The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared sympathetic to a microbiologist’s argument that she was unfairly prosecuted under a federal law that implements the Chemical Weapons Convention after she tried to poison a romantic rival, according to reports.
The nation’s top justices weighed the appeal of 42-year old Carol Ann Bond, who in 2008 pled guilty to trying to poison her husband’s pregnant lover, Myrlina Haynes, with a chemical compound. Bond was charged in federal court with violating the 1998 Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, the law the implemented the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention in the United States. She was sentenced to six years in prison and fought that conviction, arguing federal prosecutors infringed upon state authority by filing charges against her under a law created to deter the use of chemical weapons by rogue nations and terrorists.
Most of the justices appeared “downright angry” with the federal government’s use of an international treaty to prosecute a woman in a domestic spat, USA Today reported. They questioned if the Chemical Weapons Convention and the law Congress passed implementing it were intended to reach to such domestic crimes or remain only applicable to wartime matters. At its core, the case is about whether Congress can use its power to implement treaties on local matters not normally applicable to federal law, according to Bloomberg.
It “seems unimaginable that you would bring this prosecution,” Justice Anthony Kennedy reportedly told U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, according to the Associated Press.
Bond’s attorney, former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement, referred to his client’s crime consisted of “garden-variety assaults with chemicals.”
Verrilli, though, argued on behalf of President Obama’s administration that if its treaty power were altered, U.S. initiatives related to chemical weapons and nuclear nonproliferation could be hampered.
“There needs to be a comprehensive ban,” Verrilli reportedly argued before the high court. “You can’t be drawing these types of lines.”
Justice Elena Kagan, meanwhile, maintained that the Chemical Weapons Convention and congressional implementation of the treaty were sound and therefore paramount, USA Today reported. If they were not, judges would “take the place of treaty-makers,” she reportedly said.
What We're Following See More »
Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”
“We haven’t seen a true leftist since FDR, so many millions are coming out of the woodwork to vote for Bernie Sanders; he is the Occupy movement now come to life in the political arena.” So says Bill Maher in his Hollywood Reporter cover story (more a stream-of-consciousness riff than an essay, actually). Conservative states may never vote for a socialist in the general election, but “this stuff has never been on the table, and these voters have never been activated.” Maher saves most of his bile for Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, writing that by nominating Palin as vice president “John McCain is the one who opened the Book of the Dead and let the monsters out.” And Trump is picking up where Palin left off.