Best US Supreme Court Decision of 2012

In my view, the best U.S. Supreme Court decision of 2012 would probably be Miller v. Alabama.  This decision scored a big one for human rights of juveniles. There will be no more mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juvenile offenders.  This was a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court back in June of 2012.  The majority opinion was penned by former Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan.  Of course, international human rights law was not the basis for the decision, but rather the US Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.  

I have previously blogged about the issue of locking up our children and throwing away the key - see here and here.

BOSTON GLOBE ARTICLE Excerpt:

A divided US Supreme Court struck down mandatory life-without-parole sentences Monday for juveniles convicted of murder, ruling the widespread practice violated the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. 

The ruling will nullify Massachusetts law, legal specialists said, and throw into question the sentences of 61 prisoners who over the past four decades were ordered to spend the rest of their lives in jail. Nationally, about 2,500 prisoners are serving life sentences without parole for murders they committed before turning 18. 

In a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled that juvenile offenders younger than 18 have “diminished culpability and greater prospects for reform” and that judges should be able to consider the “mitigating qualities of youth” in sentencing, even when juveniles commit heinous crimes.

“Such mandatory penalties, by their nature, preclude a sentencer from taking account of an offender’s age and the wealth of characteristics and circumstances attendant to it,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. “Under these schemes, every juvenile will receive the same sentence as every other — the 17-year-old and the 14-year-old, the shooter and the accomplice, the child from a stable household and the child from a chaotic and abusive one.”

It so far appears that Massachusetts has not moved quickly during the past half year since that SCOTUS decision to make the necessary corrections.   Let's hope our state will finally do so soon in 2013, and we'll thus complete one small but important step in furtherance of human rights rights here in our state.  


For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Best Divorce Blog Posts of 2012

Scott Morgan, principal of the Morgan Law Firm (Houston and Austin, Texas) and fellow family law blogger, has put me on his list of the Best Divorce Blog Posts of 2012.  Check out that link for some good reading. I made it to the list on account of my blogging about gay marriage issues.  Thanks for the props, Scott!

Beyond Washington, Maryland and Maine: New Battleground States for Marriage Equality

Well, it indeed became official late last week that Washington state's referendum on marriage equality was in fact a win for marriage equality. Washington will thus be included with Maine and Maryland as the first three states to approve gay marriage by a popular vote, rather than strictly through legislative or judicial action.  They all did so in this November's elections. These three new states will now join the six other states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York and Iowa) and the District of Columbia as jurisdictions where gay and lesbian couples may marry.  New battleground states to watch, according to Queerty: New Jersey, Rhode Island, Illinois, Oregon, and Delaware.


For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Voters in Maryland, Maine and Washington To Approve Gay Marriage

Well, it seems to have happened.  All three of the states - Maryland, Maine and Washington - where same-sex marriage ballot initiatives were voted on yesterday, appear to be creating the right of same-sex marriage.  They join six other states (Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, Iowa, and New York) for a new total of nine states, plus the District of Columbia, where gay and lesbian couples may now marry.

(The vote has not yet been officially announced in Washington state, but is expected to come soon.)

These new states will be the first to create marriage equality through a popular vote, rather than through judicial or legislative action.  Three states, including our own Massachusetts, as well as Connecticut and Iowa, have judicially-created gay marriage.  The other three states, Vermont, New Hampshire, and New York, have legislatively-created gay marriage.

No doubt popular support for gay marriage equality is growing.  I continue to hope that family law scholar Joanna Grossman was right when, early this year, she optimistically foresaw, as her article title itself (following link) suggested, "the beginning of the end of the anti-same sex movement."  Indeed, another hopeful sign, from yesterday, was that Minnesota's voters rejected the ballot initiative there which called for a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to the traditional, heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman.

I fear, however, that I may also be right in my own more pessimistic response that although progress is real, it is likely to continue to be rather slow.  (Here I am reminded of one of my favorite George Orwell quotes: "Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing.") Just as there will be a few states moving in the direction of equality, I believe there will continue to be, for many years, a large majority of states where social conservatives stubbornly refuse to recognize gay marriage.  After all, we're still only up to 9 states plus D.C..  That leaves 41 states without gay marriage, many of which already have bans on gay marriages. And of course we are still living with the federal statute (the Defense of Marriage Act).

Stay tuned.   The U.S. Supreme Court will surely weigh in soon on at least some of the issues presented by the laws for and against gay marriage.

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Massachusetts Pets Now Included in Custody and Abuse Protection Orders

Over this past summer, the Massachusetts legislature passed a bill, which the Governor signed into law, that provides for the inclusion of pets in custody and abuse prevention orders.  See the recently issued Massachusetts Trial Court memo here.  I blogged about pets in restraining orders five years ago (No Longer Mere Chattel: The Rising Status of Pets in Family Law) when it was still a relatively new thing, and there were only a handful of states with such laws.  Since then, the total, not including the latest addition of Massachusetts, has risen to at least 22 other states, plus D.C. and Puerto Rico.

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Romney's Testimony in Stemberg Divorce Unsealed

Well, folks looking for a big October surprise from our state's family court may be disappointed.

This morning, according to the Boston Globe, the Norfolk County Probate and Family Court ruled that the Romney testimony in the Stemberg divorce will be unsealed.  Now it is up to the Boston Globe - which brought the litigation to report on the upcoming election - to examine the record of that testimony and tell us what, if anything, it reveals.  The confidentiality agreement between the parties to the divorce, which the former Mrs. Stemberg's attorney Gloria Allred tried to lift so she could talk about Romney's testimony, remains in place.   Allred and her client were trying to piggyback on the Globe's initial request, which included a lifting of the gag order as well as the unsealing of the testimony, but then the Globe dropped its request to remove the gag order when it was clear the testimony would be unsealed.

Gloria Allred and the former Mrs. Stemberg, who actually supplied the documents themselves as the court no longer had the two-decades-old transcripts, accused the Boston Globe of a "double cross" and will now have to petition separately for the lifting of that gag order.

There's likely no big story here, as today Mr. Stemberg rescinded his objection to the unsealing of the testimony (Romney had already stated no objection to the unsealing yesterday, but he was probably doing something of a piggyback of his own on Stemberg's objection at the time).  As this morning's proceedings, and the rescinding of the objection, occurred after Stemberg and Romney (and Staples) had been given time to review the testimony, it appears that Stemberg and his buddy Romney now see nothing in that testimony worth the political cost of continuing to object.  Furthermore, Gloria Allred herself suggested (see below), that her client needs to be allowed to speak in order to put the testimony into "context" or otherwise the testimony will not be meaningful to the public.

And to that I say, calling to mind a fine legal phrase: res ipsa loquitur...not!

FROM GLOBE ARTICLE: 

The Globe originally moved to amend the confidentiality agreement to allow parties in the case to speak publicly about Romney’s testimony but dropped the request on Thursday, when Stemberg — who had opposed the Globe’s request to unseal the testimony — rescinded his objection.

Allred argued vigorously for Sullivan Stemberg’s right to address Romney’s testimony publicly, saying Sullivan Stemberg was being denied her First Amendment Right. 

“Out of context, [the testimony] has no meaning for the public,” Allred said. “She can put it in context.”The court ruled that because the Globe was no longer petitioning to modify the confidentiality order, and was satisfied by the release of Romney’s testimony, that Sullivan Stemberg would have to bring a separate motion to amend the order. 

Allred indicated that she would do so and after the hearing accused the Globe of a “double cross” because the paper stopped its push to amend the confidentiality order.

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

An October Surprise for Mitt out of Mass. Divorce Court?

Tomorrow morning there may be some interesting drama in one of Boston's family courts where I regularly practice, the Norfolk Probate and Family Court, involving sealed testimony by Mitt Romney, apparently given in support of his friend, former Staples CEO Tom Stemberg, during his divorce.   The ex-wife, represented by celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, is reportedly here to tell the judge her client doesn't object to having the testimony unsealed.  

If this is just about Mitt's testimony that Tom Stemberg was a good father, we probably don't have much of a story.  On the other hand, if TMZ's reports are true that Mitt also falsely testified under oath that Staples was worth virtually nothing to aid his friend in misleading the court in order to reduce a payout to his exwife, then we may have a real story, an October surprise of sorts.

This may be the most excitement we have seen in the Norfolk Probate and Family Court since Bobby Brown's arrests here for contempt on child support arrears.   (I don't count the matter of the other Massachusetts Presidential candidate, John Kerry, who tried unsuccessfully, in 1995, to seal records here of his 1988 divorce to his first wife, as the facts of that case are rather boring.)

If TMZ's report about Mitt is accurate, and his testimony becomes unsealed, this could be significant news.  As we all know, from the most recent Clinton and Bush terms, a President's lying to Congress, the American people, and the United Nations about reasons for going to war is one thing.     But lying under oath before becoming President, in a deposition or trial, in a private civil case, such as a divorce or sex discrimination suit, is quite another.  It's absolutely unthinkable and disqualifies one from the very important job of lying about wars with absolute impunity and immunity.

For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Second Circuit Joins First in Striking DOMA

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York just became the second of the intermediate-level federal appeals courts (circuit courts) to find the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional.   The first was our First Circuit Court of Appeals here in Boston back in May of this year.   The Second Circuit decision, which found the federal statute to be an unconstitutional violation of equal protection under heightened scrutiny (the "intermediate level scrutiny" for "quasi-suspect" classifications), is the most likely case on gay marriage to reach the US Supreme Court.  

Two other same-sex marriage cases likely to reach the Supreme Court are the First Circuit decision in Boston also striking down DOMA, and the Ninth Circuit decision overturning California's ban on gay marriage out there. 

For a short explanation of this Second Circuit case, with some discussion of related federal court decisions, see David Kemp's The End of an Unjust Law: The Second Circuit Strikes Down DOMA and Sets the Stage for Supreme Court Review.  Also see the New York Times article for an overview.


For information about Massachusetts divorce and family law, see the divorce and family law page of my law firm website.

Goldman Sachs Is Too Big to Jail

Here's the latest news from yesterday that you didn't see on page one but should have: Goldman Sachs is too big to jail.   Well, on the other hand, there's nothing new about that.

Some related posts on Wall Street's control of the federal government:

Too Big to Jail
The President We Really Need
Nationalize the Banks Already
Washington Gives Huge Holiday Bonus to Bank of America
More on the Big Heist
A Shameful Suckup
Just Say No to the Bailout

Mommy Wars, Daddy Wars, and Having it All

From the time I heard Anne-Marie Slaughter's interview on NPR, back in late June, and found my Atlantic Magazine copy waiting for me in my office later the same day, there with the by now much-ballyhooed article, Why Women Still Can't Have It All, which she had just discussed with Terry Gross on air, I have been thinking quite a bit about the issues raised.

I thank her for her provocative contribution to the dialogue among the chattering classes on issues of gender roles, feminism, motherhood, and fatherhood.   I must say, however, that I reacted to her article much as I did to the seminal work of Betty Friedan upon my first encounter with it back in college: I appreciated its historical contribution, but its focus seemed too bourgeois for someone with my more radical sensibilities.

I have since enjoyed reading and learning from many of the varied reactions to that Atlantic Magazine article.  Two of my favorites, which I will pass on without comment, are The Daddy Wars, by Jessica Valenti, and Why Can't All Parents Have More, by KJ Dell'Antonia.

Too Big to Jail

Here's the amazon.com link to a great read I recently downloaded for my kindle: With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, by Glenn Greenwald.  You can read a sample chapter there for free.  A former litigator and now journalist with salon.com, Glenn Greenwald tells the recent story of how many of the biggest criminals on Wall Street are too powerful to be prosecuted.  

The book itself is the latest chapter in the ongoing class warfare saga of these United States, or what I like to call generally Justice for the Rich (one of my topics/labels for blog posts here).  Glenn Greenwald's book is mainly about the recent failure of our government to prosecute the biggest criminals on Wall Street, or the problem of - to use a title of one of the actual chapters of this book -  "Too Big To Jail."  That is to say, while big financial institutions are deemed "too big to fail," the leading banksters in charge of them are similarly just too big and powerful to be jailed. 

I heard Glenn Greenwald on NPR today, but the Democracy Now! interview, "Zero Accountability": Glenn Greenwald on Obama's Refusal to Prosecute Wall Street Crimes, is more informative.  Glenn is one of at least two Greenwalds active in the political and journalistic arena and in it for the right reasons, to seek truth and justice.  The other is Robert Greenwald, whose documentaries I have often mentioned here on my blog.  I wonder if these two Greenwalds are related.   In any case, I have no personal connections to either and get nothing for this plug other than the satisfaction of passing on a good read.