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.

Redline Doc: In medicine we speak for the patient. In insurance they speak for the money

Figleaf: Wouldn't you think the media would be a little more invested in figuring out why Ling and Lee were considered threats by North Korea? It's because they were investigating sex trafficking.

BuzzFlash: Antonin Scalia was one of just two written dissenters (along with his puppet, Clarence Thomas), who ferociously challenged the notion that the Supreme Court should ensure that an innocent man not be put to death.

AfterDowningStreet: 50 Top U.S. War Criminals

Progressive Blog Digest: All roundup, all the time

ANNALS OF JOURNALISM: RIP Bob Novak, we'll remember you...Living for B.S...NYT calls out the liars...Zell on way out...David Broder: Coward...Whatever happened to Progressive talk radio?...WashTimes hypocritical Obama/Nazi slur...Sanford gets the usual "(D)" on Fox...Award for Matt Taibbi...NYT buries the lede...The stories behind the Taliban story...More Warrior Worship ar NPR

We have opening statements this morning and I see they are about to take a break for lunch...Your thoughts?

Here's an article stating that Conservatives on the bench are the activists in our midst:

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.

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: (1003)

PLAYS: (843)

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.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1163)

PLAYS: (1364)

In a surprise verdict for the Roberts court:

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the strip search of a 13-year-old schoolgirl violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

In a closely watched case filled with poignant facts, the court ruled 8-1 that Arizona school officials violated student Savana Redding's Fourth Amendment rights when they searched her down to her bra and underpants. Officials were looking for pain relievers, which they didn't find.

"The content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion," Justice David Souter wrote for the majority.

The ruling involving Redding, who's now a college student, has been anticipated by schools nationwide, which must balance concerns about student privacy with adult fears of drug abuse and school violence.

And guess who the lone hold out was on the court? Clarence Thomas.

Justice Clarence Thomas was the only member of the court to decide that the search of Redding was reasonable.

The court divided more closely, though, on whether the individual school officials who oversaw the search should be liable for damages. While seven members agreed that the officials were immune from lawsuits, Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg contended that the school's assistant principal, Kerry Wilson, should be held liable.

"Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it," said Ginsburg, the court's only female member.

Scott Lemieux has a great post up about the Roberts courts and how he never sides with individual rights:

In light of two controversial 5-4 Supreme Court decisions this week, Matt is reminded of Jeffrey Toobin's point that "In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff."...read on

Maybe they read his post...

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

DOWNLOADS: (1276)

PLAYS: (2903)

Let's give Bill O'Reilly some credit: He's smart enough to recognize that the GOP's desire to try to tear down Sonia Sotomayor is a classic case of cutting one's nose off to spite what's left of your face.

Here's a political party, after all, that's caught in a death spiral of declining membership and vanishing power. One of the key reasons for that has been the sharp decline in Hispanic participation in the GOP -- a significant loss among the nation's fastest-growing ethnic component.

O'Reilly can see this, and discussed it in last night's Talking Points Memo segment. But he also thinks it's just a PR problem:

So Hispanic voters actually put Barack Obama in the White House, and the GOP needs some of them back, thus Republicans face a quandary.

This morning on ABC, conservative Ann Coulter pretty much defined the problem:

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANN COULTER, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Saying that someone would decide a case differently, better in fact, because she is a Latina rather than a white male, I mean, that statement is by definition racist. I'm not saying she's a racist, but the statement sure is.

DIANE SAWYER, "GOOD MORNING AMERICA" CO-HOST: Were you moved by the Hispanic breakthrough, Ann?

COULTER: Why aren't Democrats — why aren't they choking up over Clarence Thomas or Miguel Estrada? I mean, you know, come on, why are we all supposed to weep only when it's a liberal Hispanic or a liberal black?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Yes, indeed, Coulter does define the problem. So do Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. Their own bigotry has been on display so often, and so nakedly, that we already know where they're coming from. Coulter's performance -- including a flat refusal to offer even the smallest note of grace -- spoke for itself.

And how does it look to have the Right's leading bigots shouting "Racist!" at Sotomayor? Besides hilarious?

But O'Reilly didn't see it that way:

Ms. Coulter's point is true. Liberals gleefully attacked Clarence Thomas and Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, but the media is now lurking, looking to pound any conservative who goes after Ms. Sotomayor. So the Republicans have a tough situation on their hands.

The judge is vulnerable, especially on affirmative action, and her racial tone on who has a better outlook on the law, minorities or whites. But to the Hispanic-American community, that might not matter much, especially considering the judge's background.

So according to O'Reilly, Hispanics aren't concerned about her alleged racism, because she's such a swell "life story." When actually, they're not concerned about it because she's not racist.

A little later, in discussing it with Dick Morris, O'Reilly described it again:

Continue reading »

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

DOWNLOADS: (121)

PLAYS: (389)

Ed Schultz takes the entire GOP to task for their selective amnesia on empathy. Apparently empathy was important to George H.W. Bush when he selected Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court.....but now...it's dangerous. Just ask Glenn Beck.

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

DOWNLOADS: (1480)

PLAYS: (1060)

John Amato:

Things got a whole lot more interesting for President Obama. Justice David Souter is retiring from the bench and the president will be able to pick a true progressive judge to fill the vacancy in the coming months. I doubt he wanted to tackle this topic so soon with everything else on his plate, but that's the hand he was dealt and I look forward to being involved heavily in the process. I can only imagine what will come out of the mouths of the teabaggers and FOX News. Brace yourself, this is going to get ugly on their side very quickly. I hope to have our website released soon that will be dedicated to the Supreme Court. It's already designed and I'm lining up the troops as we speak.

From The Rachel Maddow Show April 30, 2009. Justice David Souter plans to retire from the Supreme Court. From the MSNBC press release:

NBC: Souter to retire from Supreme Court
His retirement would give Obama his first chance to nominate a justice

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court Justice David Souter plans to retire, sources told NBC News Thursday night.

Speculation about Souter's plans began to swirl as the eight other justices were known to have hired the four law clerks who will work with them in the Supreme Court term that begins in October. Souter has been the lone holdout, hiring no one.

A retirement by Souter, 69, would give President Barack Obama his first chance to nominate a justice and the next few months would bring Senate confirmation hearings.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOAD (49)

PLAY (206)

As the Supreme Court entered the chamber last night, it was nice to see Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg return to the court and make a public appearance after undergoing surgery for cancer of the pancreas. In a sign of respect, the other justices that came in behind her actually slowed their pace and walked behind her since she still is recovering -- except Clarence Thomas.

This was her moment, and he barged over it like an ignorant teenager.

It didn't take that long for her to get to her seat, but he couldn't be bothered to wait and barged right past her. I watched the entirety of it and it wasn't like he had very far to go. She became an object of affection by the media and the Congress as she has come back so quickly. I know he wishes her no ill will, but Clarence could show a little respect at least.