Page 1 of 2Next
Supreme Court: Taking Care of Business
How the high court caters to corporations and ignores commoners.
Fri Jan. 25, 2008 1:00 AM PST
The line forms early on Friday mornings at Foundry United Methodist Church, a nearly 200-year-old institution located a few blocks from the White House. Famous in some circles as Bill Clinton's church, among the city's down and out, Foundry is better known as one of the few places around that offers help securing a government-issued photo identification.
Two weeks ago, Deborah Killebrew, 58, was one of those queued up outside the church to pick up a copy of her birth certificate, which Foundry volunteers had helped her obtain. Six years ago, Killebrew was hit by a drunk driver. Her fiance was killed in the crash and she was left with cervical spine injuries that eventually put her in a wheelchair. After a string of bad luck, she wound up living in a D.C. homeless shelter. Somewhere along the way, she lost her expired Virginia driver's license. Killebrew was unable to get a new one because she didn't have an official copy of her birth certificate from the state of Indiana, where she was born. But to get her birth certificate, Killebrew had to send the state a copy of her driver's license or a stack of other documents—like a car registration or mortgage document—she also didn't have. Eventually, she just gave up, until recently when she was referred to Foundry.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Without a photo ID, Killebrew may not be able to drive or apply for food stamps, but here in D.C., one thing she can do is vote, which she does regularly. If she still lived in Indiana, though, she'd be out of luck. Two days before she arrived at Foundry to claim her birth certificate, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a lawsuit over a strict new Indiana law requiring all voters to show a government-issued photo ID before casting a ballot. The plaintiffs argued that the law was an unconstitutional burden on voters, particularly minority, poor, and elderly voters, who are the least likely to have the requisite ID. The law does allow people without an ID to cast a provisional ballot, but it won't get counted until the voter turns up at a county clerks' office to present identification.
If the justices rule against the plaintiffs, they will clear the way for other states to implement similar laws restricting voting rights for the less fortunate. Judging from the oral arguments in Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board, that's just what the justices are poised to do. While John Roberts worked at a steel mill during college, and Clarence Thomas came up dirt-poor in Pin Point, Georgia, the Supreme Court of late hasn't shown much interest in people like Killebrew who reside at the bottom of the economic food chain. The court's docket is increasingly dominated by business litigation—patent challenges, anti-trust suits, and attempts by big businesses to insulate themselves from all sorts of legal liability and litigation brought by their employees, investors, or aggrieved customers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently bragged that it had its best year yet before the high court in 2007, racking up a string of impressive victories for big business that even surpassed the chamber's record-breaking year in 2006.
Topped off by last week's decision in Stoneridge Investment Partners v. Scientific Atlanta, which sharply restricted the ability of shareholders to sue entities that abet corporate fraud, recent winners before the Supreme Court have included Enron and the banks that facilitated its scam; payday lenders; investment banks that engage in price fixing; and tobacco companies, among others. Losers have been small investors, poor, black school children, working-class women paid less than men—and one kid who was paralyzed after a police officer rammed his car because he was speeding.
Not only are "the people" losing at a rapid clip when they come before the court, but it has gotten much, much harder for the average person to even get into court in the first place. Over the past two decades, Supreme Court decisions have quietly prevented a wide swath of the American population from even reaching the courthouse, much less prevailing there when they've challenged better-funded and more powerful interests. Lee Epstein, a professor at Northwestern law school, says that the court is "shutting down access to plaintiffs in all sorts of ways. The court seems to be saying 'stay out.'"
In the last term, the court ruled, for instance, that taxpayers had no right to challenge the federal government's use of tax dollars to pay for religious-based social services. The case overturned years of precedent giving people a say in how their money is spent if it seems to mix too much church with state business. In a complicated anti-trust case, the court basically rewrote the rules for filing a civil lawsuit, making it harder for plaintiffs to even get into a courtroom under the guise of protecting business from allegedly frivolous lawsuits.
Many civil rights lawsuits are brought by private individuals rather than the government through agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, making them the primary mode of enforcing anti-discrimination laws passed by Congress. Yet the Supreme Court has moved to sharply limit such lawsuits through decisions that, for instance, restrict the awarding of attorneys fees to plaintiffs so that lawyers can no longer afford to bring such cases.
Epstein says that while it's true many of these decisions break down along ideological lines, some of rulings also may stem from the justices' personal backgrounds. Never has the Supreme Court been more homogenous, she says, noting that race and gender aside, the range of professional experience of the current court is extremely limited. All of the current justices came straight from the federal appeals courts, she points out, and most spent the bulk of their careers in government service or academia. Today's sitting justices are even geographically homogenous, having lived most of their adult lives in Washington or other nearby East Coast metro centers. Before they were appointed, Epstein says, "Most of these people could have taken the Metro or Amtrak to get to work."
At least with Sandra Day O'Connor on the court, Epstein says, there was not just a female voice, but someone from the West who had a different background from the other justices. O'Connor had been an Arizona state legislator and served as an elected trial court judge in Maricopa County. Epstein suggests that some of the court's rulings in recent years may have as much to do with the justices' service on appellate courts as ideology. None of them has much experience as private-practice litigators or trial judges, where they would be forced to look the plaintiffs in the eye and hear their stories. Epstein believes that the current crop of justices is inclined to think that "the judges below them get it right."
The insular experience of the Supreme Court justices seems to be spilling over into their decision making in a way that goes beyond partisan politics. Indeed, some of the more arcane business cases, which will nonetheless have a profound impact on such things as consumer protection, were decided by majorities that included Clinton appointees. All of the justices seem reluctant to do anything that might mess with business too much, even when those businesses could use some messing with.
Page 1 of 2Next
Comments
The Supreme Court has become nothing more than the protectors of the Rich. They are a bunch of asses who for the most part should be impeached. I guess we will have to wait to we get a congress thats for the people first. I do wonder how much their checks from big business amount to. Oh thats right were going to get paid off too and help save big business!
It's not just the Supreme Court that has become hostile to the pleas of the masses. All the federal appellate courts are overloaded with conservative judges who seem to have little patience listening to arguments aimed at protecting ordinary people. For twelve years we had Reagan & Big Bush appointees. Then we had eight years of Congress stonewalling many Clinton appointees. Then six years of a Democratic minority trying desperately to prevent the worst of Shrub's right-wing nut-jobs from being confirmed while the likes of Alito and Roberts looked like moderates by comparison. It's no wonder the courts have become the protectors of big business.
I think it's time to concede that the country, our country, the United States, is basically OWNED. They can wave the ballot papers around all they want, make all the speeches they want, but at the end of the day, you, the Consumer, are a number. You're a statistic. Hey, your percentage sign is showing. Of interest is your economic output, your credit rating, and your net worth, and your offspring, because that's a marketing demographic, there, as well as a future revenue stream and economic participant. Civil rights? Ok, stand over here, behind this building, where no one will see you, next to this nice big law enforcement guy, and wave your little sign. You've got 15 minutes. Ready? Go.
What's that, you don't want to hold a job? That's fine, this nice guy here with the 38 kids from Mexico would VERY much like to have that job you're not doing fast enough. Oh, by the way, your rent is still due on the 5th. Jack up the prices, jack the courts around, 'donate' here and there, and pretty soon, you own the country. Sold pretty cheap, too, if you ask me.
Is all that being too cynical? Maybe, maybe not, if you look at the whole mortgage thing that's going on, the banks are all about using law enforcement to clear out the 'deadbeats', and you read about bona-fide slumlords handing money to our presidential candidates, Billary's got a real estate 'background', John 'man of the People' Edwards was 'mortgage hedge fund guy' not too long ago, I haven't really read much about Romney, other than that he avoided Vietnam by running away to a Mormon mission in Africa, so he joins the long and distinguished list of would-be royalty and current royalty in their aversion to actually performing military service, and, and, if you do your research, we've got our very own domestic royalty without 'outsourcing' from countries like Saudi Arabia and points beyond. Yes indeedy, we are owned. And, what's the rhetoric? Growth, growth with a bullet, growth with a foot in your hip pocket. Or is that a hand? Hand and foot, that seems to be the desired future for american workers, as in 'waiting on', something like that, at any rate, suffice it to say that the standard-issue 'golden rule' doesn't really seem to be changing, it all still boils down to the old and familiar:'He who has the gold, makes the rules'(other conditions and restrictions may apply, offer not available in all states, check for availability in your area, see store for details, offer ends 02/25/08)
Why the disclaimer? Because if the economy, or Con Me, ends up folding up like a cheap kite, all bets are off. Housing eviction teams will be by to help you with your moving needs...did you see Big Fatty today on C-SPAN? Damn.
there's no point in bitching about the supreme court, congress, or the president. we've got the government we deserve, we sit on our asses and let these son's of bitches sell of our country one piece at a time and do nothing about it. we even let them put together a bull[deleted] war and WE FIGHT IT FOR THEM, what in the hell do we expect is going to happen. untill we pry our lazy asses and big brains of the couch, away from the computer and go to d.c. and protest like a bunch of pissed off voters who won't be stuffed in some " CHICKEN[deleted] FREE SPEACH ZONE " this is the way its gonna be kiddo's
David M. Good stuff. I compleetly agree. Real Power is in the masses.
I dont know what it is like on voting day where you come from but on Primary voting day, where Im from state employes dont even get 1 hour off of work to go and vote. Go figure I live in a town where the majority of the people are Democrats.
This article reminds me of the inteview I watched this weekend of John Grisham by Bill Moyers. It seems that the Justices of the Supreme Courts in Mississippi and Alabama decide cases overwhelmingly in favor of big business, with the stated reason to keep the economies growing, at the expense of litigators who have legitimate complaints. Judges in these states are elected, and get large donations for their campaigns. When asked why people vote to put them in office, Grisham replied: "People live poor and vote rich."
It is time to amend the constitution. Supreme Court Justice's appointments should be limited to one 12 year term. Twice as long as a Senator's term, 3 times as long as a President's. In the founding father's day, there is no way they could have foreseen Justices serving 20 plus year terms. Roberts is 52 years old and could be there 30 years. It skews the power of the Presidential appointment. The life time term has out lived its usefulness and is now undermining the constitution.
The Unanimous Declaration Of The Sovereign People Of The United States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men and women are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among People, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience has continued to show that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpation's, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Corporatism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these United States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present Government/Corporate partnership is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation's, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these United States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Corporatism has refused its Assent to Constitutional Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
Corporatism has forbidden Congress to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till its Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, it has utterly neglected to attend to them.
Corporatism has refused to allow other Laws for the accommodation of large assemblies of people, unless those people would relinquish the Bill of Rights, Rights inestimable to them and formidable to tyranny only.
Corporatism has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with its measures.
Corporatism has bribed and coerced Congress repeatedly, for opposing its invasions on the Rights of the people.
Corporatism has provided for a long time others to be elected, while Congress has claimed itself Representative to the People; the State remaining in the mean time divided and vulnerable to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
Corporatism has endeavored to prevent the population of these United States; for that purpose abolishing the Established Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations here, and raising the conditions of Established Appropriations of Rights.
Corporatism has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing its Assent to Established Laws for Judiciary Powers.
Corporatism has made Judges dependent on its Will alone putting at grave risk the Independence of the Judiciary.
Corporatism has erected a multitude of New Offices, and created swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
Corporatism has kept among us, Private Armies with the Consent of our legislatures, without the Consent of the Governed.
Corporatism has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
Corporatism has combined with Foreign Nations to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving its Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For dispersing large bodies of paramilitary police among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these United States:
For cutting off our information from all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us for the provisions of Corporations without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us over Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of United States Laws in Invaded Lands, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into These United States.
For taking away our Treaties, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Form of our Government:
For corrupting our own Congress, and declaring themselves invested with power to write legislation for us in all cases whatsoever.
Corporatism has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of its due Protection and waging War against our Established Rights.
Corporatism has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, drowned our cities and destroyed the lives of our people.
Corporatism is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Torture scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Model of a civilized nation.
Corporatism has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive by Fear to bear false witness against their Country, their Constitution, to become the informers of their friends and Brothers, or to fall themselves by their own admission.
Corporatism has excited domestic divisions amongst us, and has deliberately endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of Foreign Countries, the emboldened victims of Disaster Capitalism whose known rule of warfare is terrorism, an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. Corporatism, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define Tyranny, is unfit to be the Form of Government of a free people.
Nor have We been silent to our fellow Americans. We have warned them many times of attempts by their Congress to extend an unwarrantable Corporate jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common Rights to disavow these usurpation's, which would inevitably interrupt our communications, our assemblies, our electronic connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and non-violence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, in Contempt at War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Patriotic Citizens of the United States of America, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of being the good People of these United States, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that these United States are Absolved from all Allegiance to Corporatism, and that all political connections between them and Corporatsim, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent People of these United States, have full Power through Legitimately Elected Government to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent People may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Liberty, and our sacred Honor.
— John and Jane Q. Public
There is a saying in the legal profession that "hard cases make bad law". There is no doubt that Ms. Killebrews case is hard but it is also very very rare. The fact that the author had to dig up this crazy hard luck story should be all the proof you need. However to allow people to vote without first showing some form of identification opens up the system to outrageous fraud and error. It is stupid to risk the validity of our elections because some infitecimal number of people lost both license and birth certificate....should such people even be encouraged to vote?
This new Declaration of Independence brought tears to my eyes. My heart is sick to think what actions may be required to re-establish our beloved country. BTW-the next person who uses the word "democracy" to describe our form of government should be placed in a corner and be forced to read the entire Constitution 1000 times, or until he locates that word, even a single time, in that document. Whichever comes first.
There is no doubt about it that Ms. Killebrews story is unfortunate. However, I am always astounded that when I walk into my polling place, I do nothing other than say my name and I am free to proceed into the voting booth and cast my ballot which is as important a duty as a citizen can execute. Is it not then reasonable to ask that I validate who I say I am. Is it not a reasonable expectation for the sanctity of the process, to avoid fraud, error, and multiple voting? Are we to leave the entire process open based on the few and far between stories such as this one. And isn't the gist of this story that she was indeed taking the steps she needed to vote by getting this picture ID. What is astounding to me is that the far left and groups such as the ACLU, which are usually in a state of hysteria about voting, and so paranoid that there votes are being suppressed, are so ardently against a measure which in line with what they claim there expectations are. Heaven forbid I say my next point, which someone raised below...but should we really be basing how our system works, and stopping short of making vital improvements based on the absolute lowest factions of society. I am sorry about Ms. Killebrews set of circumstances. I am also not moved to the point that I feel the back door of our elections should be left open, strictly as to not inconvienence voters such as her. If you are unable to get a photo ID, and cannot fulfill your responsibility as a citizen to have one, then I'd prefer you not be involved in the process in the first place. Democrats obviously want to hype up every story such as this one as much as possible, because they know that putting a vote in the hands of every Ms.Killebrew, every illegal alien, and every convicted felon, is a vote to the liberal candidates who are going to be promising more hand outs speaking the gospel of victimization and divisiveness so often found on the left.
As a side note, I also found this story to be full of errors. They cited the person who was paralyzed as the result of a police car ramming into them. What they omitted from that story was that person was a criminal in a high speed chase with police, avoiding custody and putting countless others in danger with their resistance. Again, is this who this newspaper is fighting for? Every criminal, every have not? The tone taken in this article was also highly offensive. John Roberts should be mocked that through hard work and legal knowledge that teeters on brilliance, that he has amassed personal wealth?
Citing John Paul Stevens as the last true liberal on this court is simply absurd. Are you going to tell me that Ruth Bader Ginsburg who the author pointed out was an ACLU lawyer is a conservative? David Souter isn't a liberal? Bill Clinton's Stephen Breyer is part of a right wing conspiracy? I know this is an unpopular point here, but George W. Bush is the president, and an important duty of that job is to fill supreme court vacancies. He appointed two highly qualified, and yes very conservative men to the position. But disparaging them and writing fear mongering articles such as this one that paint them as back room corporate hit men is just silly. And calling for the rules of the game to be changed every time you lose, in this case with the life time appointments, is also a ploy. If the readers of this periodical are successful in their electorate process in November, they can rest assured that more ACLU nominees to the high court are on their way to mangle and stretch the constitution and to implement an ideology as far to the left as imaginable. But in the mean time the rest of us who don't await that day will do two things. Applaud the more reasonable direction the court is moving in. And give George Bush credit that in a sea of mistakes, and misjudgments, he has had at least one profoundly positive impact on this country in the form of Associate Justice Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.
I would like to correspond with Stephanie Mencimer about the subject of binding arbitration in medical malpractice. As the pres. of 2 new (and I hope innovative) insurance companies for pediatricians & ob/gyns, we have a unique perspective on binding arbitration. I'd like to be able to tell her our thoughts, and share insights. Please. I would be grateful if she would be willing to correspond with me. erosov@mdmc.us - thank you.
TO TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS.....The supreme court needs to apply meaningfull review of complaints against lawyers....... each state BAR generally protects the crooked lawyers..... rather than protect the public from dishonest,corrupt,judge pimping lawyers. WHAT IS A JUDGE.... A LAWYER IN DRAG.
In "The Dogs of War" Ethan Brown dismisses such thoughtful movies as "Stop-Loss" and "In the Valley of Elah" because they "tanked at the box office." He ignores the positive reviews these movies received, finding fault with their failure to emphasize actual combat. On the other hand, Brown lauds "Generation Kill" for its violence and profanity as well as for its allegiance to chest-beating patriotic Marines schooled in the ethos of video-game inhumanity. This emphasis, he suggests, may be the basis for the series' wide appeal. Unfortunately, he is probably right, but I'd rather not read such conventional macho sentiments in the usually thoughtful "Mother Jones."
Hi --
Does anyone care? Or is this off limits, too????
I am very, very concerned about S. McCain standing up to G. Palin sitting through a speaker that is very racist. Most folks have heard what happened, but why is it not important enough to be front and center. This is what America wants to become in protecting what has been earned.
No. Is it so hard?!
A good example was when she and her family went to the racist (Jewish) speaker at her church. The speaker was announced weeks in advance.
She went anyway. And sat through the whole thing. The speaker was talking about god's retribution. He said that is was ok for a Palisntain(spell) to fill a truck with bombs, drive through a check point, and explode the truck killing Jews.
Of course, McCain says she did not know that was what was to be said. But, she did not get up and quitely said that this is ok. He did not get up either.
In summary, God says it is ok to kill Jews if they are no converted.
Now, if you were in a church and the kkk started saying all sorts of stuff, would you have the guts to leave?
This is all over the web and conservative blog are not standing up either.
It seems that the Justices
Submitted by Mobile Equipment Merchant (not verified) on Mon Apr. 13, 2009 4:10 PM PDT.
It seems that the Justices of the Supreme Courts in California and Pennsylvania decide cases overwhelmingly in favor of big business. The number one reason being to grow the economy.
Great information for
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Jun. 8, 2009 8:12 AM PDT.
Great information for writing business term papers and business essay.
It is really impressive and
Submitted by Helen.Doris on Tue Sep. 15, 2009 3:53 PM PDT.
It is really impressive and I recommend everyone to read it. www.myeasypayday.ca
replica watches
Submitted by qmly on Mon Oct. 26, 2009 10:25 PM PDT.
Many websites have copied much of our contents word by word and photos.These are scam websites. As a result, many customers from the scam replica watches website contact us, asking where their shipment is. replica watch Please be aware, that if you see a website with a VERY similar name or contents,omega watches it is probably a scam. WE ARE NOT associated with any other websites.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
