(image h/t Bluegal)

When Clarence Thomas denies an appeal, it should be a signal that bizarro world isn't quite bizarro enough to legitimize birtherbot Orly Taitz. But no, Justice Alito decided Orly should be given the courtesy of more than a curt dismissal. Not only did he decide that, he did it despite the fact that she didn't even make the right request!

Miami Herald:

A request to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito by "birther" attorney Orly Taitz asking that $20,000 in sanctions against her be reversed was referred on Tuesday to the entire court.

U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land imposed the sanctions last year after he warned her and then gave her a time limit to explain why he shouldn't fine her in the September 2009 case of Capt. Connie Rhodes, who questioned the legitimacy of Barack Obama's presidency.

Taitz appealed the sanctions to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. That court upheld the sanctions in March, and Taitz sent an application for stay to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on July 8. Thomas denied it a week later.

Taitz then refiled it with Alito on Aug. 4. That request was referred on Tuesday to the entire nine-member court, the Supreme Court's website states.

Got that? Taitz chose the two most conservative teabagging justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. One declined; one accepted, at least to the extent of passing it around to the rest of them.

It's not like we didn't already know Alito was a reactionary hater, but this goes far beyond the pale. Orly Taitz is a half-wit publicity-seeking nutcase who has just been granted a piece of the Supreme Court's attention. I think we can safely assume Alito shares Taitz' agenda to delegitimize the President of the United States.

Oh, and poor Orly is having a problem because she's facing a lien on her property:

On Monday, a lien was filed on all of Taitz’s real property. Taitz said she wouldn’t give the government the satisfaction of taking her property or potentially her law license, adding she would pay the fine.

As of Wednesday, Taitz said on her website that she had raised $1,740 in donations.

Mason theorized that if the entire court dismisses the application for stay, it would be dismissed without consideration if she were to again refile it with another justice.

Mason is a little off on the analysis, in my opinion. Alito could have denied it summarily, too. Assuming he did so, did she expect Kennedy or Roberts to hear it?

It makes me want to go hunt down the standards for impeachment of United States Supreme Court justices. Alito may go down in history as the worst legacy of the Bush administration, even exceeding Iraq and Afghanistan.

DOWNLOADS: (1717)

PLAYS: (1597)

Embed

Speaking to students of the University of Alabama law school, Chief Justice John Roberts launched a blistering attack on President Obama's State of the Union criticism of the Court's Citizens United decision. Calling Obama's prime-time critique "very troubling," Roberts complained that the President's annual address to Congress "degenerated to a political pep rally." Of course, when Robert's political godfather Ronald Reagan or his sponsor George W. Bush used the State of the Union to berate, badger and batter the Supreme Court, that was just fine with the Chief Justice.

"I'm not sure why we're there," Roberts told the audience in Tuscaloosa, adding:

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

But during the George W. Bush's tenure, the Justices served as a prop for his State of the Union battles with the judiciary.

Bush's Supreme politicking during his State of the Union speeches was a regular fixture of his presidency. For three straight years (2004, 2005 and 2006), President Bush denounced "activist judges" and insisted "for the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage." On the very day Samuel Alito joined the Robert Court, Bush used his 2006 SOTU for a victory lap:

"The Supreme Court now has two superb new members -- new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. I thank the Senate for confirming both of them. I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law and not legislate from the bench."

And throughout the presidency of Ronald Reagan, for whom John Roberts promoted the gutting of the Civil Rights Act, overturning Roe v. Wade and a dangerously ignorant policy in response to the AIDS crisis, bashing the Supreme Court was a routine occurrence.

Continue reading »

While legal analysts like Glenn Greenwald and Jonathan Turley lamented Justice Samuel Alito's "serious and substantive breach of protocol" during last night's State of the Union address, conservatives are predictably apoplectic about President Obama's temerity in questioning the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision in that setting. As it turns out, the right-wing hypocrisy in defense of Alito is double. After all, President Bush didn't just routinely use the State of the Union to castigate "activist judges." For years, Bush's amen corner in the conservative movement threatened judges to bring them in line.

Bush's Supreme politicking during his State of the Union speeches was a regular fixture of his presidency. For three straight years (2004, 2005 and 2006), President Bush denounced "activist judges" and insisted "for the good of families, children and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage." On the very day Samuel Alito joined the Roberts Court, Bush used his 2006 SOTU for a victory lap:

"The Supreme Court now has two superb new members -- new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sam Alito. I thank the Senate for confirming both of them. I will continue to nominate men and women who understand that judges must be servants of the law and not legislate from the bench."

Nevertheless, Republican leaders feigned outrage over President Obama's criticism Wednesday of the Court's Citizens United decision last week. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch called it "rude," adding "It's one thing to say that he differed with the court but another thing to demagogue the issue while the court is sitting there out of respect for his position." Texan John Cornyn took it a step further, calling Obama's strong disagreement with the Court "hysterical" and insisting:

"I don't think the president should have done what he did in trying to call out the Supreme Court for doing its job. They are the final word on the meaning of the United States Constitution, even when we don't like the outcome."

Of course, back in 2005, John Cornyn was one of the GOP standard bearers in the conservative fight against so-called "judicial activism" in the wake of the Republicans' disastrous intervention in the Terri Schiavo affair. On April 4th, Cornyn took to the Senate floor to issue a not-too-thinly veiled threat to judges opposing his reactionary agenda. Just days after the murders of one judge in Atlanta and the family members of another in Chicago, former Texas Supreme Court Justice Cornyn offered his endorsement of judicial intimidation:

"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country...And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence."

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (5037)

PLAYS: (8818)

Embed

Last week the Supreme Court – in the disastrous Citizens United decision – effectively opened up American elections to unlimited spending by foreign governments and corporations. President Obama rightly called the court out last night in his SOTU address:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people.

But not everyone was applauding. Justice Alito was busy shaking his head, pantomiming, and mouthing “not true” to no one in particular (watch here).

Not surprisingly, right-wing bloggers have jumped to Alito’s defense and accused the president of lying. They point to existing bans on electioneering by foreigners and foreign companies. But that’s only part of the story.

There aren’t any restrictions on US subsidiaries of foreign corporations or on foreign-controlled US corporations. And thanks to the Supreme Court, these companies can spend billions on electing or picking off American politicians at all levels of government. This isn’t just some little loophole, it’s a gaping breech in our democracy.

As Justice Stevens argued in his eloquent dissent, the court’s ruling “would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.” Amazingly, the same conservatives who go apoplectic over the slightest whiff of foreign influence – such as when Obama bows ceremoniously to a foreign leader – have embraced that view.

They don’t seem to mind that Lukoil (Kremlin Inc.), Citgo (Hugo Chavez LLC), Aramco (King Fahd and Sons Co.), and countless other multinational corporations – including those run as business arms of foreign governments – now have a free hand to influence the government from top to bottom.

In fact, the conservative justices raised and then summarily dismissed the issue in their opinion:

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’spolitical process.

Truly incredible. They happily overturned over a century of precedent, but they worried that it might be presumptuous of them to limit foreign influence in American elections.

Now, there are naysayers out there who argue that foreign corporations won’t try to buy US elections because they’re required to disclose such activities and would risk alienating customers and creating controversy. Sadly, that’s wrong.

Corporations can now transfer money to trade associations (American Petroleum Institute), so-called advocacy groups (FreedomWorks), PR firms (Creative Response Concepts, the creators of swift-boating), or any variety of shell corporation/front group and spend unlimited amounts on attack ads, robocalls, direct mail, canvassing, etc. – all without any disclosure whatsoever.

But Republican leaders in Washington don’t seem to mind. In fact, they’re calling this a leveling of the playing field and a boon to the American middle class. It’s obvious that they expect the bulk of foreign cash will be spent on their behalf.

We can’t stand by as the GOP sells out the US to the highest bidder, foreign or domestic. As the president mentioned, there’s newly introduced legislation in Congress that would ban electioneering by foreign interests. We should pass it quickly, along with public financing of campaigns. But Congress can only chip away at the edges of the ruling. American democracy will be in grave danger until Citizens United is overruled by a constitutional amendment or the court itself.

DOWNLOADS: (5037)

PLAYS: (8818)

Embed

Here's Sam Alito's "Joe Wilson" moment during the State of the Union speech. When Obama cited the Citizens United v. FEC decision and voiced his concerns that it opened the nation up to the undue influence of special interests, watch Alito grimace and roll his eyes. He says something as well. John Aravosis, from whom we were tipped this video, reads it as "not true," although it's hard to tell from the angle.

Whatever the case, it was sweet to see all the justices sitting uncomfortably while all around them, the audience gave the President a standing ovation for criticizing them.

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.

DOWNLOADS: (2915)

PLAYS: (4938)

Embed

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.

DOWNLOADS: (301)

PLAYS: (334)

Embed

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."

DOWNLOADS: (1403)

PLAYS: (1132)

Embed

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.