|
Make your Easter Special
with Egg-celent Deal

A
Victims-of-Law Advertiser
|
March 2010
White House fires back at Chief Justice Roberts: We
judge Supreme Court slap fair
By Kenneth R. Bazinet ,
Daily News Washington Bureau
03-12-10 --
Chief Justice John Roberts is getting quite a lesson in
First Amendment law - from legal scholar Barack Obama. .
. . The White House indicated the chief justice
shouldn’t expect any apologies in response to Roberts’
complaint that it was "very troubling" that Obama used
the Jan. 27 State of the Union address to cite his
disagreement with a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in favor of
unbridled corporate and special interest campaign
contributions. . . . Roberts was sitting front and
center when Obama slammed the court’s decision. . . .
Spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters today that Obama
agrees with a majority of Americans who believe Roberts
and the other conservatives on the court blew the call
on corporate campaign finance — and he wanted the high
court to know it. The State of the Union gave Obama the
perfect venue to state his opinion.
Chief Justice Puts State of the Union Speech Back in the
Spotlight
Roberts' response to
question during an appearance at an Alabama law school
re-ignites controversy over 'Citizens United' ruling and
State of the Union address
Tony Mauro, The National
Law Journal
03-11-10 --
Six of the nine Supreme Court justices attended the
State of the Union address in January, but don't be
surprised if that number goes way down next year, in
light of comments made by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.
in Alabama on Tuesday. . . . Roberts spoke to University
of Alabama Law School students in Tuscaloosa. During a
question-and-answer period, he was asked about
the rare episode at this year's address, in
which President Barack Obama criticized the
Court's campaign finance ruling Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission, with the
justices sitting in front of him. Senators sitting near
the justices stood and cheered Obama's remarks while the
justices, as is their custom, sat impassively. Only
Justice Samuel Alito Jr.
registered mild disapproval, furtively shaking his
head and appearing to mouth the words "not true."
Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
AP, Fox News
03-10-10 --
U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene
at President Obama's first State of the Union address
was "very troubling" and that the annual speech to
Congress has "degenerated into a political pep rally." .
. . U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the
scene at President Obama's first State of the Union
address was "very troubling" and that the annual speech
to Congress has "degenerated into a political pep
rally." . . . Responding to a University of Alabama law
student's question about the Senate's method of
confirming justices, Roberts said senators improperly
try to make political points by asking questions they
know nominees can't answer because of judicial ethics
rules. . . . "I think the process is broken down," he
said. . . . Obama chided the court for its campaign
finance decision during the January address, with six of
the court's nine justices seated before him in their
black robes. . . . Roberts said he wonders whether
justices should attend the address.
Poll Shows Public Support for Cameras at the High Court
Tony Mauro, The National
Law Journal
03-09-10 --
A new public opinion poll being released today found
that more than 60 percent of voters think that
televising U.S. Supreme Court proceedings would be "good
for democracy." . . . Only 26 percent said televising
oral arguments would undermine the Court's "dignity or
authority," according to the PublicMind poll. . . .
Sentiment in favor of cameras in the high court runs the
highest among liberals (71 percent) and voters between
ages 18 and 29 (69 percent), according to the survey.
Two-thirds of Democrats believe that televising the
Court is good for democracy, while 53 percent of
Republicans said the same thing. . . . The poll also
indicates that more than half of voters believe that
Supreme Court justices, who currently enjoy life tenure,
should be limited to 18 years on the bench. . . .
PublicMind, a research project of Fairleigh
Dickinson University in New Jersey, conducted the
telephone poll of 1,002 registered voters in late
January and early February.
A bipartisan push to clean up the Supreme Court's mess
By E.J.
Dionne Jr., Op Ed The Washington Post
03-08-10 --
In a city where the phrase "bipartisan initiative" is becoming an
oxymoron, the urgency of containing the damage the Supreme Court
could do to our electoral system creates an opportunity for a rare
convergence of interest and principle. . . . At issue is the court's
astonishingly naive decision in January that allows unlimited
corporate spending to influence elections. Its
5 to 4 ruling in the Citizens United case was a shocking
instance of judicial overreach and reflected an utter indifference
to how politics works. . . . Liberals and Democrats are already
mobilizing to fight against Citizens United because they fear the
impact of unconstrained corporate activity on elections and
legislation. But conservatives and Republicans should also be
alarmed that this decision could encourage politicians to extort
campaign spending from businesses. Is it really so hard to imagine a
congressional leader quietly approaching a business executive and
suggesting that unless her company invested heavily in certain key
electoral contests, this regulation or that spending program might
be changed at the expense of her enterprise?
High Court: Does religion still matter?
By Robert Barnes,
Washington Post Staff Writer
03-08-10 --
Here's the kind of question that might violate the rules
you learned about proper dinner conversation: Does
President Obama's next Supreme Court nominee need to be
a Protestant? . . . If Justice John Paul Stevens decides
to call it a career after he turns 90 next month, the
Supreme Court would for the first time in its history be
without a justice belonging to America's largest
religious affiliations. . . . Perhaps that would mean
only that religion is no longer important in the mix of
experience and expertise that a president seeks in a
Supreme Court nominee. There was a time, of course, in
which there was a "Catholic seat" on the court, followed
in 1916 with the appointment of the court's first Jew.
The days when one of each seemed sufficient are long
over. . . . Catholics became a majority of the
nine-member court in 2006 with the confirmation of
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice Sonia Sotomayor made
it six last summer. And the other two justices besides
Stevens are Jewish.
At the Supreme Court, an Hour
Can Last 66 Minutes
Tony
Mauro, The National Law Journal
03-04-10 --
The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist was usually a stickler
during Supreme Court oral arguments, cutting lawyers off in
mid-syllable when the red light went on at the end of their allotted
time. In his later years he'd occasionally ease up and let a lawyer
go on for a few seconds if a barrage of questions from justices had
dominated their rebuttal time, but usually Rehnquist was strict. . .
. Much to the relief of advocates, John Roberts Jr. -- Rehnquist's
successor and one-time law clerk -- has relaxed Rehnquist's
standards. It's not uncommon for him to let lawyers finish their
thoughts after the red light goes on, and he'll add extra rebuttal
time if he feels it's needed for fairness. Roberts' different
approach was on display Wednesday during the dense and complex
arguments in Samantar v. Yousuf, which asks whether former officials
of foreign governments are immune from lawsuits under the Foreign
Sovereign Immunities Act.
|
SAVE
THE CHILDREN

A Victims-of-Law
Associate |
February 2010
Supreme Court Stats Reveal Impending Milestones
for Justice Stevens
Tony
Mauro, The National Law Journal
02-26-10 --
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who turns 90 on April 20,
is closing in on some other major milestones. In about three months,
Stevens, who joined the Court in 1975, will pass "the great chief
justice" John Marshall in terms of length of service, and a month
after that he'll pass Justice Stephen Field's length of tenure as
well, lagging behind only William O. Douglas. It would take Stevens
about two more years in office to catch up to Douglas' record tenure
of 36 years, six months and 25 days. . . . All these statistics are
now available at the ever-useful
Oyez Project, as valuable an online resource on the high
court as can be found. The length-of-service numbers and other data
will be updated daily for the nine sitting justices, so you'll be
able to track when Stevens leaps ahead of long-serving predecessors.
Does Justice Thomas' Silence Thwart Advocacy?
It's been four years since Clarence Thomas asked a question -- some
say that's too long
Tony
Mauro, The National Law Journal
02-22-10
-- Four years ago, South
Carolina Assistant Deputy Attorney General Donald Zelenka was about
to wrap up his oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court when he
heard an unfamiliar voice. . . . Justice Clarence Thomas, who almost
never asks questions, was asking him one, about the standard the
trial court judge in Holmes v. South Carolina used for allowing
certain evidence into the case. . . . Zelenka didn't give himself
time to be surprised. "I knew there was something I needed to
clarify immediately," he said. Question answered, Zelenka soon sat
down. . . . And that exchange on that day, Feb. 22, 2006, marked the
last time Thomas asked a question during oral argument. In the four
years since, the only time his voice has been heard from the bench
is when he announces an opinion he has written.
Are Citizens Uniting Against Citizens United?
Posted
by Tony Mauro, Blog of the Legal Times
02-18-10 --
Critics of the Supreme Court's January ruling in Citizens United v.
FEC are pointing happily to a poll released yesterday that indicates
widespread public opposition to the decision and its green light for
more corporate and union expenditures in election campaigns. . . .
More than three-fourths of Republicans and Democrats alike voiced
criticism of the ruling, according to this
story on the poll. In addition, 72 per cent of
respondents favor action by Congress to curb the effect of the
ruling. . . . Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, said
the polling shows the Court is out of touch with American public
opinion about campaign money. "The Post poll demonstrates that the
American people fully understand and overwhelmingly reject what the
Court has done," said Wertheimer in a statement. "It’s hard to
conceive of another Supreme Court ruling in which five Justices have
found themselves so out of touch with the American people."
Scalia Opines on Right to Secede in Letter to Screenwriter
By Debra Cassens
Weiss, ABA Journal
02-17-10 --
Do states have a right to secede from the union? The issue is
generating some debate on blogs after Texas Gov. Rick Perry told a
tea-party rally that Texans could get so fed up with big government
that they may some day seek that option. . . . It turns out that
Justice Antonin Scalia has weighed in with his views, in a letter to
a legal blogger’s screenwriting brother. Scalia tackled the
constitutional question (there is no right to secede, he says) as
well as the possibility of a Supreme Court showdown over the issue
(don’t count on it). . . . Lawyer Eric Turkewitz explained the
genesis of the letter at his New
York Personal Injury Law Blog. Turkewitz says his
brother, Dan, wrote to all the justices on the U.S. Supreme Court
asking about the right to secede. Scalia was the only one to reply.
. . . The screenwriter was working on a political farce in 2006
about Maine seceding from the United States, and he envisioned a
Supreme Court showdown. . . . Justice Scalia didn’t side with Maine.
|

A
Victims-of-Law Advertiser |
Justices Wade Back Into Terror Cases
High court tackles First Amendment challenge to material-support ban
Marcia
Coyle, The National Law Journal
02-16-10 --
More than half a century later, Ann Fagan Ginger has no intention of
forgetting the pain and toll of the McCarthy era. Fear and suspicion
of communism forced her husband's resignation from a coveted Harvard
University faculty position, led her to give birth shortly afterward
as a hospital charity patient and eventually contributed to Ray
Ginger's death from acute alcoholism. . . . "It ruined marriages,
careers and relationships of all kinds," said the 84-year-old
lawyer-activist, who founded and directs the
Meiklejohn Civil Rights Institute in Berkeley, Calif. . .
. The fact that so many people have forgotten that period and so
many youths have no knowledge of it, she said, spurred her to sign
onto an amicus brief in a U.S. Supreme Court case raising the
specter of a similar era -- one driven by fear of terrorism. . . .
Ginger is one of a number of McCarthy-era victims and their
survivors supporting the First Amendment speech challenge to a
federal law prohibiting "material support" of designated terrorist
organizations. . . .
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Institute, to be argued
Feb. 23, draws the Supreme Court back into the war on terrorism
following its most recent ruling in 2008 in
Boumedienne v. Bush.
Justice Breyer analyzes rule of law in Yale talk
By Mary
E. O’Leary, Register Topics Editor
02-16-10 --
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, in the first of two
days of talks at the Yale Law School, praised the divisive Bush v.
Gore case in 2000 as one of the best examples of the rule of law in
this country. . . . Breyer was part of the minority in the 5-4
decision that voted to stop the recount of ballots in Florida that
threw the 2000 election to Republican George Bush over Democrat Al
Gore. . . . Breyer, who is one of several justices who have stopped
by the Ivy League school in recent years, said the court should not
have taken the case. Since it did, it should have dismissed it after
considering it. Ultimately, Breyer said the court should have let
the recount continue. . . . But with emotions running high on both
sides in a close election, Breyer said there never was a worry there
would be mobs in the street or a revolution after the Supreme Court
made its ruling. . . . “That characteristic is a national treasure,”
Breyer said.
Talk Grows of 2 Openings at High Court
White House reportedly preparing for more Supreme Court exits
Tony
Mauro, The National Law Journal
02-16-10 --
If two U.S. Supreme Court vacancies materialize this spring, they
may have the same impact on the nation's capital that two heavy
snowfalls have had this month: gridlock, paralysis and frayed
tempers. . . . Stories raising the possibility that justices John
Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg may leave at roughly the same
time have suddenly become part of the Washington conversation,
already fueling nightmare scenarios of dragged-out battles between a
weakened President Barack Obama and a fiercely contentious Senate
over possible replacements. . . . "Republicans are out for blood,
and Democrats are out for a fight," said Steve Wermiel, professor at
American University Washington College of Law. "We're close to a
peak of partisan wrangling in Washington."
Justice Kennedy on Prisons
New York
Times Editorial
02-15-10 --
Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke out against excessive prison sentences
this month in California, criticizing the state’s deeply misguided
three-strikes law. It was a welcome message, delivered with unusual
force. Much of the blame for the law, however, lies with the Supreme
Court, which upheld it in a decision on which Justice Kennedy cast
the deciding vote. . . . The overall tone of Justice Kennedy’s
address to the Pepperdine University School of Law was “courtly and
humorous,” according to The Los Angeles Times. He turned more
serious, however, on the subject of incarceration. Sentences in the
United States are eight times longer than those handed out in
Europe, Justice Kennedy said. California has 185,000 people in
prison at a cost of $32,500 each per year, he said. He urged voters
and elected officials to compare taxpayer spending on prisons with
spending on elementary education.
Law School takes part in
Court case
Supreme Court Litigation Clinic to represent petitioner in Abbott v.
United States
Shirley
Park, Cavalier Daily Associate Editor
02-10-10 --
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Thursday to hear Abbott v. United
States of America, in which the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic of
the University Law School will represent the petitioner, Kevin
Abbott. . . . With the help of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic,
Abbott is contesting a sentence he received from the U.S. Court of
Appeals, arguing that he unlawfully received an excess of
consecutive minimum sentences, University Law School Prof. Daniel
Oritz said. . . . Abbott was arrested and prosecuted for a drug
trafficking crime; he was given an additional five years for
possessing a gun and 15 more years for possessing a firearm as a
convicted felon, Ortiz said.
Bygone days color justices'
arguments
Supreme Court members' quips and questions recall a time before
reality TV, YouTube and speed dating
By Joan
Biskupic, USA TODAY
02-10-10 --
During a Supreme Court argument session this term, Justice Stephen
Breyer, 71, joked as he struggled to recall some elements of
contract law, "probably I am way out-of-date." . . . The lawyer at
the lectern, Seth Waxman, 58, quipped in response, "I very much
doubt that you are way out-of-date. If you are, I shudder to think
where I am." . . . Supreme Court oral arguments this term have
offered a series of reminders of how old-fashioned this court is and
how whimsically dated its reference points can be. The justices'
hypothetical questions in recent cases have recalled an era, when,
say, men sported fedoras, listened to old-time radio shows and kept
Dale Carnegie's 1936 tome on winning friends and influencing people
on the shelf. . . . The average age of the nine justices — who range
from 55 to nearly 90 — is about 70. Yet the tenor of oral arguments
also reflects the sensibility of the bookish types who end up at the
marble cloister. As a group, the justices — and many of the lawyers
who argue before them — like history and classical music and were
baffled by all the fuss when a case involving Anna Nicole Smith,
then a reality-show star, came before them in 2006.
Hillary's eligibility challenged
in Supreme Court
Can
political branch evade 'clear and precise language' of Constitution?
By Bob
Unruh, © 2010 WorldNetDaily
02-09-10 --
A brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by
Judicial Watch,
which investigates and prosecutes government corruption, questions
whether members of the "political branches of the government" can
"evade the clear and precise language of a provision of the
Constitution through the use of a legislative 'fix.'" . . . The
dispute is over former Sen. Hillary Clinton's eligibility to be
secretary of state. . . . The U.S. Constitution, Article I, section
6, clause 2, provides: "No senator or representative shall, during
the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office
under the authority of the United States, which shall have been
created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been [increased]
during such time." . . . The case brought on behalf of a career
government employee outlines how during Clinton's tenure in the U.S.
Senate, the salary for the secretary of state was raised to
$186,600, then to $191,300, and then again to $196,700.
Justice Thomas, on the Road Again
Tony
Mauro, The National Law Journal
01-05-10 --
One of the side benefits of the Supreme Court's long winter recess
is that justices head out of Washington for speaking engagements,
and Justice Clarence Thomas in particular gets to prove yet again
that he is incapable of giving a dull speech. . . . In appearances
Tuesday at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., and
then Thursday morning at the University of Florida Levin College of
Law in Gainesville, Thomas fielded questions from students, quoted
the likes of Garth Brooks and Clint Eastwood, revealed his movie
preferences and said he had "zero tolerance" for mistakes or
tardiness from his law clerks. . . . At UF Thursday morning, he was
even asked if he'd like to ride the circuits as justices did long
ago. "I'd love to," he said with a laugh. "I have my RV!" Thomas,
who often spends his summers on the road in his RV, said he'd like
the idea of riding circuits even better if he could target college
towns in the south during football season.
Democrats Push for Congressional Response to 'Citizens United'
David
Ingram, The National Law Journal
01-04-10 --
Congressional Democrats are continuing to gather ideas for limiting
corporate involvement in elections as they prepare legislation
responding to
last month's U.S. Supreme Court decision in
Citizens United v. FEC (pdf). . . . Harvard Law
Professor
Laurence Tribe, headlining a hearing before a House
Judiciary subcommittee, laid out a slew of proposals he thinks
Congress should take up. They include requiring shareholder
preapproval for corporate spending, limiting spending by federal
government contractors, and allowing states to pass laws prohibiting
spending by out-of-state corporations. . . . Witnesses called by the
subcommittee's Democratic majority warned that corporations will now
be able to influence lawmakers simply by threatening to use their
general treasuries.
Briefer Briefs Ahead for Supreme Court
Tony
Mauro, The National Law Journal
01-04-10 --
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. used to write full-length Supreme
Court briefs for a living, as a Hogan & Hartson partner. But now, as
a consumer of such briefs, he's become something of a critic, once
famously stating that he never read a brief that was so good that he
wished it were longer. . . .
New rules (pdf) adopted by the Court last month set to
take effect Feb. 16 will guarantee that Roberts and his colleagues
won't get longer briefs, at least in one category. One of the
changes will require lawyers to keep their reply briefs at the
merits stage to 6,000 words instead of the previous limit of 7,500.
In an explanatory comment on the change, the clerk of the Court said
the Court was returning to a length close to what it had required in
earlier years when it used page limits. "Experience has shown that
the increased volume limit has allowed for the filing of some briefs
that repeat previous arguments rather than address only new material
presented in intervening briefs." In other words, lawyers have been
padding their briefs.
Bill Moves to Allow Supreme Court Review of Courts-Martial
Decisions
Marcia
Coyle, The National Law Journal
02-03-10 --
The House Judiciary Committee has approved a bill that would expand
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, allowing it to review
petitions filed by military service members challenging
courts-martial decisions.
Under current law, a service member
is barred from petitioning the high court if the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Armed Forces has refused to review his or her
court-martial appeal or has denied a writ for extraordinary relief.
The only exception is when someone is sentenced to death. In
contrast, the government has the right to petition the justices in
any case referred to the CAAF. . . . Committee members, by voice
vote last week, sent the full House the
Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2009, sponsored by
Rep. Susan Davis, D-Calif. The bill is supported by the American Bar
Association, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,
the District of Columbia Bar Association, the Fleet Reserve
Association, the Jewish War Veterans Association, the Military
Officers Association of America and the National Institute for
Military Justice.
|
HELP KEEP
VICTIMS-OF-LAW ON THE WEB
SHOP OUR ADVERTISERS
OR CONTRIBUTE NOW
|
January 2010
Obama, Alito Dis Each Other in Free Speech Brawl
Commentary by Ann Woolner, Bloomberg
01-29-10 --
Whether you think it outrageous or
terrific that the U.S. Supreme Court last week ruled corporate funds
can pay for political ads, or if you don’t much care, there is humor
to be mined in a flap the decision created this week.
. . .
The case is about free speech in
politics, right? But when President Barack Obama slammed the
decision during his State of the Union speech, conservatives (who
mostly like the ruling) ripped him for speaking so freely.
. . .
Free speech has its limits, even in
politics, it would seem. . . .
And yet, following a
Republican tradition, ex-President George W. Bush talked down the
federal bench all the time. It was a campaign theme for him to trash
“activist judges.” . . .
Apparently it’s fine for
presidents or candidates to excoriate rulings when the justices
aren’t in the same room. . . .
But it’s an appalling breach
of decorum for the president to do it right to the justices’ faces.
Never before had a president used this constitutionally mandated
and, now, nationally televised speech to do so. Why, it’s downright
rude.
Reactions split on Obama's remark,
Alito's response at State of the Union
Alito v. Obama
By
Robert Barnes, Washington Post Staff Writer
01-29-10 --
President Obama called out the Supreme Court. Justice
Samuel A. Alito Jr. winced at the accusation and muttered, "Not
true." And then official Washington and the legal community went to
the tape, and examined it frame by frame. . . . What they saw --
either a president gratuitously criticizing the silent black-robed
justices sitting in front of him or a conservative jurist
injudiciously reacting to a man who had voted against his
confirmation -- depended on from where they started. . . . "Rude,"
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said of the president.
"Inappropriate" was the verdict on Alito from
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.). . . . And legal experts
said they had never seen anything quite like it, a rare and
unvarnished showdown between two political branches during what is
usually the careful choreography of the State of the Union address.
. . . "I can't ever recall a president taking a swipe at the Supreme
Court like that," said Lucas A. Powe Jr., a Supreme Court expert at
the University of Texas law school. The closest precedent most could
find was President Franklin D. Roosevelt's criticism of the court in
his 1937 address to Congress.
Justice Alito's State of the Union Dissent
Tony
Mauro, The National Law Journal
01-28-10 --
In case you missed it, here's a video clip that shows Supreme Court
Justice Samuel Alito's reaction to President Barack Obama's remarks
about the
Citizens United v. FEC decision Wednesday night: . .
. As you'll see, Alito started shaking his head while Obama was
talking about the Court reversing a "century of law" and in so doing
will "open the floodgates" of corporate spending in campaigns. If it
was the first part of the sentence Alito objected to, it could be
argued that he has a point: the Court did not go back a century to
overturn the Tillman Act of 1907, which bars direct corporate
contributions to candidates. Instead, the Court struck down statutes
of more recent vintage affecting independent expenditures -- legally
different from direct contributions -- by corporations.
|

A
Victims-of-Law Advertiser |
Justice Stevens Renews Criticism of Gerrymandering
By Jess
Bravin, Wall Street Journal
01-29-10 --
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens expressed concern about
court rulings that give politicians wide leeway in drawing
election-district lines, saying it worsens partisan divides in
government. . . . Justice Stevens made the remarks in an interview
earlier this month, shortly before another prominent ruling on
election law in which he was on the losing end. On Jan. 21, he filed
a 90-page dissent, joined by three other liberal justices,
criticizing the conservative five-justice majority's decision
striking down limits on corporate and union political spending. . .
.
|

John Paul Stevens |
Justice Stevens also dissented from
a 2004 ruling that said voters don't have the right to challenge
district lines drawn by state legislatures with the aim of
benefiting a particular political party. Voters may challenge
district lines only if racial discrimination was involved, the court
said. . . . At the time, Justice Stevens wrote that such
redistricting violates the Constitution's equal-protection guarantee
"if the only possible explanation for a district's bizarre shape is
a naked desire to increase partisan strength."
Justice Stevens on How He Joined the Court
By Jess
Bravin, Wall Street Journal
01-29-10 --
Justice John Paul Stevens, nearing his 90th birthday in April,
reminisced in a recent interview about the Republican senator who
helped him land on the Supreme Court, where he is now senior
associate justice and leader of the court's liberal wing. . . . The
future justice knew Charles Percy, later a senator from Illinois,
when they attended the University of Chicago together and graduated
in 1941. . . . The interview was part of a program devoted to Mr.
Percy, in whose name a new public-affairs research grant has been
endowed at the University of California, Berkeley. Mr. Percy, 90,
has Alzheimer's disease.
Former Justice O’Connor Sees Ill in Election Finance Ruling
By Adam
Liptak, New York Times
01-26-10 --
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor did not sound happy on Tuesday about the
Supreme Court’s big campaign finance decision last week. It
repudiated a major part of a ruling Justice O’Connor helped write
before her retirement from the court in 2006, and it complicated her
recent efforts to do away with judicial elections. . . . “Gosh,” she
said, “I step away for a couple of years and there’s no telling
what’s going to happen.” . . . Justice O’Connor criticized the
recent decision,
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, only
obliquely, reminding the audience that she had been among the
authors of
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, the 2003
decision that was overruled in large part on Thursday. . . . “If you
want my legal opinion” about Citizens United, Justice O’Connor said,
“you can go read” McConnell. . . . Justice O’Connor gave her
thoughts at a
conference at Georgetown University Law Center on
judicial selection in the aftermath of Citizens United and last
year’s Supreme Court decision on judicial recusal,
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.
Risky Strategy Leads to Big
High Court Win
Theodore Olson urged justices to throw out precedent on corporate
campaign contributions
Tony Mauro, The National Law Journal
01-25-10 --
For Theodore Olson, the turning point in the case of Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission, the moment when he
thought a big win was possible, came during
the first oral argument
on March 24 last year. . . . That was when his adversary, Deputy
Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, under duress acknowledged that
yes, a corporation-sponsored book could be banned under federal law
if it contained text for or against a candidate's election. Justices
were slack-jawed. They ordered
a re-argument
for September and, on Jan. 21,
struck down the law
and the precedents that supported it. . . . "The first oral argument
was an eye-opener for everyone," the
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner
said the day after his stunning 5-4 victory. "It became apparent
then that the government was going to have a very tough time
defending the rationale of
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of
Commerce without
having to acknowledge that it would authorize criminalizing books,
yard signs, pamphlets and other traditional forms of advocacy."
What Should Congress Do About
Citizens United?
An analysis
of the ruling and a possible legislative response
Erin
Miller | SCOTUSblog
Below, Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M.
Loeb University Professor and Professor of Constitutional Law at
Harvard Law School, discusses last Thursday’s decision in
Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission
(08-205). . . .
01-25-10 --
There is no doubt that Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission marks a major upheaval in First Amendment law and
signals the end of whatever legitimate claim could otherwise have
been made by the Roberts Court to an incremental and minimalist
approach to constitutional adjudication, to a modest view of the
judicial role vis-à-vis the political branches, or to a genuine
concern with adherence to precedent. . . . The masterful dissent by
Justice Stevens, which merits close reading by anyone interested in
the Supreme Court as an institution or in the Constitution as a
source of law, shreds any serious claim to the contrary. It also
gravely undermines the First Amendment analysis offered by the
majority and concurring opinions, doing so thoroughly enough that
anyone who (like me) regards the issues in this case as close and
difficult has to wish that Justice Kennedy, joined by the Chief
Justice and by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, had been less
emboldened by the knowledge that the votes were there for what they
all deemed the right result and had taken greater care to respond,
point by point, to the largely unanswered critique launched by
Justice Stevens, joined in his dissenting opinion by Justices
Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.
|

A
Victims-of-Law Advertiser |
Breyer, Scalia: Holding no punches
By Joan
Biskupic, USA TODAY
01-19-10 --
Separated by ideology and style, each justice often finds himself in
the other's line of fire. . . . They appear at law schools together
to discuss their competing views of the Constitution. They take
ideological aim at each other in rulings. And their differences are
increasingly playing out in testy fashion on the bench. . . . No two
justices seem to drive each other so nuts during oral arguments.
That was clear during the first session of the new year, as Justices
Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer squabbled in a series of cases
last week. . . . Scalia is conservative and Breyer liberal. Yet
their differences on the bench are ones of both substance and style.
As Breyer begins a long, hypothetical question, Scalia — a
fast-speaking, get-to-the-point guy — often slaps his hands up to
the sides of his head. . . . Breyer doesn't exude irritation as much
as frustration. A pragmatist, he is irked when Scalia interrupts his
interest on how a ruling might affect real life.
Justice Scalia's Musical Interlude
Tony
Mauro, The National Law Journal
01-15-10 --
The once-media shy Justice Antonin Scalia has opened up on the
interview circuit in recent years, in part to promote
the book he co-authored with Bryan Garner on appellate
advocacy (now available in an audio book version). . . . Scalia even
made himself available for
Joan Biskupic's admirable biography , which charts the
justice's life and times from boyhood to today. . . . But perhaps
the zaniest interview Scalia has done was with Gilbert Kaplan on the
"Mad About Music" show that aired Jan. 3 on WQXR, the New
York City classical music station. The program invites celebrities
to discuss and play their favorite music on the air. For Scalia, it
was almost certainly the only time he has been asked a question
containing the words "lap dance."
|
 
A
Victims-of-Law Advertiser |
Work-Product Battle Reaches Supreme Court
Marcia
Coyle, The National Law Journal
01-06-10 --
A closely watched federal tax case
involving the scope of the work-product doctrine has reached the
U.S. Supreme Court. . . . Kannon Shanmugam of Washington, D.C.'s
Williams & Connolly recently filed a petition for certiorari on
behalf of Textron Inc., an aerospace and defense contractor, asking
the justices to resolve a substantial circuit split over the
interpretation of the work-product privilege in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 26(B)(3). . . . Textron Inc. v. U.S. stems
from a long-running legal battle between the corporation and the
Internal Revenue Service over the government's demand for Textron's
tax-accrual work papers. Those papers generally are prepared with
the assistance of in-house and external counsel and relied upon by
independent auditors to determine the accuracy of financial
statements. They often contain legal analyses and evaluations of
potential litigation risks associated with particular tax
transactions.
Michigan Joined by Four Neighbors in Suit to Keep Asian Carp Out
of the Great Lakes
Lynne
Marek, The National Law Journal
01-05-10 --
At first it was one state fighting
neighbor Illinois over a possible
Asian carp invasion. Now it's at least five. . . .
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, who is seeking to become
governor of the state, launched the legal effort last month to stop
Asian carp from reaching the Great Lakes and disrupting his state's
fishing industry. Since then four other states, all of which border
at least one Great Lake, have joined in Michigan's litigation. . . .
In a Dec. 2 letter to Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn, Cox urged Quinn to
take action to block the carps' migration from the Mississippi River
across Illinois to Lake Michigan. A bare 19 days later, Cox
petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to force action. Cox's office said
it acted when it didn't hear back from Quinn. . . . Minnesota, New
York, Ohio and Wisconsin have filed supporting motions in the
litigation against Illinois, the City of Chicago and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, citing the "threat of irreparable injury" if the
carp reach Lake Michigan and beyond. They're asking the Supreme
Court to force the defendants to "permanently and physically"
barricade the carp and seeking a preliminary injunction to make that
happen.
Scalia Defends Gay, Abortion, Gun Rulings at First Baptist
by Ward
Schaefer, Jackson Free Press
01-05-10 --
The United States should not look to
other countries when interpreting its own Constitution, U.S. Supreme
Court Justice Antonin Scalia said yesterday in a speech at First
Baptist Church of Jackson sponsored by Mississippi College School of
Law. . . . "If there was any thought absolutely foreign to the
founders of our country, surely it was the notion that we Americans
should be governed the way Europeans are," Scalia told the audience
of roughly 600, which included Gov. Haley Barbour and his wife
Marsha, in addition to MC law students. "I dare say that few of us
here would want our life or liberty subject to the disposition of
French or Italian criminal justice—not because those systems are
unjust, but because we think ours is better." . . . If the Supreme
Court takes cues from foreign law, it cannot do so selectively,
Scalia argued. He pointed to the Court's 2003 decision in Lawrence
v. Texas, which found state laws banning sodomy to be
unconstitutional and in which he dissented. Justice Anthony
Kennedy's majority opinion in that case cited a 1981 decision of the
European Court of Human Rights to argue that Western civilization
did not uniformly condemn homosexuality.
Yes, It Was Torture, and Illegal
The New
York Times Editorial
01-03-10 --
Bush administration officials came up with all kinds of ridiculously
offensive rationalizations for torturing prisoners. It’s not torture
if you don’t mean it to be. It’s not torture if you don’t nearly
kill the victim. It’s not torture if the president says it’s not
torture. . . . It was deeply distressing to watch the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sink to that
standard in April when it dismissed a civil case brought by four
former Guantánamo detainees never charged with any offense. The
court said former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the
senior military officers charged in the complaint could not be held
responsible for violating the plaintiffs’ rights because at the time
of their detention, between 2002 and 2004, it was not “clearly
established” that torture was illegal. . . . The Supreme Court could
have corrected that outlandish reading of the Constitution, legal
precedent, and domestic and international statutes and treaties.
Instead, last month, the justices abdicated their legal and moral
duty and declined to review the case. . . . A denial of certiorari
is not a ruling on the merits. But the justices surely understood
that their failure to accept the case would further undermine the
rule of law. . . . In effect, the Supreme Court has granted the
government immunity for subjecting people in its custody to terrible
mistreatment. It has deprived victims of a remedy and Americans of
government accountability, while further damaging the country’s
standing in the world.
|