President Obama: “We Must Rethink Solitary Confinement”

[S]olitary confinement has the potential to lead to devastating, lasting psychological consequences. It has been linked to depression, alienation, withdrawal, a reduced ability to interact with others and the potential for violent behavior. Some studies indicate that it can worsen existing mental illnesses and even trigger new ones. Prisoners in solitary are more likely to commit suicide, especially juveniles and people with mental illnesses.

I’ll let his moving piece in today’s Washington Post speak for itself. (For the record, I agree with him.)

Why Do I Blog About The Law?

Because of reader responses like this one: “i love getting these blog posts in my inbox. reading them makes me smarter; thanks for writing them.”

Dear Reader: I love writing the posts as much as you enjoy reading them.  And I’m glad you find them worthy of your time. Thank you for your very kind words!

Does President Obama Care About The Law?

“A recurring criticism of the Obama Administration is that it has embraced an inflated notion of executive power and disregarded legal constraints on executive-branch actions.”  So writes Case Western University law professor Jonathan Adler on a post at The Volokh Conspiracy.  His post describes an article by another author, Charlie Savage, that tests the validity of that criticism by citing eight examples in which the Obama Administration did not do something it really wanted to do because the law stood in the way:

1. Not closing Guantanamo
2. Not bombing the Bin Laden compound
3. Not keeping Daqduq in American custody
4. Not targeting al-Farekh
5. Revealing, at last, the role of warrantless surveillance in evidence presented in certain criminal cases
6. Not unilaterally bombing Syrian forces for using chemical weapons
7. Continuing to enforce DOMA
8. Not including parents of ‘Dreamers’ in DAPA

I commend Adler’s post to readers (particularly my conservative friends who love to bash President Obama for alleged executive power overreach).

Discussing The Death Penalty On “The Legal Eagle”

Lucy Gellman Photo

I had the pleasure of joining journalist Marcia Chambers this morning on “The Legal Eagle,” her weekly radio show on WNHH, the station owned and operated by The New Haven Independent.  We discussed a range of issues, including the oral argument in the Connecticut Supreme Court last week concerning the death penalty; the case the U.S. Supreme Court heard yesterday concerning the First Amendment and public sector labor unions; and recently enacted police body camera legislation.  Click here to listen to the show!

Is Ted Cruz A “Natural Born Citizen?”

Not if one interprets the U.S. Constitution the way Cruz thinks it should be interpreted.  See this interesting post over at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Handicapping The Outcome of State v. Peeler (Part Two)

In my preceding post I presented my thoughts on how the justices of the Supreme Court would cast their votes in State v. Peeler. In this post I discuss the various possible outcomes (“PO”). As I explain, there are a number of permutations beyond simply reaffirming or overruling State v. Santiago (Santiago II).

Read the rest of this entry »

Handicapping The Outcome Of State v. Peeler (Part One)

Yesterday, the Connecticut Supreme Court heard oral argument in State v. Peeler, a case that presents the Supreme Court with the opportunity to reaffirm or overrule its decision last August in State v. Santiago (Santiago II), which abolished the death penalty. (I use the term Santiago II to distinguish it from an earlier decision in the same case, which the Court and parties refer to as Santiago I.)

I’ve written about the Santiago and Peeler cases at some length, and this post presumes the reader’s familiarity with my earlier posts. The purpose of Part One of this two-part post is to handicap the outcome of yesterday’s argument. In Part Two, coming soon, I will outline the various possible permutations of the Court’s eventual decision, which I do not expect for many months.

Read the rest of this entry »

Where We Live: How “Perfect” Is The U.S. Constitution?

This morning’s program on WNPR’s “Where We Live,” hosted by John Dankosky, was a very interesting discussion about the U.S. Constitution.  Guests Akhil  Reed Amar (Yale Law School) and Adrienne Fulco (Trinity College) discussed a wide range of issues, including how the constitution should be interpreted; whether it is in need of amendment; current Second Amendment issues and more.  Click here to listen to the program!