Concern that McDonnell case may give special interests "frightening degree of control over the political process."

AROUND THE BLOCK

News with a Twist

Supreme Court: Will hear Va. Gov case; won't hear case on death penalty 

 No, this is no joke!

Among the cases the United States Supreme Court decided to hear or not hear this week, two stand out as a demonstration of what a disaster the Court has become.

The Court agreed to hear the case of former Virginia governor Robert McDonnell who was convicted of corruption for his efforts on behalf of a businessman who bestowed money and gifts on the governor and his family. Although McDonnell’s conviction was upheld by a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4^th Circuit, in deciding to hear the case at least four Supreme Court justices appeared to agree with McDonnell’s lawyer who argued that if his, “routine political courtesies” to Richmond businessman Jonnie R. Williams Sr. could be construed as felonies, it would make all politicians vulnerable and arm federal prosecutors “with a frightening degree of control over the political process.”

While it is not clear how the justices will rule in the McDonnell case, court insiders have hinted that since the court has already given corporations, unions and billionaires “a frightening degree of control over the political process” through their Citizens United decision, it was likely that they will overturn the McDonnell conviction so as not to give this frightening control to yet another group.

A week after the court agreed to hear the McDonnell case, it declined to hear a new case asking it to make a ruling on the constitutionality of capital punishment. The rejected case concerned an appeal by Shonda Walter of her death penalty sentence for killing an 83-year old Pennsylvania man in 2003. Walter’s lawyers argued that her court appointed defense lawyers provided no defense and offered no argument that might have spared her the death sentence. Pennsylvania appeals courts agreed that she had an incredibly bad defense but upheld the conviction and sentence anyway. The Supreme Court’s rejection of the case was made without comment.

So, this week the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case to determine whether a politician taking gifts from a businessman in exchange for intervening with state officials on the businessman’s behalf should be overturned, but declined to take the case of a convicted murderer who, everyone involved in the case agrees, did not receive adequate defense counsel and has been sentenced to death.

And, according to Marco Rubio, putting Barak Obama on the Supreme Court “would be a disaster for this country.” Huh?