You are currently browsing articles tagged Judiciary.
Although I understand the “need” for the mandate, I don’t like it. I have no idea how the court will rule. It will be interesting.
The RW gets this. The LW doesn’t.
The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the Montana Supreme Court’s decision in December upholding the state’s century-old ban on corporate political spending.
So much for “state’s rights”. You won’t hear a single Republican or Libertarian howling about this decision. Because it’s not designed to keep minorities down.
Yeah, it’s Kos, but it’s worth reading.
This is what happens when we let the GOP appoint all of our judges.
The current and former officers are found guilty of federal charges in the Danziger Bridge case, in which two New Orleans civilians were killed and four wounded.
If you don’t think the GOP wants to pack the courts to favor the corps and authoritarianism, you’d be mistaken.
The reason why Kagan has no previous judicial experience is because the Senate Republicans who now complain about her lack of judicial experience are the very people who thwarted her efforts to gain such experience. Orrin Hatch complains that she has never been a judge – but in 1999, when Kagan was tapped to fill a vacant seat on the federal court of appeals, it was Orrin Hatch, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who blocked her nomination in the first place.
As the ’99 news coverage makes clear, Kagan was nominated that June by President Clinton for a seat on the federal appeals court based in the District of Columbia. She never made it to the Senate floor for a vote. Actually, it was worse than that. She never made it to the Judiciary Committee for a committee vote. Actually, it was worse than that. She never got a chance to testify, because Hatch wouldn’t even agree to schedule a hearing. The appeals court seat remained vacant until 2003 – when John Roberts was confirmed to fill it.
And now for something completely different:
I absolutely despise the way some people use their cell phones. The only thing worse than talking on the phone while driving is texting while driving. DON’T RISK MY LIFE THAT WAY! I’d like to see a law passed making it legal to pull people out of their cars and beat them to death for that. And don’t get me started on the idiot with the blue tooth behind me, talking in a loud voice about nonsense. Shit, I don’t even like to answer the phone because so many people don’t know when to say “goodbye”.
So this was fun to see:
Don’t ya just wish that Sarah Palin was helping John McCain choose his replacement?
Many legal experts say they expect the court to use its imminent ruling, in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to eliminate the remaining restrictions on advertisements for or against candidates paid for by corporations, unions and advocacy organizations. (The case centers on whether spending restrictions apply to a conservative group’s documentary, “Hillary: The Movie.”)
Even if the court rules more narrowly, legal experts and political advocates say that the 2010 elections will bring the first large-scale application of previous court decisions that have all but stripped away those restrictions. Though the rulings have not challenged the bans on direct corporate contributions to parties and candidates, political operatives say that as a practical matter the rulings and a deadlock at the Federal Election Commission have already opened wide latitude for independent groups to advocate for and against candidates.
“It will be no holds barred when it comes to independent expenditures,” said Kenneth A. Gross, a veteran political law expert at the firm of Skadden Arps in Washington.
Get ready for the most negative election season, ever.