Supreme Court rules in favor of Big Tobacco

PM gets let off the hook...

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Philip Morris
Tue Feb 20, 2007 - The U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday overturned a multimillion dollar award against tobacco giant Philip Morris, ruling the company could not be punished for harm to other smokers who were not parties in the lawsuit.

A closely divided Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned a $79.5 million punitive damages award won by the widow of a longtime smoker against Philip Morris. By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled the huge damages award was unconstitutional because it was intended to punish the tobacco company for harming not just the plaintiff but other smokers as well.

The court ruled that the company, a unit of Altria Group Inc., could not be punished for harm to other smokers in a case involving Mayola Williams, an Oregon woman whose husband died of lung cancer in 1997 after smoking for more than 40 years. The case had been closely watched by business groups that wanted the court to impose new limits on punitive damages designed to punish and deter misconduct. The court last placed limits on such awards in 2003.

Legal experts said the ruling could have a big impact on other types of product liability cases, such as lawsuits against drug companies and automakers. Businesses have long complained that punitive damages are skyrocketing out of control, can be arbitrary, and encourage frivolous lawsuits. Lawyers for those who have been injured defend big awards as a way to get companies to fix harmful product defects.

MORE

[DansDarkSide]

Ok we all know that smoking causes cancer right? We also know that eating Burger king makes you fat, Both are health risks, right. We know this and yet we still do it. So why if someone dies because of it should the company reward them for what they knowingly put into there body?

And about 2nd hand smoke, if it is in a public place and you dont like it then too bad it is a public place right? That means it there for everyone to use, if you dont like what 1 person is doing in it then leave.

[waltky]

Couple more Supreme Court cases...

Supreme Court to Consider Lethal Injection
Sep 25, 2007 - Justices to Decide Kentucky Death Row Cases Challenging the Execution Method

The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to consider the constitutionality of lethal injections in a case that could affect the way inmates are executed around the country. The high court will hear a challenge from two inmates on death row in Kentucky -- Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr. -- who sued Kentucky in 2004, claiming lethal injection amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

Baze has been scheduled for execution Tuesday night, but the Kentucky Supreme Court halted the proceedings earlier this month. The U.S. Supreme Court has previously made it easier for death row inmates to contest the lethal injections used across the country for executions.

But until Tuesday, the justices had never agreed to consider the fundamental question of whether the mix of drugs used in Kentucky and elsewhere violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. All 37 states that perform lethal injections use the same three-drug cocktail, but at least 10 states suspended its use after opponents alleged it was ineffective and cruel, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

The three consist of an anesthetic, a muscle paralyzer, and a substance to stop the heart. Death penalty foes have argued that if the condemned prisoner is not given enough anesthetic, he can suffer excruciating pain without being able to cry out. U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ruled last week that Tennessee's method of lethal injection is unconstitutional and ordered the state not to execute a death row inmate using that method. The state is still deciding whether to appeal the judge's ruling, but agreed to stop a pending execution.

More ABC News: Supreme Court to Consider Lethal Injection

See also:


Supreme Court to Hear Voter ID Case
Sept. 25, 2007 - Supporters Say Law Combats Fraud; Others Charge It Unfairly Impacts Poor, Minorities

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in a case that will raise the question of whether requiring a voter to have a government-issued photo ID will unfairly impact poor and minority voters. A federal appeals court upheld a 2005 Indiana law that would require all voters to show ID before being able to vote. Judge Richard Posner said it would be impossible for a person to exist in society today without an ID, saying, "Try flying or entering a tall building."

The National Committee on Election Reform said that 6 to 10 percent of eligible voters don't have valid IDs -- perhaps as many as 20 million Americans. Most of them are poor, getting by with no identification at all. They don't drive, they don't have bank accounts and they don't fly. Only a few states have voter identification laws but the Indiana Democratic Party -- one of the petitioners -- said that Indiana's requirements are the most restrictive.

To get an ID in the state, you must have a validated birth certificate and two other forms of identification. An Indiana state employee has testified that as many as 60 percent of applicants for IDs are turned away because of improper documentation. Those arguing for the voter identification law say that they are concerned about inflated voter registration lists and nationwide reports of in-person voter fraud.

They cite a 2000 Indianapolis Star report that found 300 dead people on the registered voter list, though there is no evidence of anyone having been prosecuted for impersonating a registered voter. An article in the Michigan Law Review said that the number of voters that would fail to show up with IDs would be several times higher than the number of fraudulent voters.

More ABC News: Supreme Court to Hear Voter ID Case

[waltky]

Federal Tax Would Target Smokers...

Congress Aims to Extinguish Cigarettes
WASHINGTON Nov 10, 2007 - Congress Takes New Whacks at Big Tobacco by Seeking Significant Tax Increase on Cigarettes

Congress is taking new whacks at the cigarette industry, banning tobacco sales in Senate buildings and more importantly seeking a significant federal tax increase on cigarettes. The industry, once a lobbying behemoth, is quietly working against the tax bill. But it lacks the clout it once wielded.

Several key lawmakers said they have had no recent contacts with tobacco lobbyists. And both houses have signaled a willingness to raise the cigarette tax if other provisions of a children's health bill can be resolved. "I think the industry has tried to do things more quietly, largely because they obviously know how popular a tobacco tax is," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. The health advocacy group supports a proposed $35 billion increase in the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which a higher cigarette tax would finance.

House and Senate negotiators are trying to craft a veto-proof version of the bill. President Bush says he would veto it because it calls for a 61 cents-per-pack increase in the federal excise tax on cigarettes, taking it to $1. The House came within about a dozen votes of overriding Bush's veto of a similar bill last month. The bill's supporters are offering to change program eligibility rules in hopes of picking up enough Republicans to make the revised bill veto-proof. The proposed cigarette tax increase is not at issue, leaders of both parties said.

More ABC News: Federal Tax Would Target Smokers

See also:

US right to bear arms may get its day in court
11 November 2007 WASHINGTON: For the first time in 70 years, the US Supreme Court may decide next week whether to examine the question of the right to bear arms, something which is fiercely upheld by millions of Americans.

The US capital of Washington, which is trying to stem a wave of violence in its seedier neighbourhoods, has lodged a case with the nine Supreme Court judges seeking to maintain its three-decade ban on individuals carrying handguns. The judges were due to have an initial discussion on Friday, and their decision on whether or not to examine the question could be announced as early as Tuesday.

The case goes right to the heart of the American constitution, which in its second amendment declares that: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Washington, which is also home to the president and the government, has interpreted the amendment to mean that there is a collective right to bear arms for those who are part of a police force or a security force.

But since 1976, it has banned residents from carrying handguns, although they are allowed to keep a rifle or hunting gun in their homes, providing it is locked and not loaded. For millions of Americans though, and especially the powerful gun lobby represented by the National Rifle Association, the second amendment guarantees the right of every American citizen to own any gun, with few limits.

MORE

Granny keepin' her shotgun close by just in case dem jihadis decide to invade us.

[waltky]

Lethal injection as 'cruel and unusual punishment'...

Public defender builds injection case
Tue Jan 1, 2008 - One of the biggest capital punishment cases to come before the U.S. Supreme Court in a generation was put together largely by a young, fresh-out-of-law-school member of Kentucky's overworked and underpaid corps of public defenders.

David Barron, 29, filed an appeal on behalf of two Kentucky death row inmates, arguing that the three-drug cocktail used in lethal injections across the country can cause excruciating pain, and thus amounts to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. After three years of long hours on Barron's part, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case on Jan. 7.

"I can't believe I've got a case before the Supreme Court and I'm not even 30 years old," Barron said. This is the first time in more than a century that the high court will address the legality of a method of execution. Thirty-six states use lethal injection, and executions across the U.S. have come to a halt in the meantime.

Barron, an assistant public defender, arrived in Kentucky in 2004, just over a year out of law school, to represent some of the worst of the worst — death row inmates. He was admitted to the Kentucky bar in July of that year, and filed his lethal-injection challenge the following September, employing a strategy he had tested out in other jurisdictions. He was paired with John Palombi, a fellow public defender with at least a decade of experience.

MORE

[waltky]

Granny says, "Dat's right - dey locked dat lil' crackhead up...

High Court Rules on Illegal Searches
Wednesday, Apr. 23, 2008 (WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court affirmed Wednesday that police have the power to conduct searches and seize evidence, even when done during an arrest that turns out to have violated state law.

The unanimous decision comes in a case from Portsmouth, Va., where city detectives seized crack cocaine from a motorist after arresting him for a traffic ticket offense. David Lee Moore was pulled over for driving on a suspended license. The violation is a minor crime in Virginia and calls for police to issue a court summons and let the driver go. Instead, city detectives arrested Moore and prosecutors say that drugs taken from him in a subsequent search can be used against him as evidence.

"We reaffirm against a novel challenge what we have signaled for half a century," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. Scalia said that when officers have probable cause to believe a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety. Moore was convicted on a drug charge and sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison.

The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that police should have released Moore and could not lawfully conduct a search. State law, said the Virginia Supreme Court, restricted officers to issuing a ticket in exchange for a promise to appear later in court. Virginia courts dismissed the indictment against Moore. Moore argued that the Fourth Amendment permits a search only following a lawful state arrest. In a concurring opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she finds more support for Moore's position in previous court cases than the rest of the court does. But she said she agrees that the arrest and search of Moore was constitutional, even though it violated Virginia law.

The Bush administration and attorneys general from 18 states lined up in support of Virginia prosecutors. The federal government said Moore's case had the potential to greatly increase the class of unconstitutional arrests, resulting in evidence seized during searches being excluded with increasing frequency. Looking to state laws to provide the basis for searches would introduce uncertainty into the legal system, the 18 states said in court papers.

Source

[waltky]

Supreme Court a bunch o' barbarians...

Supreme Court bans death penalty for child rape
Thu Jun 26, `08 - Unbowed, politicians vow to execute child rapists

Angry politicians vowed to keep writing laws that condemn child rapists to death, despite a Supreme Court decision saying such punishment is unconstitutional. "Anybody in the country who cares about children should be outraged that we have a Supreme Court that would issue a decision like this," said Alabama Attorney General Troy King, a Republican. The justices, he said, are "creating a situation where the country is a less safe place to grow up."

The court's 5-4 decision Wednesday derailed the efforts of nearly a dozen states supporting the right to kill those convicted of raping a child — and said execution was confined to attacks that take a life and to other crimes including treason and espionage. At issue before the high court was a Louisiana case involving Patrick Kennedy, sentenced to die for raping his 8-year-old daughter in her bed, an assault so severe she required surgery.

In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child," despite the horrendous nature of the crime. Republican Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal called the ruling "incredibly absurd," "a clear abuse of judicial authority" and said officials will "evaluate ways to amend our statute to maintain death as a penalty for this horrific crime."

MORE

See also:

Court Cuts 'Excessive' Exxon Valdez Damages by $2 Billion
June 26, 2008 - In a 5-3 decision on Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court dramatically reduced a punitive-damages award against ExxonMobil that resulted from a 1989 oil spill along the Alaskan coastline.

The ruling was hailed as "good news" by a pro-business organization but dismissed as "a slap on the wrist" by a liberal group that charged: "Just like polar bears in the Arctic, the environment is on very thin ice" at the high court. Justice David Souter wrote that a penalty should be "reasonably predictable" in its severity, even for the worst oil disaster ever to hit the United States. As a result, he cut the $2.5 billion award against the company by about 80 percent.

"Our explanation of the constitutional upper limit confirms that the 1:1 ratio is not too low," Souter stated in the ruling. "Applying this standard to the present case, we take for granted the District Court's calculation of the total relevant compensatory damages at $507.5 million," he added. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy joined Souter in the majority, while Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented. Justice Samuel Alito, an Exxon stockholder, recused himself from the case.

In her dissent, Ginsburg accused the majority of engaging in "lawmaking" since federal legislators have not imposed any restrictions in such circumstances. "The new law made by the court should have been left to Congress," she wrote. Wednesday's ruling was the latest development since the Exxon Valdez tanker crashed into a reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, on March 24, 1989, when 11 million gallons of crude oil were spilled over 1,300 miles of the state's coastline.

MORE