US v Comstock

Indefinite detention after registered sex offenders serve term
What implications does this have for the war on terror? The analogy isn't perfect (here, ex-offenders would be held in "civil commitment" after serving their term, while terror suspects are held without a right to challenge their detention before trial).

uighur case dismissed

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/us/politics/02detain.html

Kiyemba v Obama

http://scotuswiki.com/index.php?title=Kiyemba_v._Obama

Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder

http://ccrjustice.org/holder-v-humanitarian-law-project

Quiz Time!

Which branch of the United States Government at the federal level doesn't even have one elected official? For the answer, try consulting the tags for this post!

Kucinich Right, Greenwald Wrong

Kucinich Right, Greenwald Wrong: "

Kucinich Right, Greenwald Wrong

By David Swanson

On Democracy Now! on Tuesday, Congressman Dennis Kucinich said he was working on a Constitutional Amendment to address both 'Citizen's United' and 'Buckley v. Valejo,' meaning the Supreme Court decisions giving corporations outrageous and destructive powers of 'free speech' and defining the spending of money as 'speech.'

read more

"

(Via Let's Try Democracy.)

Supreme Court Protects Immigrants' Right to Court Review

Supreme Court Protects Immigrants' Right to Court Review: "

The decision not only preserves federal court review as a necessary check on executive powers, but it also affirms the basic principle that immigrants are entitled to fair process.

"

(Via AlterNet.org: Rights and Liberties.)

Kaptur resolution vs. Citizens decision

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-hc13/show

SCOTUS: Foreign Corporations Have Rights, Too!

SCOTUS: Foreign Corporations Have Rights, Too!: "

Politico's Josh Gerstein has a great story today pointing out that, in the wake of yesterdays Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, theres really nothing to stop foreign companies from supporting or opposing US candidates. It would be as easy as setting up a US subsidiary and having the subsidiary spend the money. Some of Gersteins sources argue that foreign corporations would be reluctant to interfere in US politics because it could bring bad press. But that doesnt seem like much of a deterrent to the worst corporations. Do foreign corporations like Gazprom that are largely state-owned really care what the US press writes about them? Law professor Mark Kleiman has more: 

One aspect of the ruling that hasn’t gathered much attention: as far as I can tell, the analysis doesn’t distinguish between domestic and foreign corporations.  Not that it would matter much, since a foreign corporation can always establish a domestic subsidiary, or buy an American company:   Cities Service, for example, is a unit of PDVSA, the Venezuelan state oil company.  So the ruling allows Hugo Chavez to spend as much money as he wants to helping and harming American politicians.   If the Russian, Saudi, and Chinese governments don’t currently have appropriate vehicles for doing so, you can count on it:  they soon will.

Nor is this a problem that can be handled by 'disclosure.'  The ad on TV praising the opponent of the congressman who did something to annoy Hugo Chavez won’t say 'Paid for by Hugo Chavez.'  It will say 'Paid for by Citizens for Truth, Justice, and the American Way,' which in turn will have gotten a contribution from 'Americans for Niceness,' which in turn will have gotten a contribution from a lobbyist for a subsidiary of Cities Service that no one has ever heard of.

This week just keeps getting better.

1 Comment | Post Comment

     

"

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

SUCH A GOOD IDEA!!!

savedemocracy.net

Via Graysons website (savedemocracy.net), here are the six bills 'and what they aim to accomplish,':

1. The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.


2. The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.


3. The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.


4. The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.


5. The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.


6. The End the Hijacking of Shareholder Funds Act (H.R. 4487): This bill requires the approval of a majority of a public company’s shareholders for any expenditure by that company to influence public opinion on matters not related to the company’s products or services.

The fifth measure has already gained the support of Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the chair of the House Judiciary committee, Grayson said. Grayson hopes the committee might hold a hearing on that bill sometime in the next 30 days. Grayson circulated his proposals among his colleagues on Thursday.  He has a decent record with winning support for populist ideas— last year he signed up over 100 cosponsors for Texas Republican Ron Pauls bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

Still, what Grayson could really use is the support of President Barack Obama, who has slammed the Supreme Court decision and promised a 'forceful' legislative response. Graysons bills would certainly qualify. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder has reported that the White House and other Hill Democrats are seriously considering three options for responding to the decision, including one that bears a resemblance to Graysons sixth bill—requiring shareholders to approve of independent political expenditures. When we spoke, Grayson also voiced support to another idea Ambinder says is under consideration—a 'Stand by Your Ad' requirement. As Ambinder describes it, 'The head of an insurance company would be forced to say, Im Honus Wagner, the CEO of Acme, and I stand by this ad.' Grayson emphasized that such a move would be consistent with the Supreme Courts decision today, which explicitly allowed Congress to pass tough disclosure requirements.

2 Comments | Post Comment

     

"

(Via MoJo Blogs and Articles.)

CITIZENS UNITEDv.FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. Decided 01/21/2010

CITIZENS UNITEDv.FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION. Decided 01/21/2010: ""

(Via US Supreme Court, Decisions for Thursday, September 3, 2009..)

http://www.truthout.org/1030091

Appeals Court Overturns Campaign Finance Rules

Appeals Court Overturns Campaign Finance Rules: "Appeals court says limits on campaign spending by nonprofit groups violate right to free speech"

...Let's hope this isn't an omen of what's to come on the Citizens United case. It does pose the question of how is a non-profit different from a business. My gut tells me that it is. Maybe non-profits should be regulated.

The voice of business

Echoing what I said earlier in this blog re: separation of business and state:

Yet the word “corporation” appears nowhere in the constitution or Bill of Rights. “It is scarcely conceivable that the drafters of the constitution had anything resembling corporate entities in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights,” argue Robert Monks, a veteran corporate-governance activist, and Peter Murray, in a recent essay. All the individuals with a stake in a company have the right to express their views freely, the argument goes, so there is no need for the legal fiction of the corporate person to have such rights.

The voice of business: "Economist - Sep. 09 (News Analysis) - ... the word ‘corporation’ appears nowhere in the constitution or Bill of Rights. ‘It is scarcely conceivable that the drafters of the constitution had anything resembling corporate entities in mind when they drafted the Bill of Rights,’ argue Robert Monks, a veteran corporate-governance activist, and Peter Murray, in a recent essay. All the individuals with a stake in a company have the right to express their views freely, the argument goes, so there is no need for the legal fiction of the corporate person to have such rights.

NewsTrust Rating: Not rated yet - See'Info'» - Review It''''''' Visit NewsTrust | About | Sign Up | Disclaimer

"

(Via NewsTrust - Politics - Most Recent Stories.)

Supreme Court Appointments

Many people are talking about amending the Constitution to limit Supreme Court justices careers. Where are people talking about electing (rather than appointing) justices? This would be one way of a check and balance from the electorate onto the government.

Why the Supreme Court Is a Failed Protector of the People

The brilliant insight of our Founding Fathers was to have three branches of government that were kept in check through separation of powers. There was at least one thing they got very wrong, though. To all those people decrying activist judges, I would like to say the following: The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the people from an overbearing, authoritative government. The way in which the Fathers chose to do this is to draft a set of principles which neither the government nor individuals can violate, which they called the Constitution. But in paying so much deference to this 200-odd year old document, they miss out on the opportunity to be the most powerful force of justice. There are things the Fathers missed, such as the extent to which businesses determine what gets done in government...it just wouldn't have been possible without telephones or airplanes when they were drafting it. That's why I want to see one of our legislators propose a convention to discuss what the Constitution means in today's society and what the role of the courts is.

(This post might have something to do with the impending decision of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission)

A Century-Old Principle: Keep Corporate Money Out of Elections

A Century-Old Principle: Keep Corporate Money Out of Elections: "There are worrying signs that there may well be five votes on the Supreme Court to rule that the ban on corporate contributions violates the First Amendment."

(Via NYT > Editorials.)

Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 07-1428

Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 07-1428: "

In a Title VII action claiming that a city discriminated against white firefighter candidates for a promotion by discarding their test results based on a statistical racial disparity, summary judgment for Defendants is reversed where the city's action in discarding the tests violated Title VII, because a threshold showing of a significant statistical disparity is far from a strong basis in evidence that the city would have been liable under Title VII had it certified the test results.

Read Ricci v. DeStefano, No. 07-1428

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

"

(Via SCOTUS Decisions.)

Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1. v. Redding

Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1. v. Redding: "

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging an unlawful search of a student, the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the search of Plaintiff's underwear violated the Fourth Amendment because the facts did not give school officials reasonable suspicion to search her underwear.

Read Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1. v. Redding

Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

"

(Via SCOTUS Decisions.)

The Progressive Case Against Sotomayor

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/07/progressive-case-against-sotomayor