Today, Alliance for Justice released the last in a series of in-depth reports examining the record of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. During a press briefing on the report, Vanderbilt Associate Law Professor and Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary member Terry Maroney summed up Sotomayor’s style by stating, “What comes through loud and clear is that she takes a scalpel approach rather than a hammer approach resulting in absolute precision.” Speaking about the recently decided Ricci case, AFJ Legal Director Bill Yeomans clarified that “the Supreme Court decision in Ricci created a new standard that Sotomayor could not have applied previously as a circuit court judge.”
Over the last month, AFJ has released a new report each week, providing thorough analysis of key areas of Judge Sotomayor’s record. You can read all of the reports on our Supreme Court Watch page. This final report focuses on civil rights and constitutional protections, finding that similar to the rest of her record Sotomayor is “a model of judicial restraint, acutely and openly conscious of the limits imposed by her role as a judge.”
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Take Action Against Torture
The United Nations has set aside June 26th as an International Day in Support of Victims of Torture to mark ratification in 1987 of the UN Convention Against Torture. Alliance for Justice has joined with many other organizations to call on Americans to observe this day by taking action against torture.
Though the United States is a party to the convention, since 9/11 our government has detained and tortured hundreds of individuals, held people in secret prisons and at Guantanamo, created a tribunal system that allows secret evidence and tortured confessions – all of which has proven damaging to our Constitution and core values at home and detrimental to our reputation and national security throughout the world.
On June 26th, please call on Congress, the White House, and the Attorney General to restore justice and hold accountable those responsible for leading our country astray by enabling torture in the name of national security.
You can call President Obama in the White House at (202) 456-1414 and Attorney General Eric Holder’s office at 202-353-1555.
You can call your members of Congress or the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your senators' and representative's offices.
Once connected, identify yourself as a constituent and urge these officials to take the following actions:
Close Guantanamo. President Obama has announced his intention to close the prison by January 2010. Congress should work with the President to ensure the prison is closed and the individuals held there are charged and prosecuted or repatriated.
End military commissions permanently. These kangaroo courts didn’t work under the Bush administration and cosmetic changes in the Obama administration won’t work either. The system is fatally flawed. Federal courts can provide a true measure of justice, while respecting the rule of law and upholding American values.
Reject indefinite detention. As Americans, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. Our Constitution and core values demand that we prosecute crime where evidence exists and release individuals where evidence of wrongdoing is lacking or non-existent – mere suspicion is not enough to deny anyone due process. We must hold true to our values and reject any attempt to give any president the ability to detain people indefinitely without charge.
Support an investigation of torture. As more and more evidence comes to light about the treatment and interrogation of detainees, the evidence demands a thorough investigation of the abuse, the architects of that abuse and prosecution of any crimes that were committed. Just as important, the American people deserve a full and fair accounting of what took place to ensure torture never happens in our name again.
Though the United States is a party to the convention, since 9/11 our government has detained and tortured hundreds of individuals, held people in secret prisons and at Guantanamo, created a tribunal system that allows secret evidence and tortured confessions – all of which has proven damaging to our Constitution and core values at home and detrimental to our reputation and national security throughout the world.
On June 26th, please call on Congress, the White House, and the Attorney General to restore justice and hold accountable those responsible for leading our country astray by enabling torture in the name of national security.
You can call President Obama in the White House at (202) 456-1414 and Attorney General Eric Holder’s office at 202-353-1555.
You can call your members of Congress or the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask for your senators' and representative's offices.
Once connected, identify yourself as a constituent and urge these officials to take the following actions:
Close Guantanamo. President Obama has announced his intention to close the prison by January 2010. Congress should work with the President to ensure the prison is closed and the individuals held there are charged and prosecuted or repatriated.
End military commissions permanently. These kangaroo courts didn’t work under the Bush administration and cosmetic changes in the Obama administration won’t work either. The system is fatally flawed. Federal courts can provide a true measure of justice, while respecting the rule of law and upholding American values.
Reject indefinite detention. As Americans, we hold ourselves to a higher standard. Our Constitution and core values demand that we prosecute crime where evidence exists and release individuals where evidence of wrongdoing is lacking or non-existent – mere suspicion is not enough to deny anyone due process. We must hold true to our values and reject any attempt to give any president the ability to detain people indefinitely without charge.
Support an investigation of torture. As more and more evidence comes to light about the treatment and interrogation of detainees, the evidence demands a thorough investigation of the abuse, the architects of that abuse and prosecution of any crimes that were committed. Just as important, the American people deserve a full and fair accounting of what took place to ensure torture never happens in our name again.
Courageous Schoolgirl's Fight Secures Rights for Millions of Students
Savana Redding, a 13-year-old, was subjected to a strip search at her middle school to determine if she was the source of ibuprofen pills among some fellow students. With Savana traumatized and humiliated by the search -- which found no drugs -- her mother sued the school district, the Vice Principal who gave the order, and the staff who conducted the search. Today, the Supreme Court relented in its assault on the rights of students by holding the strip search of Savana Redding unconstitutional.
The Court’s decision in Safford v. Redding regarding the constitutionality of the search, joined by every justice except Clarence Thomas, recognizes not only Savana Redding’s account of her search as embarrassing, frightening and humiliating but that adolescent vulnerability intensifies the exposure’s patent intrusiveness.
However, the Court denied Savana recourse for the unconstitutional humiliation she suffered. The majority determined that the school officials had immunity from liability because the law regarding school searches was not “clearly established.” As Justices Ginsburg and Stevens point out, the Court ignored its own precedent in reaching that determination. The Court has clearly stated that a school search “crosses the constitutional boundary if it becomes ‘excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.’” As Justice Ginsburg bluntly states, “[The official’s] treatment of [Savana] was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it.” Justice Stevens noted that this is “a case in which clearly established law meets clearly outrageous conduct.”
While today’s decision was not an unqualified triumph for Savana Redding, she has secured a victory for schoolchildren nationwide. Her battle to vindicate her own rights has led the Supreme Court to issue a ‘clearly established’ ruling securing the constitutional right of millions of American students to be free from a humiliating, unjustified and unreasonable strip search.
The Court’s decision in Safford v. Redding regarding the constitutionality of the search, joined by every justice except Clarence Thomas, recognizes not only Savana Redding’s account of her search as embarrassing, frightening and humiliating but that adolescent vulnerability intensifies the exposure’s patent intrusiveness.
However, the Court denied Savana recourse for the unconstitutional humiliation she suffered. The majority determined that the school officials had immunity from liability because the law regarding school searches was not “clearly established.” As Justices Ginsburg and Stevens point out, the Court ignored its own precedent in reaching that determination. The Court has clearly stated that a school search “crosses the constitutional boundary if it becomes ‘excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.’” As Justice Ginsburg bluntly states, “[The official’s] treatment of [Savana] was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it.” Justice Stevens noted that this is “a case in which clearly established law meets clearly outrageous conduct.”
While today’s decision was not an unqualified triumph for Savana Redding, she has secured a victory for schoolchildren nationwide. Her battle to vindicate her own rights has led the Supreme Court to issue a ‘clearly established’ ruling securing the constitutional right of millions of American students to be free from a humiliating, unjustified and unreasonable strip search.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Cloture for Koh, What About Johnsen?
Great news, the Harold Koh cloture vote was a success earlier today and the vote on his nomination to be legal adviser to the State Department will likely be held tomorrow. It will be refreshing for the American people to have such a wonderful legal mind at the State Department, particularly in light of recent international events. Yet, the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice is still waiting for leadership. Why isn’t Dawn Johnsen’s confirmation moving forward? With the support of both home-state senators and widely respected experts on both the left and right, and all of the important issues facing the executive branch - especially the Department of Justice - it is time for this highly qualified nominee to be confirmed.
Judge Sotomayor and Business and Consumer Law
Yesterday, Alliance for Justice released a report and hosted a telebriefing for the press on Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s business and consumer law record. Joining AFJ in the briefing were Prof. Eduardo Peñalver of Cornell University Law School and Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary, and National Consumers League Executive Director Sally Greenberg.
This report, the third in a series on Judge Sotomayor, examines her consumer and business law record, including labor and environmental law, bankruptcy, consumer protection and intellectual property among other issue areas. For those of you who are baseball fans, or simply curious about President Obama’s comments regarding Judge Sotomayor’s “saving baseball” you may find the section on labor law of interest.
The report examines the case Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Comm. Inc.; Judge Sotomayor ended the 1995 baseball strike by issuing an injunction against baseball owners - allowing the players to go back to work and the baseball season to begin.
The current economic climate means issues relating to business, bankruptcy, and consumer protection are more important than ever. Judge Sotomayor has extensive experience in these areas of the law and, as the report notes, her legal writings show her ability to “recognize the impact her decision will have on the parties involved in a case, [while betraying] no preset notions or biases.” You can read the full report here.
This report, the third in a series on Judge Sotomayor, examines her consumer and business law record, including labor and environmental law, bankruptcy, consumer protection and intellectual property among other issue areas. For those of you who are baseball fans, or simply curious about President Obama’s comments regarding Judge Sotomayor’s “saving baseball” you may find the section on labor law of interest.
The report examines the case Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Comm. Inc.; Judge Sotomayor ended the 1995 baseball strike by issuing an injunction against baseball owners - allowing the players to go back to work and the baseball season to begin.
Sally Greenberg and Eduardo Peñalver also provided insights on the broader lessons that can be gleaned from Judge Sotomayor's record in this area of the law. "Judge Sotomayor wants people to have their day in court, rather than letting inconsequential technicalities prevent people from being heard," observed Greenberg. "She meets issues of first impression with caution and careful analysis. She's very much in the tradition of a careful, respectful common law judge, much like the justice she will be replacing, David Souter," Peñalver noted.“At the time the case was before Judge Sotomayor, the baseball strike was the longest work stoppage in professional sports history and had caused the cancellation of the 1994 World Series. Judge Sotomayor ruled against the owners because after negotiations between the players and owners became difficult, the owners tried to unilaterally change the terms of the collective bargaining agreement under which the players had been working. Judge Sotomayor held that this was an unfair labor practice and issued an injunction to protect the public interest, to maintain public confidence in the country’s labor laws, to avoid irreparable injury to the players, and to put the players and owners in the same bargaining position they were in before the strike.”
The current economic climate means issues relating to business, bankruptcy, and consumer protection are more important than ever. Judge Sotomayor has extensive experience in these areas of the law and, as the report notes, her legal writings show her ability to “recognize the impact her decision will have on the parties involved in a case, [while betraying] no preset notions or biases.” You can read the full report here.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Gross Miscarriage of Justice
In their zeal to strike yet another blow against civil rights enforcement, the five justices who threw Lily Ledbetter out of court and told Seattle and Louisville that they couldn’t voluntarily desegregate their schools reached beyond the question presented in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., ignored precedent and defied legislative intent to make it much harder for victims of age discrimination to win redress in court.
In 1989, the Court interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hold that an employer could be found to have engaged in unlawful discrimination based on sex even if the employer was motivated only partly by sex, unless the employer could prove that he would have made the same decision regardless of sex.
Today, in interpreting identical language in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the five member majority held that victims of age discrimination must prove that an employer would not have made the same decision absent consideration of age.
As a result, fewer victims of age discrimination will be made whole unless Congress again rises to the challenge, as it did when these same justices took on Lily Ledbetter.
In 1989, the Court interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to hold that an employer could be found to have engaged in unlawful discrimination based on sex even if the employer was motivated only partly by sex, unless the employer could prove that he would have made the same decision regardless of sex.
Today, in interpreting identical language in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the five member majority held that victims of age discrimination must prove that an employer would not have made the same decision absent consideration of age.
As a result, fewer victims of age discrimination will be made whole unless Congress again rises to the challenge, as it did when these same justices took on Lily Ledbetter.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Do FDA Regulations on Medical Devices Protect Patients?
This morning, Alliance for Justice was present for the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health hearing entitled, "Medical Devices: Are Current Regulations Doing Enough for Patients?" The hearing examined the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) regulation of medical devices, and analyzed whether additional regulatory steps are necessary to ensure the safety, effectiveness and quality control of medical devices such as X-rays, pacemakers, and heart valves.
Congressman Braley (D-IA) noted that the topic before the Subcommittee was critical and urgent because the “safety of American patients is a matter of utmost importance.” He noted that ensuring patient safety through judicial accountability was essential, and urged Congress to move swiftly to pass the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 (HR 1346). The Medical Device Safety Act legislation is required because FDA approval of medical devices is an insufficient mechanism to protect patients. Rather, we need the complimentary systems of competent FDA regulation combined with the oversight of state courts in order to save American lives.
Opening the testimony before the Subcommittee, Dr. Marcia Crosse, Director of Healthcare for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), testified that the GAO has identified a number of concerns within the FDA. Dr. Crosse noted that Americans depend on the FDA to regulate the safety of their medical devices, but that the FDA is falling short of meeting this challenge. As a result, the GAO considers FDA oversight of medical products a “high risk area.” Currently, two-thirds of all medical devices have no pre-market FDA review (these include products like bandages). However, there exists a higher-risk one-third of medical devices that require greater oversight to ensure consumer safety, but the FDA is limited in its review of these devices because of time and budget constraints. For example, the FDA cannot inspect domestic factories that manufacture medical devices on schedule, and is even further behind with inspections of foreign factories.
The importance of having competent, comprehensive, and timely FDA review of devices was emphasized by Dr. William H. Maisel, a cardiologist with Beth Israel Hospital, who noted that the FDA currently regulates over 100,000 medical devices produced by more than 15,000 companies. As a result of problems with the review process, the system leaves unanswered questions when devices are approved, which results in patients being exposed to harm. He told the story of one of his patients, a World War II veteran, who suffered cardiac arrest in front of his wife when he fractured his Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator lead simply by pulling his shirt over his head to get ready for bed. The Sprint Fidelis lead design was approved by the FDA even though Medtronic failed to submit any clinical performance data. To compound the problem, the FDA did not require any additional review of the product after the design was approved and released onto the open market. As a result, thousands of Americans have been shocked or killed by this faulty lead.
Watch a webcast of the entire hearing.
Sign AFJ’s petition urging Congress to pass the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009.
Congressman Braley (D-IA) noted that the topic before the Subcommittee was critical and urgent because the “safety of American patients is a matter of utmost importance.” He noted that ensuring patient safety through judicial accountability was essential, and urged Congress to move swiftly to pass the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009 (HR 1346). The Medical Device Safety Act legislation is required because FDA approval of medical devices is an insufficient mechanism to protect patients. Rather, we need the complimentary systems of competent FDA regulation combined with the oversight of state courts in order to save American lives.
Opening the testimony before the Subcommittee, Dr. Marcia Crosse, Director of Healthcare for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), testified that the GAO has identified a number of concerns within the FDA. Dr. Crosse noted that Americans depend on the FDA to regulate the safety of their medical devices, but that the FDA is falling short of meeting this challenge. As a result, the GAO considers FDA oversight of medical products a “high risk area.” Currently, two-thirds of all medical devices have no pre-market FDA review (these include products like bandages). However, there exists a higher-risk one-third of medical devices that require greater oversight to ensure consumer safety, but the FDA is limited in its review of these devices because of time and budget constraints. For example, the FDA cannot inspect domestic factories that manufacture medical devices on schedule, and is even further behind with inspections of foreign factories.
The importance of having competent, comprehensive, and timely FDA review of devices was emphasized by Dr. William H. Maisel, a cardiologist with Beth Israel Hospital, who noted that the FDA currently regulates over 100,000 medical devices produced by more than 15,000 companies. As a result of problems with the review process, the system leaves unanswered questions when devices are approved, which results in patients being exposed to harm. He told the story of one of his patients, a World War II veteran, who suffered cardiac arrest in front of his wife when he fractured his Medtronic Sprint Fidelis defibrillator lead simply by pulling his shirt over his head to get ready for bed. The Sprint Fidelis lead design was approved by the FDA even though Medtronic failed to submit any clinical performance data. To compound the problem, the FDA did not require any additional review of the product after the design was approved and released onto the open market. As a result, thousands of Americans have been shocked or killed by this faulty lead.
Watch a webcast of the entire hearing.
Sign AFJ’s petition urging Congress to pass the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The CIA Ate AG Holder’s Homework?
Yesterday, Alliance for Justice asked the question “Where is the OPR report on the torture memos?” Despite Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Whitehouse (D-RI) asking Attorney General Eric Holder the same question during today’s Senate Judiciary Committee oversight hearing, we aren’t much closer to an answer.
Both Senator Durbin and Whitehouse pointed out that the process of undertaking the investigation and compiling the report had begun quite some time ago. Both senators noted that the men being investigated for potential professional misconduct—John Yoo, Steven Bradbury and now-Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jay Bybee—had submitted their responses to the report on May 4th, well over a month ago.
And yet, we heard the same language from the attorney general that we’ve been hearing for months. The process is “pretty close to the end.” A declassified version of the report should be ready in “a matter of weeks.” (Of course, officials at the DOJ were saying it would be “a matter of weeks” months ago.)
Attorney General Holder says that it is important that Americans see as complete a report as possible. True. However, declassifying certain sections of the report should not be used as a delaying tactic for releasing the report. Senator Whitehouse quite rightly asked if it is the CIA and the declassifying process that is holding up the report. The attorney general then explained work is still being done on the OPR report within the Justice Department, particularly in crafting responses to the comments made by Yoo, Bradbury and Bybee. But, again, the comment period closed on May 4.
Alliance for Justice is not urging undue haste. It is important that the Department of Justice get this right so we can understand how the Department went so wrong. However, we do not support undue delay, either. With each reason and excuse proffered by the Department as to why we haven’t seen the results of an investigation begun five years ago, delay seems to be a much greater part of the process than haste.
Senator Whitehouse also inquired if anyone from the CIA taking part in the review and declassification process—those with influence on both the content and timing of the report—was also implicated or involved in the very conduct the report investigates. Mr. Holder once again said he wanted to release as complete a report as possible. Admirable, but it doesn’t answer the question posed by Senator Whitehouse—as the senator was quick to point out. He asked the same question, and though the attorney general did explain something of the coordination between the CIA and the DOJ, including the fact that final judgment calls from the CIA would be made by Director Panetta who is not implicated in the report, Senator Whitehouse didn’t get a direct answer answer about whether any of the CIA employees taking part in the process might have a conflict of interest.
And that seems to be the theme with the OPR report. Lots of direct questions, very few direct answers. We are left asking the same question we did yesterday: Where is the OPR report on the torture memos?
Both Senator Durbin and Whitehouse pointed out that the process of undertaking the investigation and compiling the report had begun quite some time ago. Both senators noted that the men being investigated for potential professional misconduct—John Yoo, Steven Bradbury and now-Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jay Bybee—had submitted their responses to the report on May 4th, well over a month ago.
And yet, we heard the same language from the attorney general that we’ve been hearing for months. The process is “pretty close to the end.” A declassified version of the report should be ready in “a matter of weeks.” (Of course, officials at the DOJ were saying it would be “a matter of weeks” months ago.)
Attorney General Holder says that it is important that Americans see as complete a report as possible. True. However, declassifying certain sections of the report should not be used as a delaying tactic for releasing the report. Senator Whitehouse quite rightly asked if it is the CIA and the declassifying process that is holding up the report. The attorney general then explained work is still being done on the OPR report within the Justice Department, particularly in crafting responses to the comments made by Yoo, Bradbury and Bybee. But, again, the comment period closed on May 4.
Alliance for Justice is not urging undue haste. It is important that the Department of Justice get this right so we can understand how the Department went so wrong. However, we do not support undue delay, either. With each reason and excuse proffered by the Department as to why we haven’t seen the results of an investigation begun five years ago, delay seems to be a much greater part of the process than haste.
Senator Whitehouse also inquired if anyone from the CIA taking part in the review and declassification process—those with influence on both the content and timing of the report—was also implicated or involved in the very conduct the report investigates. Mr. Holder once again said he wanted to release as complete a report as possible. Admirable, but it doesn’t answer the question posed by Senator Whitehouse—as the senator was quick to point out. He asked the same question, and though the attorney general did explain something of the coordination between the CIA and the DOJ, including the fact that final judgment calls from the CIA would be made by Director Panetta who is not implicated in the report, Senator Whitehouse didn’t get a direct answer answer about whether any of the CIA employees taking part in the process might have a conflict of interest.
And that seems to be the theme with the OPR report. Lots of direct questions, very few direct answers. We are left asking the same question we did yesterday: Where is the OPR report on the torture memos?
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Judge Sotomayor and Criminal Law
Today, Alliance for Justice released a report and hosted a telebriefing for the press on Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s criminal law record. Legal Director Bill Yeomans and Ruth Goldman Fellow Brina Milikowsky were joined by Indiana University Professor of Law María Pabón López. Professor Lopez is also a member of Hispanics for a Fair Judiciary.
The call covered Judge Sotomayor’s record on constitutional protections for criminal defendants, approach to habeas corpus petitions and sentencing among other issues.
As Bill Yeomans observed, Judge Sotomayor “brings a wealth of experience in criminal law issues” given not only her time on the bench, but also the years she served in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Brina Milikowsky further noted that Judge Sotomayor, if confirmed, would “be the only sitting Supreme Court justice to have experience sitting as a district court judge and overseeing trials.”
Professor López noted that her criminal law jurisprudence, particularly in sentencing, “shows Judge Sotomayor’s real world experience.”
Overall, the report reveals a judge who is “a careful, prudent jurist who adheres strictly to precedent and tends to issue carefully-researched rulings on a case-by-case basis.”
You can read the full report here.
UPDATE: Read news coverage of the briefing in the Washington Post, National Journal Online, and Scripps Howard wire below.
Liberal Group Praises Sotomayor's Criminal Justice Rulings, The Washington Post, by Jerry Markon
Report Praises Sotomayor on Criminal Cases, National Journal Online, by Amy Harder
Sotomayor 'Tough' on Crime, Report Says, Scripps Howard Foundation Wire, by Anne Elliott
The call covered Judge Sotomayor’s record on constitutional protections for criminal defendants, approach to habeas corpus petitions and sentencing among other issues.
As Bill Yeomans observed, Judge Sotomayor “brings a wealth of experience in criminal law issues” given not only her time on the bench, but also the years she served in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office. Brina Milikowsky further noted that Judge Sotomayor, if confirmed, would “be the only sitting Supreme Court justice to have experience sitting as a district court judge and overseeing trials.”
Professor López noted that her criminal law jurisprudence, particularly in sentencing, “shows Judge Sotomayor’s real world experience.”
Overall, the report reveals a judge who is “a careful, prudent jurist who adheres strictly to precedent and tends to issue carefully-researched rulings on a case-by-case basis.”
You can read the full report here.
UPDATE: Read news coverage of the briefing in the Washington Post, National Journal Online, and Scripps Howard wire below.
Liberal Group Praises Sotomayor's Criminal Justice Rulings, The Washington Post, by Jerry Markon
Report Praises Sotomayor on Criminal Cases, National Journal Online, by Amy Harder
Sotomayor 'Tough' on Crime, Report Says, Scripps Howard Foundation Wire, by Anne Elliott
The Sotomayor Record: Criminal Justice
Alliance for Justice has released the second in a series of in-depth reports examining the record of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Alliance for Justice will release a new report a week, providing thorough analysis of key areas of Judge Sotomayor’s record. Reports on access to justice and criminal law have now been released and reports on Sotomayor's record in the areas of civil rights, constitutional law and business and consumer law are coming in the weeks ahead.
"Judge Sotomayor began her legal career in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, where for five years she prosecuted 'street crimes' such as murders and robberies. She also engaged in investigative matters involving police misconduct and fraud, and she was lead counsel in the first child pornography case prosecuted in New York State after the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of New York’s laws in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)...."
Visit our Supreme Court Watch page for more information and to read the report in its entirety.
"Judge Sotomayor began her legal career in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, where for five years she prosecuted 'street crimes' such as murders and robberies. She also engaged in investigative matters involving police misconduct and fraud, and she was lead counsel in the first child pornography case prosecuted in New York State after the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of New York’s laws in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)...."
Visit our Supreme Court Watch page for more information and to read the report in its entirety.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
AFJ continues to push Congress to pass the Medical Device Safety Act
This morning the Campaign to Stop Corporate Immunity held a conference call that included a campaign update, as well as a short presentation from Alliance for Justice on Judge Sotomayor’s record on preemption. Jennifer Meinig, Legislative Counsel for AFJ, shared data from AFJ’s recently released report focusing on Judge Sotomayor’s access to justice cases. Judge Sotomayor has ruled on only a few preemption cases, but has exhibited a characteristically measured approach in her rulings. The decisions reflect a rigorous analysis and Judge Sotomayor delves deep into the facts of cases reflecting the complex interplay between state and federal law. Ms. Meinig gave a few examples of cases that typify Judge Sotomayor’s rulings involving preemption including, Protection & Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities v. Kirk, 448 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2006), Patient Protection & Advocacy, Inc. v. Houstoun, 228 F.3d 423 (3d Cir. 2000), and Empire Healthchoice Assurance v. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2d Cir. 2005). These cases, and others, are explored in detail in the Access to Justice report.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Sotomayor Hearing Set for July 13
The Senate Judiciary Committee announced today that the confirmation hearings to consider the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court will begin on July 13, 2009. Judge Sotomayor returned the Committee's bipartisan questionnaire on June 4. The questionnaire and attachments are available online. The date of the hearings is consistent with the average timeline for a Supreme Court nominee’s confirmation process, and should allow Judge Sotomayor to be confirmed in time for the start of next year’s Supreme Court term which begins in October.
Yesterday we released the first in a series of in-depth reports on Judge Sotomayor’s record. Alliance for Justice will release a new report a week leading up to the hearing, providing thorough analysis of key areas of Judge Sotomayor’s record: access to justice, criminal law, civil rights, constitutional law and business and consumer law. The first report on access to justice is available on our Supreme Court Watch page.
Yesterday we released the first in a series of in-depth reports on Judge Sotomayor’s record. Alliance for Justice will release a new report a week leading up to the hearing, providing thorough analysis of key areas of Judge Sotomayor’s record: access to justice, criminal law, civil rights, constitutional law and business and consumer law. The first report on access to justice is available on our Supreme Court Watch page.
Monday, June 8, 2009
The Sotomayor Record: Access to Justice
Today Alliance for Justice unveiled the first in a series of in-depth reports analyzing Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s record.
This first report focuses on the issue of Access to Justice, which encompasses a variety of legal issues including justiciability, preemption, stripping courts of their jurisdiction to hear certain claims, sovereign immunity, recovering attorneys’ fees, interpretations of statutes of limitations, and certifying classes for class-action litigation. These issues illustrate the important role courts play in ensuring equal justice for all. The report analyzes Judge Sotomayor’s record in each of these areas and finds that…
Visit our Supreme Court Watch page for more information and to read the report in its entirety.
This first report focuses on the issue of Access to Justice, which encompasses a variety of legal issues including justiciability, preemption, stripping courts of their jurisdiction to hear certain claims, sovereign immunity, recovering attorneys’ fees, interpretations of statutes of limitations, and certifying classes for class-action litigation. These issues illustrate the important role courts play in ensuring equal justice for all. The report analyzes Judge Sotomayor’s record in each of these areas and finds that…
“Judge Sonia Sotomayor has a careful, cautious, and reasoned approach to access
to justice issues. Her rulings are well within the legal mainstream.
She closely follows precedent, and analyzes facts with meticulous detail.
Judge Sotomayor shows no bias for or against plaintiffs. She shows
sensitivity toward persons bringing claims, but always grounds her decision
making on the law and binding authority.”
Visit our Supreme Court Watch page for more information and to read the report in its entirety.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Happy 30th Birthday Alliance for Justice!
Hundreds of supporters gathered today to celebrate 30 years in which Alliance for Justice has been leading the fight for a more equitable society on behalf of a broad constituency of environmental, consumer, civil and women’s rights, children’s, senior citizens’ and other groups.
The Vision for Justice luncheon featured keynote speakers Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor and Legal Correspondent for Slate, and Gara LaMarche, President and CEO of The Atlantic Philanthropies. Elmy Bermejo, Director of the Latino Issues Forum, was Master of Ceremonies, and of course, Nan Aron, President and Founder of Alliance for Justice gave remarks.
Dahlia Lithwick’s speech looked at President Obama’s use of “empathy” as a qualification for judicial nominees. She defended the term and asked progressives to see it not as something that looks soft and squishy, the opposite of rigor and objectivism. We should embrace the term since it does not mean bias, it does not mean sympathy, it simply means being able to "stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes." We recommend her excellent column on this topic in Slate.
Gara LaMarche spoke eloquently about the situation of our courts in this country and encouraged all of us to help “the arc of the moral universe bend towards justice” by fighting every day against injustice.
Click here to watch AFJ's 30th anniversary video presentation.
If you’d like to say Happy Birthday to AFJ, click here.
The Vision for Justice luncheon featured keynote speakers Dahlia Lithwick, Senior Editor and Legal Correspondent for Slate, and Gara LaMarche, President and CEO of The Atlantic Philanthropies. Elmy Bermejo, Director of the Latino Issues Forum, was Master of Ceremonies, and of course, Nan Aron, President and Founder of Alliance for Justice gave remarks.
Dahlia Lithwick’s speech looked at President Obama’s use of “empathy” as a qualification for judicial nominees. She defended the term and asked progressives to see it not as something that looks soft and squishy, the opposite of rigor and objectivism. We should embrace the term since it does not mean bias, it does not mean sympathy, it simply means being able to "stand in somebody else's shoes and see through their eyes." We recommend her excellent column on this topic in Slate.
Gara LaMarche spoke eloquently about the situation of our courts in this country and encouraged all of us to help “the arc of the moral universe bend towards justice” by fighting every day against injustice.
Click here to watch AFJ's 30th anniversary video presentation.
If you’d like to say Happy Birthday to AFJ, click here.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Battle for the Courts
Alliance for Justice co-sponsored a panel at today’s America’s Future Now conference on the importance of the courts. Nan Aron, President of AFJ introduced the session by reminding the audience that while the nomination of Sotomayor is an historic, ground breaking event, that is just the beginning.
Hundreds of federal judges will be appointed during the Obama administration. We have to take this opportunity to start the conversation that has long been denied about the role of courts and judges in America. President Obama has expressed his intent to raise the level of that conversation above the empty rhetoric of “judicial activism’ and ‘legislating from the bench.”
Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing will start that process. But it is up to us to urge the Obama administration to appoint judges who will uphold the Constitution’s promise of equal justice for all.
Learn more about the Supreme Court and Judge Sonia Sotomayor on our Supreme Court Watch page.
Hundreds of federal judges will be appointed during the Obama administration. We have to take this opportunity to start the conversation that has long been denied about the role of courts and judges in America. President Obama has expressed his intent to raise the level of that conversation above the empty rhetoric of “judicial activism’ and ‘legislating from the bench.”
Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing will start that process. But it is up to us to urge the Obama administration to appoint judges who will uphold the Constitution’s promise of equal justice for all.
Learn more about the Supreme Court and Judge Sonia Sotomayor on our Supreme Court Watch page.
Monday, June 1, 2009
America's Future Now
If you are in Washington, DC for this year’s America’s Future Now conference feel free to stop by our table in the exhibit hall to learn more about Alliance for Justice and say hello to our staff. Tomorrow at 3:40 pm our AFJ President, Nan Aron will be introducing the panel “Battle for the Courts” we hope you can join us for what is sure to be an informative discussion. Additionally, in honor of Torture Awareness Month, we hope you will join us in attending Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s (D-NY) session to discuss torture, presidential abuse and accountability.
You may remember that a few weeks ago we hosted an event regarding accountability for the author of the infamous “Torture Memos” asking the question of whether impeachment was appropriate for Judge Jay Bybee. You can watch video from that event online.
You may remember that a few weeks ago we hosted an event regarding accountability for the author of the infamous “Torture Memos” asking the question of whether impeachment was appropriate for Judge Jay Bybee. You can watch video from that event online.
Somber News
Yesterday, well-known reproductive rights advocate Dr. George Tiller was shot to death in his church while attending services. Dr. Tiller was one of the few practitioners in the U.S. supporting late-term abortion in instances related to rape, incest and the mother’s health and served as Medical Director of the Women's Health Care Services clinic in Wichita, Kansas.
We are deeply saddened by the killing of Dr. Tiller, who put his life on the line as an advocate and provider of vital services to women and families. He had lived through a previous assassination attempt, as well as multiple assaults and bombings on his clinic, but through those threats of violence he courageously continued his work. According to the New York Times,
Alliance for Justice joins reproductive rights advocates around the nation in honoring Dr. Tiller and his commitment to social justice. If you would like to learn more about remembering Dr. Tiller and the contributions his work has made to advancing the rights of women every where, check out Feministing’s list of vigils happening around the country.
We are deeply saddened by the killing of Dr. Tiller, who put his life on the line as an advocate and provider of vital services to women and families. He had lived through a previous assassination attempt, as well as multiple assaults and bombings on his clinic, but through those threats of violence he courageously continued his work. According to the New York Times,
Dr. Tiller’s death is the first such killing of an abortion provider in this
country since 1998, when Dr. Barnett
Slepian was shot by a sniper in his home in the Buffalo area. Dr. Tiller was
the fourth doctor in the United States who performed abortions to be killed in
such circumstances since 1993, statistics
from abortion rights’ groups show.
Alliance for Justice joins reproductive rights advocates around the nation in honoring Dr. Tiller and his commitment to social justice. If you would like to learn more about remembering Dr. Tiller and the contributions his work has made to advancing the rights of women every where, check out Feministing’s list of vigils happening around the country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)