Law

Argentina's Loss to Germany Nothing Compared to Financial Rout By U.S.

As Merkel starves ailing European economies, SCOTUS is doing worse to Argentina's.

AP Photo/J Pat Carter
AP Photo/Jorge Saenz Argentina soccer fans watch in disbelief the final World Cup match between Argentina and Germany on an outdoor television screen set up in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Sunday, July 13, 2014. Mario Goetze volleyed in the winning goal in extra time to give Germany its fourth World Cup title with a 1-0 victory over Argentina. I f there were poetic justice in the world, Argentina would have beaten Germany in the last three minutes of World Cup play instead of vice versa. Germany represents everything that's wrong with the world financial system. Argentina is the epic case of countries whose economies are screwed by policies championed by Germany—and, unfortunately, by the United States, as well. Let me explain. When financial abuses crashed the global economic system in 2007-2008, there were two urgent needs, One was drastic reform to prevent the collapse from wreaking further havoc on the world's most damaged economies. The other was to clean up the banking system so...

Justice Samuel Alito's Deep Roots in the American Right

He's the most pro-corporate jurist on the Supreme Court. So decisions that grant companies religious rights or take aim at labor unions come quite naturally to him.

AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito Jr., delivers his remarks during a Federalist Society dinner gathering, Thursday, Nov. 16, 2006, in Washington. This article originally appeared at The Huffington Post . S upreme Court Justice Samuel Alito ended this Supreme Court session with a bang, writing the majority opinion in two cases that gave for-profit corporations the right to make religious liberty claims to evade government regulation, and set the stage for the fulfillment of a central goal of the right-wing political movement: the destruction of public employee unions. Neither of the decisions was particularly surprising. Samuel Alito is the single most pro-corporate Justice on the most pro-business Court since the New Deal. Still, Alito's one-two punch was another extraordinary milestone for the strategists who have been working for the past 40 years to put business firmly in the driver's seat of American politics. Many would suggest that...

Courtroom Drama: Voting Rights Paid for in Blood Under Siege in North Carolina

“It was, bar none, the worst legislative process I’ve ever been through,” Rep. Rick Glazier told the U.S. District Court.

 

©Jenny Warburg
©Jenny Warburg Norma Corley (center, in blue) of Winston-Salem was among several hundred people who attended a “March to the Polls” rally on July 7, 2014, after the first day of the preliminary-injunction hearing challenging North Carolina’s new voting law. Photographs by Jenny Warburg A t the U.S. District Court in Winston-Salem, Rick Glazier , a Democratic state legislator, took the witness stand on Tuesday, the second morning of a hearing on North Carolina’s restrictive new voting law , the enforcement of which the U.S. Department of Justice, the NAACP, and the League of Women Voters are seeking to halt. Glazier’s testimony, unflinching but emotional, offered a vivid look at the cavalier manner by which some in a torrent of new state laws have been enacted. In particular, Glazier laid out how his Republican colleagues—with almost no study or debate—stripped away more than a decade’s worth of reforms that had dramatically increased ballot access for African Americans. Voting rights...

When Was the Last Time You Read the Declaration of Independence?

It's a great piece of writing, if you don't mind the bit about the Native Americans, which arguably set the stage for genocide.

Library of Congress
Library of Congress One of twenty-four surviving copies of the first printing of the Declaration of Independence done by Philadelphia printer John Dunlap in the evening of July 4. These rare documents are known as "Dunlap Broadsides" of the Declaration of Independence. One copy was sent on July 6 to George Washington by John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress. General Washington had the Declaration read to his assembled troops in New York on July 9. Later that night, the Americans destroyed a bronze statue of Great Britain's King George III which stood at the foot of Broadway on the Bowling Green. IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, W hen 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...

Without Economic and Educational Justice, There Is No Racial Justice

A half-century after Freedom Summer, African Americans continue to face severe barriers not just to voting, but also to economic security.

PRNewsFoto/Newseum, Ted Polumbaum via AP Images
PRNewsFoto/Newseum, Ted Polumbaum via AP Student civil rights activists join hands and sing as they prepare to leave Ohio to register black voters in Mississippi. The 1964 voter registration campaign was known as Freedom Summer. O n a hot, dusty June day fifty years ago, during what became known as Freedom Summer, college students began to arrive in Mississippi—then the most closed society in America—to help register black residents to vote. Three civil rights workers were brutally murdered, a trauma that pierced the heart of our nation and thrust into the open the racist oppression of black political rights by Mississippi’s leaders. Since that momentous summer, our country has made great strides to extend civil and political rights to all Americans regardless of race. Still, African Americans today face obstacles just as real as poll taxes and segregated restrooms; the difference is that these obstacles are now embedded in our institutions and social structures instead of being...

Who Supports the Hobby Lobby Decision? Old People, That's Who

Flickr/+mara
Yesterday, in a post about the political implications of the Hobby Lobby case, I said: "Though I haven't seen any poll that released breakouts by demographics, I'll bet that the populations that support this decision are the ones firmly in the Republican camp already, particularly older white evangelicals." As someone helpfully alerted me on Twitter, there is such a poll, from the Kaiser Family Foundation , taken in April. And while they didn't ask about religious affiliation, it turns out that age shows the starkest differences other than party identification in how people view the contraception issue. Let's look at some numbers, then we'll discuss what they might mean. Kaiser asked the question two ways: first in a simple way, and then by giving a bit more information about each side's perspective. The first question was, "In general, do you support or oppose the health care law's requirement that private health insurance plans cover the full cost of birth control?" When presented...

15 Major Decisions This Year From a Partisan Supreme Court

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais
AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais Kristin Hughs, right, announces to supporters the Supreme Court's decision on the Hobby Lobby case in Washington, Monday, June 30, 2014. The Supreme Court says corporations can hold religious objections that allow them to opt out of the new health law requirement that they cover contraceptives for women. S ince Monday's dramatic Supreme Court decisions, I've seen a few people recall that back in 2000, a lot of liberals justified voting for Ralph Nader (or not voting at all) on the basis that there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Bush appointed John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the high court, and it's safe to say that Gore's nominees would have been somewhat different, so it's unlikely we'll be hearing that argument again. Wherever you place your priorities in terms of the actions of the executive branch, at this point in history, the nominating of Supreme Court justices has become extremely partisan, in a way...

Listen to Harold Meyerson Analyze the Supreme Court's Big Anti-Union Decision on 'To the Point'

Shutterstock
Harold Meyerson, The American Prospect 's editor at large, appeared on the June 30th edition of Public Radio International's To the Point , analyzing the Supreme Court decision in Harris v. Quinn , which allows home health-care workers in Illinois to opt out of paying their union dues. Listen here . Read Meyerson's essay on the Harris case here: Supreme Court Rules Disadvantaged Workers Should Be Disadvantaged Some More

Supreme Court Rules Disadvantaged Workers Should Be Disadvantaged Some More

DVA.gov
DVA.gov The United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. T he conservative majority on the Supreme Court today took up the case of some of America’s most disadvantaged workers, and ruled that they should be disadvantaged some more. The five-to-four ruling in Harris v. Quinn goes a long way to crippling the efforts that unions have made to help these workers get out of poverty. The case concerned some 28,000 home care aides in Illinois whose paychecks come from Medicaid. Before the state agreed in 2003 that they could form a union, they made the minimum wage. (It’s the state that sets their wage rate, since their pay comes entirely from Medicaid.) Currently, as a result of their union contract, they make $11.85 an hour rather than the minimum of $7.25. Tomorrow, by the terms of their contract, their hourly rate is raised to $12.25, and on December 1 st to $13. The right to hire and fire these workers remains solely, of course, that of their home-bound patients and their...

5 Men on Supreme Court Impose Substantial Burden on Women in Illogical Decision

© A.M. Stan
©A.M. Stan As the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius on March 25, 2014, protesters filled the sidewalk in front of the Court. O n Monday, a bare majority of the Court held that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, employers do not have to adhere to federal regulations requiring that health insurance offered to employees cover contraceptives if the requirement conflicts with their religious beliefs. The majority opinion supporting this view, written by Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and joined by the Court's four other Republican appointees—all men—is a disaster. It is unpersuasive and illogical, and creaes a standard that is unworkable. It also reflects an instructive lack of concern for the interests of the women, whose statutory rights will be burdened by the majority's decision. As I have outlined before , the argument by Hobby Lobby and the other employers in the cases, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v...

Why the Fight Over Executive Authority Will Define the Rest of Barack Obama's Presidency

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
Official White House Photo by Pete Souza President Barack Obama returns to the Oval Office after giving interviews in the Rose Garden of the White House, May 6, 2014. I t's axiomatic to the point of cliché that in their second terms, presidents turn their attention to foreign affairs, where they have latitude to do what they want without having to get Congress's permission. By the time they've been in office for five or six years, they're so fed up with wrangling 535 ornery legislators that they barely bother anymore, and without an election looming (and with approval ratings often sliding down), they concentrate on what they can do on their own. But faced with an opposition of unusual orneriness—perhaps more so than any in American history— Barack Obama has made clear that he won't just be concentrating on foreign policy. He'll be doing whatever he can to achieve domestic goals as well, even if Republicans have made legislating impossible. The conflict over the actions he has taken...

The Implications of the Supreme Court's Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Ruling

CaliFaces.com
Today, in McCullen v. Coakley , the Supreme Court struck down a Massachusetts statute that created a "buffer zone" enabling women to access reproductive health clinics without interference. As with the ruling on the EPA and Greenhouse gases from earlier in the week, however, the decision could have been much worse. While the Court held that the Massachusetts law was not consistent with the First Amendment, it did so in a way that should allow states to protect women who seek reproductive health care from having their clinic access blocked or impeded by protesters. There is no question that the 35-foot buffer zone around clinics created by the statute restricts speech. This does not, however, necessarily mean that a buffer zone violates the First Amendment. The state can restrict speech using "space, time, and manner" restrictions. (You have the right to express your political views, but do not necessarily have the right to express them through a megaphone in a residential neighborhood...

Important 4th Amendment Victory on Warrants and Smart Phones

Wikipedia:Upload/Flickr
Last year, there was a split between state and federal appellate courts on the question of whether the mobile phones of people being arrested can be searched without a warrant. The California Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment did not require a warrant for searches of mobile phones incident to a lawful arrest. In another case, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. Today, the Supreme Court sided clearly and convincingly with the latter: "Our answer to the question of what police must do before searching a cell phone seized incident to an arrest is ...simple—get a warrant." This is a significant victory for the Fourth Amendment. Warrantless searches are presumptively considered "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment, but there are some exceptions to this general rule. One of these excpetions pertains to arrests. Typically, the police are permitted to conduct a warrantless search of a suspect's person during an arrest. As I argued earlier this year , however, there is...

How a Bad Interpretation of a 1976 SCOTUS Case Set the Stage for Citizens United

The Buckley v. Valeo decision was more complicated and subtle than the “money equals speech” slogan for which it’s misremembered.

AP Photo/Susan Walsh
AP Photo/Susan Walsh Demonstrators gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2013, as the court heard arguments on campaign finance in the case McCutcheon v. FEC . The Supreme Court issued its decision in April 2014 on the case's challenge to limits on contributions by the biggest individual donors to political campaigns. W hen it comes to campaign finance, the Roberts Court and the American public have settled into a grim routine. Every few years, the Court—usually in the voice of Chief Justice John Roberts—strikes down another restriction on campaign expenditures or contributions. With each decision, a disappointed majority of Americans puzzle over the notion, apparently embraced by the Court’s conservatives, that “money equals speech.” That idea is usually attributed to Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark 1976 case in which the Supreme Court for the first time considered the constitutionality of campaign finance restrictions. But the Court never said money is...

Supreme Court Hampers EPA on Greenhouse Gases But It Could Have Been Worse

Photograph by Joseph E.B. Elliot/Library of Congress
Today, the Supreme Court failed to release almost all of the term's outstanding opinions for another day (or two, or three.) But it did issue an opinion dealing with the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency to deal with one the most pressing problems facing the world: climate change. Justice Scalia's opinion unnecessarily restricts the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases, but the opinion could have been much worse. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency does deal with a real issue in the Clean Air Act. The act calls for the EPA to require permits from stationary sources that emitted between 100 and 250 tons or more per year of a pollutant covered by the act. In the context of carbon emissions, however, the quantities produced are much greater than for the typical pollutant, which would turn a statutory provision intended to exclude minor sources of pollution into a requirement to regulate these relatively small sources. Sensibly, the EPA...

Pages