|
||||||||||||||||
ISSUES |
ISSUE: Court WatchCourt WatchFollow the affects of the conservative philanthropies funding through the state and federal courts.
Ben Smith and Lizzy Ratner The Trouble With HarrietRevolting Right Wing Recalls Manhattan 12; Intellectuals in Snit Resent Bush's Lawyer; Bork: ‘Slap in Face to Conservative Movement’Conservative intellectuals have made a virtue of loyalty, and their rebellions are like plagues of locusts: rare and intense. DemocracyNow.org The Federalist (Society) Papers: John Roberts and the Right’s Move to Take Control of the JudiciaryALFRED ROSS: Well, Roberts, whether he’s paid his dues or not, was prominently listed in the 1997/1998 leadership directory published by the Federalist Society itself. So it is very difficult to believe that he didn't have any membership. He was on the Steering Committee. The important question is not whether he paid dues as a member or not. The question really at stake here is where does Roberts and his Federalist Society cronies plan to steer our ship of state. If one looks at the history of the Federalist Society, which was established at the inspiration of Robert Bork in the early 1980s, their entire trajectory has been to move our judicial system in an extremely radically right wing direction. Warren Richey Conservatives near lock on US courtsSenators will consider new judicial nominees Thursday. GOP-appointed judges already control 10 of 13 appeals courtsAs Democrats and Republicans in Washington prepare for an expected showdown over the use of filibusters to stall judicial nominees, President Bush is already well on his way to recasting the nation's federal appeals courts in a more conservative mold. Republican appointees now constitute a majority of judges on 10 of the nation's 13 federal appeals courts. As few as three more lifetime appointments on key courts would tip the balance in favor of GOP appointees on all but one appeals court - the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. New York Times Angry Groups Seeking a Justice Against Affirmative ActionThe Supreme Court rulings on the University of Michigan admission policies set off a wave of consternation among conservative groups today. As a result, several officials of the groups plan to demand that President Bush choose someone whose opposition to affirmative action is beyond doubt for a vacancy on the court. ..."This is a very political decision, and the administration's brief played a crucial role, I believe, in influencing Justice O'Connor, who turned out to be the swing vote," Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, said. Her group was among those challenging the Michigan programs... ..."It's outrageous that the majority in favor of these racial preferences was formed by Republican appointees," said Clint Bolick, vice president of the Institute for Justice, another conservative group that challenged the Michigan programs... "Conservatives will want to make sure that anyone appointed to the court in this administration is a strong and sure opponent of racial preferences," Mr. Bolick said. Also see:Justices Back Affirmative Action by 5 to 4 People for the American Way Nine of Eleven Bush Nominees for Lifetime Appointments to US Court of Appeals are "Staunchly Conservative"In line with statements supporting ideological court-packing he made on the campaign trail, George W. Bush seems to have used his first opportunity to select mostly jurists who could be expected to move the courts solidly to the right. "This slate of candidates appears to have been packaged to push the envelope far to the right," said Ralph G. Neas, president of People For the American Way. "It’s ironic that this group has already been noted for its diverse physical characteristics, like gender and race. What’s really troubling is their near uniformity of ideology." James Ridgeway Court JoustersA Small Cartel of Conservative Lawyers Rewrites the American RuleBehind the Bush Administration's attack on civil rights in the name of war lurks the network of attorneys crafting laws for a new America. Their hodgepodge of rules and statutes either now or soon will remake the nation, providing local police with sweeping federal authority, pushing the military and CIA directly into everyday domestic politics, and sanctioning indefinite detention without a charge or even a court hearing. Immigration policy already has disintegrated into the random search and arrest of anyone with dark skin. College students are to be singled out on the basis of ethnic background and required to carry special identity papers. In the rather near future, all citizens will be registered in a national database that includes criminal records, welfare payments, delinquent loans, credit card debt, and so on. Committees of local vigilantes are on the way to being sanctioned as legitimate militias assigned to root out terrorists, just as the Ku Klux Klan was after the Civil War. These are not distant ideas out of George Orwell, but real laws and practices about to be put in place. The underpinnings of this new America rest in the hands of a fairly small group of conservative lawyers in Washington...These intense, smart ideologues hail from the right-wing revolutionary movement, which believes it's past time to take America back from the crummy, weak- kneed liberal elites. Their moment has finally arrived... ...These...lawyers are at the vanguard of the legal attack, but they are scarcely by themselves. Rather, they're part of a loose, extensive team of conservative lawyers who have collected here over the years. Some have clerked for justices Scalia and Thomas. Some learn about liberals by working in their midst as "counter clerks."...Just about everybody seems to have some attachment to the Federalist Society and, when it comes to policy matters, the Heritage Foundation, whose links to the administration and conservative lawmakers are preeminent... ...Of all the Federalist members, perhaps the best known is Solicitor General Olson. An assistant attorney general under Reagan, Olson has popped up at just about every event in D.C. since then, defending convicted spy Jonathan Pollard, representing Starr, advising Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, and supposedly taking part in the infamous Arkansas Project, which tried to link Clinton to mob dope runs from Central America into Mena, Arkansas. Olson has denied any connection. He is perhaps most famous for this statement: "There are lots of different situations when the government has legitimate reasons to give out false information." Washington Post High Court Dismisses Affirmative Action CaseJustices Say Colo. Firm Shifted Arguments[Editor's note: This Supreme Court decision represents a clear reversal and loss for Mountain States Legal Foundation and its client, Adarand Constructors] ...The court first heard the Adarand case in 1995 and ruled, by a vote of 5 to 4, that racial distinctions in government programs must survive "strict scrutiny" by the federal courts. Such programs must be "narrowly tailored" to serve a "compelling government interest," the court said, and remanded the case to lower courts to decide whether the highway program at issue met that standard... ...The case dismissed today, Adarand v. Mineta, No. 00-860, evolved out of Adarand's appeal of a lower federal appeals court's subsequent ruling that the program, as amended by the Clinton administration after the 1995 case, could indeed pass "strict scrutiny..." The Nation Conservative Movement applies NAFTA against DemocracyPowers granted to hidden judicial bodies by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) are supplanting regulatory authority of US polities"Takings" theory fabricated by University of Chicago ideologue Richard Epstein and promulgated by the Federalist Society used to "protect" the "intangible property of 'expected profits'" Previous conservative movement attempt to undermine federal regulatory authority via "nondelgation" failed at Supreme Court in case of American Trucking. Little-known chapter of NAFTA gives more rights to foreign corporations than US citizens, in our own country! Washington Post A LOOK AT . . . JUDICIAL AGENDAS & THE FEDERALISTSDinh Plays DumbSeveral Bush administration judicial nominees belong to the 25,000-member Federalist Society. During law professor Viet Dinh's May confirmation hearing to be an assistant attorney general, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) questioned him about the organization's legal philosophy. Excerpts: DURBIN: So it is your belief that the Federalist Society does not have a . . . stated philosophy when it comes to, for example, the future course of the Supreme Court? DINH: No, I do not think it does have a stated philosophy... DURBIN: Where would you put the Federalist Society on the political spectrum? DINH: You know, I simply do not know... DURBIN: Well, let me say that what I've read -- and I'm not an expert nor am I a member of the Federalist Society -- they do have a very conservative philosophy. I don't think they are a debating society. I think they have an agenda. Washington Post Movement Seeks to Invalidate Affirmate Action Once and For All: Through the Supreme CourtA movement funded and created charity called the Center for Individual Rights, after having led successful fights to invalidate affirmative action at public universities from Texas to California to Michigan, is now seeking to eradicate affirmative action in all higher education, by bringing a case to the US Supreme Court, where it is sure to get a friendly hearing from the Republican majority. One of the Center's victorious lawyers, Republican Solicitor General nominee Theodore Olson, would actually represent the government in such a lawsuit should he be confirmed. In such a case, Olson has said he may recuse himself. New York Times Federalist Society handpicks many Federal Judgeship CandidatesThe New York Times reported today (April 24, 2001) that "Of the 70 candidates [for federal judgeships] interviewed so far by the White House, officials said 17 to 20 had been recommended directly by the Federalist Society's Washington headquarters." The Nation Here Come the JudgesAll signs point to an all-out drive by the Bush Administration to slot judicial conservatives into the eighty-nine current vacancies on the federal bench...The Bushites' court-packing drive is a grade-A rush job. For one thing, the roll Bush is on is petering out with his tax plan seen by a wider public as too friendly to the rich. Then, too, if an enfeebled Strom Thurmond exits the stage, control of the Judiciary Committee would shift to the Democrats, and then it's a whole new ball game New York Times Bush Would Sever Law Group's Role in Screening JudgesPresident Bush's legal advisers have told the American Bar Association that they want to end the group's nearly half-century role as a semiofficial screening panel for judicial nominees, lawyers involved in the discussions said today. The lawyers said they believed that the proposal reflected the administration's desire to shift the courts in a conservative direction and to satisfy many conservative Republicans who have long complained that the bar association has displayed a liberal bias in evaluating prospective federal judges. Rob Levine How The Conservative Philanthropies, C. Boyden Gray, and the Law and Economics Movement Nearly Sank the Federal Regulatory State(Using tax-exempt funds)“E.P.A.'s Authority on Air Rules Wins Supreme Court's Backing” announced the headline in the New York Times on February 28, 2001, a day after the court unanimously overturned a 1999 appeals court ruling that had thrown out Environmental Protection Agency air quality rules on the grounds that Congress had unconstitutionally delegated regulatory authority to its environment agency. Although very few people had heard of the case of American Trucking, it had nonetheless been a legal tsunami waiting to crash against federal agencies regulating everything from worker safety, to broadcasting, to food and drug safety. The case represents an incredible confluence of conservative philanthropies, tax-exempt corporate front groups which receive money from the philanthropies, corporate interests, lobbyists, lawmakers, and federal judges, who together nearly invalidated the entire federal regulatory state. New York Times They're Everywhere, They're Everywhere!Republicans, Federalists, Move Quickly to Fill Judicial Slots Boycotted by Senate RepublicansAfter the Republican-controlled senate held up scores of Clinton Administration judicial appointments, the new Bush Administration is rushing to fill vacancies on the federal bench. The New York Times reported, unsurprisingly, that the tax-exempt charity the Federalist Society, whose influence is pervasive in the federal court system, is once again heavily involved in the candidate selection and preparation. Supreme Court Watch The Supreme Court v. Balance of PowersThe current Supreme Court has a definite political agenda - one devoted chiefly to reallocating governmental power in ways that suit the views of its conservative majority...The court's recent decision in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, which ruled that state employees may not sue their states under the Americans With Disabilities Act, is but the latest example of the court's assertion of the primacy of its views over those of Congress... For nearly a decade, the court's five conservative justices have steadily usurped the power to govern by striking down or weakening federal and state laws regulating issues as varied as gun sales, the environment and patents - as well as laws protecting women and now the disabled. Not in every situation, of course, but the general blueprint is unmistakable. Rather than serving to chasten the conservative court, the experience of deciding Bush v. Gore may have further emboldened it. Jamin Raskin Bandits in Black RobesWhy you should still be angry about Bush v. GoreQuite demonstrably the worst Supreme Court decision in history, Bush v. Gore changes everything in American law and politics. The Rehnquist Court has destroyed any moral prestige still lingering from the Warren Court's brief but passionate commitment to civil rights in the middle of the last century. Now the court has returned to its historic conservative role, rushing to aid the political party of property and race privilege in a debased partisan way, torturing out of the Equal Protection Clause new rules to assure the power of one political faction. Bush v. Gore was no momentary lapse of judgment by five conservative justices, but the logical culmination of their long drive to define an extra-constitutional natural law enshrining the rights of white electoral majorities, like the one that brought George W. Bush the White House. New York Times Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Appellate Court Ruling in American TruckingHuge Loss For Conservative Movement; Victory for EPAThe Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the way the federal government sets clean-air standards, rejecting industry arguments that officials must balance compliance costs against the health benefits of cleaner air. The unanimous ruling, a major boost for the federal Clean Air Act, said the law does not require the government to consider the financial cost of reducing harmful emissions when it sets air-quality standards. The justices also ruled against industry arguments that the Environmental Protection Agency took too much lawmaking power from Congress when it set tougher standards for ozone and soot in 1997. Vincent Bugliosi None Dare Call it TreasonIn the December 12 ruling by the US Supreme Court handing the election to George Bush, the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law... ...That an election for an American President can be stolen by the highest court in the land under the deliberate pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision has got to be one of the most frightening and dangerous events ever to have occurred in this country. Until this act--which is treasonous, though again not technically, in its sweeping implications--is somehow rectified (and I do not know how this can be done), can we be serene about continuing to place the adjective "great" before the name of this country? American Prospect The Chicago Acid BathThe Impoverished Logic of "Law and Economics"Read about the cruel, market-serving, people-denying, "hyper-rational" legal theory called “Law and Economics,” funded by the conservative philanthropies, that is helping to transform American law by elevating the idea of “wealth-maximization” to the goal of the law. Also see:Paul Krugman In the Tank?Even cynics were a bit startled by the revelation that Justice Clarence Thomas's wife has been employed by the Heritage Foundation to gather résumés for potential appointments in the next administration. But let me leave ethical issues to the experts and focus on a different question suggested by the story: To what extent will a Bush administration, if that's what we're about to have, be staffed by people from Heritage and its sister institutions? Are we about to enter an era of government by professional ideologues? Abner Mikva The Wooing of Our JudgesAbner Mikva decries the "Educating" of federal judges at posh resorts by conservative foundations:"...judges listened to speakers whose overwhelming message was that regulation should be limited -- that the free market should be relied upon to protect the environment, for example, or that the "takings" clause of the Constitution should be interpreted to prohibit rules against development in environmentally sensitive places. Washington Post Report Links Environmental Rulings, Judges' Free TripsFederal judges who attended expenses-paid seminars that favor "free market" solutions to environmental problems struck down protections in some of the decade's significant environmental cases, according to a study of the increasingly popular judicial trips. Last year alone, the report said, nearly 100 federal judges--more than 10 percent of those active on the bench--flew off to a luxury resort for the sessions. The seminars are underwritten by conservative foundations, which in turn get their money from corporations and other pro-business interests. "Corporate special interests are attempting to buy judicial influence at the highest levels, and it appears to be working," asserted Doug Kendall, executive director of Community Rights Counsel (CRC), a public interest law firm that studied privately funded trips taken by hundreds of federal judges from 1992 through 1998 Washington Post Judges' Free Trips Go UnreportedFederal judges took more than a dozen expense-paid trips to seminars put on by conservative groups but failed to disclose the resort trips on their annual financial reports, as required by federal ethics laws, documents and interviews show. Jerry Landay The Conservative Cabal That's Transforming American LawWith the election of George W. Bush, members of the Federalist Society, a national fraternity of conservative lawyers, are queuing up for jobs in the federal government they purport to denigrate -- especially sensitive posts in the White House and the Justice Department. Federalists gained a foothold there in the years of Reagan and Bush's father. Federalist lawyers stagemanaged the Clinton impeachment. In the Senate, they've tilted the Federal bench to the right. And, Supreme Court Justice Scalia is a founder of the society. This article is required reading or re-reading for clues to what will likely occur below the surface of the new Administration and the radar screen of the mainstream news media. Phil Wilayto The Institute for JusticeThe Conservative legal counselThe foundations described in this report have bankrolled and directed a far-reaching movement, the goal of which is the privatization of most government services, the Institute for Justice: The right wing's legal counselderegulation of industry, the dismantling of government-funded social welfare programs, and the rollback of progressive gains won by the labor, civil rights and women's movements since the days of the Great Depression. One organization that is playing an increasingly important role in this movement is the Institute for Justice
|
RELATED STORIESLaw and EconomicsLaw and Economics is a movement funded and led by the conservative philanthropies described in this report, that aims to elevate wealth-maximization to the goal of all law (as opposed to, say, justice).
Press Release Senator Hatch Attack on PFAW Unfortunate, Unfair and InaccuratePFAW Debunks Hatch Characterization of Federalist Society, Responds to Senator’s Extraordinary Ad Hominem Attack
|
||||||||||||||
