June 6, 2006
"SMART" JUDGES MAKE BAD LAW:
Speedy Trial (LINDA GREENHOUSE, 6/06/06, NY Times)
The court ruled unanimously that a federal defendant's rights under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 were violated when, while seeking more time to prepare his defense to counterfeiting charges, he signed a statement presented by the trial judge in which he waived any future right to a speedy trial.Posted by Orrin Judd at June 6, 2006 7:28 AMWith certain exceptions, the federal law requires criminal trials to begin within 70 days after a defendant is charged. The trial for this defendant, Jacob Zedner, did not begin for seven years. Mr. Zedner eventually tried to assert his rights under the law and sought dismissal of the indictment, but two lower federal courts in New York enforced his waiver. He was convicted by a jury and sentenced to five years in prison.
In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court ordered the indictment dismissed. The statute does not permit such a waiver, Justice Alito said, noting that the public as a whole, and not only an individual defendant, has an interest in the speedy administration of justice.
The significance of this decision, Zedner v. United States, No. 05-5992, is likely to transcend the particular case. Justice Antonin Scalia refused to sign the paragraph of the opinion in which Justice Alito cited the legislative history of the Speedy Trial Act as further evidence for his interpretation of the statute.
"The use of legislative history is illegitimate and ill advised in the interpretation of any statute," Justice Scalia's concurring opinion declared in what has become a familiar theme from him.
The fact that Justice Alito's paragraph of legislative history remained in the majority opinion, and that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. signed the opinion without comment, indicates that Justice Scalia remains isolated in his view.
Scalia is absolutely right about legislative history, which is neither.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 6, 2006 8:15 AMNo one will object when they filibuster you.
Posted by: oj at June 6, 2006 8:26 AMPresidential signing statements are a reaction to the use of legislative history by courts. So, those people complaining about signing statements should applaud Scalia, right?
Posted by: Bob at June 6, 2006 9:52 AMFor what it's worth, the majority opinion is right. The Speedy Trial Act is a deficient piece of liberal legislation and should be amended to correct this problem. It isn't the place for the Supreme Court (or the lower courts) to correct the legislation's obvious deficiencies.
Posted by: Jim at June 6, 2006 11:26 AMOJ: They should be so lucky.
Jim: I'm not saying that the decision is wrong, I'm saying that using legislative history is bad judging. That's particularly true when the legislative history is not even necessary to the decision, as here.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 6, 2006 11:30 AMThere's no coherent reason not to consider legislative history.
Posted by: oj at June 6, 2006 11:35 AMActually, there are two. First, it's irrelevent. Second, it's anti-democratic.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 6, 2006 11:59 AMIt's all that's relevant.
Posted by: oj at June 6, 2006 12:05 PMNo, the language of the statute is all that's relevent.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 6, 2006 12:11 PMThe language may or may not be useful in determining the point of the law. The intent is all that matters.
Posted by: oj at June 6, 2006 12:22 PMThe language may or may not be useful in determining the point of the law.
Whatever you say, M. Derrida.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 6, 2006 1:00 PMContext is everything.
Posted by: oj at June 6, 2006 1:51 PMOui, je comprends la théorie de Deconstruction.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 6, 2006 3:52 PMNo, Deconstruction would hold that when we know the plain language of the law and the explicit legislative history we don't know what they meant by it.
Your insistence that legal language can stand on its own would, for instance, mean that Congress couldn't make a law that touches on speech or the press, which we all know to be complete nonsense.
Posted by: oj at June 6, 2006 3:59 PMNo, Deconstruction says that the text, as such, has no meaning and that we all bring our own meaning to it; that "meaning" is created by the act of reading. I'm saying that the text has independent meaning and that only the text can tell us that meaning.
Congress couldn't make a law that touches on speech or the press.
On the other hand, I have no idea what that means but it sounds like a good idea. On the other hand, it has nothing to do with what the First Amendment says.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 6, 2006 6:13 PMthe text can't have a meaning independent of the lawmakers. It doesn't just spring into existence. Laws are mere tools.
Posted by: oj at June 6, 2006 6:19 PMthe text can't have a meaning independent of the lawmakers
Of course it can. The law is the embodied corporate intent of Congress, not of any individual law maker. The only guide to the corporate intent of Congress is the words used. This would be true even if the legislative history system weren't irredeemably corrupt.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 6, 2006 6:42 PMThere's no such thing as corporations, just people.
Posted by: oj at June 6, 2006 6:58 PMI know to take my victories where I find them.
Posted by: David Cohen at June 6, 2006 7:32 PMYou lost, they considered the legislative history, as they always do.
Posted by: oj at June 6, 2006 8:21 PM