Chaotic Last Decisions Delivered

By Lottie Watts

The Supreme Court delivered its final decisions on Thursday in the cases of Medellin v. Texas and Boumediene v. Bush. Justice Ginsberg delivered the decision in Medellin and Justice Kennedy attempted to explain the chaos surrounding Boumediene, which was essentially a victory for the Bush Administration.

Medellin v. Texas was a 6-3 victory for the petitioner. In the opinion, “the court refutes the notion that the President has the authority to order the state courts to follow the ICJ’s Avena ruling.” Justices Kennedy, Stevens, Thomas, Souter and Scalia joined Ginsberg in the opinion. Justice Roberts dissented and Justice Alito joined the dissent. Justice Souter joined the dissent in part.

The Final Episode of the 316

The final episode of The 316 has been recorded and can be found here.

Ben and I woudl like to thank you for listening all semester and for those that appeared on our show.  Have a safe and happy holidays.

Zack Glick

Two Decisions Delivered Today

By Lottie Watts

The Supreme Court delivered two decisions from the bench today.

They read opinions in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds. Both were 5-4 decisions.

Last Case Heard by Supreme Court

By Lottie Watts

The Supreme Court heard its last case of the term Thursday, November 15, 2007.

The case of Boumediene v. Bush, which deals with the constitutionality of military tribunals, was the final case heard this term.

William Denis represented the petitioner, Lakhdar Boumediene, and the office of the Solicitor General represented President Bush.

Third Case Heard by Supreme Court

By Lottie Watts

The Supreme Court heard arguments Thursday in Medellin v. Texas.   It was the second to last case that the court will hear before the term ends and decisions are handed down.

The case concerns the constitutionality of President Bush’s order to Texas courts to grant relief in a death penalty case involving the Vienna Convention on Consular relations.

The justices asked many questions of both the petitioner and the respondent.

Audio Released in Medellin v.Texas

SUNN has posted the audio of the oral arguments in the case of Medellin v.Texas.  This audio will be analyzed in detail on the upcoming episode of The 316 with Zack Glick and Ben Youngerman.

The audio can be found here.

The 316 Episode 6

 

 

Zack Glick

The sixth episode of The 316 has been recorded and it can be found here.

If you would like to appear on the show please e-mail Zack Glick thru Blackboard, we record on Friday around 3 PM.

Planned Parenthood v. Rounds Argued

By Lottie Watts

Planned Parenthood v. Rounds was presented to the Supreme Court Thursday.

This case deals with the constitutionality of a South Dakota law requiring “informed consent” prior to an abortion.

The justices asked for clarification on many points that both the petitioner and respondent presented but both sides said they were able to include most of the information they planned on using.

The court should look at this case differently because it is an abortion case, petitioner Toma Grigoryan said. Grigoryan is representing South Dakota Governor Mike Rounds.

“The state has a right to have an interest in the life of the fetus,” Grigoryan said during arguments. 

Audio released in Planed Parenthood v. Rounds

SUNN has posted the audio of the oral arguments in the case of Planed Parenthood v. Rounds.  This audio will be analyzed in detail on the upcoming episode of The 316 with Zack Glick and Ben Youngerman.

The audio can be found here.

Pugach, Nugent Shine During First Oral Argument

By: Eric DeWitt

Thursday morning greeted us with a look at the first look at the oral arguments the Justices have agreed to hear this fall. Not really knowing what to expect from petitioner Brett Pugach and respondent Alyssa Nugent in the case of Crawford vs. Marion County Board of Elections, the court seemed on edge as Pugach made his way to the stand. What followed was a heated, well thought out, effort by all parties involved.

            Pugach represented the side that believes Indiana’s stringent requirements with regard to their specific photo ID law should be stricken down. Pugach says despite the pressure of being the first case heard, he was able to carry out the game plan that he and Co-counsel Lotfi Sariahmed put together.

 “I think that we went in on Thursday and accomplished what we set out to do.  I think that we were able to demonstrate to the justices that the law overstepped its bounds by creating costly, burdensome, and unnecessary barriers for many voters,” Pugach said.