Supreme Court rejects lawsuit against private prisons

Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit against private prisons. These are the guys that are going to focus on Obamacare? These are the so-called "progressives" that Clinton and Obama appointed into the Court? These are the so-called "conservatives" that Bush and Reagan appointed? These are the same guys that vote in favor of businesses, from Citizens United and Buckley v Valeo, to Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad and the new one involving the EPA. These are the same guys that are ignoring the NDAA and focusing on a healthcare mandate.

Now do you see why I have a problem with these guys?3

Link doesn't work, why does it have youtube in it?

this case was decided in 1886

why is on this list

From what I managed to get of it ( http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57356119/court-wont-allow-private-prison-employees-lawsuit/ ), the Supreme Court did not prevent the lawsuit, only its escalation from State to Federal.

edited 12th Jan '12 6:08:21 AM by Medinoc

Sorry, I just misread this as: Supreme Court rejects lawsuit against private pensions.

That's all.

edited 12th Jan '12 7:33:00 AM by Greenmantle

Did they reject the suit entire, or just say it had to be kept at the state level? I agree that the SC is too pro-corporate but the devil is in the details, gentlemen.

It seems like all they did was say "Keep it at state level, kid."

It gets worse: All justices except Ginsburg consider that prisoners are not entitled to the same rights if confined to a private prison: Privatized prisons take away more rights off a prisoner than State-operated prisons do and SCOTUS justices think it's OK.

In short, government is allowed to circumvent the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment simply by arbitrarily housing a detainee in a private prison.

I think you're reading too much into this.

The supreme court justices really are that old? ;)

I've never liked the idea of justices being on the court for life. After a while they turn into ivory tower judges without any regard to what is practical for the population which they serve.

^ The idea was because what is "practical" for the current generation may become the tyranny of the next.

The SCOTUS has life tenure because it's there to keep the rest of the government Executive and Legislative in check to hold the tenets of the Constitution together.

If we allow ourselves to change so rapidly because of fads in the voter populace or a sudden popularity of an ideology then we will fall into a tyranny of the majority and our Constitution no longer guarantees our rights.

This is an unbearably boring issue of civil procedure. It seems he was trying to get into federal court on the basis of a Constitutional claim, but since he's not actually challenging a state law (which are themselves presumably Constitutional) that's not applicable and he has no federal "seed" to his claim and no basis being in federal court. How much he suffered or how much he's due has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Any first year law student would think the same thing. Unless there are some other details not mentioned in the article.

Keep the life position, but make it easier to force the recall of judges who demonstrate a lack of impartiality. I mean c'mon, Citizens United, seriously?

For the last damn time, Citizens United v. Federal Electoral Commission is a correct constitutional ruling.

Just as Dred Scott v. Sandford was a correct constitutional ruling.

They just both happen to totally suck, in terms of actual effects. Such is a problem with the system itself, not the interpreters of its code of law.

Edit: Such is why we must modify the system itself, as we did with getting rid of Dred Scott v. Sandford. I.e. amend the Constitution.

edited 12th Jan '12 3:28:41 PM by Flyboy

Basically this, but OTC is full of people who only care about the blueness or greenness of Supreme Court decisions and not the actual legal questions involved.

edited 12th Jan '12 3:37:31 PM by silver2195

Yeah, he's not actually being treated poorly by the government, but by a private group. It would be correct for him to sue for civil damages; not constitutional issues.

edited 12th Jan '12 4:19:47 PM by Completion

Disputable on both counts.

x4 We have impeachment. The Congress has that power if the Court justices do outrageous things. While only one SCOTUS justice was impeached, lower court judges are removed more often. I would keep life-like but maybe with higher qualifications and maybe an enforced retirement age, and maybe a minimum age limit or some other lower limit so they don't begin too early.

I agree with that; we shouldn't look at just how conservative the court is and compare it to this exception. We need to see the integrity of the judges and their faithfulness to law and constitutional order.

OP: Still can't see the link.

About the case, 8th amendment is a key right of a citizen and should not be void just because it's private, even though being private means a different procedure may apply. In this case, there should be criminal charges incurred against the prison and whoever was responsible.

We need more information, though. Apparently SCOTUS has ruled on the basis of state law, so I'm not sure whether this is a state or federal case. If it's a state case, it should be remanded to the state court.

IIRC, the ruling stated that there is a different procedure for it.

edited 13th Jan '12 8:46:24 AM by silver2195

@Flyboy: Actually, I think it was not only a correct decision, it was a good decision.

To an extent, of course; it's not terribly fair to allow the top few people of a corporation to represent the rest speech-wise, but that's not a problem with this case, that's a problem with the concept of a corporation. But the case itself was fine; anything that's capable of speech should be allowed it.

Well, in the context of the free speech principle, it's good, but in terms of actual effects on the political system it's abysmally awful.

Well, about that, as people said here, there's a problem with that logic, regarding how corporations have unfair advantage over individuals. Apparently Montana Supreme Court is arguing on that flaw.

I think that as I've said above we need more information. Now that the case is dismissed due to jurisdiction-related matter, what will happen? For one thing, we need clarity as to whether it should be sent to the state court system. Also, even if a different procedure applies, the case should be handled according to the procedure for private disputes.

edited 14th Jan '12 11:03:57 AM by abstractematics

It would be a private dispute even if it was in federal court. The standard criteria for being in federal court are that the two parties are in different states or that at least some part of the claim relies on federal law. Neither of those are the case here. If the state itself is a party it would also go to federal court, which seems to be the issue being focused on here (ie: if it was a state prison then federal court would be appropriate).

As for being resolved in state court: yes, obviously. There's no reason not to and even if it was in federal court they'd be applying state law anyway. There's really not much difference other than the jury pool and the judge pool. This isn't a huge deal in terms of "fairness". Trying to get into federal court is frankly a rather cynical move on his lawyer's part.

edited 14th Jan '12 12:28:37 PM by Clarste