The Time to Show Your Unequivocal Support for Law Enforcement

“Sadly, the bloodshed will most likely continue until those in positions of power realize that the unequivocal support of law enforcement is required to preserve our nation.”

―Fraternal Order of Police in Baltimore

Meanwhile, in Arizona, Debra Milke has been exonerated after spending twenty-two years on death row for apparent police and prosecutorial corruption:

Key to the case’s dismissal was prosecutorial misconduct, mainly that of a detective, Armando Saldate, who said Milke confessed to the crime to him — even though there was no witness or recording.

Prosecutors withheld from the jury Saldate’s personnel record which showed instances of misconduct in other cases, including lying under oath.

The two men with whom Milke was accused of conspiring were tried separately and are still on death row.

(Ahmed and Botelho)

What we have here is an accusation and conviction of murder and conspiracy, based on an apparent lie told by a detective, and prosecutors deliberately working to cover for that lie.

Twenty-two years.

Remember, we owe these law enforcement officials unequivocal support; if we don’t praise their corruption, America will not survive.

At least, that’s what a cop said.

You know, for whatever that is worth.

____________________

WBAL. “Baltimore police union releases statement on NYPD shootings”. WBALTV.com. 21 December 2015.

Ahmed, Saeed and Greg Botelho. “Debra Milke, who spent 22 years on Arizona death row, has murder case tossed”. CNN. 24 March 2015.

Broken Glass

And then it was over.

For whatever reasons, Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay against same-sex marriages in Idaho; in the end, the Court decided to not hear the case.

On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the stay and put the issue to rest.

And, well, yeah. Then it was over.

Marriage licenses can legally be issued to same-sex couples statewide starting at 9 a.m. on Wednesday.

Deborah Ferguson, attorney for the four couples who sued to overturn Idaho’s ban on gay marriage, hadn’t even filed her reply to the state’s latest legal filings when the order came out mid-day Monday. “I guess they kind of knew what we were going to say,” she said.

(Russell)

Except, well, this is Idaho.

Follow-up … Clean-up … Something-up

Rachel Maddow’s nearly giddy segment on msnbc last night noted that when the full effect of yesterday’s Supreme Court rejection of appeals against marriage equality reaches the states, the roster will equal thirty states. And she looked forward to decisions expected from the Sixth and Ninth.

Today, the hammer dropped in the Ninth; Dale Carpenter quips:

I haven’t read the Ninth Circuit opinion yet. I have to teach now, so it would be nice if the courts would stop issuing gay-marriage decisions for an hour or so.

The estimable Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSblog explains what happened in the Ninth:

The Ninth Circuit’s ruling was made up of three parts.

First, all three judges on the panel joined in an opinion by Circuit Judge Stephen Reinhardt finding that the Idaho and Nevada bans violate the constitutional guarantee of same-sex couples to be treated the same legally as opposite-sex couples. Second, Judge Reinhardt issued a separate opinion, for himself only, saying he would also strike down those bans under the Constitution’s Due Process Clause, arguing that the right to marry is a fundamental guarantee and that gays and lesbians have a right to share in that right. Third, Circuit Judge Marsha S. Berzon, in a separate opinion only for herself, said she would have also struck down the bans on the premise that they discriminate on the basis of gender.

The third member, Circuit Judge Ronald M. Gould, joined only the main opinion on the equal protection principle.

This ruling was perhaps the least surprising among four federal courts of appeals decisions striking down state prohibitions on same-sex couples marrying, and already-married couples gaining official state recognition of those unions, performed elsewhere.