•   
  •   
  •   

Politics Boston Marathon Bomber Supreme Court Case Exposes Split Between Biden and Justice Department on Death Penalty

01:30  13 october  2021
01:30  13 october  2021 Source:   time.com

Supreme Court pivots to abortion, guns, and death penalty as public approval slides

  Supreme Court pivots to abortion, guns, and death penalty as public approval slides Facing a crisis of legitimacy, the U.S. Supreme Court begins a new term set to decide divisive cases on abortion, gun rights, the death penalty and religious freedom. © Tom Brenner/Reuters By the end of June 2022, the court's conservative majority has the potential to roll back 50 years of abortion rights precedent; declare a right to carry a handgun outside the home; bolster the death penalty; and, allow some American parents to use taxpayer funds for religious schools.

Boston Marathon Bomber Supreme Court Case Exposes Split Between Biden and Justice Department on Death Penalty . Attorneys will stand before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday and argue the fate of one of the most infamous members of federal death row: Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. While the case could have legal implications for future high-profile capital punishment trials, it also highlights a rift between Joe Biden ’s campaign pledge to end the federal death penalty and his Justice Department ’s request that the Supreme Court reinstate Tsarnaev’s

BOSTON (Reuters) - Liz Norden and Mikey Borgard both suffered when two bombs exploded at the finish line of the 2013 Boston Marathon , sending shrapnel through a crowd of hundreds of people. Norden's two adult sons lost their right legs. Borgard sustained hearing loss and a brain injury. The Justice Department launched its appeal during Republican former President Donald Trump's administration and continued it after Democrat Joe Biden took office even though Biden opposes the federal government's use of the death penalty . Opposition to the death penalty , as shown in opinion

Attorneys will stand before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday and argue the fate of one of the most infamous members of federal death row: Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

Courtroom sketch of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, second from left standing with his defense attorneys William Fick, left, Judy Clarke, second from right, and David Bruck, right, as the jury presents its verdict in his federal death penalty trial Wednesday, April 8, 2015, in Boston © Jane Flavell Collins—AP Courtroom sketch of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, second from left standing with his defense attorneys William Fick, left, Judy Clarke, second from right, and David Bruck, right, as the jury presents its verdict in his federal death penalty trial Wednesday, April 8, 2015, in Boston

While the case could have legal implications for future high-profile capital punishment trials, it also highlights a rift between Joe Biden’s campaign pledge to end the federal death penalty and his Justice Department’s request that the Supreme Court reinstate Tsarnaev’s death sentence.

Supreme Court rejects appeal by D.C. residents for more representation

  Supreme Court rejects appeal by D.C. residents for more representation The Supreme Court on Monday advised a lower court to reconsider earlier decisions on the border wall and rejected an appeal from Washington, D.C. residents for voting rights in Congress.The high court on Monday directed lower courts to reconsider their previous rulings that froze funding for construction of a wall at the southern border.

The Justice Department launched its appeal during Republican former President Donald Trump’s administration and continued it after Democrat Joe Biden took office even though Biden opposes the federal government’s use of the death penalty . This year’s marathon is being run on Monday, two days before the Supreme Court ’s arguments. Even during his trial, victims disagreed about Tsarnaev’s punishment. Bill and Denise Richard, Martin’s parents, in a 2015 open letter published in the Boston Globe newspaper urged prosecutors not to pursue the death penalty , saying it would prompt years of

The Supreme Court will decide whether to reinstate the death penalty for marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a sentence that has divided Bostonians. And that is why Norden, the mother of two sons who lost legs in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing , has become a vocal supporter of the death penalty for convicted bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev . Norden said she hopes such a sentence might prevent another family from having to experience what hers went through.

Tsarnaev was sentenced to death six years ago for his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, which killed three and injured hundreds. In 2020, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals threw out his death sentences, citing procedural failings during his trial (but kept in place his numerous life sentences). The Justice Department (DOJ) under President Donald Trump appealed in October of 2020, and then reaffirmed that position in June 2021 under Biden. The Supreme Court will now determine if Tsarnaev’s death sentences should be reinstated.

The case has brought renewed attention to the Biden Administration’s inconsistent positions on the death penalty. The first sitting President to oppose capital punishment, Biden pledged on the campaign trail to work to pass legislation eliminating the federal death penalty and to incentivize states to do the same. This year, he has spoken to lawmakers who have introduced legislation to abolish the practice, and in July his Attorney General Merrick Garland imposed a temporary moratorium on all federal executions that is still in place.

'Above the partisan divide'? Supreme Court begins heated new term amid slipping support

  'Above the partisan divide'? Supreme Court begins heated new term amid slipping support Criticism of the Supreme Court, particularly from the left, has prompted four justices to speak out publicly in recent days to defend the high court.With abortion, gun rights and religion featured prominently on the docket in coming weeks, the high court is diving into culture war controversies as several of the justices have fanned out in recent weeks to publicly defend against criticism on the left, sinking approval ratings and a bevy of proposed structural changes.

The Justice Department launched its appeal during Republican former President Donald Trump’s administration and continued it after Democrat Joe Biden took office even though Biden opposes the federal government’s use of the death penalty . Polls in 2013 and 2015 found a majority of Boston voters favored a life sentence for Tsarnaev. This year’s marathon is being run on Monday, two days before the Supreme Court ’s arguments. Even during his trial, victims disagreed about Tsarnaev’s punishment. Bill and Denise Richard, Martin’s parents, in a 2015 open letter published in the Boston

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule Wednesday on whether the death penalty should be reinstated for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the men who carried out the Boston Marathon Bombing . Under the Trump administration, the Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court in October 2020 to hear the case and reinstate his death penalty . Despite a transition of power to President Joe Biden before the Court could hear the case , the Biden administration decided to press on, challenging his reputation as the first sitting U.S. president to oppose capital punishment.

Yet Garland has not issued a formal policy banning federal prosecutors from seeking the death penalty, and in June, the Justice Department submitted filings to the Supreme Court asking for Tsarnaev’s death sentence to be reinstated. This means that while the federal government isn’t currently carrying out executions because of Garland’s moratorium, they are defending death sentences upon appeal and maintaining the ability to seek death in future cases.

In a statement in June about the Tsarnaev filing, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said DOJ has “independence regarding such decisions” but said the President believes DOJ should “not carry out executions.” He added that Biden “has made clear that he has deep concerns about whether capital punishment is consistent with the values that are fundamental to our sense of justice and fairness.” When asked for comment in October, the White House pointed to Bates’ prior statement. The Justice Department declined to comment.

Two women sue Nebraska in order to be recognized as legal parents of sons they had as a couple

  Two women sue Nebraska in order to be recognized as legal parents of sons they had as a couple Two women are suing Nebraska after being denied parental rights over sons they had when they were a couple. Each woman gave birth to one son.Erin Porterfield and Kristen Williams started their family in 2002 using assisted reproductive technology. Each woman gave birth to one of their sons, now 16 and 18, and both are considered a “person that has put themselves in the position of a parent,” for both sons, but with no legal parental right.

Supreme Court to consider reinstating death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber . Boston Marathon bomber files 0K suit over treatment in prison. The Biden administration will try to convince the nation’s highest court next week to reinstate the death penalty for convicted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, arguing a jury doesn’t need to examine evidence the feds relied on during an earlier phase of the case . Tsarnaev’s guilt in the horrific attack near the finish line of the 2013 marathon , which killed three and injured 260 people, won’t be at issue when justices for the

The Boston Marathon bombing was a domestic terrorist attack that took place during the annual Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013. Two terrorists, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, planted two homemade pressure cooker bombs, which detonated 14 seconds and 210 yards (190 The First Circuit vacated the death sentence and three of the other thirty convictions against Tsarnaev, and ordered a new penalty phase jury trial with fresh jurors, leaving the decision of a new change of venue to the District Court . Tsarnaev's remaining convictions still carried multiple life sentences

Thrown into relief by Wednesday’s infamous defendant, the gulf between Biden’s campaign promises and his DOJ’s actions appears especially stark. “This is a necessary, but also politically convenient divergence between the White House and DOJ,” says Elie Honig, a former federal and state prosecutor and CNN legal analyst. “It’s appropriate that DOJ make its prosecutorial decisions independent of the President… [But] DOJ does not operate in a vacuum. They are aware of political reality. It’s one thing to say, ‘I want to end the death penalty.’ It’s another to say, ‘We want to spare Tsarnaev.’”

Only an act of Congress can officially abolish the federal death penalty. A spokesperson for Rep. Ayanna Pressley, a Democrat from Massachusetts who introduced legislation earlier this year to do so, told TIME in a statement that she remains in ongoing conversation with the Biden Administration about ending the federal death penalty. Pressley also said in a statement that she was “deeply disappointed by the DOJ’s decision earlier this summer to move in conflict with the President’s campaign pledge by seeking to reinstate the death penalty in the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev case.”

Boston Marathon bombing victims split on death penalty in U.S. Supreme Court case

  Boston Marathon bombing victims split on death penalty in U.S. Supreme Court case Boston Marathon bombing victims split on death penalty in U.S. Supreme Court caseBOSTON (Reuters) - Liz Norden and Mikey Borgard both suffered when two bombs exploded at the finish line of the 2013 Boston Marathon, sending shrapnel through a crowd of hundreds of people. Norden's two adult sons lost their right legs. Borgard sustained hearing loss and a brain injury.

Tsarnaev’s future remains in limbo. Even if the Supreme Court decides to reimpose the death penalty as DOJ has requested, he won’t be executed as long as Garland’s moratorium remains in place. And even if it is lifted, Garland himself would have to schedule an execution. “The federal government has proven that it’s perfectly capable,” says Frank Baumgartner, a professor of political science at UNC Chapel Hill, “of having people sitting on death row for decades and decades.”

Restoring the independence of the Justice Department

At the same time that he is seeking to restore Tsarnaev’s death sentence, Garland has taken steps to probe the prior Administration’s use of the federal death penalty.

On July 1, he issued a memo announcing a moratorium on all federal executions until a review of the DOJ’s execution policies and procedures implemented during the Trump Administration could take place. The move was a major reversal from the Trump Administration’s decision to resume federal executions in the summer of 2020 after a 17-year hiatus. In the last six months of Trump’s presidency, DOJ carried out 13 executions, the most civilian executions in a single year since 1896.

Read more: In a Year Marked By Death, the Trump Administration Cements a Legacy of Unprecedented Executions

Supreme Court signals willingness to allow Kentucky attorney general to defend state's abortion law

  Supreme Court signals willingness to allow Kentucky attorney general to defend state's abortion law The case comes to the high court as advocates on both sides of the abortion debate are questioning the court's commitment to its Roe v. Wade decision.Most of the justices Tuesday appeared to be leaning toward allowing Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron to defend a 2018 law banning dilation and evacuation abortions, a procedure commonly performed in the second trimester of pregnancy.

In his July announcement, Garland directed the Deputy Attorney General to conduct a “multi-pronged” review of policy changes made during those Trump-era executions, including a review of the “risk of pain and suffering” caused by the execution drug pentobarbital and the speed at which executions were carried out. Advocates who want to abolish the death penalty have also been encouraged by news that federal prosecutors have withdrawn death sentence requests in at least seven cases this year, signaling a possible larger shift within the Department away from capital punishment.

Yet Garland has not issued a formal policy banning federal prosecutors from seeking the death penalty entirely. And the Department is still defending death sentences on appeal, such as Tsarnaev’s.

Garland’s actions could in part be attributed to his reputation as an institutionalist. DOJ faced fierce criticism during the Trump Administration for appearing to operate at the direction of the White House, blurring the historic line between the President and his Attorney General. One of Biden’s chief aims when he assumed office was to restore the DOJ’s reputation for independence. Generally speaking, Garland has defended the law as it currently stands while Attorney General, even backing Trump-era positions that might appear to run counter to Biden’s agenda. When it comes to changing controversial policies, he’s often left it up to Congress (with some exceptions).

Read more: Why Biden’s Justice Department Is Backing Trump-Era Positions

Justices seem set to revive marathon bomber's death sentence

  Justices seem set to revive marathon bomber's death sentence WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sounded ready Wednesday to reinstate the death penalty for convicted Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. In more than 90 minutes of arguments, the court's six conservative justices seemed likely to embrace the Biden administration's argument that a federal appeals court mistakenly threw out Tsarnaev's death sentence for his role in the bombing that killed three people near the finish line of the marathon in 2013.

“[DOJ is] not going to be pursuing a policy shift. That’s in the President’s hands to signal,” argues Miriam Krinsky, a former federal prosecutor and the executive director of Fair and Just Prosecution, a network of elected prosecutors that support criminal justice reform. “Until that happens, the Attorney General and the Department of Justice are likely to simply follow the pathway that’s been charted in individual cases,” she continues. “It’s highly unusual for the [DOJ] to reverse course in a case.”

Garland discussed his personal views on the federal death penalty during his confirmation hearing in February, explaining that even though he supported the death sentence of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh while working as a federal prosecutor in 1997, he’s had “great pause” over the federal death penalty in the decades since over “the large number of exonerations,” “the increasing almost randomness or arbitrariness of its application” and its “disparate impact” on communities of color.

During his hearing, Garland said he would adhere to the President’s policy were he to issue a moratorium banning the DOJ from seeking any new death sentences, adding it is “within [the President’s] authority to put a moratorium on the death penalty in all cases.”

But Biden has yet to issue such a moratorium.

Biden’s options on the federal death penalty

In January, just before Biden took office, Rep. Pressley and Democratic Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin introduced legislation that would abolish the federal death penalty. Biden has not publicly commented on that legislation, but Pressley tells TIME in a statement that during a visit to the White House the President gave her “his word that no person in America would be executed by the federal government on his watch.”

Progressives like Pressley have called on Biden to take it a step further and use his authority to commute the sentences of all 45 people currently on federal death row. When asked in a July briefing about these demands, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said that she didn’t expect the White House “would speak to that” while the Justice Department conducted its review of execution policies and procedures.

Biden's Supreme Court commission 'divided' on adding justices but warns of 'considerable' risk

  Biden's Supreme Court commission 'divided' on adding justices but warns of 'considerable' risk President Biden's commission to study the Supreme Court is working as polls show slipping support for the high court, particularly on the left.As had been expected, the 36-member panel steered clear of policy recommendations and instead offered arguments in support of and against "packing" the court beyond its current nine seats. The group also considered – but did not endorse or oppose – term limits, changes to the court's procedures and judicial ethics.

Read more: Joe Biden Says He Opposes the Death Penalty. He Can Help End It With the Stroke of a Pen

Critics say Biden hasn’t yet used all the powers of the presidency to work to end the practice short of new legislation. While DOJ instituted a temporary moratorium on federal executions in July, Biden hasn’t commuted the death sentences on death row and has not issued a formal policy banning federal prosecutors from seeking the death penalty in the future—which Garland himself said in his confirmation hearings that the President has the authority to do. “I think that the President has options here if that was really a high priority,” says Brett Tolman, former United States Attorney for the District of Utah.

Politically, Harvard Law professor Carol Steiker says, “the position that Joe Biden took on the death penalty is not a super popular one.” A 2020 Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans—55%— support the death penalty for person convicted of murder. And a case like Tsarnaev’s puts people’s theoretical opposition to the death penalty to the test. People still remember the horrifying images of the Boston bombing, the victims who died and the many more left without limbs. “[Tsarnaev’s] a poster child for people who are for the death penalty,” says Honig.

But public opinion may be turning towards Biden’s position. Research by Baumgartner found that support for the death penalty is nearing its lowest level since the 1950s. Rob Dunham, the executive director of the nonpartisan Death Penalty Information Center, says every governor who has imposed a moratorium on capital punishment has been reelected, as have many local prosecutors who pledged to significantly restrict its use. “Capital punishment is no longer a wedge issue,” he says.

For now, the rift between Biden’s campaign promises and his Administration’s actions persists, and Tsarnaev’s fate remains uncertain.

Biden's Supreme Court commission 'divided' on adding justices but warns of 'considerable' risk .
President Biden's commission to study the Supreme Court is working as polls show slipping support for the high court, particularly on the left.As had been expected, the 36-member panel steered clear of policy recommendations and instead offered arguments in support of and against "packing" the court beyond its current nine seats. The group also considered – but did not endorse or oppose – term limits, changes to the court's procedures and judicial ethics.

usr: 0
This is interesting!