John Roberts

TOPICS Video Cafe

Olympia Snowe Claims Medicare Part D Trigger Was Never Needed

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (52)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (182)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

h/t David E.

Olympia Snowe claims that the trigger option which was included in Medicare Part D was never needed because there was so much competition. Little surprise since it worked out so wonderfully for big Pharma.

Rahm Talks of Triggers in Healthcare Reform, But Doesn't Anyone Remember Medicare Part D?:

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
by Meg White

In examining and crafting policy, it is helpful to look at the recent past. The favorite comparison for our current efforts to reform healthcare is known as Hillarycare, the failed attempt at universal healthcare during the Clinton Administration.

But there may be a much more timely (and ominous) yardstick to hold up to this current legislative process: President Bush's Medicare Part D prescription drug program for seniors.

I know 2003 was forever ago, but does anyone remember how we ended up with Medicare Part D?

It was promised as a mechanism to bring down prescription costs for seniors. The problem is, the legislation itself was basically written by Big Pharma. The drug companies ingeniously decided they wouldn't have to negotiate with the federal government on Medicare prescription drug prices, as they must do with other programs such as the Veterans Health Administration, so they could charge taxpayers whatever they wanted.

And that they did.

After all that, the program still didn't help a large minority of the senior population deal with drug costs because of the massive "doughnut hole" problem. There are millions of seniors caught in the so-called doughnut hole, where thousands of dollars in annual prescription drug costs must come directly from their individual pocketbooks, or they will go without the often life-saving medications.

The legislation had a "trigger" built in to supposedly protect consumers and taxpayers against huge cost increases in the program. If the bills became too large, a "public option" would kick in and tell Big Pharma what's what. Unsurprisingly, that threshold has not yet been reached.

As a result, Big Pharma got a big windfall (a whopping $3.7 billion in the first two years alone) from Medicare Part D. But hey, that's what happens when you let lobbyists for the industry you're trying to reform write the legislation that does the reforming.

[...]

But the peep from Emanuel was telling. He says a "public plan" is only necessary if hospital bills balloon too large. That will set off a "trigger mechanism" like we were told would be available for the Medicare prescription drug program. You remember, that one which we haven't yet seen?

Now the House is using healthcare reform as an impetus to argue over ways to fix the doughnut hole problem, but they don't see the trigger pointed right in their faces.

Instead, Blue Dog Democrats are saying they want to work with industry to institute reforms. The insist that the American Hospital Association is ready to help cut costs. Right. Just like Big Pharma promised to do for seniors with the failed prescription drug program we're trying to clean up now, just three years after it went into effect.

Lawmakers need only look back a few years in the past to see that trusting industry to institute a fair trigger guarantees yet another program blowing up in our faces.

From CNN's American Morning. Good grief. She's on Hardball repeating the same nonsense right now. Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »



TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1427)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (6995)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

CNN's John Roberts challenged GOP pollster Frank Luntz for his role in using "charged language" and fomenting right-wing anger at health care reform.

Heather: This was a typical softball interview from John Roberts where he didn't hit Luntz the way I would have if given the chance to ask him how he feels about selling his soul for a buck and giving the Republicans their talking points on the health care debate. That said, I think Roberts is the first person I've seen in the MSM to actually ask the man if he should feel any responsibility for whipping up the anger at these town halls. You would never see that question asked of Luntz over at ClusterFox that he loves to call home. It's a question that should be asked of him with some real follow up more often.

ROBERTS: From town halls to tea parties, a lot of people across the country are really ticked off. Last week in our special series "Mad as Hell," we looked at the sources and potential solutions for all of that national anger.

Our next guest has advised the Republican Party and other clients on hot-button issues like health care, issues that so many Americans are riled up about. Frank Luntz is a pollster, communications expert and author of the new book, "What Americans Really Want, Really."

Frank joins us now with some new insight on the outrage. Insight on the outrage. Good play on words there. So people in America, are they really angrier than they ever have been?

LUNTZ: They are, 72 percent of Americans define themselves - we took a survey - of 6,400 people. That's five times the typical CNN media poll. Seventy- two percent of Americans are mad as hell, and they're not going to take it anymore.

ROBERTS: Seventy-two percent.

LUNTZ: And they're mad at politics because they think there's no accountability in Washington. They're mad at business because they think that their employers don't respect them. And they're mad at Hollywood for the coarseness of the culture. So you've got all three things going on at the same time, and they don't find a solution to it.

ROBERTS: Let me quote from your book here because you say, "It's not necessarily what's so important is not necessarily that Americans are mad as hell. What matters more is that they're not going to take it anymore. Americans have hit a tipping point with Washington, and moreover, its political parties."

So we're at this tipping point. What does that mean for the country? You gave us kind of the background of what people are mad at. Why are they add at all of this, and what is this tipping point?

Continue reading »


TOPICS Third Branch

The Roberts Court is about to do the unthinkable...

This is a pretty depressing saga unfolding right before our eyes and it's another reason why we need cameras in the Supreme Court so we can view the mockery Roberts is making out of the Third Branch of government. They are about to grant corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to attack political candidates right up until an election, which would make destroy the very fabric of our voting structure. Did you know that a corporation is an individual in Scalia's mind?

Dahlia Lithwick explains the horror that is unfolding over the hit job produced by Citizens United on Hillary Clinton.

When we first met this case, it involved a narrow question about whether a 90-minute documentary attacking Hillary Clinton could be regulated as an "electioneering communication" under McCain-Feingold. The relevant provision bars corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries for "any broadcast, cable or satellite communications" that feature a candidate for federal election during specified times before a general election. A federal court of appeals agreed with the FEC that the movie could be regulated. Citizens United, the conservative, nonprofit advocacy group that produced the film, appealed. The issue last spring was whether a feature-length documentary movie was core political speech or a Swift Boat ad. But the court surprised everyone when it ordered the case reargued in September, this time tackling the constitutionality of McConnell and Austin.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas are already on record wanting to overturn these cases. Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts have been inclined to wait. The question today is whether we wait no more [...]

Solicitor General Kagan stands to defend the FEC, not in a frock coat but a tasteful blue pantsuit, and when Scalia pounces on her, two sentences into her opening, she scolds him as if he were an impudent 2-L: "I will repeat what I said, Justice Scalia: For 100 years this court, faced with many opportunities to do so, left standing the legislation that is at issue in this case." Kagan is so loose and relaxed, you'd think this was her 100th argument. Which allows Roberts to dispense with the kid gloves and accuse her, respectively of "giving up" an argument she made in her opening brief and "changing positions." When she is asked, in effect, if she wants to lose this case in a big way or a little way, Kagan is eventually forced to reply, "If you are asking me, Mr. Chief Justice, as to whether the government has a preference as to the way in which it loses if it has to lose, the answer is yes."

One of the ways the Roberts Court hopes to make all conflicting case law in the campaign finance realm disappear is to blame all prior bad case law on Kagan. When everyone is thoroughly confused about what rationale the government may advance in order to limit corporate spending, Roberts can gleefully conclude that all of Austin "is kind of up for play. …" Poof. And Austin is a problem no more...read on...

It truly is a depressing read, even though we it's an excellent piece and we need to read it. With cameras in the court, Americans would be able to watch how the Roberts Court will tilt the country away from the American people and into the hands of the corporate elite.

All a corporation would have to do is merely threaten a candidate that they'll make a movie or run a gazillion ads against them and that would be enough to "buy" their vote over anything that a corporation deems unprofitable. What's sad is that corporations already funnel millions of dollars through PACs already, but that's still not enough for the activist judges of the right.


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (68)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (396)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

September 10, 2009 CNN

ROBERTS: In his make or break speech to Congress and the nation, President Obama walked a fine line trying to reach out to Republicans but saying he had no time for those out to score short-term political points. And the GOP response, Republican congressman Charles Boustany said what Americans really want is for Congress to start over from scratch.

So, can the two parties ever see eye to eye? Let's bring in former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who has got some thoughts on this. Mr. Mayor, it's great to see you.

RUDY GIULIANI, FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Good to see you, John.

ROBERTS: So back in August, you did an interview with Sean Hannity on the Fox Network in which you said, "I hope there is no hope for the health care plan this year." After watching the president last night, do you still feel that way?

GIULIANI: If he changes it significantly, if he can really do medical malpractice reform - of course, what he did was he said there would be a study of medical malpractice reform.

ROBERTS: He said as the Bush administration wanted to do, there would be some experimentation on local levels to see if it could be done.

GIULIANI: But there already have been. Texas has changed its whole system. There are now 20 percent more doctors in Texas. Other states have done it. There are about 10, 15 states that have done medical malpractice reform. If he really was serious about it, he would just do it the way he's talking about this public option or non-public option.

ROBERTS: He did have a very powerful lobby in the trial lawyers association breathing down his neck.

GIULIANI: He does.

ROBERTS: But I mean, is it not a start that should be embraced?

GIULIANI: Of course, but he should actually do it and he should take on the lobby rather than be afraid of it and he also should explain to us how much it is going to cost. Again, he's saying it's not going to cost any money, it's going to be deficit neutral. I always scale back -

ROBERTS: He said the total price would be $900 billion and it would not add a penny to the deficit. You don't believe him?

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (98)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (290)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

David Sirota on CNN's American Morning explaining why the White House throwing Van Jones under the bus was such a terrible idea. They've done nothing but show the right wing that they will cave if they decide to attack a progressive working in the White House.

ROBERTS: The president hired Van Jones to find more green jobs, putting more Americans back to work and helping the environment. Now, Jones is looking for a job himself. He has been under fire for some pointed comments about Republicans and a petition that he signed back in 2004 questioning what the Bush White House knew about 9/11. He has now resigned.

To talk more about that, let's bring in syndicated columnist David Sirota and David Frum, the editor of newmajority.com and former speech writer for the Bush White House.

David Sirota, let's start with you, because you wrote quite a scathing column that appeared on the newleft.org and as well on the huffingtonpost.com, saying you're absolutely outraged by the way the White House handled this.

SIROTA: Van Jones is a national hero for his work on green jobs. He's known as an expert on energy policy, on economic policy. He's somebody who made a mistake, who acknowledged that he made a mistake a long time ago, and he was tossed out by this White House.

And I think what we can learn from what happened is what this White House values and what this White House doesn't value. The White House stuck by Tim Geithner as Tim Geithner was involved, the treasury secretary, in a tax scandal. He's accepted gifts from the banking industry. The White House stood by him.

The White House has stood by other people, like Ben Bernanke, who has really been at the heart of our economic problems. And they're basically putting Van Jones out to pasture because of something Van Jones said was a mistake.

And I think what's going on here is that the White House is listening to the white right wing's political terrorists, people like Glenn Beck, people like conservative activists who have targeted Van Jones because Van Jones is an African-American with a progressive movement background working on behalf of social justice.

That's something, unfortunately, that is apparently, according to the right wing, not allowed in this country.

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1488)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (10398)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Unlike Chris Matthews who did an absolutely horrible job interviewing this guy, CNN's John Roberts and Roland Martin actually did a pretty well in taking on Jim Greer over his fear mongering on Obama's upcoming speech to students.

A little back ground on this. The invaluable Media Matters took everyone's favorite Drudge gossip-rag, The Politico to task for their initial fact free "reporting" on Jim Greer's statements.

Politico forwards falsehoods on Obama speech to students:

Reporting on the conservative reaction to President Obama's planned speech to students, the Politico uncritically quoted Florida GOP chairman Jim Greer's claim that Obama will speak about "his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies." PolitiFact.com, however, found Greer's claim to be "factually incorrect" and noted that the Florida Republican Party was unable to provide any support for his statement.

Continue reading...

PolitiFact gave Greer a "Pants on Fire" rating for his fear mongering and Roberts and Martin actually do their job and confront Greer with their reporting. Of course Greer just tries to dismiss them as some "liberal" outfit that shouldn't be taken seriously. What a surprise, huh?

Steve Benen has a great write up on this at the Washington Monthly:

IT'S COME TO THIS.... In 1988, then-President Reagan spoke to students nationwide via C-SPAN telecast. Among other things, he talked about his positions on political issues of the day. Three years later, then-President Bush addressed school kids in a speech broadcast live to school classrooms nationwide. Among other things, he promoted his own administration's education policies.

President Obama wants to deliver a message to students next week emphasizing hard work, encouraging young people to do their best in school. The temper tantrum the right is throwing in response only helps reinforce how far gone 21st-century conservatives really are.

Continue reading...

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (831)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (4547)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

My, my, isn't this special? The St. Louis tea bagger Dana Loesch has now made her way from Fox News to CNN. John Roberts asks if the tone of the rhetoric at the town halls is getting dangerous. Ron Reagan Jr. replies that it has, and points out that a gun was dropped out of one of the participant's pockets at an Arizona town hall meeting. Dana Loesch defends it by saying that maybe they have a concealed-carry license. Oh...I see Dana. That license makes what happened alright in your right wing nutter world.

Would you still be defending that person being that irresponsible if that was a loaded gun, and it went off when they dropped it?

I've got a friend who is my accountant, and who has a conceal/carry license. When getting my taxes done a little while back she went on endlessly about all the classes and hoops she had to jump through with learning about gun safety to get her license. She was actually pretty proud of how she did and how she already knew how to safely handle a gun, since all of her family are hunters and they taught her from a young age a lot of the things she was required to know in those classes.

I have not read up on what the laws are to be allowed to retain a license to carry a concealed weapon since I have no desire to do so myself. If there is not something written into any states' laws already that says if you drop a loaded gun in a crowd of people and they can prove you did it, and you don't lose your right to carry a concealed weapon, then there's something wrong with our concealed/carry laws.

Anyone who has been through the program you have to go through to get that license would know better than to allow a gun to be unsecured in a manner where it's allowed to just fall out of wherever you're holding it and hit the ground. Ms. Loesch's argument that maybe this person had a permit looks ridiculous to me for that reason alone. The opposite is true of responsible gun owners who go through the safety program for that license, and the likelihood of someone who had the license allowing something that irresponsible to happen.

Of course Loesch has no idea whether they had a license or not. She just threw that out there from the land of her butt to defend them bringing a gun there in the first place. And the big, thuggish union guys at the St. Louis meeting she went to scared her, so maybe she would have been better off having a gun there herself as well. Just who would you have shot Dana had you had that gun you're saying would have protected you? Somehow you managed to make it out of there alive and onto our TV screens without pulling a gun on anyone yourself. Ron Reagan thankfully added a bit of sanity to this segment when he wasn't being talked over.

Full transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »


A few days ago Sen. Ben Nelson said he wasn't sure how he'd vote on the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor:

Sen. Ben Nelson said Wednesday he has not decided whether he will vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Nelson said he'll delay his decision until next week's scheduled Senate vote.

"I accept her judicial philosophy of fidelity to the law," Nelson said during a telephone conference call from Washington. Nelson said he also believes Sotomayor is committed to supporting settled judicial precedent.

But, he said, he needs to "convince myself she won't be an activist" on the court. "I need an opportunity to review a few things," the Democratic senator said.

What a guy. He makes sure to use republican talking points about activism, but when he had to consider John Roberts he said would take him at his word.
On September 22, 2005 - before the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings for John Roberts had even been completed - Sen. Ben Nelson stated on the floor of the U.S. Senate:

"Only time will tell where Judge Roberts will come down on the prevailing legal matters that come before the Roberts Court. I can only take him at his word that he will approach his role on the court without a pre-determined agenda, without activism, and with only the intention to balance the scales of justice for all Americans.....

I will vote to confirm Judge John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court."

And he said the same thing about Alito.

At the time, the Associated Press reported:

Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska on Tuesday became the first Democrat to announce he will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Nelson, one of the most conservative Democrats in Congress, said in a statement that he had made up his mind to support Alito "because of his impeccable judicial credentials, the American Bar Association's strong recommendation and his pledge that he would not bring a political agenda to the court."

Now, not to be undone by the Nelson gasbag is Max Baucus, the man who wants to undermine health care reform.

He's undecided as well.

Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday he hasn’t made up his mind on whether he will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Baucus this summer has infuriated liberals on and off Capitol Hill by working to strike a deal with Republicans on healthcare reform. A “no” vote on Sotomayor would be adding fuel to the left’s fire at the Finance Committee chairman.

Baucus on Thursday twice told The Hill he is undecided on next week’s floor vote on Sotomayor.

Talk about slapping their president in the face. If Goober Graham said he's voting for Sotomayor then what is their hesitation except from a narcissistic ego trip to get more ink from the media. I wonder if Nelson is a racist or just hates women or both since he gave his vote to two white men so easily.

Dave N.: According to Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress, all of this waffling by Senate Dems -- which includes Alaska's Mark Begich -- is a result of pressure from the National Rifle Association, which indeed promised it would work to stop the Sotomayor nomination very early on; the NRA's Wayne LaPierre went on Glenn Beck and promised that if Sotomayor didn't agree to every jot and tittle of their agenda, they would denounce and oppose her. This is why so many Republicans grilled Sotomayor with questions about the Second Amendment.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1295)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (3019)
Play WMV Play Quicktime


TOPICS Video Cafe
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (955)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1930)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Police have dropped charges against a famed Harvard professor. Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested for disorderly conduct after he was seen breaking into his own house.

Gates' attorney doesn't believe that the professor was guilty of disorderly conduct. Professor Charles Ogletree told CNN's Kiran Chetry and John Roberts that the professor suspected race was an issue in his arrest.

According to Ogletree, Gates' told police, "I live here, why are you doing this to me? I told you this is my house, I gave you my I.D. and I'm the owner of the home." Gates charged that the police would not have treated a white man in the same way. "You're doing this because I'm an African-American and you're a white police officer? This makes no sense for you to question me like this in my home."

But when Gates stepped out of the house to talk to police they arrested him.

"He was very frustrated, there's no question about that, but belligerent is not the case. He never touched the officer, never pointed at the officer and in fact, he was trying to stay in his house having produced identification saying what more do I need to do," said Ogletree.


TOPICS Third Branch

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1211)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (6206)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

You knew Jeff Sessions wouldn't be able to hold back his true feelings about race. Jeffrey Toobin calls him out for his gender/ethnicity prejudices. Really, only white, superior men are unbiased and understand the ills caused by racism and sexism because they are a blank slate. Sure thing there Jeff.

Big Tent Democrat:

Jeff Toobin captured the entire philosophy of the Republican Party, embodied by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, only white men are oppressed. Only white men are unbiased and without prejudice.

JEFF TOOBIN: What’s worth noting about what Jeff Sessions -- the line of questioning, was that being a white man, that’s normal. Everybody else has biases and prejudices[,] . . . but the white man, they don’t have any ethnicity, they don’t have any gender, they’re just like the normal folks, and I thought that was a little jarring.

Good on Toobin

Yes, because our history shows that white men have been oh so kind to minorities and the ladies. That's what's inside of a mind like Sessions.
And let's remember what Sessions said about Roberts.

During the John Roberts confirmation hearings, when Roberts argued against applying discrimination laws in memorandum, Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III was adamant in defense of judges who "respected precedent"...read on


TOPICS Third Branch

During the John Roberts confirmation hearings, when Roberts argued against applying discrimination laws in memorandum, Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III was adamant in defense of judges who "respected precedent:"

Roberts’ memorandums and briefs were “absolutely consistent with the Supreme Court ruling of the United States at that time. So, all I would say is, I think it’s unfair to suggest that he has a record that indicates that he was somehow wrong on civil rights at that time.” When asked about his brief as Deputy Solicitor General in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, arguing that victims of intentional discrimination should not receive damages under Title IX, Senator Sessions said: “On the Gwinnett case, the Title IX, the women’s education case, the position you took that would deny the right to sue a state entity, a government entity for money damages, wasn’t that a position consistent with the position of the Court of Appeals that had written the only opinion on the subject? … So you, in advocating on that position, were expressing a view that was the view of the highest federal court in the land at that time?”

(Emphasis supplied.) Of course, that involved discrimination against non-white males so of course Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, admirer of the KKK, labeller of the NAACP as a "commie" organization, would think that. You see, Sessions has deep empathy for the poor white male - so oppressed in our society. Everybody else? Not so much, The perfect embodiment of the GOP.

Speaking for me only


TOPICS Third Branch

The Origin Of The Umpire Analogy

Kagro at daily kos is sick of the umpire talk in the Sotomayor hearings. In fact, it was always a ridiculous argument, first forwarded by the disingenuous now Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. During his 2005 confirmation hearings, I wrote about how disingenuous Roberts was to use the analogy:

It is an interesting analogy Judge Roberts draws. And it seems to me to be an excellent argument for why Judge Roberts must answer the questions put to him by the Senate. As any baseball fan knows, umpires are not uniform in the delineation of the strike zone. Some are "hitters" umpires. Some are "pitchers" umpires. Some call the high strike. Some call the outside pitch.

And when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States, it is important that we know what Judge Roberts' "strike zone" is. His record, the part that was not concealed by the Bush Administration, gives many of us pause regarding Judge Roberts' "strike zone." His stated antipathy for the right to privacy, for voting rights measures, for discrimination remedies, etc., demands followup. What does your "rulebook" say about these things Judge Roberts?

Senators Feinstein, Whitehouse, Schumer and Durbin all pointed out today that Chief justice Roberts was less than honest about what his judicial strike zone would be. In that sense, the umpire analogy still has its uses.


TOPICS Third Branch

Advice And Consent: Constitutional Interpretation And Judicial Activism

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (176)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (152)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Today Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) spoke like a person prepared to defer to the President's choice of Judge Sonia Sotomayor and vote for her confirmation despite his disagreements with her judicial philosophy. While I disagree with Graham on the Senate's role regarding judicial appointments, I must credit him with consistency on this issue. Graham said:

“My inclination is that elections matter…President [Barack] Obama won the election, and I will respect that.” He criticized Obama’s rationale, when a senator, for voting against the nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, but he added, “We’ve got a chance to start over. I hope we take that chance. . . . My belief is that you will do well. Whether I agree with you on the big things in life is not relevant here. My question is whether you have earned the right to be here. . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) With due respect to Senator Graham, I disagree with him both on the "big things" regarding judicial philosophy and the fact that if he disagrees with Judge Sotomayor on those "big things," he should still vote in favor of Judge Sotomayor. He should not. He abdicates his responsibility as a Senator. More . . .

Continue reading »


TOPICS Third Branch
You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!
DOWNLOADS: (1003)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (843)
Play WMV Play Quicktime

Considering the current makeup of the court -- and the long-established propensity of Arthur Kennedy to lean right on civil-rights cases -- this probably isn't a surprise, just deeply unfortunate:

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities.

The ruling could alter employment practices nationwide and make it harder to prove discrimination when there is no evidence it was intentional.

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."

Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday.

You can read the ruling here [PDF]. Ginsburg's dissent is especially worth reading, since she thoroughly eviscerates the skewed logic the conservatives applied here. The key graf:

By order of this Court, New Haven, a city in which African-Americans and Hispanics account for nearly 60 percent of the population, must today be served as it was in the days of undisguised discrimination by a fire department in which members of racial and ethnic minorities
are rarely seen in command positions. ... The Court's order and opinion, I anticipate, will not have staying power.

There's also a lot of speculation about how this will affect Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Court, since the ruling overturned here was hers. However, what's clear also is that if anyone is being an "activist judge" here, it is the Court's right-wing faction.

As People for the American Way observed in its statement:

Sotomayor and her panel colleagues were bound by longstanding precedent and federal law. They applied the law without regard to their personal views and unanimously affirmed the district court ruling. To do anything but would have been judicial activism.


TOPICS Third Branch

The Roberts Court

Aside from a few high-profile issues, most Supreme Court decisions are read into the casebooks without public notice. We've gone almost four full years since Bush restaffed the court with Alito and Roberts, yet there has been little examination of their impact on jurisprudence.

That's changing. As the fight over Obama's first appointment picks up and attention turns to the future of the Court, we can expect examination of the Court's present. Jeff Toobin gets the ball rolling, noting that its Chief Justice is a wingnut:

The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

The article is a great foundation for understanding the stakes with this nomination.