I just noticed that an amicus brief was filed in one of the very interesting Supreme Court cases of the new Term, Graham v. Florida, that had the following groups as clients:
Brief for the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, the American Catholic Correctional Chaplains Association, the American Correctional Chaplains Association, the American Friends Service Committee, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Church Women United, the Council of Churches of the City of New York, Engaged Zen Foundation, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights, Mormons for Equality and Social Justice, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, the National Council of Jewish Women, New Jersey Regional Coalition, Office of Restorative Justice, Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Prison Fellowship Ministries, Progressive Jewish Alliance, Queens Federation of Churches, Rev. Dwight Lundgren, Sister JoAnne Talarico, Trinity United Methodist Church, and United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society in Support of Petitioner
It looks like pretty much everybody is there, although I think they missed the People’s Front of Judea.
The substance of the brief is provocative too — it argues that religion should inform 8th Amendment jurisprudence, an idea that I mentioned as a hypo back in this post back in 2005 — but mostly I was just amused by all the groups represented.
Arkady says:
I didn’t see representation from the Church of What’s Happening Now!, either.
October 1, 2009, 4:40 amRichard Riley says:
Not so hard to spot the connection. All liberal or liberalish religious groups, including liberal wings of otherwise conservative groups and denominations (Mormons etc.).
I also wonder if there’s not a Van Jones issue here – I bet some of those groups signed on in advance because their allies were on board, without knowing in detail what the brief would say. Admittedly I don’t know much about the practicalities of getting people to join a Supreme Court amicus brief.
October 1, 2009, 5:00 amGreek Geek says:
I think the Judean People’s Front holds a little more sway!
October 1, 2009, 5:16 amDudeman says:
SPLITTER!
October 1, 2009, 6:26 amkarrde says:
I don’t know if they are all liberal special interest groups.
That is, if Prison Fellowship Ministries is the one founded by Chuck Colson.
While his work with prisoners makes it easy to think of him as a liberal, his other public-policy positions (as well as his personal friends and political allies) are definitely from the Religious-Conservative side of American politics.
October 1, 2009, 7:08 amcjwynes says:
Well, if we’re going to keep allowing this nonsense of appellate courts reviewing whether punishments are proportionate to the crime, which is a pure individual value judgment with no rational legal principles behind it, I’m not surprised everyone wants to wedge their identity politics into the proportionality analysis. Soon it’ll be black groups claiming huge sentences are “cruel and unusual” for their members because the “legacy of slavery” somehow made them do it.
The 8th Amendment is only supposed to prohibit certain *modes* of punishment; the degree of punishment is best left to legislatures to set and trial court judges to apply.
BTW, I’m surprised to find there even is such a thing as a liberal wing of the LDS. Their church services might open the floor, but their organization is extremely hierarchical. Like Catholicism, accepting the authority of that hierarchy to establish doctrine is such an *essential* element of the religion itself that anybody who rejected that authority couldn’t plausibly claim to still be an adherent of that religion.
October 1, 2009, 7:14 amGabriel McCall says:
The 8th Amendment is only supposed to prohibit certain *modes* of punishment; the degree of punishment is best left to legislatures to set and trial court judges to apply.
The difference between a month in jail and the rest of your life in jail is not simply one of degree. Especially for a thirteen year old.
October 1, 2009, 7:21 amgerbilsbite says:
So since life without parole is an acceptable sentence (we hand it out to murderers and recidivists all the time), we should consider it Constitutionally acceptable to impose against overtime parkers and public urinators? How about the death penalty for litterers?
October 1, 2009, 7:46 amDavid Nieporent says:
If you look at that list, for the most part these aren’t “wings” of churches; these are independent organizations that don’t speak for churches.
For instance, I’ve never even heard of the “Progressive Jewish Alliance,” but as far as I can tell from the website, it has nothing to do with religion at all, but is just a bunch of Jewish liberal social activists. (NTTAWWT.) NCJW is the same way. And obviously the “American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists” — which I also hadn’t heard of — isn’t a religious organization.
October 1, 2009, 8:02 amLux Lucet in Tenebris says:
I knew someone would beat me to the “Splitter!” reference. God (pardon the expression) how I love that movie.
October 1, 2009, 8:03 amSara says:
David, They describe themselves as religious in their brief. But I guess you know better?
CJ, Do you really think that a group of numbering in the millions, would not have a variety of political views?
October 1, 2009, 8:17 amArthurKirkland says:
The brief asserts:
Amici, as members of the religious community, are uniquely positioned to provide invaluable guidance regarding the issue presented in these cases
It embarrasses a major law firm to submit that argument to the Supreme Court of the United States.
October 1, 2009, 8:29 amDave N says:
I thought the Brief for Former Juvenile Offenders Charles S. Dutton, Former Sen. Alan K. Simpson, R. Dwayne Betts, Luis Rodriguez, Terry K. Ray, T.J. Parsell, And Ishmael Beah in Support of Petitioner was interesting, too. I mean Alan K. Simpson?
October 1, 2009, 8:32 amSara says:
What? Arthur? That’s the argument that every amicus makes, from one vantage point are another.
October 1, 2009, 8:33 amkrs says:
There’s a similar group of amici on a Roper v. Simmons brief.
I can only assume that the Alliance of Baptists, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the Bruderhof Communities Church International, Community of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition, Inc., the General Council on Finance and Administration of the United Methodist Church, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Rev. Frank Griswold, the Jewish Council of Public Affairs, Clifton Kirkpatrick, the Mennonite Central Committee, the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the National Council of Synagogues, the Prison Dharma Network, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Union for Reform Judaism, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops don’t see any Eighth Amendment issues in Graham.
…and that the American Catholic Correctional Chaplains Association, the American Correctional Chaplains Association, the Council of Churches of the City of New York, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, Mormons for Equality and Social Justice, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, the National Council of Jewish Women, New Jersey Regional Coalition, Office of Restorative Justice, Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Prison Fellowship Ministries, Queens Federation of Churches, Sister JoAnne Talarico, Trinity United Methodist Church, and United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society were totally cool with the notion that the 8th Amendment doesn’t forbid the execution of Christopher Simmons.
October 1, 2009, 8:50 amFub says:
Some apparent exceptions (ie: “the lesser part”):
The General Synod of the United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Society
Archdiocese of Los Angeles
October 1, 2009, 8:54 amDave N says:
While I think the State of Florida has the better argument–that LWOP is appropriate even for juveniles under certain circumstances–I also note that there are no amici supporting Florida’s position. The closest is the Brief for the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in Support of Neither Party.
October 1, 2009, 8:58 amChrisTS says:
No Wiccans?
October 1, 2009, 10:21 amKazinski says:
The idea that religion should inform the eight amendment is ridiculous on its face, even among Christian sects you have a wide schism between the “go, and sin no more” types that will forgive just about anything, and the fire and brimstone old testament types that would give you 20 years, or death, for sodomy.
October 1, 2009, 11:06 amCVMe says:
Dave,
Amici were filed on Florida’s side by:
Solidarity Center for Law and Justice, P.C., et al.
October 1, 2009, 11:25 amCenter for Constitutional Jurisprudence
Sixteen Members of the United States House of Representatives National District Attorneys Association
National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers, et al. Louisiana, et al.
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
David Nieporent says:
It’s even more ridiculous because none of them actually try to come to grips with what these religions actually say. They try to gloss over this point by using the word “juvenile,” but implicitly admit that they’re full of it:
But of course the actual issue here is not whether children are treated differently than adults by the justice system — all states do, in fact, do that — but where exactly to draw the line. Which religious tradition do they think holds that one has to be 18 to be punished as an adult? If one’s religious tradition says, e.g., that one has to be 13, then, well, their entire argument is moot, since both appellants were.
(I’m also a little unclear on what kind of Jewish organization would sign onto a brief that quotes Jesus as attacking Pharisees, but that’s a side issue.)
October 1, 2009, 11:31 amDave N says:
CVMe,
Thanks, I appreciate the correction. I am not sure how I overlooked the amici supporting Florida. I am guessing I was looking at SCOTUSWiki and not the ABA’s excellent website which posts ALL the briefs in any given case.
October 1, 2009, 1:09 pmArthurKirkland says:
I said:
The brief asserts:
Amici, as members of the religious community, are uniquely positioned to provide invaluable guidance regarding the issue presented in these cases
It embarrasses a major law firm to submit that argument to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Sara replied:
What? Arthur? That’s the argument that every amicus makes, from one vantage point are another.
I respond:
That argument is as sensible and worthwhile, in the context of a Supreme Court brief, as a claim that “Amici are uniquely positioned to provide invaluable guidance regarding the Eighth Amendment issue presented in these cases as ardent fans of the Rolling Stones/devotees of Aesop’s Fables/members of the Happy Days Fan Club/[fill in your favorite]
October 1, 2009, 7:52 pmHawkeye says:
Dave N, who knew Alan K. Simpson was such a hellion?!
As for the Florida amici, I found it interesting that a couple of the briefs attack the social/brain science relied on by Petitioners, but they couldn’t find any actual scientists to sign on as parties to the briefs. I feel like they weren’t looking hard enough. There have to be at least a few scientific dissenters on these issues.
October 2, 2009, 10:02 am