Clarence Thomas may not have spoken in oral arguments at the Supreme Court in more than four years, but this morning Linda Greenhouse writes in the New York Times about Thomas's consistent, twice repeated argument that the Eighth Amendment does not proscribe "harsh treatment", including beatings of prisoners. You read that correctly. Prison beatings, according to Justice Thomas, aren't forbidden by the Eighth Amendment. And presumably, neither are stress positions, sleep deprivation and other forms of torture. And as if that position were not repulsive enough, Thomas apparently wants it to be adopted by the new majority of the Supreme Court.
(The "Act" is of course the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002(BCRA))
No prohibition of political speech! And obviously this simple principle applies most directly to the public domain, like public streets and the airwaves. I can wave a sign on the street and corporations can advertise on TV, and so could I, if only I could afford $100K (or more!) per minute to "speak."
But what I can afford is a can of spray paint, and the facade of the Supreme Court Building, so beautifully designed by Cass Gilbert in the Beaux Arts style in 1932, still belongs to the public, in spite of so much determined effort by Republicans to privatize everything in Washington.
And according to the simple principle so clearly enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts in his concurring opinion, no law can prohibit my "political speech" in the public domain, and in particular, on the facade of the Supreme Court, expressed in flaming orange letters 10 feet high.
"CLARENCE THOMAS IS A MORON!"
"ANTONIN SCALIA IS A TORTURE-PIG AND PERVERT!"
Orange letters 10 feet high!
"DICK CHENEY SHOULD BE HANGED FOR WAR-CRIMES!"
And I'm sure that every reader and employee of the Wall Street Journal will support my "political speech" on the facade of the Supreme Court, because Chief Justice Roberts is always right (FAR RIGHT!) and no law can prohibit "political speech" in the public domain!
The January 21 Supreme Court decision [.pdf] in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case lifted bans on corporate spending for campaign finance, drawing heavy criticism from across the country for the ruling's potential to undermine the American democratic process.
Now with that ruling in their back pockets, "[a]t least half a dozen leaders of the Republican Party have joined forces to create a new political group with the goal of organizing grass-roots support and raising funds ahead of the 2010 midterm elections, according to people familiar with the effort", says the Wall Street journal in an article January 30.
The Supreme Court ruling could potentially allow the group, called the American Action Network, to take unlimited contributions from corporations for use in political campaigns.
There's no possible way to fit all of this in one post. I'll start here and write a series summarizing the trial and what I predict will happen. I'll start with some background for the trial.
First let me make clear, I'm not a lawyer. I'm just an interested gay person who thinks this trial will affect all our lives. I don't even live in California. I'm pretty inquisitive and if I say something, I've researched it quite a bit, but that doesn't mean I'm not wrong. I'm not completely confident that I'll get all the legal aspects right and if anyone wants to comment to correct errors, please feel free.
Two gay couples in California, one male couple and one female couple, attempted to get married in California, but were denied a marriage license since Prop. 8 had passed, limiting marriages in California to one man and one woman. They decided to combine their cases and sue the Governor and the Attorney General, along with a few others in federal court. Kristin Perry is the name on the case, so it is called Perry v. Schwarzenegger.
If Dr. King hadn't been assassinated for speaking truth to power, if he was here today, if he was at the Lincoln Memorial again, looking out at that corporate capital of deceit and corruption, what would he say, what would he ask us to do?
He'd ask us to overcome our fear, he'd call for mass protests and civil disobedience, he'd explain why it's necessary, just as he did in 1968 . . .
If you have never found something so dear and precious to you that you would die for it, then you are not fit to live. You may be 38 years old, as I happen to be, and one day some great crisis arises and calls upon you to stand for some great principle, some great issue, some great cause, but you refuse to take a stand because you are afraid.
You refuse to do it because you want to live longer. Or you're afraid that you will lose your job, or that you will be criticized, or that you will lose your popularity. So you refuse to take a stand. Well you may go on and live until you're 90, but you are just as dead at 38 as you will be at 90. And when you take your last breath, it will only be the belated announcement of the earlier death of your spirit.
You died when you refused to stand up for right.
You died when you refused to stand up for truth.
You died when you refused to stand up for justice.
Can you understand that, "leaders" of the Netroots? Can you understand that, Markos Moulitsas? Can you understand that, Obamacrats? Tap your TR trigger fingers on the lid of that coffin you call a blog if you do. Can you understand that, MoveOn.org? Can you understand that, Josh Marshall? John Amato? Digby? Jane Hamsher? If you do, explain it to TBogg, that Mighty Slayer of "Purists." How about you, Madame Proprietor of the Huff and Puff Post? Can you understand that? Can any of you understand that???
None of you have called for mass protests or civil disobedience. In the streets of Washington D.C. or anywhere else. You refuse to because you're afraid. Well go ahead, keep on blogging until you're 90, it won't matter, you're just as dead right now as you will be then.
You died when you refused to stand up for right.
You died when you refused to stand up for truth.
You died when you refused to stand up for justice.
Welcome to Netroots Nation . . .
Enjoy your stay.
I have some news for those nonstop typers. Typing isn't standing up for right, truth, justice, or anything else. It's just typing.
In a 5-to-4 decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that corporations have the "right" to spend an unlimited amount of money to influence and manipulate federal elections. The decision overturns more than a century of law and precedent.
[...]
"The Supreme Court has decided to protect the rights of GE, Volkswagen, Lukoil and Aramco, at the expense of our right to good government," Grayson added.
[...]
Today, Rep. Grayson called for immediate action on his Save Our Democracy bills. "If we do nothing, then before long, there won't be Senators from Oklahoma or Virginia, there will be Senators from Citibank and WalMart. Maybe they will wear insignias on their $500 suits, like NASCAR drivers do."
Question is, do our Legslators have the guts to make use of our Constitutional "Checks and Balances"?
Can the Legslators actually pass laws to reel in the excesses of the Corporate Rights enabling Court?
In the gathering dark the will of the Ring grows strong. It works hard now to find its way back into the hands of Congressmen. Congressmen who are so easily seduced by its power. The young Captain of America has now but to extend his hand, take the Ring for his own, and the world will fall.
It is close, now, so close to achieving its goal. For the corporations will have dominion over all life in America, even unto the ending of the world.
Do we leave America to its fate? Do we let them stand alone?
In a profoundly anti-democratic decision with far-reaching implications, the US Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a law limiting the ability of corporations to spend money in support of political campaigns.
Inky99 has everyone riled up with his chart-topping post denouncing Obama's recent embrace of torture. In "3/5 of a President," Inky99 declared,
"The United States is now legally free to torture whomever it wants, thanks to the Supreme Court of the land, and the political power weilded (sic) by Barrack Hussein Obama."
So angry was Inky99 that he took the opportunity to post a racist picture and declare, "I hate Obama...because Obama IS Bush,". Much invective ensued.
Inky99 badly misrepresented what actually occurred. I followed the path back to the beginning, reviewed the actual sources, and will explain below the fold why Inky99 is wrong about what happened, and is also wrong to be angry about what actually did happen.
I will then suggest that this kind of false hysteria reflects poorly on us as blogging community, and keeps us off the path to making real change.
The Current Media System favors the Representation of Corporate Interests by our Politicians.
Since the Media Airtime costs so much, Politicians generally have little choice but to give Corporate Speech an Audience, in order to get Elected. ... Helloooo Corporate Lobbyists!
Happy Friday and welcome to the 16th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 15th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
In the middle of Justice Scalia's dissent in Troy Davis's case, a dissent that Clarence Thomas joined in, we have this remarkable, astonishing, shocking sentence:
"This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a court that he is 'actually' innocent."
I cannot believe that they wrote this in a Supeme Court opinion. And I'm not alone in thinking I would never, never, never see something like this in a published opinion.
Happy Friday and welcome to the 14th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 13th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 12th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Happy Friday and welcome to the 11th in the Dog's First Amendment Friday series. This series is following the syllabus for the class called The First Amendment and taught at Yale Law School by Professor Jack M. Balkin. As with the Friday Constitutional series this is a layman's look at the Law, specifically the Supreme Court opinions which have shaped the boundaries of our 1st Amendment Protections. If you are interested in the previous installments you can find them at the links below:
Yvette Melendez from Glastonbury, Conn., who is sitting in the nominee's VIP section in the hearing room, said she winced inwardly when Sen. Tom Coburn said, "You'll have a lot of 'splainin' to do." But Melendez says she didn't feel offended. "I personally did not think it was appropriate," she told me in an interview. "But I'm sure he said it as a joke."
How Guantanamo's prisoners were sold The president of Pakistan's [Pervez Musharraf] attempts to publicise his memoirs throw light on the flawed and dishonest processes that the US uses in bringing "terrorists" to justice
by Clive Stafford Smith - NewStatesman - 09 October 2006
The payments help us see why so many innocent prisoners ended up in Guantanamo Bay. Musharraf writes that "millions" were paid for 369 prisoners - the minimum rate was apparently $5,000, enough to tempt a poor Pakistani to shop an unwanted Arab to the Americans, gift-wrapped with a story that he was up to no good in Afghanistan.
March on Washington
The January 21 Supreme Court 
