Does the Supreme Court Need Reserve Players on the Bench?

A standing-room-only crowd filled the courtroom of Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently when retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor appeared there to help decide three Montana cases.

Although it is rare to see a former member of the nation's highest court fill in on a lower court panel, it is not unusual in the federal court system for judges to substitute for one another. The only court that does not permit pinch-hitters is the Supreme Court.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, D-Vt., who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, thinks it may be time for the Supreme Court to allow retired justices to fill in when an active member of the court recuses himself or herself from a case. The suggestion, according to Leahy, comes from none other than the just-retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who at age 90 may already be feeling some remorse over his decision to step down.

Once a federal judge, always a federal judge. Article III of the U.S. Constitution establishes that federal judges "shall hold their offices during good behavior," effectively allowing them to serve for life unless impeached.(1) After retirement, judges may take what is known as "senior status," continuing to receive the same annual salary they received while active and retaining the ability to hear cases on a part-time basis.(2)

These provisions preserve the judiciary's independence and integrity by immunizing judges from political and financial pressures. They also provide a pool of experienced judges ready to step in whenever a full-time judge is unavailable.

Federal law provides that "Any retired circuit or district judge may be designated and assigned by the chief judge or judicial council of his circuit to perform such judicial duties within the circuit as he is willing and able to undertake." This means that judges who have retired from district courts may, on occasion, serve on the three-judge panels of the circuit courts of appeals. Active district court judges may also be called on from time to time to fill vacancies at the circuit court level.

Meanwhile, senior judges and justices from higher courts, including the Supreme Court, may fill vacancies in lower courts. Former Justice O'Connor took senior status when she left the Supreme Court in 2006 and has since heard cases in appellate courts across the nation.

This substitution and mixing of judges from various levels of the court system is intellectually healthy as well as efficient. Lower court judges can remind appellate judges, who may not have run a trial court in many years (if ever), what it is like on the front lines of the federal justice system. Judges from higher courts can bring renewed rigor and a broader perspective to lower court proceedings.

But I don't think it is a good idea to extend this mix-and-match system of judicial selection to the nation's highest court. I think it would further politicize the court and undermine respect for the justices and their decisions. This would not be good for the country.

Justices have complete discretion over whether to recuse themselves from hearing a particular case. Typically they do not disclose their reasons for recusal, though it is usually apparent that a justice may have a personal or financial conflict of interest, or may have worked on a case or a closely related matter prior to joining the court.

The remaining eight justices decide the case if one of their brethren takes a pass. This means the court can split 4-4, which is liable to happen on any number of issues where the modern court is polarized. A tie means the lower court's decision stands, but the Supreme Court's action does not establish a precedent that is binding in future cases. Leahy and Stevens argue that justices may avoid recusing themselves to avoid having cases end in such an unfulfilling way.

"If there is a way for retired justices to help the court fulfill its role in our democracy, I think we should consider it," Leahy told The Washington Post.

It strikes me that the substitution proposal would create much bigger problems than it would solve. If a tie occurs because of a recusal, the Supreme Court can revisit the issue in another case. On the other hand, a justice who opts not to step aside in a particular case is open to second-guessing from critics, who will argue that the justice was afraid to give a substitute with a different philosophy the opportunity to cast the deciding vote. It is much healthier for the high court to simply wait to set its nationally binding, unreviewable precedents in cases where no justice needs to be disqualified.

Leahy's proposal also carries a partisan tone. Former Justice O'Connor is a judicial moderate, while the other two current Supreme Court retirees - Justices Stevens and David Souter - are more closely aligned with the court's liberal faction, which is currently outnumbered 5-4 on many issues by the conservative bloc led by Chief Justice John Roberts. Allowing these retirees to step back onto the high court is a no-lose proposition for Leahy, a highly partisan backer of the liberals. Only O'Connor is even remotely likely to side with the conservatives in a split decision, and even then she is going to be among the more moderate conservatives. In nearly all cases, allowing substitutions will either strengthen the liberals or leave their power unchanged.

Leahy has not said how he would propose to go about selecting which justice should fill in for a vacancy in a particular case.

We do not have a non-ideological, non-political Supreme Court today. That's too bad. But we do have an independent court that is free to decide cases without regard to what Congress or the President would prefer. We need only look to last year's Citizens United decision-and President Obama's childish State of the Union rant-for proof of that. The Leahy-Stevens proposal looks like an effort to stack the bench with their preferred bench players. When it comes to the highest court in the land, we should accept no substitutes.

Sources:

(1) U.S. Constitution Online: Article III

(2) Cornell University Law School: Assignment of Retired Justices or Judges to Active Duty

Knowing the Use of Gun Safes in Various Countries

There are many different choices of gun safes on the market. The differences are actually about the sizes and features. However, have you known about various regulations in some countries? The important thing about this matter will be explained below. So, you will finally find the conclusion about the facts. The following explanation will focus on Australia and United States.

The first thing about gun safe in Australia is about the storage. Australia consists of several states and all of them require the same thing. The firearms should be locked in the most appropriate places. In this case, the best choices are such as the steel safes or cabinets. In this case, the ammunition should be placed in different section of a safe. Another legal requirement is about the location. The gun safe should be bolted to the floor and wall.

The Western Australia issues the other regulations too. The shooters are required to have at least double locks on their safes. In this case, the police commonly inspect the storage facility firstly. The inspection will be done before they issue the license for shooters. Sometimes, the random checks are required too. Make sure to follow the instructions and obey the given regulations.

What about the United States? In fact, the gun safe will be tested by an institution called Underwriters Laboratories or UL. There are some different grades for RSC certification. The UL certification is helpful to provide the best protection for the shooters. The law issues certain regulations for certain purposes and you should not break the rules. Anyway, there will be various price ranges you need to know. So, you can estimate about the amount of money you should spend for it. The good understanding will let you to choose the real suitable and worthy investment. Which one do you like best?

Don't Make These Costly Mistakes With Your Medicare Coverage

I received a call the other day from my office saying a desperate and confused couple had come in needing some help with their Medicare Part D coverage. The office told me the plan was not covering one of their expensive drugs! It did not take long for me to realize the mess was bigger than a simple phone call could resolve so I set an appointment to meet with them. I had no idea what I was walking into!

At the appointment I started asking questions as I usually do, trying to understand what the issues were, and how they had evolved. I found out that the wife was on Medicare as of the beginning of the year due to coming off her husband's insurance. Let's just say she is over 70 years old now. Apparently, she had decided to try to handle her insurance on her own over the phone! I don't want to generalize here, but most people coming off a group insurance and going onto Medicare should not be handling the process on their own! You will see why as I continue with this horrific story.

I found out that she was enrolled into a Medicare Part D drug plan, and the plan was covering her expensive brand drug. The problem is that the drug cost over $400, and as most agents know that is going to land you into the Coverage Gap. Of course she knew/understood nothing about this. In fact, she thought the plan quit covering her drug. Just a quick aside here. Whoever the genius was that thought up the Coverage Gap should be required to go around the country giving lectures explaining it to seniors!

As I begin to dig further I found that she had received a letter back in February from her plan saying that she did not have "creditable drug coverage" for the last six years and if she did not provide proof of "creditable coverage" within 60 days that she would be paying an additional $20/month which equates to $240/year. The not so funny thing about this was that the husband went to get a file at my request and right in the front of the file was the proof of creditable coverage from his previous employer. I called the plan immediately, and of course was told that since the time had expired it was out of their hands, and that I would have to go through an appeal with Medicare. Oh, the insanity. If only they had used a good independent, knowledgeable agent!

Anyway, where there's one termite there's usually another or something line that. I started asking about their supplemental coverage, and of course they didn't know what they had or what they had done. I uncovered a letter that was sent from an insurer saying that she had applied for a Medicare supplement plan N, but was missing a simple form in order for processing to complete. I immediately called the company, and of course, you guessed it. No coverage was in place! They never received the form so it was never put into place.

I don't have room here to go into the measures that I did to help them, but it was extensive, and it took several hours. The point? Well, sometimes you can do more damage than good when it comes to Medicare. Could you get burned by an unscrupulous agent? Certainly! Can you do more damage handling it yourself? Absolutely! The more complicated your situation, the more you need help! Find yourself a truly independent agent who has your best interest in mind.

P.S. If you receive something in the mail regarding your insurance, you might want to open it, and then take the appropriate action!

Creating Cloud Formations in the Battlespace - Cumulus Nimbus

Okay so, when we talk about using clouds in the Battlespace most modern day warriors assume we are talking about some sort of secured electronic communication scheme using cloud computing strategies. However, I'd like to talk about real clouds, that is to say; thunder clouds. Also, I'd like to discuss how we can use weather as a force multiplier in regional conflicts and during actual military operations - specifically I'd like to discuss using UAVs to make clouds as an asset for cover, disruption, and an aerial fog of war.

Yes, humans have been plus or minus able to create clouds. Often they do this during severe drought periods, when there isn't enough rain for the crops. Occasionally they create too many clouds, and the downpour continues, and that deluge causes severe flooding. Yes, it's rather unfortunate to go from drought stricken times, to massive floods. Nevertheless, what mankind has learned from this can also be used in warfare. It can be used as a force multiplier to force your political will onto your enemy, the same enemy that wants to kill you.

In other words, what I'm suggesting is that we create devices which can create thunderclouds, Cumulus Nimbus Clouds, to just disrupt the enemy, make it difficult for them to see, hear, or shoot down our aerial assets; also to protect our troops from enemy aerial assets, which our enemy might use for close air support. Owning the air and controlling the airspace above the battlefield is ultra-important in modern warfare. But to fully control the air above the battlespace, it will be necessary to also control the weather.

Indeed, from all my studies I cannot dismiss the fact that it is possible, and we have unmanned aerial vehicles which can do this for us without putting human pilots in jeopardy. It has always been difficult to seed the clouds with chemicals, compounds, and dry ice type solutions without causing the aircraft itself to run into challenges (carburetor ice, massive ice build-up on the wings and airfoils) causing it to lose power and crash. However, with new materials, new paint coatings, and robotic systems we should be able to do this very easily using a swarming grid technique and no more than two crisscross patterns.

Thunder and lightning will severely disrupting enemies communications, and provide another layer of fog which will disrupt their command-and-control. They will also have to deal with lightning strikes, rain, hail, and adverse weather conditions, as our blue force converges on the enemy to eliminate and annihilate them. The United States military must have the strongest force in the solar system to protect this great nation, our assets, and our allies. We must stand tall, proud, and be victorious at every possible turn, no matter what, so help us God. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on.

GP Medical Negligence: What Can You Do?

Throughout your life, the chances are that the medical professional you will deal with most will be your GP. General Practise is a fantastic element of the NHS, and a lot of the time patients can build a warm relationship with their GP, as well as a great degree of trust. Sometimes this trust is so deep that the GP may end up caring for various generations of the same family.

However, GPs work under a great deal of pressure with numerous patients and, unfortunately, this means mistakes can and do happen. Most GP medical negligence claims are due to delayed or misdiagnosis, which can cause serious complications in a patient's treatment or, in the worst cases, death.

With a relationship built on trust and respect, suffering medical negligence at the hands of your GP can have emotional repercussions as well. For some, the idea of trying to claim money because of someone they respect making a mistake can feel like a betrayal, or unethical.

There are two important things to remember if you aren't sure about making a compensation claim for GP medical negligence. The first is that you aren't actually suing your doctor - instead, you're claiming against the NHS. Therefore, any legal action isn't a personal attack on your doctor.

Secondly, it's important to remember that you are the victim in this case, not your doctor. If you or a loved one has suffered from undue stress or extended illness due to your doctor making a mistake, you are entitled to compensation, both monetary and emotional (through apologies and recognition of wrongdoing, etc).

There are three aspects to a medical negligence case. The first is to proving your GP acted in a manner that was unprofessional and caused you harm, be it physical or psychological. The second is to ascertain who you are suing (this will usually be the NHS), whilst the third is proving you actually suffered an injury through medical records.

Finding a good solicitor specialising in medical negligence cases is essential, as they will usually cover all of these aspects for you. The clinical nature of medical negligence cases means that they can become complex for the uninitiated, so finding a solicitor with the right medical credentials who knows what they are talking about and the evidence they require to support your case is really important.

One of the big fears victims of medical negligence have is how they fund their case. Luckily, there are schemes and funding in place to help victims bring their cases to court, even if they feel like their financial situation wouldn't allow for potentially costly legal proceedings.

Legal Aid is available for people unable to afford court proceedings but be aware that not all solicitors are authorised to claim Legal Aid. Another avenue to take is 'no-win, no-fee', in which you don't have to pay your lawyers a fee if you lose. Again, be aware that should you lose, you may be liable for your opponent's fees. Therefore, it's important to make sure you have Legal Expense Insurance, which acts as safety net should you lose your case.

Charcoal Vs Propane The Great Grilling Debate

If you're a griller of any level, you have a preference for the type of fuel you burn to cook your meals. There are two camps that are common in the world of grilling and barbecuing. You're either a Gas Guy or a Charcoal Guy. What's the difference? Let's take a look at some of the pros and cons for each.

Propane/Natural Gas Grills

Pros:

Ready for cooking almost instantly No cleanup of ashes No charcoal to purchase or light Clean burning, no smoke or odor Doesn't impart a flavor to your food

Cons:

Doesn't impart flavor to your food. While this can be a pro, many BBQ and grilling enthusiasts enjoy the smoky goodness that hardwood charcoal can add to their meats Propane tanks are unreliable. You may have enough fuel to finish cooking, you may not. A gauge will help alleviate some of this problem Propane can be dangerous. If you're not keeping a close eye on the condition of your tanks, you could be in for a disaster You have to lug around a 25lb canister anytime you want to move your grill to a different location Not well suited for low temperature cooking

This is not an exhaustive list by any standard, just some of the more common pros and cons involved with using Propane as your primary fuel source. Many a fine meal has been created with the assistance of propane and natural gas.

Charcoal/Hardwood

Pros:

Imparts a flavor to all foods cooked with it. You can supplement your charcoal with hardwoods to further enhance flavor High temps are a snap with charcoal Maintaining a lower, longer cook time is possible with charcoal by simply positioning your food away from the heat source You get the "authentic" experience of cooking over hot coals

Cons:

Takes longer to get coals up to temperature for cooking Ash cleanup and disposal You can't easily regulate your temps by simply dialing down the flame You have to keep charcoal on hand at all times for impromptu grilling sessions

While I mentioned charcoal is more "authentic" that's really subjective. Gas grills have been around long enough now that it's more a matter of preference than it is anything else. You can create delicious meals with either method, and in the end it all comes down to what you are more comfortable with using in your endeavors.

Just a final word on either method of cooking. No matter which fuel source you prefer, the key to creating great BBQ and grilled foods is technique. Take your time and study the methods you are using. Look to the friends and family who are skilled in the art of BBQ'ing for advice on how to improve your process. As with anything you undertake, grilling and BBQ'ing expertise is earned through trial and error. Learn from your mistakes, and you'll find yourself at the top of the grilling world before you know it.