Supreme Court SCOTUS

SEE SCOTUS 2 [not on fuji but latest 1/16?]

see also tag

once ctr-balance to majoritarian oppression says robt reich

capt 1/16

---

an 6 25

The Supreme Court recent unanimous ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services hasn’t got nearly the attention it deserves.

On the surface, the ruling seems innocent enough. The Court merely decided that white and straight employees who allege they’ve been discriminated against don't need to meet a higher standard of proof than do Black or LGBTQ+ employees who sue for discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

(Prior to this ruling, some courts had required that white or straight employees demonstrate not only that they were discriminated against but they also worked in a discriminatory environment.)

The Court’s decision in Ames appears a logical extension of the 2023 ruling by its six conservative justices ending race-conscious admission programs at colleges and universities across the country.

But seen against Trump’s bigoted agenda and the widening discrepancies between the political power of Black or LGBTQ+ people relative to the power of white straight people, the Ames case should trouble everyone.

IFrame Content

Trump and his lackeys have argued that discrimination against white and straight Americans occurs under the coverof diversity, equity and inclusion. And Trump has gone to great lengths to undo what it calls “illegal D.E.I.” — ousting diversity officials from federal agencies and removing D.E.I. references from government websites.

The Ames ruling could be the death knell for D.E.I. because it makes it easier for white and straight people to argue that a D.E.I. policy at the workplace caused an employer to discriminate against them.

The Supreme Court I got to know in the 1970s when I worked in the Solicitor General’s office understood its responsibility to balance the scales of justice in favor of the powerless — including Black people, women, and gay people.

That Court understood that as majoritarian institutions, Congress and the executive branch could not always be counted on to reflect the needs of people with far less political power than straight white men.

Hence, they assumed that one of the Court’s essential roles in our system of self government — indeed, the core of its moral authority — was to give extra weight to the challenges or aspirations of such minorities.

Even Nixon’s appointees—Harry Blackmun, Lewis Powell, and Warren Burger—seemed to understand this important counter-balancing role. Blackmun wrote the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, and Powell and Burger joined him (as did four Democratic appointees to the Court—William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, William Brennan, and Potter Stewart).

Douglas, Marshall, and Blackmun were the intellectual leaders of that Supreme Court. Their opinions gave the Court its moral heft. They drew not only from the Constitution as written but also from their understanding of how the nation had evolved, and of the distribution of power.

Like an earlier Supreme Court that unanimously decided in Brown vs. Board of Education of Topekathat separate schooling for Black and white children was inherently unequal and therefore unconstitutional, the Supreme Court I argued before understood that America must rely on the Court to protect the rights of the voiceless and the powerless.

Today’s Supreme Court majority doesn’t have a clue about the court’s moral authority or its essential role in counter-balancing a distribution of power disadvantaging Black or LGBTQ+ people.

The Republican appointees to today’s Supreme Court are political hacks intent on entrenching the power of the already powerful.

Five were nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote; three were nominated by a president who instigated a coup against the United States and were confirmed because a rogue Republican Party mounted scorched-earth campaigns to put them on the Court.

The current Supreme Court has no interest in counter-balancing the majoritarian tendencies of Congress and the President. To the contrary, as demonstrated by theAmesdecision, today’s Court is at best the third majoritarian branch of government.

On Juneteenth — the day we commemorate the end of slavery in the United States — it is well to ponder that there is no longer any branch of government dedicated to protecting the life chances of those with less political power due to their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, or sexual orientation.

This is deeply unfortunate.

NOW READ:Trump now faces the same terrible choice

*Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.

---

===

raw story

https://www.alternet.org/2022/03/clarence-thomas/

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' right leaning political views have been obvious for decades in his writings for the Court. A new report in the Daily Beast, however, spotlights just how intertwined his financial connections are to an ultra-conservative judicial activist.

When Thomas was looking to promote the release of his memoir last October he chose to hire a public relations firm, CRC Advisors, run by the former chief of the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo. Leo is a top fundraiser for right-wing judicial activist groups. The Daily Beast reports that "Leo has raised hundreds of millions of dollars over the three decades on behalf of right-wing dark money groups to influence the federal judiciary and Supreme Court. He advised and persuaded Republican presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump in their appointments of Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Chief Justice John Roberts—and prepped Justice Thomas for his nomination hearings."

The report also says that Leo is the "hub" of dark money groups that stealthily fund and link up with parties who argue cases before the Supreme Court, something that Supreme watchers have dubbed an "amicus flotilla."

Leo’s affiliations with the court - and especially Thomas - are especially pronounced. He made the justice the godfather of one of his children and has hosted him on vacation at his New England retreat.

Paul Collins is a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and author of several books about the high court. He says Thomas’ choice of Leo’s firm is “strange” and “unnecessary.”

“It signals that this world of the Federalist Society is even smaller than we thought,” Collins told The Daily Beast.

https://www.alternet.org/2022/02/supreme-court-2656768455/

shadow docket, roe, voter suppression

5/18

game over tipping pt?! rbg v gorsuch

https://www.democracynow.org/2018/5/23/supreme_court_deals_blow_to_workers

a major blow to workers’ rights, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 Monday that employers can use arbitration clauses to prohibit workers from banding together to challenge violations of federal labor laws in class-action lawsuits. Arbitration is often confidential. Many workers may agree to mandatory arbitration clauses without even being aware of it when they sign a contract with their employer. In a rare show of public displeasure, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench, calling the majority opinion “egregiously wrong” and saying, “The court today holds enforceable these arm-twisted, take-it-or-leave-it contracts—including the provisions requiring employees to litigate wage and hours claims only one-by-one. Federal labor law does not countenance such isolation of employees.” For more, we speak with Terri Gerstein, former labor bureau chief for the New York State Attorney General’s Office

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-supreme-court-blocks-obama-s-clean-power-plan/

ASHINGTON, Feb 9 - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a major blow to President Barack Obama by putting on hold federal regulations to curb carbon dioxide emissions mainly from coal-fired power plants, the centerpiece of his administration's strategy to combat climate change.

The court voted 5-4 along ideological lines to grant a request by 27 states and various companies and business groups to block the administration's Clean Power Plan, which also mandates a shift to renewable energy from coal-fired electricity.

The highly unusual move by the justices means the regulations will not be in effect while a court battle continues over their legality.

The plan was designed to lower carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by 2030 to 32 percent below 2005 levels. It is the main tool for the United States to meet the emissions reduction target it pledged at U.N. climate talks in Paris in December.

The Supreme Court's action casts doubt on the long-term future of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's rule because it increases the chances that the conservative-leaning Supreme Court would take the case after a lower court issues a decision on the legality of the regulations and ultimately would strike it down.

As recently as June, the high court ruled 5-4 against the Obama administration over its efforts to regulatemercury and other toxic air pollutants.

The states, led by coal producer West Virginia and oil producer Texas, and several major business groups in October launched the legal effort seeking to block the Obama administration's plan. The states said the emissions curbs would have a devastating impact on their economies.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey described the Supreme Court action on Tuesday as a "historic and unprecedented victory" over the EPA.

"We are thrilled that the Supreme Court realized the rule's immediate impact and froze its implementation, protecting workers and saving countless dollars as our fight against its legality continues," Morrisey added.

For Obama, executing his climate change strategy would be a key legacy accomplishment as he nears the end of his time in office in January 2017.

House of Representatives Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said, "The Supreme Court's deeply misguided decision to stay the implementation of the Clean Power Plan will enable those states that deny climate science to slow progress in reducing the carbon pollution that threatens the health of all Americans."

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy welcomed the Supreme Court's move, saying it "has now stopped this illegitimate abuse of power after 27 states revolted against the president's anti-energy agenda."

The court action also means that, with Obama leaving office in January 2017, the next president will have a say on whether to continue defending the regulation.

Before that, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which denied a similar stay request last month, will hear oral arguments in the case on June 2 and decide whether the regulations are lawful.

"This is certainly a surprise and it suggests the court has serious concerns" about the regulation, said Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve School of Law.

DIVIDED COURT

The brief order from the justices said that the regulations would be on hold until the legal challenge is completed. The court's five conservatives all voted to block the rule. The order noted that the four liberals would have denied the application.

Under the EPA rule, each state must submit a plan to comply with its emission-reduction target by September 2016 but can also request a two-year extension.

The challengers contended that the Obama administration exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act, the key law that addresses air pollution. More than a dozen other states and the National League of Cities, which represents more than 19,000 U.S. cities, filed court papers backing the rule.

Jeff Holmstead, a lawyer for coal-powered utilities that challenged the rule, said the court has never before blocked an EPA rule. "To say it's unusual is a bit of an understatement," Holmstead added.

Sean Donahue, a lawyer for environmental groups that support the law, said the court action was "surprising and disappointing." He added that "we remain very confident in the legal and factual foundations for EPA's rule."

The White House and EPA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-gops-attack-on-voting-rights-was-the-most-under-covered-story-of-2016/

2016 WI voter ID

There were 25 debates during the presidential primaries and general election and not a single question about the attack on voting rights, even though this was the first presidential election in 50 years without the full protections of the Voting Rights Act. Fourteen states had new voting restrictions in place for the first time in 2016—including crucial swing states like Wisconsin and Virginia—yet we heard nary a peep about it on Election Day except from outlets like The Nation. This was the biggest under-covered scandal of the 2016 campaign.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/scotus-blocks-obama-clean-power-plan

The U.S. Supreme Court's temporary block of the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan came about as a result of an Obama executive order that directed the EPA to reduce coal emission, mostly from coal power plants. The court split 5-4, the five conservative members for the temporary block and the four liberal members against it. The case in front of them was brought by 29 mostly Republican-led states and the energy industry....

alternet 11/14

Recently, a series of Supreme Court decisions have made forced arbitration agreements a new kind of “yellow dog contract.” Buried in the terms and conditions of cellphone contracts, credit agreements, school enrollment forms, nursing home contracts and employment contracts in non-union workplaces, forced arbitration clauses require consumers and employees to give up their constitutional right to a jury of their peers as a condition of keeping their job or buying goods from a company. (Through the collective bargaining process, unionized workers have the advantage of negotiating over an arbitration agreement.)

Although claims forced into arbitration — unlike claims filed in court — are generally secret, we know about forced arbitration agreements because so many merchants and employers have inserted them into the fine print of boilerplate contracts we see every day.

We know that despite assurances from corporations that arbitration is faster and quicker than litigation, forced arbitration agreements often require consumers and non-union employees to pay arbitration fees that are much higher than the filing fees they would have to pay to file a claim in court.

We know that the vast majority of consumers and non-union employees are prevented from vindicating their rights because forced arbitration clauses prevent them from pooling their resources in a class or collective action, thus allowing companies to violate the law with impunity.

We know that arbitrators who handle claims under these forced arbitration clauses, who are paid hundreds of dollars by the hour, have a financial incentive to rule in favor of corporations to keep getting work from the companies whose arbitration clauses designate them to decide claims.

And we know that these agreements, like the “yellow-dog contracts” of the early 1900s, aren’t agreements at all. They are the price of being a consumer or non-union worker in 21st century America.

COAL EPA

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/08/conservatives-typo-unravel-obama-climate-law-epa-coal

Conservatives Want to Wipe Out Coal Rules…Over a Typo

A federal appeals court took a red pen to Obamacare. The president's signature environmental achievement could be next.

Social Title:

Conservatives want to wipe out coal rules…over a typo.

This story [1] originally appeared onGrist [2] and is republished here as part of the Climate Desk [3] collaboration.

If you can't beat 'em, point out their typos.

That seems to be the lesson of the D.C. Circuit Court's recent decision in Halbig v. Sebelius, which could render millions of Americans ineligible for health insurance subsidies on the basis of some sloppy syntax in the Affordable Care Act. After surviving more than 50 repeal votes in the House, a Supreme Court challenge to its constitutionality, and a famously rocky online rollout, health-care reform may end up hobbled by a mere drafting error. And the anti-regulatory crowd wasted no time in launching its next AutoCorrect attack: A new suit [4] asks the D.C. Circuit to nix the president's biggest climate-change initiative—EPA's "Clean Power Plan"—due to a 25-year-old mistake in the text of the Clean Air Act.

But don't panic just yet. As others have pointed [5] out [6], Halbigis far from a done deal. A different federal appeals court, the Fourth Circuit, upheld the insurance subsidies on the same day the Halbig court invalidated them. If the full D.C. Circuit doesn't end up reversing its three-judge panel's initial decision (through a sort of mini-appeal known as en banc review), the Supreme Court will almost certainly step in to resolve the circuit split. In the meantime, no one loses her insurance.

The prospects for EPA's climate rule aren't so bleak either. First of all, the 12 state attorneys general who filed suit were a bit too quick on the spell-check trigger. Federal courts generally limit review of agency decisions to "final actions," and the Clean Power Plan is still in draft form. As a result, the current case will probably be dismissed as premature. That won't stop the state AGs from re-filing as soon as EPA doespublish a final rule, but even then, their victory will hardly be assured. Here's why.

The "Clean Power Plan" is the administration's catchy(ish) nickname for a set of restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants [7], which generate a full third of the nation's greenhouse gas pollution. EPA's authority to regulate these emissions derives from a little-used Clean Air Act provision called Section 111(d). The section has been around since 1970, but when a bipartisan majority of Congress overhauled the Clean Air Act back in 1990, it amended 111(d). Twice. The details are complicated (you can read more about them here [8]), but the upshot is simple: Under the language of an amendment that originated in the Senate, regulating power plants' carbon emissions is perfectly kosher; under the House's amendment, not so much.

Competing House and Senate amendments—doesn't Congress have an app for that? Yep, even back in the digital dark ages of 1990, there was software designed to identify overlapping or incompatible changes to statutory text. But the conference committee charged with reconciling the House and Senate bills didn't have time to run it. As a result, both 111(d) amendments ended up in the compromise bill that was passed by both chambers and signed by the first President Bush. Meaning that both versions are, in some sense, the law of the land.

A self-contradicting statute—doesn't the judiciary have an app for that? Sort of. Federal courts certainly have an established rule for dealing with vague or ambiguous laws. Under the Chevrondoctrine,if a statute does not "speak clearly" with respect to a particular issue, courts will defer to any reasonable interpretation offered by the executive agency charged with implementing the law. In this case, the EPA maintains that the Senate amendment is more consistent with the Clean Air Act's overall structure and purpose. If Chevron applies, that justification should pass muster.

The tough question is whether Chevronwill apply. It's hard to see how a court could find that the competing amendments to Section 111(d) "speak clearly." But are the amendments "ambiguous" in the Chevron sense, or are they something else altogether—say, nonsensical?

Plenty of legal experts have shared their views, but at the end of the day, the opinions that really matter will be those of nine black-robed individuals in Washington, D.C. Handily enough, five of the Big Nine previewed their positions in a recent, fractured decision about an immigration rule. In Scialabba v. Cuellar De Osorio, the Supreme Court was confronted not with two contradictory versions of a single statutory section, but with a single statutory section that contained two seemingly contradictory instructions. (Cut Congress some slack, you guys. Drafting laws is really hard.) Justice Kagan, writing for herself and Justices Ginsburg and Kennedy, called the statute "Janus-faced," concluded that its "internal tension ma[de] possible alternative reasonable constructions," and deferred to the Board of Immigration Appeals' interpretive choice. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for himself and Justice Scalia, disagreed that the two clauses were truly in conflict but, even more importantly, rejected the idea that Chevron was "a license for an agency to repair a statute that does not make sense." In Roberts' view, "Direct conflict is not ambiguity, and the resolution of such a conflict is not statutory construction but legislative choice."

The other four justices didn't weigh in on this particular question in Scialabba, so it's not clear whether Kagan's or Roberts' camp will carry a majority if and when litigation over the Clean Power Plan reaches the high court. But it's also not clear that the vote count will matter, because either way EPA should retain authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants.

Come again? First, consider Justice Kagan's view. If her logic controls, the court will apply Chevron, defer to EPA's interpretation of Section 111(d), and affirm the agency's authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. A win for EPA and the president.

Alternatively, assume that Chief Justice Roberts gets the majority. The two amendments to Section 111(d) are almost undoubtedly in "direct conflict," so, in Roberts' view, EPA's interpretation doesn't warrant deference. Now what? Roberts' Scialabba opinion doesn't say what the court should substitute for Chevron in the case of a provision that's truly at war with itself. But if the chief justice believes that giving effect to only one of the two amendments represents a "legislative choice," the judicial branch has no more business picking a winner than EPA. (In fact, courts are even less suited than executive agencies to this sort of policy decision. Agencies are, at least, indirectly accountable to the people, because agency leaders serve at the pleasure of a democratically elected president.) If it's not possible to honor the House and Senate amendments simultaneously, the only remaining option is to throw out bothas invalid, in which case Section 111(d) would revert to its pre-1990 form.

That's the reason backers of the climate rule shouldn't panic: Under the earlier version of Section 111(d), EPA would still have authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. The agency still wins.

Oh, and if the current Congress doesn't like that result? Well, it remains free to share its preferred method for addressing climate change at any time. There's an app for that, too. It's called new legislation.

prop 8 out, but http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/supreme-court-texas-voter-id_n_3509834.html

who rules:

SCOTUS 195- appointees reflect pres (tho some changes), but all in range of UpC acceptability, many corp lawyers, active in party, 5 of 9 millionaires

splits usually on social issues; more pro corp last 20 yrs

CoC has Nat'l Chamber Litigation Ctr (roberts was go-to corp lawyer 197)

Ludicrous." "Unconscionable." "A slap in the face."

A Supreme Court ruling on Monday in favor of a corporation accused of contaminating a North Carolina community has been met with words of outragefrom victims and advocates.

The 7-2 vote in the case of CTS Corp. v. Waldburger blocks a group of landowners in Asheville, North Carolina from pursuing compensation for property and health damage allegedly caused by toxic chemicals released from a former CTS electronics plant.

Indirectly, critics warn, the decision may also eliminate recourse for veterans sickened by historically contaminated water at a North Carolina Marine Corps base, and may motivate corporations to cover up current and future pollution events long enough to escape liability. The decision, critics say, will trigger profound and unjust environmental health consequences across the U.S.

"It's very devastating to me," said Dot Rice, 76, of Asheville, who lives about a thousand feet from the CTS site. "The contamination has gotten much worse. There are more people getting sick and now there can be nothing done about it."

CTS shut down its Asheville plant and sold the property in 1987. Despite evidence of continuing chemical exposures in the community's air and water, a North Carolina statute cuts off a company's liability 10 years after its last contaminating act. In other words, according to the law's language, the deadline for filing claims came and went in 1997 -- years before Asheville residents were informed of the contamination, and well before many got sick. (The residents' illnesses can't be definitively linked to contamination from the plant.)

A federal law, however, sets a different clock, which starts ticking when a victim first learns of the contamination that likely caused his or her injury. As The Huffington Post reported in April, the Supreme Court was tasked with interpreting obscure legal terminology to determine which of the two clocks should set the deadline for a victim to legally file a claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit ruled in July 2013 that the federal law overrides the state law. On Monday, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, leaving people like Dot Rice out of luck.

"It's a really sad situation," said Rice, adding that she is helping to organize a community meeting concerning the court ruling on Thursday.

Rice has developed a thyroid disorder. Her husband and granddaughter are both fighting brain tumors. And last week, her son was among 13 Asheville residents urged to evacuate their homes and temporarily relocate by officials with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which had identified unsafe levels of trichloroethylene (TCE) in the air. TCE, a known carcinogen and neurotoxin, was among the chemicals used at the CTS facility.

"That right there exposes the paradox of the court's ruling," said Tate McQueen, a high school history teacher in Asheville. The community, he said, continues to be exposed to lingering toxins whose health consequences can take years, even decades, to manifest.

McQueen said he felt "shock, dismay and then sadness" when he learned of Monday's decision. But he added that he and his fellow residents will continue to fight for clean air, clean water and justice -- in Asheville and beyond.

"This is about the greater community -- in particular, our Marine Corps brothers and sisters at Camp Lejeune who have now been summarily dismissed in terms of having any legal recourse for the damage that's been done to them," he said.

Retired Master Sgt. Jerry Ensminger shared his explanation of the high court's ruling: "The Obama administration was on the side of the polluter."

In August 2012, Ensminger stood alongside President Barack Obama as he signed legislation to provide medical care for Marines and their dependents who may have been affected by water contamination at North Carolina's Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base between the late 1950s and the 1980s. Days later, the Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of CTS in the 4th Circuit case.

This April, the DOJ filed again in support of CTS for the Supreme Court case. In that second amicus brief, the department openly stated that the case had implications for "ongoing litigation against the United States" over "allegations of contaminated drinking water" at Camp Lejeune.

Some advocates argue that Obama's bill for Camp Lejeune victims -- a bill named after Ensminger's 9-year-old daughter, Janey, who was born at Camp Lejeune and died of a rare form of leukemia in 1985 -- falls short because it offers no compensation for injury or disability. The Supreme Court's CTS ruling, just as it thwarts the efforts of Asheville residents, is also likely to deny Marines and their families the ability to seek that compensation through lawsuits against the federal government.

"This decision is ludicrous," said Ensminger. "Basically what this is telling industry and polluters is, 'Hey, if you're deceitful and devious enough to cross that 10-year finish line, we're going to reward you."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a similar argument in her dissent: "The Court's decision gives contaminators an incentive to conceal the hazards they have created."

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the decision.

Willy Jay, a lawyer with expertise in Supreme Court and environmental cases, agreed that the process of dealing with pending Marine Corps litigation explains "why the federal government was firmly on the side of the defense rather than the plaintiff in the case."

Jay also shared Ensminger's prediction that the Supreme Court ruling could motivate other states to enlist similar policies. To date, only four states, including North Carolina, have clocks that shut down a polluter's liability after a set number of years, a so-called statute of repose.

"You mark my words, there's going to be a fire sale at state legislators all scrambling to get their own statutes of repose after this decision," said Ensminger. "That's going to crucify our environmental law and set us back to the 1800s -- back to the days of Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and J.P. Morgan."

McQueen expressed a similar thought.

"Once again," he said, "we're placing the interest of corporate America ahead of the interest of the citizenry."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/10/supreme-court-cts-contamination_n_5476938.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Supreme Court Water Asheville Contamination Asheville Janey Ensminger Bill Camp Lejeune Marine Corps CTS Corporation North Carolina

Supreme Court says genes can't be patented; patient advocates and researchers cheer

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/13/18935727-supreme-court-says-genes-cant-be-patented-patient-advocates-and-researchers-cheer?lite

nyt long game, gets concessions from libs on marginal aspects, leveraged to overturn core later eg college admissions based on race: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/us/politics/roberts-plays-a-long-game.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0&pagewanted=print

The U. S. Chamber of Commerce had another successful year. The court cut back on class actions, favored arbitration and made it harder to sue the makers of dangerous drugs and employers accused of workplace discrimination.

“Anyone doubting that the most important story of the Roberts court is its business rulings has not been paying enough attention,” said Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group. “This term’s 5-4 rulings, all favoring the chamber, move the law sharply to the right and to the great detriment of consumers, employees, and other Americans trying to get their day in court.”

Kate Comerford Todd, a lawyer with the chamber’s litigation unit, said the group’s victories were routine and warranted.

“In the business cases in which the chamber filed this term,” she said, “we did not see the court make new law. Instead, the court largely reaffirmed its prior decisions and rejected new attempts by the plaintiffs’ bar to contort federal law and procedures to suit their purposes.”

sol gen wins70% usually, now 30% favors CoC; cf also newshour on pro biz, class action, small biz vs big

In December 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out the tobacco companies' preemption arguments in a class action light cigarette lawsuit brought in Maine. In allowing the Maine case to proceed, the Supreme Court ruled that federal legislation does not preempt plaintiffs from suing under certain state unfair business practice laws. This will open the door for similar lawsuits against tobacco companies. The Supreme Court, however, didn't rule on any of the underlying claims -- plaintiffs will still have to prove that the cigarette companies violated Maine's consumer protection laws. (To learn more about the legal theories underlying light cigarette litigation, see Nolo's article Tobacco Litigation: Claims Involving Light Cigarettes.)

The Neo-Confederate Supreme Court Gearing Up to Restore White Rule Over America

GOP desperation over U.S. demographic changes has spread to the U.S. Supreme Court -- a majority is ready to tear up the most important part of the Voting Rights Act.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/neo-confederate-supreme-court-gearing-restore-white-rule-over-america

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a new case — McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.

The McCutcheon case attempts to undermine the total combined contributions limit for individuals (already set at tens of thousands of dollars), which will open a whole new floodgate of cash into our electoral system reserved only for the wealthy.

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a dispute between a soybean farmer and Monsanto Co. over the company's efforts to limit farmers' use of its patented, genetically engineered Roundup Ready seeds.

refuses to hear chevron ecuador appeal

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/supreme-court-chevron_n_1950930.html

infographic http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1207/roberts-reign/flash.html

5. Supreme Court Partisanship

In the Gilded Age, the Supreme Court interpreted laws not as to the intent of the lawmakers, but to promote business interests. It refused to enforce the 14th Amendment to stop segregation, but it did create the idea that a corporation was a person with rights. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 was intended to moderate monopolies; the Supreme Court only enforced it against unions since organized labor “unfairly restrained trade.”

Today’s Supreme Court has resorted to this aggressively partisan stance. The Court is fine with the open flouting of the 4th Amendment, allowing strip searches of middle-school girls if they’re suspected to be carrying drugs, but creates a grotesque expansion of the 14th Amendment in the Citizens United decision. Meanwhile, Antonin Scalia just took the opportunity in a Supreme Court dissent to lambast his colleagues for striking down much of the Arizona anti-immigration law by approvingly citing 19th-century laws in the South that limited the movement of African Americans.

1871 trist v child set precendent in scotus justice swayne warned that corporations hiring "agents" to advocate for them was dangerous pp 90 p 87- agent was not acting differently than many others, but that was point; the case was being pursued with no eye to public good whatsoever

cosmo expose by d.g. phillips led to 9 sen accused bribery 1866-1905, led to 17th amendment 1913 for direct election 91 dman much $ IRATE

44% said consultant picked issues not cand; 2/3 picked tactics; nightly tracking poll means that our leaders follow public opinion/pandering, so who would want to run? good looking glib ppl who could raise $ 74-2008 congress race costs up steadily

With Citizens United, the activist conservative Supreme Court ruled that corporations could spend unlimited amounts of unregulated money to buy elections.

Now, that same activist conservative Supreme Court ruled that unions have to get opt-in permission from non-members to use dues for political purposes. 6/12

http://www.prwatch.org/node/11226

The conduct of the six men and three women appointed to the highest court in the land is claimed not to be governed by the basic ethical standards governing every other judge in the federal court system, according to Chief Justice Roberts, 56, an appointee of President George W. Bush. The Code of Conduct was adopted decades ago by the circuit (appellate) and district (trial) court judges on the U.S. Judicial Conference in order to protect the integrity and independence of the federal courts for all Americans. The rules help protect the people's vital interest in a fair judiciary by limiting unethical conduct by the hundreds of men and women with lifetime jobs sitting in judgment in federal cases.

Judges Are Supposed to Avoid Even the Appearance of Impropriety

The outside activities of one third of the justices sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court have called into question their commitment to avoiding impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their conduct. Specifically, Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct mandates that "A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge." Many believe these standards have been violated by three sitting justices.

Justice Samuel Alito and his wife, MarthaJustice Antonin Scalia (75, an appointee of Ronald Reagan) and Justice Clarence Thomas (63, an appointee of George H.W. Bush) have attended exclusive events at private resorts orchestrated by the billionaire oil barons Charles and David Koch, which the brothers use to advance their partisan political agenda. (A copy of the Koch Industries invitation and briefing material is uploaded below.) Justice Thomas has also accepted gifts of travel on the private jets of billionaire Harlan Crow, and he has not been fully forthcoming about the income and political activities of his wife, Ginny Thomas, who launched a group, Liberty Central, to take advantage of the Supreme Court's controversial ruling in the case that struck down election rules, "Citizens United," before the decision in the case was even issued publicly in 2010. And Justice Samuel Alito (51, an appointee of the last Bush) has headlined fundraising events for right-wing organizations, such as the American Spectator magazine.

lowdown 8/11

http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/2727

When the mass media do cover the Court (usually only when a new justice is named or a major edict is handed down), the reporting is superficial, even lazy. Two months ago, for example, the New York Times ran an "analysis" of decisions in the 2010-2011 term, concluding that the hallmark of the Roberts Court is "defending free speech." Never mind that it is corporate speech that they have radically enhanced, to the detriment of your voice and mine. But the Times didn't probe.

It's time for you and me to probe, because the Roberts-Alito-Kennedy-Scalia-Thomas cabal is openly aligning itself with the all-out political push by such far-right billionaires as the Koch brothers to impose a corporate plutocracy over America (see February 2010 and June 2011 Lowdowns). "Come on, Hightower," you might say, "such learned jurists wouldn't be engaged in such extremism." Oh? Remember *Bush v. Gore* in December 2000? In that case, five justices abruptly shoved their way into totally unprecedented, overtly partisan territory to dictate who would be America's president. With no need to do so, they imperiously interrupted a recount of the people's vote in Florida, usurped jurisdiction from state courts, invented a legal theory out of thin air, and arbitrarily seated corporate-favorite George W in the White House.

This was so far beyond the bounds of the Court's role, such an arrogant act of magisterial extremism, that none of the usurpers were willing to claim the decision as their own. None put their name on the opinion. Also, in an extraordinary confession, the opinion itself concedes its legal shoddiness by saying that it's a one-of-a-kind decision that should not be cited as a precedent for any other case. Tellingly, it hasn't been.

Eleven years later, three of those five Bush v. Gore judicial extremists--Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas--are still on the bench, forming a solid core of today's corporate cabal.

Also, while it's not widely known, Roberts himself was a key member of Bush's election-stealing team in Florida. A protege of Republican attack dog Kenneth Starr, Roberts was a corporate lawyer in Washington at the time (becoming a multimillionaire by helping such clients as Big Coal defend the abominable min-ing method of mountaintop removal). He was flown to Florida to polish legal briefs and do a dress rehearsal to prepare Bush's lead lawyer for getting the Supremes to seize the election for the Republican.

In 2005, George W returned the favor by entrust- ing the top spot on the nation's highest Court to this radical corporate activist. With the addition of Alito in 2006, Corporate America had its slim ideological majority in place.

Not only did pro-corporate decisions begin to flow, but the cabal also became brazen about its alliance with the right-wing Republican network that's now pushing aggressively in Washington, state capitals, and all of America's courts to rewrite laws so an "aristocracy of our moneyed corporations" can rise above the American people's democratic rights and authority. Jeff Shesol, author of Supreme Power (a history of FDR's fight with the Court), wrote a June *New York Times* op-ed about this "flurry of judicial fraternization," warning that it threatens to destroy the Court's credibility as an impartial guardian of the rule of law. Here's a sampling of their fraternization:

In 2010, Scalia was a featured participant in the Koch brothers' annual political retreat, joining assorted billionaires and GOP operatives as they plotted strategy and raised money for defeating Democrats. And this January, when tea party Republicans marched triumphantly into Washington to take their seats in Congress, they were welcomed by Scalia, who presented a constitutional tutorial to the newly minted partisans.

In 2008 and 2010, Alito lent his supreme prestige to the fund-raising efforts of the right-wing, anti-Democrat mag, American Spectator. He served as chief draw and keynote speaker at the group's 2008 fund-raiser, where he regaled wealthy funders with Joe Biden jokes. In 2009, he headlined a fundraiser for the Koch-backed Intercollegiate Studies Institute (which boasts the right-wing video trickster and criminal activist James O'Keefe among its alumnae). Also, in 2010, Alito was the chief sparklie at a high-dollar event for the Koch-funded Manhattan Institute.

Thomas, too, has put his judicial imprimatur on the Koch boys' annual plutocratic political gathering. He addressed their 2008 getaway at a Palm Springs resort, apparently enjoying four days there on the tab of the Koch-funded Federalist Society. He also is closely tied to the Heritage Foundation, which is richly financed by the Kochs. In 2009, he was the featured draw at a fundraiser for the group, which often takes part in Supreme Court cases--and which employed Thomas' wife, Ginny, from 2003-2007, paying her $686,000 that the justice "inadvertently omitted" from his financial disclosure filings. In addition, Thomas is corruptly entangled with Dallas real estate billionaire and right-wing political funder Harlan Crow. Even though Crow's financial and political interests are directly affected by the high court's rulings, Thomas has been injudiciously accepting a steady flow of gifts from the tycoon, including: a $175,000 donation from Crow to a Georgia library project dedicated to Thomas; a $2.8 million gift for an historic preservation project being developed under Thomas' supervision near his childhood home; and a $500,000 donation to Thomas' wife, Ginny, last year so she could start a tea party lobbying and political group (which, by the way, takes an aggressive partisan stance on legal questions that will soon come up for Justice Thomas' consideration, including Obama's health care law).

Good grief! Is there no code of ethics outlawing such rank conflicts of interest for federal judges? Yes. But, conveniently, Supreme Court justices have been exempted from the code.

Soiling clean elections

The Lowdown has periodically exposed the Court's slaphappy extremism and its make-up-the-rules activism as found in such now-infamous cases as Citizens United (see Sept. 2009, March 2010, and Feb. 2011 issues). In that 2010 ruling, using contorted language that even Orwell could not have dreamed up, the five actually re-wrote the laws of nature, decreeing that lifeless corporate entities are "persons" with a constitutional right to "speak" in every American election. These necromancers then invented a "voice" for corporate-speak: money. They ruled that top executives of these inanimate for-profit constructs are entitled to spend unlimited sums of corporate cash (money that belongs to shareholders, not to them) to run secretly funded campaigns for or against anyone they choose.

Interestingly, none in this bloc of five has ever run for office, much less won. So they have no real- life experience with the way big money suffocates democracy, both in politics and in the close confines of government decision-making. Worse, all of them express an uncommonly deep contempt for a truly democratic process, in which the people would reign over corporations, allowing grassroots human endeavor and ideas to trump the blunt force of money.

They really should talk to their shrinks about this psychosis. But, meanwhile, they keep working out their contempt on us, not only by jacking up the clout of corporate players, but also by slapping down grassroots efforts to give people power a path around the ever-rising money barrier:

2006. Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas vote to overturn limits that the people of Vermont placed on campaign contributions.

2007. The same five throw out Wisconsin's effort to keep corporations from swamping their elections with last-minute ad blitzes.

2008. The same five strike down the "millionaire's amendment," a part of the McCain-Feingold election finance reform passed by Congress in 2002; this provision had allowed candidates who were confronted by self-financed millionaire opponents to raise more money than otherwise allowed in order to level the playing field.

June 27, 2011. The same five kill the "matching funds" provision ofArizona's Citizens Clean Elections Act--a provision that was key to making the state's extremely popular and successful public financing system work.

The Arizona ruling was a stinging slap in the face to the conscientious citizens of that state. Arizonans have labored diligently to free their politics from the corruption of big money, while also opening the possibility of holding office to those who don't have piles of money or don't want to be beholden to those who do. Nauseated in the 1990s by an epidemic of gubernatorial and legislative scandals, the people themselves launched a grassroots initiative to get the democracy-destroying corrosion of special-interest political contributions out of their elections. In 1998, Arizona voters emphatically said, "yes."

Their Clean Elections Act established a voluntary public financing system that gave office-seekers of all parties and all economic classes an alternative, no-strings-attached way to finance their campaigns. By agreeing not to take any special interest contributions, these candidates received a fixed sum of public money--enough for them to be competitive under normal campaign conditions and have their voices heard. However, abnormal happens. So, if clean-running contenders found their voices being drowned out by a flood of special interest cash flowing to a rival, the "matching funds" provision allowed them to get a limited level of extra money from the public fund to help counter the free-spending opponent's unfair advantage.

It is this matching mechanism that the mammon-worshipping Supremes went after. Why? Because it works. Former Governor Janet Napolitano, for example, says she could not have even considered running for Arizona's top office without the availability of this funding alternative, but with it she won two terms. A majority of all parties' candidates use the Clean law, and it is enormously popular with the public.

But the corporate powers hate, hate, hate it, for it diminishes their political control. Having failed again and again to repeal it at the state level, they turned to the vipers nest of Koch-funded, right-wing policy fronts to find a way for the federal courts to inter- vene and do their dirty work. With support from the American Legislative Exchange Council (see Feb. 2011 Lowdown) and the Institute for Justice, this clique developed a perversely-novel theory of law, framed it into a lawsuit, and had the Republican leader of the state house, John McComish, sign on as plaintiff.

The Roberts quintet happily swallowed the perverse legal theory fed to them in the case, known as Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett. Turning both common sense and the Constitution topsy-turvy, the Court found--get this--that Arizona's matching provision gives cash-poor candidates an unfair advantage over those flush with money. Huh?

Well, explained the five, money speaks in politics, and the speech of the rich is inhibited if they know that their money-raising can result in "counterspeech" from opponents. Corporatespeak, good; counterspeak, bad. In a twisted and overwrought opinion for the majority, Alito wrote that public matching funds impose an "unprecedented penalty on any candidate who robustly exercises [the First Amendment right to buy an election]." Okay, I edited-in that last bit, but that's precisely what the Court's majority (and the Koch brothers) are actually saying. Not only are they freeing big money to shout as loud as it wants in our elections, but the Court has now allowed the money interests to quash the political speech of others. The good news is that Roberts & Company only nixed the matching provision, not the Clean Election Act itself. At least not yet. As Roberts wrote: "We do not today call into question the wisdom of public financing."

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/18-12?print

Published on Monday, July 18, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

The Corporate Supreme Court

by Ralph Nader

Five Supreme Court Justices--Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy are entrenching, in a whirlwind of judicial dictates, judicial legislating and sheer ideological judgments, a mega-corporate supremacy over the rights and remedies of individuals. The artificial entity called "the corporation" has no mention in our Constitution whose preamble starts with "We the People," not "We the Corporation."

Taken together the decisions are brazenly over-riding sensible precedents, tearing apart the state common law of torts and blocking class actions, shoving aside jury verdicts, limiting people's "standing to sue", pre-empting state jurisdictions--anything that serves to centralize power and hand it over to the corporate conquistadores.

Here are some examples. (For more see thecorporatecourt.com). Remember the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound twenty two years ago? It destroyed marine life and the livelihoods of many landowners, fishermen and native Alaskans. Its toxic effects continue to this day.

Well, after years of litigation by Alaskan fishermen, the Supreme Court took the case to review a $5 billion award the trial court had assessed in punitive damages. A 5 to 3 decision lowered the sum to $507.5 million which is less than what Exxon made in interest by delaying the case for twenty years. Moreover, the drunken Exxon captain's oil tanker calamity raised the price of gasoline at the pump for awhile. Exxon actually made a profit despite its discharge of 50 million gallons.

The unelected, life-tenured corporate court was just getting started and every year they tighten the noose of corporatism around the American people.

In Bush v. Gore (5-4 decision), the Court picked the more corporate president of the United States in 2000, leaving constitutional scholars thunderstruck at this breathtaking seizure of the electoral process, stopping the Florida Supreme Court's ongoing state-wide recount. The five Republican Justices behaved as political hacks conducting a judicial coup d'etat.

But then what do you expect from justices like Thomas and Scalia who participate in a Koch brothers' political retreat or engage in extrajudicial activities that shake the public confidence in the highest court of the land.

Last year came the Citizens United v. FEC case where the Republican majority went out of its way to decide a question that the parties to the appeal never asked. In a predatory "frolic and detour," the 5 justices declared that corporations (including foreign companies) no longer have to obey the prohibitory federal law and their own court's precedents.

Corporations like Pfizer, Aetna, Chevron, GM, Citigroup, Monsanto can spend unlimited funds (without asking their shareholders) in independent expenditures to oppose or support candidates for public office from a local city council election to federal Congressional and Presidential elections.

Once again our judicial dictatorship has spoken for corporate privilege and power overriding the rights of individual voters.

Eighty percent of the American people, reported a Washington Post poll, reject the Court's view that a business corporation is entitled to the same free speech rights as citizens.

Chances are very high that in cases between workers and companies, consumers and companies, communities and corporations, tax payers and military contractors--big business wins.

Inanimate corporations created by state government charters have risen as Frankensteins to control the people through one judicial activist decision after another. It was the Supreme Court in 1886 that started treating a corporation as a "person" for purposes of the equal protection right in the fourteenth amendment. Actually the scribe manufactured that conclusion in the headnotes even though the Court's opinion did not go that far. But then it was off to the races. These inanimate giants, astride the globe, have privileges and immunities that "We the People" can only dream about, yet they have equal constitutional rights with us (except for the right against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment) and more limited privacy rights.)

What is behind these five corporate Justices' decisions is a commercial philosophy that big business knows best for you and your children. These Justices intend to drive this political jurisprudence to further extremes, so long as they are in command, to twist our founders clear writings that the Constitution was for the supremacy of human beings.

To see how extreme the five corporate justices are, consider the strong contrary view of one of their conservative heroes, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a case where a plurality of justices threw out a California regulation requiring an insert in utility bills inviting residential ratepayers to band together to advance their interests against Pacific Gas and Electric. The prevailing justices said--get this--that it violated the electric company monopoly's first amendment right to remain silent and not respond to the insert's message.

Conservative Justice Rehnquist's dissent contained these words--so totally rejected by the present-day usurpers: "Extension of the individual freedom of conscience decisions to business corporations strains the rationale of those cases beyond the breaking point. To ascribe to such artificial entities an "intellect" or "mind" for freedom of conscience purposes is to confuse metaphor with reality."

It was left to another conservative jurist, the late Justice Byron White, dissenting in the corporatist decision First Nat'l Bank v. Bellotti (1978) to recognize the essential principle.

Corporations, Justice White wrote, are "in a position to control vast amounts of economic power which may, if not regulated, dominate not only the economy but also the very heart of our democracy, the electoral process." The state, he continued, has a compelling interest in "preventing institutions which have been permitted to amass wealth as a result of special advantages extended by the State for certain economic purposes from using that wealth to acquire an unfair advantage in the political process... The state need not permit its own creation to consume it." (emphasis added)

Never have I urged impeachment of Supreme Court justices. I do so now, for the sake of ending the Supreme Court's corporate-judicial dictatorship that is not accountable under our system of checks and balance in any other way.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His most recent book - and first novel - is, Only The Super-Rich Can Save Us. His most recent work of non-fiction is The Seventeen Traditions.

SOLUTION:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/19-8?print

*How to Liberate America from Wall Street Rule*spells out details of a six-part policy agenda to rebuild a sensible system of community-based and accountable financial services institutions.

Break up the mega-banks and implement tax and regulatory policies that favor community financial institutions, with a preference for those organized as cooperatives or as for-profits owned by nonprofit foundations.
Establish state-owned partnership banks in each of the 50 states, patterned after the Bank of North Dakota. These would serve as depositories for state financial assets to use in partnership with community financial institutions to fund local farms and businesses.
Restructure the Federal Reserve to function under strict standards of transparency and public scrutiny, with General Accounting Office audits and Congressional oversight.
Direct all new money created by the Federal Reserve to a Federal Recovery and Reconstruction Bank rather than the current practice of directing it as a subsidy to Wall Street banks. The FRRB would have a mandate to fund essential green infrastructure projects as designated by Congress.
Rewrite international trade and investment rules to support national ownership, economic self-reliance, and economic self-determination.
Implement appropriate regulatory and fiscal measures to secure the integrity of financial markets and the money/banking system.

How to Liberate America from Wall Street Ruleis the product of extended discussions among representatives of a diverse group of organizations committed to deepening and reframing the conversation on financial reform to focus attention on the serious financial system restructuring required to build a strong new American economy adequate to the social and environmental challenges of the 21st century. It may be freely shared, reproduced and distributed with appropriate citations.

***Read the report:**How to Liberate America from Wall Street Rule*

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

David Korten (livingeconomiesforum.org) is the author of *Agenda for a New Economy*, *TheGreat Turning: From Empire to Earth Community*, and the international best seller *When Corporations Rule the World*. He is board chair of YES! Magazine and co-chair of the New Economy Working Group.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Ruled that EPA could regulate c02 as pollutant april 07? odd?

Hightower on big 4 corp decisions:

Lilly Ledbetter, 2007.For decades, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. had quietly been stiffing this longtime, loyal employee on her paycheck. A manager in the tire giant's Alabama plant, Ledbetter was unaware that she was being paid substantially less than her male counterparts--a clear violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. Only learning of this maltreatment late in her career, Ledbetter sued Goodyear for the back pay she was owed. The corporation fought her all the way to the Supreme Court.

No go, ruled Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas. Under the statute, they sniffed, employees must file any bias suit within 180 days after the discrim-ination begins, and Ledbetter's suit had come 21 years after Goodyear started cheating her, so... tough luck, lady....

Making up law to help polluters, 2008. The catastrophic environmental and economic disaster caused in Alaska by the Exxon Valdez supertanker in 1989 resulted in a jury award of $5 billion to the local people who were harmed. The oil behemoth's battalion of lawyers, however, stalled pay- ment for years with various legal maneuvers, before getting a federal court of appeals to cut the sum in half. Still, despite the corporation's egregious malfeasance, Exxon pushed for an even sweeter deal, finally steering the case to the safe harbor of the Roberts Court.

In 2008, nearly 20 years after the disaster, another five-man majority led by Roberts slashed the damage award to $500 million, a mere tenth of the original jury assessment--and less than two days worth of Exxon profits.

Actually, four of the justices tried to eliminate the award altogether, arguing that a corporation should not be responsible for the reckless acts of its own managers! They fell only one vote short of imposing this creative rewrite of corporate law on us. Nonetheless, the Roberts Court satisfied its impulse to legislate from the bench by dictating a new, corporate-pleasing formula for determining punitive damages under maritime law-- a formula not found in the statute and not intended by Congress--thus making up a law to benefit polluters.

Binding the EPA, 2009. The fearless five took up their legislative pens once again in two cases involving the Clean Water Act. Under this law, electric power companies must use "the best technology available" to keep from harming fish and other aquatic life when they draw from the public waterways to cool their generators.

In an environmental lawsuit involving Entergy Corporation, a giant electric utility based in New Orleans, Louisiana, the RAKST quintet came out of right field to rule that the EPA should consider the cost to the power companies when evaluating "the best" environmental technologies. This generous gift to utilities was not included in the law by the legislative branch, so the five judicial branch activists thought- fully added it themselves.

Later that same year, they also diluted the Clean Water law by siding with a mining corporation named Couer Alaska. This outfit wanted to dump a waste product called "tailings" directly into lakes. The five (plus Justice Stephen Breyer this time) cheerfully decided that this pollution is okay, as long as the polluter holds an Army Corps of Engineers permit. Never mind that such dumping is expressly banned by EPA rules, the Supremes were on a roll.

The grandest giveaway of all, 2010. In January of last year, these five potentates of plutocracy issued a ruling that has caused a massively destructive tectonic shift in America's political process, thrusting mountains of corporate money high above the people's democratic power. The Lowdown has covered the impact and import of the now infamous Citizens United decree by the Court (see Lowdown issues September 2009 and March 2010). But it's important to add here that the Court's edict, which magically turned inanimate corporations into "persons" (with constitutionally protected electioneering 'rights' that make them politically superior to actual persons), is not only an absurd and intolerable overreach in logic, but also in process.

http://www.hightowerlowdown.org/node/2569

Supreme Court Inc. [89], Jeffrey Rosena, New York Times Magazine, March 16, 2008

"The origins of the business community’s campaign to transform the Supreme Court can be traced back precisely to Aug. 23, 1971. That was the day when Lewis F. Powell Jr., a corporate lawyer in Richmond, Va., wrote a memo to his friend Eugene B. Snydor, then the head of the education committee of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In the memo, Powell expressed his concern that the American economic system was “under broad attack.” He identified several aggressors: the New Left, the liberal media, rebellious students on college campuses and, most important, Ralph Nader. Earlier that year, Nader founded Public Citizen to advocate for consumer rights, bring antitrust actions when the Justice Department did not and sue federal agencies when they failed to adopt health and safety regulations.

Powell claimed that this attack on the economic system was “quite new in the history of America.” Ever since 1937, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt threatened to pack a conservative Supreme Court with more progressive justices, the court had largely deferred to federal and state economic regulations. And by the ’60s, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren had embraced a form of economic populism, often favoring the interests of small business over big business, even at the expense of consumers. But what Powell saw in the work of Nader and others was altogether more extreme: a radical campaign that was “broadly based and consistently pursued.”

To counter the growing influence of public-interest litigation groups like Public Citizen, Powell urged the Chamber of Commerce to begin a multifront lobbying campaign on behalf of business interests, including hiring top business lawyers to bring cases before the Supreme Court. “The judiciary,” Powell predicted, “may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.” Two months after he wrote the memo, Powell was appointed by Richard Nixon to the Supreme Court. And six years later, in 1977, after steadily expanding its lobbying efforts, the chamber established the National Chamber Litigation Center to file cases and briefs on behalf of business interests in federal and state courts."

The Legend of the Powell Memo, The idea that one man mapped out the entire right-wing infrastructure is appealing. Too bad it’s not true. [90], Mark Schmitt, The American Prospect, April 27, 2005

"Still, some of Powell’s recommendations do bear an uncanny resemblance to the institutions of the modern right. Powell’s sketch of battalions of lawyers to counter Nader and the ACLU seem to foreshadow not just Pacific Legal but several similar legal foundations and the Federalist Society system for training ideologically minded lawyers. His proposal to closely monitor and harass the media for anti-business and liberal bias represents a strategy that David Brock has shown is key to the right; but by the time of the memo, Reed Irvine’s Accuracy In Media was already two years old. His proposals to badger colleges to balance liberal and conservative views seem eerily similar to recent crusades on the same issue.

In other respects, though, the memo seems far out of touch with the concerns and structures of the current right. For one thing, it is entirely focused on the Chamber of Commerce itself, and Powell proposed that most of the activities be undertaken within the chamber. That didn’t happen, and the chamber wasn’t even that closely allied with the right until 1994, when it was forced to respond to the more aggressive oppositional politics of the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Business. "