Added to the economic opportunity, not just to the people of West Virginia but the people of an entire region. Thats one thing that we forget, that in america, this great thing, great miracle happens every day. We turn on a light switch and the lights come on. And if that doesnt happen or if its too expensive to turn on that light switch, we will not be the country that we are. With this regulation, i think what weve done is weve ceded the allimportant role of electrical security and Energy Security to an Environmental Agency that really does not have the experience or expertise to understand what it takes to get an electron in the wire. And so i am proud to stand today with my colleague, senator capito, and introduce a bill to roll back the e. P. A. Rule on carbon emissions, that rule which threatens the supply of abundant, affordable, and reliable electricity in north dakota. I pledge to register my displeasure through multiple channels and this legislation i think today is the most
Aprendee doesnt apply. Again, the central ring problem in this case, the central sixth amendment problem in this case, leaving aside the indederm nancy of 775 and three or one for the other. When a florida sentencing jury finishes its work there is no question. The defendant is not eligible for the death penalty. Only the trial judge can do that. Thank you, counsel. The case is submitted. Today the Bipartisan Policy Center hosts the discussion on the humanitarian and security implications of the syrian refugee crisis and the u. S. And global response. Panelists include state Department Officials and representatives of the u. N. High commissioner for refugees. Live coverage begins at 11 00 a. M. Eastern on cspan. Tonight on cspans new series landmark cases, by 1830 the Mississippi River around new orleans had become a breeding ground for cholera and yellow fever partly due to slaughter houses in the area dumping byproducts into the river. To address the problem louisiana allowed only on
Procedural side. Have any states treated miller as retroactive on state habeas . Yes. The majority of states its a close call. I think its maybe 10 to 7 or 10 to 8, but the majority of states that have reviewed this have concluded that miller is retroactive. Most have done it as a matter of substantive law. There are a couple of opinions that talk about the watershed exception which is not the way we think this case should be analyzed. Not only the states have done that, but the United States has taken that position with respect to the juveniles that were sentenced before miller to life without parole as a mandatory sentence, and in the resentencings of those that have taken place so far its only been about ten, but those defendants have almost uniformly received sentences that are terms of years significantly shorter than life. What is the population were dealing with if most states do apply miller retroactively . I think there was a figure of 2,000 people with life without parole. I
Off to the side, trying to pretend they are not happening, that is a career ending proposition for them. That is the first thing. The second thing is making the Justice System work in Holding People accountable so that their we should stop pleabargaining. We should stop lowering charges. If some of the evidence is clear and there is a conviction we should be drumming these offenders out of the service with dishonorable discharges as publicly as we possibly can. Should be making examples of them. One of the things that appears to be true although the data is a little bit squishy, back in the time of iraq when we had the surge and we had the army had to grow the force very quickly. And they were keeping people in a place, not stoploss, they were extending and pulling out all the stops. Part of what happened during that time was the army in particular granted an unprecedented number of waivers for people who had criminal convictions, Domestic Violence convictions, rape convictions. Some o
The word between your formulation and petitioners formulation that says this is substantive because it did away with mandatory life imprisonment . Youre articulating it slightly different. Tell me what you see as the difference and why your articulation. Justice sotomayor. I dont think there is substantive day light between. Petitioners use and ours. It meant in treating it as a category. I think sums up the reality of what is happening. We broke it out into its Component Parts because i think it facilitates the analysis of it to understand that miller does have a procedural component. Sentencing courts must now consider the mitigating characteristics of age. But it also and more fundamentally, in our view, contains a substantive component that required a change in the law. Now, the change here was expanding the range of outcomes. Previously when this court has analyzed substantive changes in the law there have been changes that restricted the form of outcomes, say, for example, in Jus