Editorial voices from elsewhere
Excerpts from recent editorials in newspapers as compiled by the Associated Press:
Twice recently, the Supreme Court chastised the U.S. Department of Justice for stretching criminal laws beyond their rational application in order to secure a conviction. Beyond the consequences for individual defendants, these decisions sent a welcome message to prosecutors that they must not uproot a statute from its clear context in order to get their man (or woman).
Sometimes, however, prosecutors are aided in their overreach by laws that are so vaguely written it’s not clear exactly what conduct is being targeted. On Monday, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to one such law, which allowed the government to define illegal possession of a gun as a “violent felony” justifying an extended prison term.
The exceedingly unattractive defendant in this case, Samuel Johnson, is a white supremacist from Minnesota who pleaded guilty in 2012 to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, he was sentenced to a 15-year prison term because he had three prior “violent felonies” on his record. Johnson conceded two of his previous convictions, for robbery and attempted robbery, were violent felonies. But he disputed the government’s decision to classify a third conviction, for possessing a short-barreled shotgun, as a “violent felony.”
The notion the mere possession of an illegal firearm is a violent act defies the dictionary and common understanding, and Johnson initially argued – plausibly – that it was not.
As Johnson’s lawyer told the court, the law’s vagueness “is proven by this court’s inability after repeated efforts to discern a meaningful and replicable interpretive framework that will guide lower courts.” It’s time for the court to send Congress back to the drawing board.
Five years ago this week, Mississippians and millions of other people in the states of the Gulf South began watching as flames soared and oil gushed from broken pipes deep underneath the Deepwater Horizon production platform operated and leased by BP, the giant energy company.
Eleven people were killed by the explosion, and in months following, the oil gushing from the well’s infrastructure spilled 4.25 million barrels. It became the biggest marine oil spill in American history.
Billions were spent on cleaning up the Gulf, the shoreline and every other place touched by the raw, toxic oil, but even a $14 billion cleanup effort was unable to prevent long-term environmental damage. BP has been held responsible for close to $40 billion in fines with an additional $16 billion due under provisions of the Clean Water Act.
Mississippi, once again, has been generously dealt with by a private-sector entity responsible for damage and by the federal government’s determination to help make recovery possible.
Ohio’s repeal of its estate tax more than two years ago had a disastrous impact on local communities that relied on revenue from the tax to pay for essential public services. Now, Republicans in Congress want to repeal the federal estate tax – a giveaway that would hand $270 billion in tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires over the next decade – even as they claim to care about rising wealth inequality.
The measure, which the House passed last week, is unlikely to gain approval in the Senate, and certainly not from President Obama, but it reflects the extreme anti-tax agenda that has come to characterize the GOP.
Opponents of the estate tax like to claim they represent the interests of struggling small businesses, even though virtually no small-business owners pay the tax. It affects only individuals who inherit estates worth $5.43 million, or married couples who inherit $10.86 million – the richest 0.2 percent of Americans.
These proposals are unlikely to go anywhere soon. But lawmakers must preserve the few antidotes to inequality that exist – and leave the estate tax alone.