Nan Aron on Mukasey's Testimony Before Senate Judiciary Committee

Washington, DC – “Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey’s testimony today before the Senate Judiciary Committee reinforces the important role Congress must play in reining in the excesses of the Bush Administration. I am deeply troubled that the Attorney General continued to evade answering the basic question of whether waterboarding is torture, and his defense of warrantless wiretapping in the name of the war against terror smacks of a complete disregard for the law.”

“Today’s hearing was an opportunity for the Attorney General to provide meaningful answers to questions that remained after his confirmation. He has had months to determine what constitutes torture and whether or not he would authorize such a practice, but today he continued to duck these questions. Even worse, he refused to say that he would support a new statute that would explicitly ban waterboarding. In combination, these refusals are geared to protect government officials from prosecution for engaging in waterboarding and to give the president the ability to veto legislation that would outlaw it.

“Though he was characterized as a zealous prosecutor during his confirmation hearing, Mukasey is now on record as willing to look the other way when it comes to illegal activities carried out in the name of the war against terror. By allowing mega-corporations to violate the privacy rights of ordinary Americans without fear of prosecution or consequence, he wants Congress to give these companies a free pass for cooperating with the government’s illegal wiretapping program.

“Attorney General Mukasey had a choice when he took the helm at the Justice Department. He could chart a new course or continue to tow the line on much of the Bush administration’s corruption of the rule of law. Today’s hearing confirms that he continues to favor an extremely broad view of the president’s power, and we cannot count on him to curb President Bush’s abuses.”

Find out more about the politicization of the DOJ at http://www.afj.org/.

Daily Dose

• In testimony Mukasey hints at wider CIA tapes probe, refuses to rule out waterboarding [WP, NYT, TheHill, Slate, GlennGreenwald, NoComment]
• Sen. Whitehouse goes head-to-head with AG on torture investigation (or lack thereof) [TPMMuckraker]
• Thwarted by the DOJ?: Office of Special Counsel chief alleges DOJ interference [WP]
• Editorial: A Disappointing Debut [NYT]
• Editorial: While the Election Watchdog Wanders [NYT]

Daily Dose

• Mukasey on waterboarding: it’s not clearly illegal [NYT, WP, AP via NYT]
• AG was in line for lucrative corporate monitor position before nomination to lead DOJ [WP]
• Editorial: Restoring Civil Rights [NYT]
  

Legislative Update: FISA

With the Protect America Act (the wiretapping legislation hastily passed before Congress left for its summer vacation) set to expire on Friday, the Senate is still debating the provisions of replacement legislation that would amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Discussion on the Senate floor has ground to a halt, and rumors are circulating that party leaders are negotiating a very brief—seven or fifteen day—extension of the expiring law in order to further ponder the pending legislation.

Late last week, the Senate voted to table a version of the bill approved by the Judiciary Committee which included greater oversight of executive wiretapping programs and excluded retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies who participated in the Bush Administration’s illegal warrantless wiretapping scheme. That rejected bill closely resembled the legislation passed by the House of Representatives late last year. Now, the Intelligence Committee version is pending, which includes immunity provisions and gives the administration much broader power to spy on Americans without judicial review.

Even if Congress agrees to a short extension, the Senate will still have to take up this important issue in the coming weeks, and there are amendments pending on the bill that would substantially improve it. Tell your Senators to reject immunity, insist on oversight, and rebuff the Bush Administration’s assertion that it can secretly spy on innocent Americans without repercussions.

Mukasey at the Bat

Tomorrow, Attorney General Michael Mukasey will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the first time since he was confirmed in November 2007. Members of the committee will have the opportunity – and the responsibility – to ask Mukasey important questions about the Bush Administration’s politicization of the Justice Department, President Bush’s assertions of broad executive powers, and the Attorney General’s opinions on a variety of controversial legal opinions issued under his predecessor, Alberto Gonzales.

We anticipate that the majority of the committee’s questions will be forward-looking. Though that is certainly important, it is equally important for Senators to ask the Attorney General tough questions about the damage that was done to the Department under Gonzales’ leadership, how he plans to address these problems, and how he plans to keep similar issues from arising in the future. With this in mind, Alliance for Justice urges Senate Judiciary Committee members to pose a series of probing questions, including:

• The Attorney General has called for the President to veto amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act unless they include retroactive immunity for violations of law by giant telecommunications corporations. It is widely believed that these corporations provided private information to the Bush Administration about their customers in violation of both federal law and their contracts with their customers. Some customers have already sued the corporations for redress. What is the justification, legally and as a matter of policy, for protecting these mega-corporations from having to defend their actions in a court of law, and at the expense of ordinary Americans? Is it simply that no contract, no law can stand in the way of the Bush Administration any time it makes a broad-brush assertion of national security?

• Several months ago, Special Counsel Peter Fitzgerald concluded his inquiry into the public disclosure of Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA operative. President Bush’s pardon of Lewis “Scooter” Libby helped end that investigation. Congress has asked that the Justice Department permit Fitzgerald to release transcripts of interviews his office conducted with President Bush and Vice President Cheney. What is the legal justification for continuing to withhold these documents from public scrutiny?

• Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine has been investigating the politicization of the Department and the firing of United States Attorneys since early 2007. Can the Attorney General give the Senate and the public his personal assurance that every current and former employee of the Department is cooperating fully with that investigation? If not, who is failing to cooperate?

• During his confirmation process, the Attorney General – claiming that he did not know enough about the torture technique called “waterboarding” – refused to declare that it is indeed torture. Now, months later, the question must be answered: Is waterboarding torture? If Attorney General Mukasey is still unwilling to say that it is, does his reluctance stem in any part from a need to protect past or current administration officials from criminal or other liability?

• The New York Times recently reported the following: “Asked if he had found signs of turmoil, Mr. Mukasey said, ‘Based on what I’ve seen, no.’ Asked if reports of turmoil were a fabrication by news organizations, he replied with a wry smile and a hint of sarcasm, ‘I wouldn’t dream of suggesting that’.” Does the Attorney General continue to deny, as did Gonzales, that there are internal morale problems in the Department?

State of the Judiciary

Last night, in his State of the Union address, President Bush called on the Senate to promptly confirm his federal judicial nominees, whom he characterized as ruling "by the letter of the law" and "worthy of confirmation." A closer look at these nominees reveals that they not only fail to meet those two standards but would seek to carry out the administration's ideological-driven agenda from the bench. For example, here's a look at three of the nominees Bush would like the Senate to confirm this year:

• Robert Conrad, Fourth Circuit: Conrad has never ruled for a plaintiff in an employment discrimination case. He referred to the writings of Sister Helen Prejean, the Catholic nun who authored "Dead Man Walking," as “liberal drivel” and to Sister Helen herself as a “Church-hating nun.”


• Steve Matthews, Fourth Circuit: Matthews served on the board of the Landmark Legal Foundation at the time that it nominated Rush Limbaugh for the Nobel Peace Prize.


• Richard Honaker, District of Wyoming: Honaker’s public statements demonstrate that he believes that the law should reflect the doctrines of the Bible and Christianity.

Though it was only one paragraph in his address to the nation, stacking the federal bench with men and women who will carry out his administration’s ideological agenda and affect the state of our union for decades to come will be President Bush's most lasting domestic legacy. Few policies epitomize the take-no-prisoners agenda of this administration more than its judicial selection program. For a more complete picture of Bush's impact on the courts, read Alliance for Justice's "State of the Judiciary."

Daily Dose

• No mention of waterboarding, torture in AG’s prepared testimony [AP via WP]
• Is the DOJ protecting Alberto Gonzales? [LATimes, SeattleTimes, TPMMuckraker]
  

Daily Dose

• Today on the Hill: FISA debate heads into round #2 [TPMMuckraker, GlennGreenwald]
• Will Mukasey stay mum on waterboarding? [NYT]
• Editorial: Get sensible on judgeships [BostonGlobe]

Daily Dose

• FISA debate round #1: the recap [TPMMuckraker]
• Federal judge gives DOJ three weeks to report on CIA tapes destruction [NYT, AP via WP]

Fair Pay Restoration Act Hearing Features Powerful Calls for Bill's Passage

“Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental civil right in our society,” said Senator Kennedy (D-MA) today at the Senate committee hearing held to discuss the Fair Pay Restoration Act, legislation he has introduced in the Senate. Following his opening remarks, Sen. Kennedy, his colleagues on the Senate Heath, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and others heard testimony from Lilly Ledbetter, whose personal story of pay discrimination sparked this important legislation. The committee also heard from Margot Dorfman, C.E.O. of the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce; Samuel Bagenstos, professor of civil rights litigation and Associate Dean of the Washington University School of Law; and Eric Dreiband, former General Counsel of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Ledbetter gave particularly moving testimony during today's hearing. As she called for passage of the bill, she stated, “Goodyear may never have to pay me what it cheated me out of. But if this bill passes, I’ll have an even richer reward because I’ll know that my daughters and granddaughters, and all workers, will get a better deal. That’s what makes this fight worth fighting and it’s what makes this fight one we have to win.”

This legislation will soon be in the hands of your senators, who need to hear from you to ensure that this is a fight we will win. Contact them now.

Daily Dose

• Bush continues to push controversial Justice nominee [NYT, AP via WP]
• Wiretapping battle heats up [TheHill]
  

Daily Dose

• Congressional Dems postpone contempt vote for Miers, Bolten [Politico]
• No more no-bid for DOJ? Congressman introduces bill to set limits on DOJ corporate settlements [WP]
• Padilla sentence falls far short of Justice Department’s request [WP]
• Dems to Mukasey: can you tell us now? [TPMMuckraker]

Roe v. Wade at 35

Today, as Americans commemorate the 35th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision that explained that the right to privacy includes a woman’s decision whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy, the right to reproductive freedom remains in great jeopardy. Just last year, the Supreme Court further undermined established precedent in upholding the federal criminal ban on certain abortions, a result that was made possible by President Bush’s appointment of archconservative judges John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Indeed, Justice Alito was confirmed by the United States Senate despite his judicial record of hostility to reproductive rights.

The detailed framework established by Roe v. Wade to protect women’s rights in tandem with the government’s interest in encouraging women to carry pregnancies to term is, in 2008, a shadow of its former self. No longer are restrictions subjected by courts to “strict scrutiny,” the standard applicable to restrictions on other fundamental constitutional rights. No longer is women’s health the clearly predominating factor in deciding whether a restriction passes constitutional muster. In fact, numerous less powerful groups in American society have even fewer rights: since 1980, low-income women who are eligible for Medicaid assistance for health care must fend for themselves if they need a medically necessary abortion; young women face arduous judicial bypass proceedings in many states as an alternative to forced parental contact; and a host of other restrictions make abortion the most heavily regulated health care service in the United States. Restrictions vary from one state to another – hardly the image we have in our minds of a basic right guaranteed equally to all Americans.

There is good news, though. There are steps we can take to protect our rights. First, we must insist that people nominated by the President to lifetime appointments on the federal bench– especially the Supreme Court – do not simply mouth respect for existing precedent protecting individual rights (as did Roberts and Alito), but have a track record of supporting those rights. Likewise, the Senate must reject any nominee who fails to meet this standard. Unfortunately, with President Bush having successfully appointed two justices to the Supreme Court who may serve for a generation to come, it is clear that we cannot count on the courts alone to protect reproductive rights and to advance reproductive justice. So, if the Court will not protect rights guaranteed by our Constitution, we must make sure that Congress and each state legislature will do so - whether by legislation or by constitutional amendment.

Now, as we reflect on all that has happened since Roe v. Wade, it is essential that we not forget the challenges that lies ahead. To join the fight to protect the rights of ordinary Americans, please visit the Alliance for Justice website, where you can read information about current nominees to the federal bench, sign up for our alerts, and learn more about how you can help to restore balance to our courts.

Daily Dose

• Oops! Missed a tape … or two: attorneys for detainee suggest there are more CIA interrogation tapes than previously thought [NYT, WP]
• US attorney probe not over as investigators dig deeper [TheHill]
  

Fair Pay Restoration Act

When Congress returns next week following the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday, the Senate will consider legislation that would overturn one of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most damaging decisions of 2007. In Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., the Supreme Court held that a woman employed by Goodyear who was being paid significantly less than her male counterparts had only 180 days from her first discriminatory paycheck to file a lawsuit – despite the fact that she had no way of knowing about the discrimination until nearly sixteen years later.

The Fair Pay Restoration Act (the Senate counterpart to The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which has already passed the House) would overturn Ledbetter by clarifying Congress’s original intent that every unequal paycheck counts as a discriminatory act that supports a lawsuit under Title VII. Urge your senator to support this crucial legislation.

The Senate’s consideration of this important legislation cannot come soon enough. Despite the fact that Ledbetter was decided less than eight months ago, more than 160 state and federal court cases have already cited the decision – with several leading to equally awful consequences.[1] In one case, a man who had served as a public school teacher for 37 years was denied a bonus that would have exponentially increased his pension because he retired one day too soon.[2] In another case, white police officers were denied the ability to challenge a city ordinance that specifically allowed an African-American officer to leave and later return to the police force without losing seniority while some officers lost credit for all of their prior years of service.[3] In yet another case, a man was barred from bringing suit when his employer told him that he would not have the same promotion opportunities as female employees with less education and experience than he.[4]

To repair the damage that Ledbetter has done to these claims, Congress has a lot of work to do and the Fair Pay Restoration Act is a great place to start. Unfortunately for the disabled man not welcome in his own apartment complex;[5] female college athletes denied their scholarships when their athletic programs were cut;[6] and a banker who was fired because he had reached his 50’s[7] - Ledbetter has already done damage, as it surely has to many other Americas who were discouraged from filing lawsuits in the first place. Though the Fair Pay Restoration Act, if signed into law, will protect future claims of discrimination, it will not apply retroactively to Lilly Ledbetter.

In testimony last June before the House Committee on Education and Labor, Lilly Ledbetter urged Congress to pass this important legislation. She noted, "My case is over and it is too bad that the Supreme Court decided the way that it did. I hope, though, that Congress won’t let this happen to anyone else. I would feel that this long fight was worthwhile if, at least at the end of it, I knew that I played a part in getting the law fixed so that it can provide real protection to real people in the real world."

It is crucial that the Senate pass this legislation before any more Americans are harmed by the racial and sex discrimination endorsed by the Supreme Court’s narrow reading of Title VII in Ledbetter. Please join us in the fight to win passage of the Fair Pay Restoration Act.
-----------------------------------------------------
[1] See, e.g., Mikula v. Allegheny County, No. 06 Civ. 1630, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70510, at *11 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 24, 2007).
[2] Grant v. Teacher's Ret. Sys., No. 07 Civ. 5534 (GEL), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79462 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 25, 2007, revised Oct. 29, 2007).
[3] Groesch v. City of Springfield, No. 04-3162, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50009 (C.D. Ill. July 11, 2007).
[4] Algie v. Northern Kentucky University, No. 06-23-JGW, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53347 (E.D. Ky. July 23, 2007).
[5] Garcia v. Brockway, 503 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2007).
[6] Mansourian v. Board of Regents, No. 2-03-02591-FCD-EFB, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77534 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2007).
[7]Plant v. Deutsche Bank Secs., Inc., No. 07 Civ. 3498 (AKH), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55100 (S.D.N.Y. July 23, 2007).

Daily Dose

• Rep. Conyers introduces bill to ban vote caging [TPMMuckraker]
• How divided can one house be? [USAToday]
  

Nan Aron, Ron Cass Debate Makes Providence Journal

Founder and president of Alliance for Justice, Nan Aron visited Roger Williams University yesterday, to participate in a film screening of our latest movie Supreme Injustices and to take part in a debate with former dean of Boston University School of Law - as well as staunch conservative - Ronald Cass. The event was an exciting opportunity to engage some of the country's most promising law students about the importance of the federal judiciary and efforts by movement conservatives to overhaul our entire system of justice.

Check out the Providence Journal's account of yesterday's debate here!

Daily Dose

• On telecom immunity it’s team Reid, Rockefeller and . . . Bush? [GlennGreenwald]
• CIA acting general counsel testifies before congress [WP, AP via NYT, TheHill]
• "If the Yoo fits . . ." [Slate]

Daily Dose

• Ex-CIA official cites “implicit approval” in tapes destruction [WP, TPMMuckraker]
• Editorial: The Supreme Court Club [NYT]
  

Mukasey's Justice Department: More of the Same

ABC News reported this week that Attorney General Mukasey has refused to hand over information regarding the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes to Congress. Despite hopes that Mukasey would distinguish himself from his lackluster predecessor Alberto Gonzales, the news of his current refusal to work with Congressional leaders raises fears that not much has changed at Justice. The readers of the Justice Watch blog certainly seem to agree: 44% of respondents to last week's poll question "What grade would you give AG Muaksey so far?" graded Mukasey’s performance at the Justice Department a disturbingly low D, and 34% gave him an F.

During the Attorney General’s confirmation hearings only a few short months ago, Democratic and Republican leadership alike encouraged Mukasey to provide an independent voice and to give new direction to the Justice Department. Unfortunately, his tenure has yet to put public fears to rest, and his latest refusal to appoint a special counsel to investigate the “TapeGate” scandal - let alone to provide relevant investigation materials to Congress - is troubling. It is only the first quarter, though, so maybe he can turn things around in time for a better final grade.

Glenn Greenwald on “judicial activism”

Glenn Greenwald at Salon fires back at the right on “judicial activism” and a Nevada court case between MSNBC and Dennis Kucinich:

Our public discourse has taught conservatives that any time a court issues a ruling that produces an outcome that they dislike, that's "judicial activism." But that's a cruelly ironic lesson because, to the extent "judicial activism" has any meaning at all, it means doing exactly what right-wing ideologues have learned to do when talking about court rulings: judge the rulings based solely on their affection for the outcome.

Read the full post here.

To find out more about the right-wing assault on the courts, check out www.afj.org.

Daily Dose

• Voting rights, shmoting rights: Supreme Court looks set to abandon Indiana voters [NYT]
• CIA conducts internal search for additional interrogation tapes, recordings [Newsweek]
• After requesting immunity, former intelligence official will not be required to appear this week in Congress [NYT]
• No-bid, no problem? Congress tells DOJ to think again [WP]

AFJ & Firedoglake Chat Continues on Justice Watch

Check out AFJ's Firedoglake web chat from today - http://firedoglake.com/2008/01/14/the-first-monday-series-a-chat-with-nan-aron-of-afj/.

If you missed the chat and have a question to add, please post it in the comments section below.

Role Reversal: TV's "Judge Alex" Appears Before U.S. Supreme Court

This morning at 11 a.m., the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Preston v Ferrer, a case involving TV's "Judge Alex" and his manager, Arnold Preston. According to SCOTUSblog, the Justices will consider whether the Federal Arbitration Act and Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna (2006) preempt the voiding of an interstate arbitration agreement made pursuant to the California Talent Agencies Act. (In English, compliments of AFJ, the Justices will determine whether Judge Alex has the right to have a court, rather than a private arbiter, decide a dispute with his former manager.)

Though the case has drawn an extraordinary amount of attention because it involves one of the nation's most well-known tv judges, Americans should be watching for a much more important reason. The Ferrer case will affect unsuspecting consumers across the country. If the Court rules that the FAA preempts the California law, it will limit the ability of states to go further than the federal government in protecting potentially vulnerable citizens from unscrupulous companies and employers.

Click here to read more about the case.

Chat LIVE with Nan Aron - Today at 11 a.m.!

For more than a decade, Alliance for Justice has released films on the first Monday of October – the opening day of the Supreme Court session – to focus attention on the importance of the federal judiciary in the lives of every American. This year, we are excited to announce an expansion of this project. AFJ has partnered with FireDogLake, a tremendously popular and informative progressive blog, to provide exclusive content and information regarding the judiciary and our First Monday Films Project. The first Monday of every month, AFJ will unveil short films, web chats and other resources on Firedoglake.com.

Today (January 14) at 11 a.m., Nan Aron, president and founder of Alliance for Justice, will kick off this exciting partnership by participating in a live online chat with readers of FireDogLake. This discussion will focus on what inspired the creation of our most popular films, including Quiet Revolution and Supreme Injustices, as well as the expansion of AFJ's First Monday Films Project. Nan will also field questions regarding the current state of our justice system, highlighting both the rightward shift of the federal courts and the prospects of the Mukasey Justice Department.

We encourage all of our members and supporters to log onto FireDogLake and take part in today's chat. We would love to hear from you! To participate, just go to www.firedoglake.com and create a free user profile.
For more on Alliance for Justice and our partnership with FireDogLake, visit us online at www.afj.org.

We'll see you online!

Daily Dose

• McConnell on waterboarding: well, it would be torture if it happened to me [WP]
• High Court appears split on voter IDs [WP, NYT]
• Mum’s the word: former CIA official involved in tapes destruction may refuse to testify [WP, NYT]
• Is Ashcroft still cashing in on DOJ connections? [NYT]
• Changes for DOJ Voting Section [TPMMuckraker]
• House poised to take up contempt resolutions for Bolten, Miers [WP]

Bush v. Gore Redux

Last week’s oral argument in the Indiana voter ID case clearly demonstrated the effect of President Bush’s appointment of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to the Supreme Court. Both indicated strong support for Indiana’s law and – unlike Justice Stevens – closed their eyes to the real-world implications of the law for thousand of voters. Coverage of the argument reminds us that Roberts and Alito are implementing a political vision that limits not only access to the courts, but access to the ballot box.

• The partisan elephant unnoticed in the room [SCOTUSblog]
• Grandma Got Carded: The Supreme Court looks closely at Indiana's voter-ID law [Slate]
• Editorial: The Court and Voter ID's [NYT]

Mukasey's Justice Department

Over the weekend, NPR’s Daniel Schorr observed that Attorney General Michael Mukasey’s initiation of a criminal investigation into the destruction of CIA interrogation tapes may have a silver lining for President Bush by allowing him to dodge questions about the tapes using the excuse of a pending investigation. Schorr stressed, however, that Congressional investigations into these activities may put political pressure on the White House. In an observation that raises questions about Mukasey’s willingness to cooperate with Congressional oversight efforts, Schorr said that the Attorney General’s handling of the CIA tape investigation conjures up memories of Watergate. It may be too soon to say definitely that Mukasey’s lack of cooperation with Congress since his confirmation more than two months signals that his tenure at the Justice Department will be “more of the same” from the Bush administration, but it is fair to continue efforts that monitor the Justice Department and hold the Attorney General accountable for the promises he made during his confirmation hearing.

For example, at the beginning of his tenure, Mukasey delivered on his promise to strictly limit the number of DOJ officers who could engage in conversations with politicians regarding DOJ business. Unfortunately, that is the only promise he has fulfilled since his confirmation. In the coming weeks and months, we must work to ensure the Attorney General delivers on a number of other promises he made, including:

Will he provide Congress, or the public, with the results of his review of opinions issued by DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel that endorsed torture?
Will he respond to a long-standing request from the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee for information regarding DOJ investigation of the jamming of New Hampshire Democratic Phone lines on election day in 2002 by Republican party operatives?
Will he respond to Congressman Henry Waxman's December 3, 2007 request – renewed on December 18 -- that he provide the House Committee on Oversight and Reform with transcripts of interviews of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other White House officials conducted by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald in his investigation of the public disclosure of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s identity, even though President Bush’s pardon of Scooter Libby means that Fitzgerald’s investigation is over?

The jury is still out on how these and other issues will ultimately be resolved under Mukasey’s leadership, but one thing is for certain – the American people deserve an Attorney General who puts the law above party loyalties. Schorr reminded us in his report that it was Congress – not the Department of Justice – that played a vigorous role in bringing to light President Nixon’s crimes. The question now is whether history will repeat itself.

Read more on AFJ's website.

Daily Dose

• Evidence is overrated (at least when it comes to voter fraud in Indiana): Supreme Court hears voter ID case [TPMMuckraker, NPR, AP via WP, IndianapolisStar]
• Editorial: The Court and Voter ID’s [NYT]
• The CIA tapes scandal: Rep. Jane Harman on what we still don’t know [USAToday]
• Editorial: Justice delayed in Siegelman case [MontgomeryAdvertiser]
  

Daily Dose

• Restoring confidence in Justice [FindLaw]
• Time for Congress to jump into the CIA tapes fray? [TheWashingtonTimes]
• Editorial: Rechecking voter ID [LATimes]
• "Department of Orwellian Excesses" [NoComment]
• Former CIA officials lawyer up [Newsweek]
• “Harmful and worthless”: legal scholars weigh in on Indiana’s voter ID law [Slate]
• Stacking the Civil Rights Commission: OK by Justice Department, but Congressional Research Service has doubts [TPMMuckraker]
  

Daily Dose

• Fraud or fiction?: Supreme Court to take on voter ID laws this week [TheNewYorker, TheIndianapolisStar, LATimes, NYT]
• The CIA tapes scandal: whose investigation is it anyway? [TheWashingtonTimes]

Daily Dose

• Mr. Durham goes to Washington [Slate]
• With Paulose out in Minnesota career prosecutor is in [WP]
• Payback time for the FBI? [NYT]
• Editorial: Handling the CIA tapes case [LATimes]
• Padilla sues ex-DOJ official over torture memo [ChicagoTribune]

AFJ Refutes White House Statements on Judicial Nominations

In a recent exchange with reporters about judicial nominations, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told journalists that Congress has "not moved forward on its obligation to have hearings and to hold votes, because the President has nominated very good people." Not only is she mistaken about the Senate not fulfilling its obligation, but Perino is also wrong about the President nominating "very good people" to serve as federal judges with life tenure.

The Senate’s "obligation" regarding the President’s nominations to serve on the federal bench is not a one-way street ending in a rubber stamp of approval. The Constitution gives the Senate the role of "advice and consent" regarding judicial appointments. President Bush has repeatedly flouted the advice of Senators from states where judicial seats are vacant - including the advice of Republican Senators, such as Senator John Warner of Virginia.

To read Alliance for Justice's entire press release, click here.

To learn more about the issues surrounding judicial nominations, check out our website at www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/.

Alliance for Justice makes the Los Angeles Times

Alliance for Justice has been quoted by the Los Angeles Times this week in an article that discusses the long-term ramifications of the Bush administration’s judicial selection program. The article, titled Conservative Courts Likely to be Bush Legacy, references the 294 conservative judges that Bush and his allies have managed to appoint to the Federal Bench, including 40 this year – a greater number than had been confirmed in each of the past three years while Congress was under Republican control. AFJ Legal Director Simon Heller is quoted as saying, "Some of the appeals courts will be quite far to the right for a generation to come. So why is the Senate rushing to confirm as many of these terrible nominees as possible?"

To learn more about the issues surrounding judicial nominations, check out our website at http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/.

To read the Los Angeles Times article in its entirety, click here.

Not Just Another New Year's Resolution

The official start of the political year begins today in Iowa. We’ve heard about the war and the economy and the environment, but we haven’t really heard much about the one issue that touches on all of these questions and more: judicial nominations. And when judges do get talked about, it is usually in the context of talking points like “strict constructionists” or related to hot-button social issues like reproductive and gay rights. And, of course, these are important issues.

However, when candidates—or the media—implies that these are the only issues that come before the court, they fall into a trap set by ultra-conservatives. A 2007 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that education, the environment, and national security were all viewed as more important to voters than a candidate's views on abortion. In addition, only a small percentage of cases decided by the federal courts involve abortion or gay rights, while a much larger percentage effect environmental and consumer protections, as well as worker's and civil rights.

For years ultra-conservatives have used judges as opportunities to galvanize their base. Conservatives would like nothing more than to center election debates and judicial confirmations solely around hot-button issues. But the conversation is much broader, and such a laser focus advances the agenda of conservatives while doing a great disservice to the American people.

In their next term alone the Supreme Court will decide cases pertaining to military tribunals, the death penalty, federal sentencing guidelines for drug crimes, voter identification laws, and the regulation of pornography. From this point on, the dialogue must reflect the breadth of issues that judges affect when appointed to the federal bench. So, let’s get 2008 off to a good start—by talking about judges in an open, honest and thorough manner that doesn’t just pay lip service to talking points or political strategies.

Daily Dose

• From inquiry to investigation: DOJ begins criminal probe of C.I.A. tapes destruction [WP, NYT, LATimes]
• Editorial: Mr. Mukasey’s Move [WP]
• Editorial: The Right Move on the C.I.A. Tapes [NYT]
• How independent can Durham be if he ultimately works for Bush? Will he be allowed to investigate the content of the tapes--i.e. "enhanced interrogation techniques"--or simply their destruction? [RawStory, TPMMuckraker]
• Judge Fuller explains reasoning in Siegelman case [TheBirminghamNews]

Daily Dose

• Courting an advantage: Bush’s legacy of conservative-heavy courts [LATimes]
• 9/11 Commission chairmen: CIA stonewalled, obstructed investigation [NYT]
• "There's more than a little bit of irony in going to the Supreme Court and asking them to rise above partisan politics in election cases": Voter ID cases head to high court [AP]
• Siegelman’s lawyers file for his release [Press-Register]
• Gonzales not out of the woods yet: DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility builds case against former AG [Truthouth]
• DOJ launches criminal probe of CIA tapes [REUTERS, AP]

Didn't Buy It? Still Have to Pay for It!

Wisniewski v. Rodale, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (December 13, 2007)

In a ruling that undermines consumer rights, Third Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith, appointed by President George W. Bush, has said consumers have no right to sue if they are forced to pay for merchandise they did not order. The opinion left no recourse for petitioner David Wisniewski, who was forced to pay for unsolicited books he received in the mail. Wisniewski paid for the books after respondent Rodale, Inc., threatened to damage his credit rating if he did not pay for the books he hadn't ordered.

Judge Smith was joined in his opinion to deny Wisniewski the right to sue by Senior Judge Weis, a Nixon-appointed judge. Judge Sloviter, the only judge on the panel appointed by a Democratic President (Carter), provided in her dissent the only voice in support of consumers' rights.

Read the full case study at afj.org