Supreme Court to conference on Al-Marri this week
For a while now, the “season” whose statistics, subplots, and relative greatness I track with the most enthusiasm is that of the Supreme Court of the United States, and we are in the thick of things this year.
Although it’s invigorating to see that this court found in favor of a consumer (a consumer!) in the Wyeth drug labeling case, this civil libertarian is entirely consumed by Al-Marri v. Spagone, which was just featured in a great piece in the New Yorker.
Al-Marri is the ultimate test of Bush-era indefinite detention holdings, which have represented perhaps the most shameful abrogation of American values since 2001. The Obama administration did the right thing (the right thing!) by indicting him on criminal charges and beginning a path towards justice this week, as you likely heard. They’re doing the wrong thing, and perhaps attempting to hold onto illegally broad detention powers, by using the fact of that indictment to attempt to push Al-Marri’s case off the Supreme Court docket.
Anyhow, all of this inane background for one piece of real news, via the SCOTUSblog: the justices will conference Friday on what to do with the case, and we’ll probably know by next week. As reported in the link, “The Court agreed in December to rule on Al-Marri’s case, and the government’s brief — if the case is not dismissed — is due March 23.”
A criminal indictment is a deeply reassuring first positive sign from Obama that he’ll do right by civil liberties, but here’s hoping that the SCOTUS steps up to the plate and begins to reign in executive authority. I could have ended with a sports metaphor there, but I didn’t want to bowl anybody over.
Can't just cross my fingers: Prop 8
I sent this email to as many California voters as I could think of. I encourage you to do likewise.
Hello Friends,
Many of you have not heard from/seen me in years, and I hope this letter finds all safe and sound. As I try to keep up with California news from my Harlem apartment, I have followed the prospects of Proposition 8 - the ballot initiative to revoke equal marriage rights for gay couples - with some interest. I wasn’t much worried, though, counting on a fundamental sense of justice in the California people. But as polls continue to narrow, I can no longer conscience silence. I’m doing something I have never done: writing a bulk email.
This not a political matter, and this is not a choice which has any bearing on the love, sanctity, and meaning embodied in so many heterosexual marriages. Marriage is a civil right. If you have married, I’d imagine you believe it to be a fundamental one. Anything less than marriage - including a “separate but equal” pact under another name - is a profound injustice.
I urge you to vote NO on Prop 8 to preserve basic civil rights for all California citizens. If you identify as heterosexual, the need to stand up for our brothers and sisters even without our own stake in this fight is of particular ethical import. If you already plan on voting NO, I encourage you to read up on the state of the race and see if you, too, feel compelled to write as many people as you can.
In 1948, California was the first state to rule racist anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional. That decision sparked a fire culminating in the landmark Loving v. Virgina almost two decades later. Our parents or grandparents never had the privilege to vote in support of civil rights on that issue, but on this occasion we do. While we pray that this struggle for a basic equality moves more speedily, we must not forsake the opportunity to make our voices heard on November 4th. Vote NO on Prop 8.
Much warmth,
Steve McFarland
