5. Supreme Court Enters the Age of YouTube

Posted Mar 3, 09

(Newser) – A Florida man who was Tasered by police three times after being stopped for speeding has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case. But that petition begins not with an affidavit or legal precedent; rather, he included a link to a YouTube video depicting what seems to be severe police brutality. As the New York Times reports, justices are relying on video in a growing number of cases, and it's changing the workings of the high court.

In 2007, for instance, the Supreme Court reversed an appeals decision against Georgia police who rammed a car in a high-speed chase, paralyzing the driver. The justices, who ruled 8-1 for the police, relied on video from the squad car, which they later posted on the court's website. Where once justices relied on the findings of jurors and lower courts, video, said Justice Breyer, is forcing the justices to reckon with "Chico Marx’s old question: 'Who do you believe—me or your own eyes?'" (Source: New York Times )

6. Supreme Court May Have Too Many Judges

Posted Feb 16, 09

(Newser) – Chief Justice John Roberts recently praised the present makeup of the Supreme Court, which, for the first time in history, consists only of former federal appeals judges. The move towards a Court dominated by those with judicial experience has been afoot since the 1950s, writes Adam Liptak in the New York Times, but not all watchers think it’s a good thing.

“The correlation between prior judicial experience and fitness for the functions of the Supreme Court is zero,” wrote former justice Felix Frankfurter in 1957. And a recent UPenn study showed no difference in decisions made by former judges and “justices lacking judicial experience.” Perhaps another figure is more disturbing: Only three Supreme Court judges have been appointed without private practice experience—and they're all on the bench now. (Source: New York Times)

7. Supreme Court Needs Term Limits: Legal Eagles

Posted Feb 23, 09

(Newser) – The US judicial system is in need of a serious overhaul, law experts write in a letter to congressional leaders. They argue that Supreme Court justices shouldn’t keep their posts for life, instead taking 18-year terms before a shift in status, the Washington Post reports. Further, they say, the justices shouldn’t be allowed to decide which cases they’ll take on.

That policy fuels an image of a court “not just powerful but arrogant.” Instead, there should be a separate division of justices who review cases and send 80-100 to the high court annually. Last year, the court gave 67 opinions, the lowest number in decades. Meanwhile, justices with health troubles that pose on-the-job difficulties should be asked to resign, the experts urge. (Source: Washington Post )

II. Read and render the articles:

1. Court to Rule In Suit Against Ashcroft, Others

By Robert Barnes Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, June 17, 2008; A10

The Supreme Court said yesterday it will decide whether former attorney general John D. Ashcroft and top Bush administration officials are protected from a lawsuit filed by a Pakistani man who alleges he was abused after his arrest following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The court granted the government's request to hear the case after lower courts said that the lawsuit by Javaid Iqbal, a Muslim who was picked up at his home on Long Island, N.Y., and spent months in solitary confinement, could proceed.

The government argued that the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York would subject "high-level government officials to discovery and even a trial based merely on conclusory allegations that such officials knew of or condoned alleged wrongdoing by subordinate officials."

Iqbal alleges that his treatment at a federal holding facility in Brooklyn was based on unlawful racial and religious discrimination for which federal officials, including Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, are personally liable.

Iqbal was arrested in November 2001, one of many persons of "high interest" picked up by the government after the Sept. 11 attacks.

He was cleared of terrorism involvement, but pleaded guilty to Social Security fraud. After serving more than a year in prison, he was deported to Pakistan.