The Supreme Court and High-Speed Chases

This post was featured on One More Political Blog, but for those of you who for some reason unbeknownst to me do not read One More Political Blog, here it is for your enjoyment as well.

The Supreme Court decided today in Scott v. Harris (an 8-1 decision with Justice Stevens dissenting) that a police officer who purposefully rams a fleeing car in order to end a high speed chase does not violate the Fourth Amendment. In simple terms, they determined that such an action on the part of a police officer is reasonable, and that (at least in this specific case) no reasonable jury could conclude otherwise. The practical implication of this is that a person injured or killed in such an incident cannot sue the police officer for acting unreasonably. On the whole, I think it is reasonable for a police officer to engage in this sort of action. As Justice Scalia put it, such chases "endanger the lives of innocent bystanders," and it is naturally the police officer's responsibility to protect said innocent bystanders. However, with that being admitted, I have trouble seeing why a jury cannot decide this based on the facts of a specific case.

This seemed to be the main crux of Justice Stevens' dissent. He noted that his colleagues had set themselves up as "eight jurors on this Court," effectively playing the role of a jury in seeing if the facts created a reasonable action. However, as Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog notes:

That description, however valid, does not do away with the reality that this decision is a constitutional holding more than it is an essay about facts, and very likely will be applied by lower courts beyond its specific factual setting.

The point here is that the Court did not simply say "This police officer in this specific case acted reasonably." Rather, it established a per se rule stating that any attempt by a police officer to end a high-speed chase by causing the fleeing car to crash is reasonable. So, it did not simply act as a jury in this specific case; it acted as the jury for all future cases of this sort.

It is the jury's job to determine how the facts add up, and whether the sum of all the facts makes the alleged action reasonable or unreasonable. I can think of any number of situations where the facts may make such an action unreasonable (or at least not obviously reasonable). For instance, what about time considerations? If a police officer turns on his siren, and the driver immediately speeds up, is that grounds for a "reasonable" ramming? Or, what if it is readily known that there are young passengers in the car? Is such a ramming still reasonable?

I know the Supreme Court likes "bright line" rules, but justice is more ably administered when the facts of any given case are presented and considered by a jury. Of course, juries do make mistakes of law from time to time (deciding one way when, as a matter of law, the opposite is clearly true), and it is perfectly reasonable and desirable for judges to step in and overturn juries' decisions in such instances. But, judges should not be establishing per se rules that will, in effect, decide cases before even considering the unique facts.

One thing liberals and conservatives can agree on: Blame the Media

My good friend over at One More Political Blog has responded to my post about McCain's numerous announcements with the following:

Far be it from me to disagree with Fz, one of the smartest political thinkers I know. But if you watch the clip all the way through, you’ll notice that McCain is careful to qualify his statement, admitting: “By the way, I’ll be making a formal announcement in April…You drag this out as long as you can… you know, you don’t just have one rendition, you do it over and over.” While it’s quite funny to hear him describe his appearance as the “announcement preceding the formal announcement,” McCain is actually showing an admirable degree of honesty about the way these things work. I don’t think he is at fault here; if anyone is, it’s the news media, who allow these little games in the name of manufacturing 24 hours of news every day.

While I appreciate DC's compliment, I question his accusation that the media is entirely to blame. Even if we assume that McCain is some sort of "victim of the times," succumbing to the flaws of the times is by no means representative of the sort of honesty DC refers to above. A true driver of the "Straight Talk Express" would not play the media's games, if these are even "games," which is certainly questionable.

The media can only report what goes on; indeed, that is their job. However, DC seems to suggest that the media should take the high road and not "allow these little games." When did we lose so much faith in our electoral process that we started to think that the media should be more mature than the candidates?

Certainly, the media does have a responsibility that they may not be living up to nowadays, but our politicians also have a duty to not to provide the media with ridiculous things to feed this "media frenzy." We cannot blame the media for allowing our political candidates to do stupid things. We should blame those candidates for doing the stupid things in the first place.

Here's to debating.

It's only April, 2007, but the candidates are already debating.

High point of the debate: Brian Williams points out that Joe Biden is known for basically having a bad case of "diarrhea of the mouth," and he asks him if we could trust him to not make a fool of himself (and us) on the global stage. Biden's response: "Yes."

The unavoidable question after any debate is, of course, "Who won?" I'm not so sure, really. I don't think anyone (except maybe Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel) was really trying to win, per se. We're too early in the process to worry about winning. We're still nine months away from the Iowa caucuses. Winning this debate won't even matter at that point. So, the goal, more or less (at least amongst the serious candidates) was not to win, but rather not to blow it. So, in that sense, I think everyone achieved his or her goal. I think that Obama (and perhaps Edwards) under-performed, not living up to their eloquent potential. However, I don't think we should have expected either of these candidates to do anything other than play it safe.

The liveliness of the debate, as is the case with most debates, came from the candidates who have absolutely no chance; in this case, Kucinich and Gravel. The former at least seemed rational throughout, making fair enough (but perhaps not practical) points. Gravel, though, was the clown of the debates. He is to the 2008 election what Al Sharpton was to the 2004 election. He, like Sharpton did four years ago, whined about how little attention he got, comparing himself to, and I quote, a "potted plant." The problem is that he doesn't deserve face time. He's a senile old coot who is trying to bring back a 70's era Democratic party that has no place (or at least no practical place) in modern American politics. Gravel, please drop out and stop wasting our time. Yes, we need someone to question the "mainstream" candidates, but we already have Kucinich, and you make him like the pinnacle of sanity in comparison.

Some final thoughts. I think Obama seemed the most "presidential" of them all, followed by Edwards and Dodd. Of course, though, Dodd has no chance. America is not in the mood, so to speak, to elect an old-school New England liberal. Anyone remember John Kerry?

Yeah, that didn't work out so well.

Given the general goal of "not blowing it," I think all the serious candidates succeeded relatively well. There is no point in risking it and striving for a stellar performance. We'll get to those debates later on.

Oh, hello John! I didn't know you were here!

So, apparently Senator John McCain formally announced his candidacy for president yesterday.

...

What?

If I'm not mistaken (and I read the New York Times, so I don't think I am), John McCain has been campaigning for president for a number of months now. Indeed, I was under the impression that he had announced his candidacy on the Late Show with David Letterman on February 28, almost two whole months ago.

What is this? Struggling candidates will re-announce their candidacy every few months in hopes of drawing media attention and gaining stature in the polls? Well, the former worked; I guess we'll have to wait and see about the latter.

I'm skeptical, though. I don't think conservatives will ever trust McCain, and now that he is fiercely faking conservatism (which may not be a sound strategy, given that Giuliani, an out-of-the-closet moderate, is still dominating the polls), he is losing the support of moderate Democrats who would have voted for him if he had lived up to his bus's name: the "Straight Talk Express."

Indeed, a recent poll conducted by Rasmussen Reports shows that his approval rating has hit a new low. And in other polls, he is losing in general election match-ups. Even to Hillary. I know many Democrats who have said "I'll surely vote for McCain before I vote for Hillary!" It looks like that crowd is changing its mind.

Here's the thing. McCain had a wide base of moderate support, and now that he is miming conservatism, they're deserting him. And what's worst of all (for him, at least) is that he's not gaining anything! Conservatives do not, and will not, trust him.

Looks like you've shot yourself in the foot, there, John.

Who needs precedent, anyway?

Last week, the Supreme Court decided a case entitled Gonzales v. Carhart which posed a challenge to the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. As you may have heard, the ban was upheld, despite the mountain of precedent that suggested that the ban was unconstitutional.

Both Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) and Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) (a case that overturned a Nebraska law banning "partial birth abortion") make explicitly clear that abortion laws must provide a health exception. (I ignore Roe here because Casey effectively gutted it, making Casey the go-to abortion precedent nowadays.) In other words, if the woman's health would be threatened by not getting a certain type of abortion, that method must be allowed in those cases. This was clear precedent.

Justice Kennedy, in Gonzales v. Carhart case, ignores this precedent. Indeed, the PBABA only provided an exception if the woman's life would be in danger, but not if her health would be in danger. So, if, for instance, she would go blind if she could not get a "partial birth abortion," the law would, in effect, make her go blind. Of course, Congress asserts that there is never a case when "partial birth abortions" are the safest method or when the woman's health will be threatened if she cannot get such a procedure. You know who disagrees, though? The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Hmm. Who knows more about Obstetrics and Gynecology? The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or politicians (mostly Republicans - the House vote was 281-142; the Senate vote was 64-34)?

The Court, being the "strict constructionists" and "judicial restraintists" they are, decided to leave fact finding matters to Congress.

It is typically referred to as restraint when the Court defers to the elected branches of government, but it is not restraint when doing so requires ignoring standing precedent for no legitimate reason. Indeed, the only reason for ignoring the Casey and Stenberg precedents was that Samuel Alito had replaced Sandra Day O'Connor.

I love the smell of politics wafting out of the Supreme Court, don't you?