Supreme Court

A Video From Protect Our Elections: Justice Thomas and False Statements

From ProtectOurElections.org,

__________

January 24, 2011- Today, we asked the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for making false statements on his Financial Disclosure forms every year since 2003 by falsely swearing under criminal penalty that his wife Virginia had no income. Justice Thomas signed these forms under oath after certifying that the information in them was true and accurate.

Virginia Thomas worked at the Heritage Foundation from 2003 through 2007 and earned at least $120,000 each year according to the foundation’s Form 990s. She is now working for Liberty Central in a paid position according to its CEO Sarah Field. Last Friday, Common Cause wrote to the Administrative Office of the Courts about this matter as was reported by the Los Angeles Times on Saturday.

__________

On a different, yet perhaps not too dissimilar a note, check out their call for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the use of secret money to influence elections. And remember, Common Cause has called into question whether Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia were ethically challenged by their involvement in the Citizens United ruling -- a ruling that Virginia Thomas may have benefited from:

>

__________

Justice Thomas' wife also may have directly benefitted from her husband's vote in Citizens United. In the months leading up to the decision, Virginia Thomas founded conservative organization Liberty Central, which used $500,000 in undisclosed money to support Republican candidates in the 2010 midterm elections. In addition, for several years Thomas failed to list hundreds of thousands of dollars his wife earned from the conservative Heritage Foundation on Supreme Court financial disclosure forms.

Federal law requires a judge to "disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned," or when "his spouse…has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy…or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding," says Common Cause. Neither Scalia nor Thomas did so in Citizens United.

In these kinds of cases, the law asks: Would a reasonable person who was aware of the situation question Scalia and Thomas's impartiality in the Citizens United case?

__________

This looks like it certainly bears further investigation, and may help answer the question whether our Supreme Court Justices are above the law, or servants of it.

Zeese: Can Anyone Stop Rove’s Crime Against Democracy While it is in Progress?

By Kevin Zeese

In this first post-Citizens United election, voters are the victims of a democracy crime that the government seems unable, or unwilling, to stop despite it occurring right before our eyes.

Political operatives, like Karl Rove, are misusing the tax laws to create organizations that allow for anonymous and unlimited donations from corporations and the super-rich in order to determine the outcome of the mid-term elections in violation of election and tax laws. See American Crossroads Watch.

Court Vacates Siegelman Charges, As Kagan and DOJ Team Lose

By Andrew Kreig
Huffington Post, June 29

"As a start in redressing the nation's most notorious political prosecution, the Supreme Court today released its decision vacating federal corruption convictions of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman and co-defendant businessman Richard Scrushy

"The court remanded their Alabama convictions to the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta despite arguments last November by Solicitor General Elena Kagan that their convictions should stand." More

And, of course, previously from ePluribus Media, Elena Kagan - Willing Accomplice

Elena Kagan - Willing Accomplice

Michael Collins

Should Elena Kagan be approved as a justice to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States?

As it turns out there's a supremely simple method of testing her suitability. Once applied, citizens of any political persuasion will see that her nomination should be rejected outright.

As Solicitor General of the United States, Kagan argued against an appeal to the Supreme Court by former Alabama Governor, Don Siegelman in November, 2009. The Siegelman prosecution is viewed by many as one of the gravest injustices of the modern era, a purely political prosecution initiated by the Gonzales Justice Department.

Forty four former state attorneys general were so concerned that they issued a public petition on Siegelman's behalf in 2007. The petition to the United States House of Representatives urged prompt investigation of the many shady dealings in the Siegelman case, before, during and after his trial. They framed their petition in this simple sentence: "The U.S. justice system should be above reproach." It wasn't.

Open Thread - Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Retiring

What has been speculated on by many for a while now is official:

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, leader of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, announced on Friday that he would retire at the end of this term, setting up a confirmation battle over his replacement that is sure to dominate the political scene this summer.

Many knew this was probably coming sooner or later since Justice Stevens had not hired on a full staff. a typical sign of a Justice that is retiring. Consider this a speculation thread on whom will be nominated - because you know that you want to - and an Open Thread. [update] President Obama is about to go live at 1:45 p.m. NOW to comment on the WV mine tragedy, and Justice Stevens’ retirement. Video below the fold.

If corporations are people, then ...

Original post time: 2010-01-26 00:04:12 -0500 Promoted. -- GH

 

If corporations are people, then they get to vote only once.

If corporations are people, then any special deals they get from the legislature are available to everyone.

If corporations are people, then they can be charged and prosecuted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

If corporations are people, then they can be charged and prosecuted for harassment, assault, and murder.

If corporations are people, then we can put them in jail.

Add your insights...

Not A Stellar Day For LGBTs

In a double whammy on Monday, first the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the policy of Don't Ask Don't Tell.


Many see President Barack Obama dragging his feet as he has yet to do anything about DADT despite campaign promises he would champion the repeal of DADT.


Open Thread: Quo Vadis

While there has been a seeming consensus among progressives that because Obama has said that some "detainees" will continue to be held without trial, his moves to close down Guantanamo have fallen dangerously short, his appointment of Sotomayor seems to have broad-based support among Democrats and Independants although Republicans are already mouthing off as usual. Check out Conservatives Already Screwing Up Opposition to Sotomayor on Firedog Lake.

The Next Justice: An Interview With Legal Scholar Christopher L. Eisgruber

Photobucket

The topic below was originally posted on my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

President Obama will soon announce his nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. It's a critical nomination with long-term ramifications for civil liberties, executive power, management-labor relations, the environment and consumer rights. Hence, it is vital the public know whether the judicial philosophy and ideology of any prospective nominee to the court is compatible with their sensibilities and values. Ideally, all nominees would be forthcoming about their philosophy as the senate either confirms or rejects them with full knowledge of the sort of justice they're likely to be.

Nick Benton's Corner: The Sad Case of the Falls Church

Posted by permission of Nicholas Benton, owner/editor of the Falls Church New Press.

The Sad Case of the Falls Church

by Nicholas Benton

 

It is sad that it has come to this. Millions of dollars were raised earlier this decade from the congregation of the Falls Church Episcopal Church in Falls Church, Virginia, toward an $18 million goal to build a new "parish life center" for education and fellowship on property acquired by the church in 1999.

Now, contributors of those funds are being asked to redirect their use for a legal defense of those in the congregation who voted to defect from the Episcopal Church, USA, in December 2006 to continue occupying the historic, existing church site, while veritably banishing from it the "continuing Episcopalian" members of the original congregation.

The lawsuits over the control of the church property, and that of other sites in Virginia where anti-Episcopalian defectors have taken control, are now advancing toward the Virginia Supreme Court, with papers filed this week. Beyond that, no matter what the ruling there, the case will almost certainly be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, as it is a matter of grave importance to the viability of the internal structures of almost all mainstream Protestant denominations nationally.

Tell the EPA that CO2 emissions matter!




How Can You Question Climate Change Now?

January 11, 2008






(Click for Larger image)


     Ominous Arctic Melts Worry Experts: An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer, a warning sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point. One even speculated that summer sea ice would be gone in five years.

http://ecoble.com/2008/01/11/how-can-you-question-climate-change-now/



Newt the Impaler


"Vlad" Gingrich is molesting the Constitution in the name of national security again. This time he's on a tirade about the recent Supreme Court decision that grants prisoners held at young Mr. Bush's pleasure in Guantanamo the right to a habeas corpus hearing.

"This court decision is a disaster and it could cost us a city," Newt said on Face the Nation. Land o' Goshen. The only way this court decision could cost us a city is if it makes Newt's head explode. Driving Newt's noodle to critical mass would be the kind of disaster we need, but it would force us to make some difficult decisions. Losing New York City or Washington D.C. might be too high a price to pay to be permanently rid of Newt, but if we're talking, say, Minot, North Dakota, well…

I take that back. Minot's a lovely city and we have a strategically significant military base there. We'll blow Newt's noggin to smithereens in that chancre sore on the Potomac. Let's just make sure all the politicians are in town when we push the plunger.