at the Capitol after the Sept. 11 attacks, putting on hold plans for a nationwide system for independent evaluations. The subject has been part of closed door talks this year, with no consensus.
HMOs had argued that they were not opposed to independent review boards, but wanted one national standard instead of the hodgepodge of state laws.
The Supreme Court upheld the Illinois procedure used by Debra Moran to get her health plan to pay for an operation that fixed her rare, debilitating nerve problem. The surgery cost about $95,000.
The decision focused on whether a 1974 federal law governing most employee benefit plans overrules the state laws on independent reviews.
The court determined it did not, ruling against Moran's health carrier, Rush Prudential HMO Inc., which has been purchased by Wellpoint Health Network.
Justice David H. Souter, writing for the majority, said the law says nothing about second opinions, and that the state law was allowed.
The 1974 law has bedeviled the Supreme Court over the years, prompting multiple rulings on how far states can go to set their own rules for employee benefits. The rulings have provided no clear guidelines for how states can impose their own regulations.
Thursday's decision affirms a ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ( news - web sites) in Chicago, which said under Illinois law, Moran was entitled to both the review and the reimbursement.
Independent reviews are not frequently sought. In 2000, about 2,500 cases were accepted for full review in 16 states surveyed by the American Association of Health Plans. The reviewer upheld the decision made by the insurers' doctors in about half of those.
Health care advocates contend one reason for the low numbers is that people are unaware of the option. That could change with the attention from this case filed by Moran, a speech therapist.
Moran's health problems began in 1995. Physical therapy and other treatments recommended by her primary care doctor did not relieve her arm pain, so she sought the opinion of a surgeon who did not participate in her health plan. That doctor recommended a more extensive surgery, which Rush Prudential refused to pay for. Two specialists also said she did not need the extensive surgery.
Moran, who lives in suburban Chicago, demanded a separate review and an outside expert agreed that the surgery was necessary.
The case is Rush Prudential HMO v. Moran, 00-1021.
Isn't that nice! Now schools can slander a person with no fear of being held accountable. Anyone who believes that there is any chance of a school losing it's federal allowance for doing something like this is not dealing with reality.
Square peg goes in round hole right ?
And second, they still don't get it when it comes to the 8th amendment. It prohibits "cruel AND unusual" punishment, not cruel OR unusual. So if a legislature by law sets the punishment for a particular crime, it's by definition not unusual. The 8th amendment was meant to prohibit arbitrary terror and harassment by judges and law-enforcement officers. It wasn't a "feel good" amendment.
Flame suit on.
I don't care how retarded they think they are, I refuse to believe that a person dosen't know right from wrong when they are KILLING another human being.
I think Gina Holland and others may be in for a suprise if they think that this means another Demorat seat.
This wouldn't bother me nearly as much if the schools weren't actively advancing an overtly liberal agenda, and the federal bureaucracies that determine their eligibility for federal dollars weren't sympathetic to that agenda. This has all the earmarks of a potential weapon to be used to stifle opposition to political correctness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.