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.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (2098)

PLAYS: (4327)

For Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, white men deserve preferential treatment. Given his stated sympathies for the KKK, this is hardly surpising. But it is worth noting. In his opening statement, Sessions said, Sessions said:

I will not vote for — no senator should vote for — an individual nominated by any President who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court.

(Emphasis supplied.) Yet, Sessions voted for Samuel Alito, who testified in his confirmation hearings that he does take his own personal background and sympathies into account as a judge.

Sessions demands preferential treatment for white men. He clearly applies a stricter standard to persons who are not white men. Given his history, this is hardly surprising. But it is also the perfect embodiment of the Republican philosophy.

h/t to Media Matters.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (173)

PLAYS: (148)

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 »

Could it be true? Is the sky falling? Did Tony Scalia really just side with the liberals in a major case? (Legal explanation here.)

WASHINGTON — In a rebuke of the Bush administration, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that a federal bank regulator erred in quashing efforts by New York state to combat the kind of predatory mortgage lending that triggered the nation's financial crisis.

The 5-4 ruling by the high court was unusual. Justice Antonin Scalia, arguably the most conservative jurist, wrote the majority's opinion and was joined by the court's four liberal judges.

The five justices held that contrary to what the Bush administration had argued, states can enforce their own laws on matters such as discrimination and predatory lending, even if that crosses into areas under federal regulation.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the four dissenters, argued that laws dating back to the nation's founding prevent states from meddling in federal bank regulation. He was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito.

The ruling angered many in the financial sector, who fear it'll lead to a patchwork of state laws that'll make it harder for banks and other financial firms to take a national approach to the marketplace.

Poor babies. My heart just bleeds for them. Why, it might make it even harder to throw 84-year-old widows out onto the street!

"We are worried about the effect that this ruling could have on the markets," said Rich Whiting, general counsel for the Financial Services Roundtable, a trade group representing the nation's 100 largest financial firms, in a statement. The decision "hinders the ability of financial services firms from conducting business in the United States. Even worse, it will cause confusion for consumers, especially those who move from state to state."

Oh, the markets! The sky is falling! Quick, throw the banks some money to help! Oh wait, we tried that already...

Stephen Ryan, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery, said the decision "will have a significant, negative impact on the ability of a national bank to offer a financial product uniformly throughout the country."

In a statement, Ryan, who's brought suits against state enforcement, predicted "a crazy quilt of conflicting legal instructions" and a "confusing situation of shared enforcement responsibilities for financial services."

Ha ha ha! Mr. Ryan, have you ever read the small print on an adjustable rate mortgage?

But wait, apparently it's not as bad as the banks claim:

Some of the industry's allies said yesterday's decision is hardly disastrous for banks, given that state officials will not have the power to demand documents or compel executives to submit to questioning without a court order.

"Obviously there's going to be some additional burden on the big banks," said Seth Galanter, of counsel at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, who filed a brief on behalf of former comptrollers of the currency. "But civil litigation has always been available to private parties. This just adds state attorneys general to the list of groups that can sue."

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (997)

PLAYS: (837)

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.

(Thanks, Jed)

Glenn Greenwald wrote about this yesterday and I finally got to post about it today.

Justice Sam Alito on empathy and judging

With regard to that last point -- how completely different is the reaction to Sam Alito and Sonia Sotomayor -- just consider this exchange that took place at the beginning of Alito's confirmation hearing (h/t sysprog):

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?

ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point....

Anyone who is objecting now to Sotomayor's alleged "empathy" problem but who supported Sam Alito and never objected to this sort of thing ought to have their motives questioned (and the same is true for someone who claims that a person who overcame great odds to graduate at the top of their class at Princeton, graduate Yale Law School, and then spent time as a prosecutor, corporate lawyer, district court judge and appellate court judge must have been chosen due to "identity politics").

But the attacks thus far -- not just from the Right but from the sterling Respectable Intellectual Center -- say far, far more about the critics than they do about her. How can her "empathy" views possibly be distinguished from what Sam Alito -- at Tom Coburn's urging -- said when he was confirmed?...read on

Glenn has the entire transcript up from the Coburn questioning and should be read. The idea that our own personal experiences do not shape the way we view life is absurd and Alito used it to try and sell himself to Congress, but for Sonia Sotomayor, that's a disqualifying event.

Digby writes:

Yesterday I dashed off this glib little bon mot, which deserves a much more serious treatment:

One can't know for sure that the fact that Chief Justice John Roberts, who has so far voted every single time with the ruling elites, was affected by his personal experience as a privileged white male -- coddled, groomed and rewarded from his earliest days by the conservative establishment he served -- but it certainly isn't unfair to think he might have been.

Continue reading »

This particular issue sticks in my craw, because the Democratic activists blew it on Roberts and Alito. I was involved in several conference calls with senators at the time, and I was furious that opponents insisted on making the anti-Roberts and Alito pushback based on abortion rights.

"That's insane," I said. "Why would you want to oppose either of them on the basis of the single most divisive issue we have, when they both have records of always ruling for corporations at the expense of the little guy? That's something that most people can relate to. Make abortion the issue, and you've already lost, because the right wing is better at mobilizing their forces."

But hey, I guess that's why I'm just a lowly blogger and not a U.S. Senator:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that John Roberts misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings by pretending to be a moderate — and that the United States is now “stuck” with him as chief justice.

“Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was,” Reid said, referring to Samuel Alito, the second Supreme Court justice nominated by President George W. Bush. “But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen.”

You'd think at some point that Harry Reid would have noticed the huge gap between what Republican true-believers say, and what they actually do, but I guess Harry has people who do that for him.

Reid’s comments, which came during a wide-ranging discussion hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, reflect Democratic concerns that Roberts presented himself as a neutral arbiter of the law but has wielded a relentlessly conservative agenda. Republicans reject the attacks, saying Roberts has been a fair judge and has been consistent in his opinions.

Although Reid said that Democrats will try to put moderates on the bench, he said he will not try to deny Republicans the right to filibuster nominees. In 2005, then-Majority Leader Bill Frist threatened to eliminate the filibuster, sparking a furious reaction by Reid and other Democrats who said the so-called nuclear option would quash the rights of the minority.