This morning, the Maine Women’s Lobby delivered a petition signed by Mainers to the Augusta offices of Senators Snowe and Collins. The petition signers urge their senators to support a prompt vote on President Obama's nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.
The petitions were signed by members and supporters of Alliance for Justice, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood, People for the American Way, the Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism, CREDO, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
Prof. Johnsen is eminently qualified to serve in this position. But her nomination is being held hostage by a threatened filibuster by Senate Republicans to further their partisan political agenda. Some of those who oppose her appointment also seem to have a problem with female nominees. Despite her experience that directly qualifies her for this job, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) said he does not think she has the "seriousness" to take on this responsibility.
Instead of further delay, the Senate should hold a vote and get back to other priority issues such as the economy, health care, and education.
Read more about Prof. Johnsen’s nomination.
Send a letter to your Senators supporting a prompt vote on the nomination.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Nan Aron on CSPAN
Alliance for Justice President, Nan Aron was on CSPAN this morning talking about Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. You can watch it online here.
Justice the Video
The Coalition for Constitutional Values, a national coalition of the nation’s leading nonprofit and advocacy organizations, announced today that it will begin airing “Justice” a new 30-second television spot that will run on national network news and cable news starting today. The Coalition for Constitutional Values, whose members represent millions of Americans, believes it is important that the American people know about the qualities of their Supreme Court justices.
The new spot is part of a broader public education campaign launched by the Coalition for Constitutional Values, co-chaired by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Alliance for Justice and People for the American Way. The Coalition hopes the spot will introduce the American public to Judge Sotomayor who has experience in nearly every aspect of the law, having served as a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator, a federal trial judge and an appellate judge.
"In selecting Judge Sotomayor, the president has nominated a candidate of sterling credentials who will uphold the Constitution and the law,” said Nan Aron, co-chair of the Coalition for Constitutional Values and president of Alliance for Justice. “We commend President Obama for choosing a brilliant and fair-minded jurist to serve on our nation’s highest court. Judge Sotomayor is precisely the kind of nominee we need – one who, as President Obama described, ‘has the intellectual firepower but also a little bit of a common touch and has a practical sense of how the world works.’”
Watch the video and learn more on our Supreme Court Watch Page.
The new spot is part of a broader public education campaign launched by the Coalition for Constitutional Values, co-chaired by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Alliance for Justice and People for the American Way. The Coalition hopes the spot will introduce the American public to Judge Sotomayor who has experience in nearly every aspect of the law, having served as a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator, a federal trial judge and an appellate judge.
"In selecting Judge Sotomayor, the president has nominated a candidate of sterling credentials who will uphold the Constitution and the law,” said Nan Aron, co-chair of the Coalition for Constitutional Values and president of Alliance for Justice. “We commend President Obama for choosing a brilliant and fair-minded jurist to serve on our nation’s highest court. Judge Sotomayor is precisely the kind of nominee we need – one who, as President Obama described, ‘has the intellectual firepower but also a little bit of a common touch and has a practical sense of how the world works.’”
Watch the video and learn more on our Supreme Court Watch Page.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor
President Obama has picked Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee. We are thrilled with this choice. Sonia Sotomayor will be a strong voice to uphold the Constitution and the law to provide equal justice and protect personal freedoms for everyone in America, regardless of wealth, status, or popularity.
President Obama has nominated a highly qualified candidate with a compelling personal story and outstanding educational credentials. She has made history as the first Latina appointed to the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor has more federal judicial experience than any justice nominated to the Supreme Court in the past 100 years.
President Obama has nominated a highly qualified candidate with a compelling personal story and outstanding educational credentials. She has made history as the first Latina appointed to the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor has more federal judicial experience than any justice nominated to the Supreme Court in the past 100 years.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Full Court Press: Ledbetter All Over Again
Lily Ledbetter became a national leader in the fight against sex discrimination after the Supreme Court overturned a jury’s finding that Goodyear had systematically paid her less than her male co-workers. Noreen Hulteen is the latest victim of a Supreme Court that fails to acknowledge the realities of discrimination against women in the workplace.
On Monday, May 18, the Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. Noreen Hulteen was one of four named plaintiffs challenging AT&T's policy of calculating pension and retirement benefits in a way that penalized women who had taken pregnancy leave before the effective date of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.
Ms. Hulteen and three other women sued after they discovered that their pensions were smaller than expected because AT&T failed to credit them for their time off during pregnancy as they would have credited any non-pregnancy disability leave.
The District Court found for the employees following Ninth Circuit precedent that held that an employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it made the decision to treat pre-Pregnancy Discrimination Act pregnancy leave less favorably than all other temporary disability leave. A three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit overturned the decision, but upon rehearing the full panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's decision finding that AT&T engaged in an act of discrimination each time it calculated benefits in a way that gave less credit for pregnancy leave than for any other temporary disability leave. Thus, in the view of the Ninth Circuit, the respondents were affected by the discriminatory pregnancy policy anew when they sought their retirement.
Unfortunately, a majority of the Supreme Court viewed the issue differently and Ms. Hulteen, like Ms. Ledbetter, is out of luck.
A majority of the Court followed a 1976 decision, General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, that defied reality by holding that discrimination against pregnant women was not discrimination on the basis of sex. Therefore, the Court held, a disability plan that excluded pregnancy-related disabilities was not discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII. Extending the reasoning of Gilbert, the Hulteen majority said that because the women took their leave at a time when it was legal to discriminate against pregnant women under Gilbert (before Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in response to Gilbert), AT&T's policy was legal even though it perpetuated a pension benefit calculation that would now unquestionably be unlawful discrimination.
Justice Ginsburg wrote a vigorous dissent, joined by Justice Bryer, from the majority's narrow reading of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. According to the dissenters, while the Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not provide retroactive relief to women who were discriminated against before its enactment, it is properly understood to require an employer to "cease and desist" and thus not allow the legacy of the past discrimination to continue in their current operations.
In an interview, Justice Ginsburg told USA Today that the Hulteen oral arguments were "just, for me, Ledbetter repeated." Congress should view the decision the same way and take steps to make clear that the Supreme Court got it just as wrong in Hulteen as it did in Ledbetter.
On Monday, May 18, the Supreme Court issued its decision in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. Noreen Hulteen was one of four named plaintiffs challenging AT&T's policy of calculating pension and retirement benefits in a way that penalized women who had taken pregnancy leave before the effective date of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.
Ms. Hulteen and three other women sued after they discovered that their pensions were smaller than expected because AT&T failed to credit them for their time off during pregnancy as they would have credited any non-pregnancy disability leave.
The District Court found for the employees following Ninth Circuit precedent that held that an employer violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act when it made the decision to treat pre-Pregnancy Discrimination Act pregnancy leave less favorably than all other temporary disability leave. A three judge panel on the Ninth Circuit overturned the decision, but upon rehearing the full panel of judges on the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's decision finding that AT&T engaged in an act of discrimination each time it calculated benefits in a way that gave less credit for pregnancy leave than for any other temporary disability leave. Thus, in the view of the Ninth Circuit, the respondents were affected by the discriminatory pregnancy policy anew when they sought their retirement.
Unfortunately, a majority of the Supreme Court viewed the issue differently and Ms. Hulteen, like Ms. Ledbetter, is out of luck.
A majority of the Court followed a 1976 decision, General Elec. Co. v. Gilbert, that defied reality by holding that discrimination against pregnant women was not discrimination on the basis of sex. Therefore, the Court held, a disability plan that excluded pregnancy-related disabilities was not discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII. Extending the reasoning of Gilbert, the Hulteen majority said that because the women took their leave at a time when it was legal to discriminate against pregnant women under Gilbert (before Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in response to Gilbert), AT&T's policy was legal even though it perpetuated a pension benefit calculation that would now unquestionably be unlawful discrimination.
Justice Ginsburg wrote a vigorous dissent, joined by Justice Bryer, from the majority's narrow reading of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. According to the dissenters, while the Pregnancy Discrimination Act does not provide retroactive relief to women who were discriminated against before its enactment, it is properly understood to require an employer to "cease and desist" and thus not allow the legacy of the past discrimination to continue in their current operations.
In an interview, Justice Ginsburg told USA Today that the Hulteen oral arguments were "just, for me, Ledbetter repeated." Congress should view the decision the same way and take steps to make clear that the Supreme Court got it just as wrong in Hulteen as it did in Ledbetter.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
We Need Medical Device Safety Now
The announcement on May 20 from Medtronic comes as a timely reminder of why we need the Medical Device Safety Act.
Medtronic’s announcement warns doctors that 37,000 of their pacemakers may be defective. This announcement comes after last week’s House Subcommittee Energy and Commerce hearing on "H.R. 1346, the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009." The 2008 Supreme Court decision Riegel v. Medtronic took away the rights of injured consumers to hold negligent medical device manufacturers accountable when their products cause injury and death. The Medical Device Safety Act will restore those rights allowing consumers such as Bill Storms, of Delaware, Ohio, to hold device manufacturers accountable.
You can help people like Bill Storms receive justice by urging Congress to pass the Medical Device Safety Act. Sign our petition to Protect our Health and Safety and Restore Corporate Accountability. You can learn more about the Medtronic case and other recent decisions on our Supreme Court Watch page.
Medtronic’s announcement warns doctors that 37,000 of their pacemakers may be defective. This announcement comes after last week’s House Subcommittee Energy and Commerce hearing on "H.R. 1346, the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009." The 2008 Supreme Court decision Riegel v. Medtronic took away the rights of injured consumers to hold negligent medical device manufacturers accountable when their products cause injury and death. The Medical Device Safety Act will restore those rights allowing consumers such as Bill Storms, of Delaware, Ohio, to hold device manufacturers accountable.
From the Cleveland Plain Dealer
Two summers ago, Bill Storms of Delaware, Ohio, says he got 138 electrical jolts over a five-hour period when the wires to his pacemaker went haywire. The 38-year-old truck driver had to visit several emergency rooms before the device could be turned off.
"It felt like having a horse inside you trying to kick its way out of your chest," said Storms, whose lawsuit against the maker of his Sprint Fidelis pacemaker wires was thrown out of court this year along with hundreds of similar cases by a judge who cited a 2008 Supreme Court precedent.
Storms and others who say they were injured by faulty medical devices want Congress to pass legislation that would override the Supreme Court decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, which found that consumers can't sue medical device companies over medical devices that have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
You can help people like Bill Storms receive justice by urging Congress to pass the Medical Device Safety Act. Sign our petition to Protect our Health and Safety and Restore Corporate Accountability. You can learn more about the Medtronic case and other recent decisions on our Supreme Court Watch page.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Bybee Question
Thanks to everyone who attended our event The Bybee Question: Is Impeachment Appropriate? yesterday. A panel of legal experts and scholars convened at the National Press Club to discuss the potential impeachment of Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jay Bybee for his role in authoring and authorizing torture memos during his tenure as head of the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel. If you missed the event, footage is available here.
AfterDowningStreet.org posted a great summary of the event, and both Harper's Magazine and Think Progress provided coverage of yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, "What Went Wrong: Torture and the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration" in addition to our event.
AfterDowningStreet.org posted a great summary of the event, and both Harper's Magazine and Think Progress provided coverage of yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, "What Went Wrong: Torture and the Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush Administration" in addition to our event.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Justice Delayed
Cross post from Nan Aron on Huffington Post
You may have heard that Republicans in the U.S. Senate are blocking the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, and you may be wondering, “So what?”
This actually matters. A lot.
The person who heads that office tells the executive branch of government which actions it is considering are legal and constitutional and which infringe on such basic rights as freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and privacy.
This is the job that Jay Bybee held during the Bush administration when he wrote his infamous memo providing legal cover for illegal torture and wiretapping without warrants.
President Obama has nominated Dawn Johnsen to restore integrity to the office.
She served there for five years under President Clinton, including as acting director.
She’s a distinguished law professor at Indiana University who specializes in the question of protecting against abuses of executive power.
She spearheaded an effort by legal experts who served in the Clinton administration to develop guidelines to ensure that the Office of Legal Counsel fulfills its proper role in the future.
In other words, she’s exactly what you would look for in a qualified nominee.
That’s why she is supported by Doug Kmiec, who was deputy director of that office under Bush Sr.; Walter Dellinger, who ran the office under Clinton; and Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff.
So why are Senate Republicans using a threatened filibuster to block a vote on the nomination they know they would lose?
Number one -- partisan politics. At this point, if President Obama said he favors the sun coming up in the morning, most Republican senators would object, saying it comes up too far to the left.
Number two -- the Republican’s extreme ideological agenda. They are attacking Johnsen because she spoke out against the misuse of the Justice Department to justify illegal torture by the Bush administration. Apparently, anyone against illegal acts by the President is unfit to serve.
They are also attacking her for supporting the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. That decision is supported by a large majority of Americans because for more than 35 years it has protected our right to privacy and kept the government out of our personal lives. If favoring Roe v. Wade disqualifies someone from serving our nation, there will need to be an awful lot of resignations from office, including President Obama himself, a majority of the Senate and House of Representatives, and a majority of the Supreme Court.
Then, there’s a third reason for the filibuster threat against Dawn Johnsen. I’m sure this will come as a surprise to you, but it seems that some Republican senators have an allergic reaction to women in positions of responsibility. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) ridiculed Johnsen, saying she does not have the “seriousness” for the job. Can you imagine Republican senators saying that about a man who formerly held the job to which he was being appointed and whose academic specialty as a law professor was the very subject he would be dealing with in that position?
The partisan obstructionists in the Senate are hoping that the public won’t bother to contact their senators about a nomination many Americans know little about. I hope they’re wrong.
You may have heard that Republicans in the U.S. Senate are blocking the nomination of Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department, and you may be wondering, “So what?”
This actually matters. A lot.
The person who heads that office tells the executive branch of government which actions it is considering are legal and constitutional and which infringe on such basic rights as freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and privacy.
This is the job that Jay Bybee held during the Bush administration when he wrote his infamous memo providing legal cover for illegal torture and wiretapping without warrants.
President Obama has nominated Dawn Johnsen to restore integrity to the office.
She served there for five years under President Clinton, including as acting director.
She’s a distinguished law professor at Indiana University who specializes in the question of protecting against abuses of executive power.
She spearheaded an effort by legal experts who served in the Clinton administration to develop guidelines to ensure that the Office of Legal Counsel fulfills its proper role in the future.
In other words, she’s exactly what you would look for in a qualified nominee.
That’s why she is supported by Doug Kmiec, who was deputy director of that office under Bush Sr.; Walter Dellinger, who ran the office under Clinton; and Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff.
So why are Senate Republicans using a threatened filibuster to block a vote on the nomination they know they would lose?
Number one -- partisan politics. At this point, if President Obama said he favors the sun coming up in the morning, most Republican senators would object, saying it comes up too far to the left.
Number two -- the Republican’s extreme ideological agenda. They are attacking Johnsen because she spoke out against the misuse of the Justice Department to justify illegal torture by the Bush administration. Apparently, anyone against illegal acts by the President is unfit to serve.
They are also attacking her for supporting the 1973 Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade. That decision is supported by a large majority of Americans because for more than 35 years it has protected our right to privacy and kept the government out of our personal lives. If favoring Roe v. Wade disqualifies someone from serving our nation, there will need to be an awful lot of resignations from office, including President Obama himself, a majority of the Senate and House of Representatives, and a majority of the Supreme Court.
Then, there’s a third reason for the filibuster threat against Dawn Johnsen. I’m sure this will come as a surprise to you, but it seems that some Republican senators have an allergic reaction to women in positions of responsibility. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) ridiculed Johnsen, saying she does not have the “seriousness” for the job. Can you imagine Republican senators saying that about a man who formerly held the job to which he was being appointed and whose academic specialty as a law professor was the very subject he would be dealing with in that position?
The partisan obstructionists in the Senate are hoping that the public won’t bother to contact their senators about a nomination many Americans know little about. I hope they’re wrong.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
@NanAron Tweeting Live from House Subcommittee Hearing
The House Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce is holding a hearing on "H.R. 1346, the Medical Device Safety Act of 2009." The hearing today at 2:00 p.m. features witnesses:
- David Vladeck, J.D., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
- William H. Maisel, M.D., M.P.H., Director, Medical Device Safety Institute, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston
- Gregory Curfman, M.D., Editor, New England Journal of Medicine
- Bridget Robb, Gwynedd, Pennsylvania
- Richard Cooper, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLP
- Michael Kinsley, Seattle, Washington
We will be giving live updates from the hearing via Twitter, so follow @NanAron for the latest news and information.
The Medical Device Safety Act, H.R. 1346, would overturn a 2008 Supreme Court decision that, for the first time, denied patients injured by certain medical devices the right to seek compensation through state product liability lawsuits.
Learn more about the Medical Device Safety Act and how you can help.
Monday, May 11, 2009
What Can We Expect Now That Sessions Leads Republicans on Judges
From Nan Aron on Huffington Post
With Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) switching to the Democratic Party, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has taken over as the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He will lead the charge on the Republican response to Obama's judicial and executive branch nominations.
Who is Senator Sessions?
He's has been an outspoken opponent of the Voting Rights Act (though he did vote to extend it in 2006), immigration reform, embryonic stem cell research, and a woman's right to choose.
He has sided with the most conservative members of his party on foreign affairs, taxes and social legislation.
Sessions was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama by President Reagan in 1981 and served for 12 years. He achieved notoriety for prosecuting African Americans for vote fraud in 1984. The prosecutions ended in acquittals.
In 1986, President Reagan nominated him to a seat on the federal district court. The Senate Judiciary Committee rejected his nomination and refused to report it to the full Senate. During the confirmation process, attorneys who had worked with Sessions testified that he had made comments that were racist and disparaging of civil rights groups. He praised Ku Klux Klan members, called the NAACP and ACLU "un-American" and "communist-inspired,' called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race," and called an African American employee "boy." Sessions admitted making many of the statements, but said he was just joking.
Sessions was elected to the Senate in 1996 and took a seat on the Committee that had rejected his judicial nomination.
He has also been vocally opposed to the use of filibusters and in 2003 stated on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer "But they [the Democrats] blocked an up-or-down vote by carrying out the filibuster rule, and I think that's a very, very grim thing. It should not occur."
Though it remains to be seen whether Sessions statements on filibusters were truly about procedure rather than ensuring that nominees who shared his partisan political agenda were confirmed, he told The Hill on May 5, 2009 that he disagrees with the "Schumer standard" - that he does not think judicial nominees should be evaluated based on their political views or ideology.
While Sessions' new role as ranking member on the Judiciary committee may mean that a filibuster is less likely, it certainly does not mean that it is off the table. We will have to wait and see how Sessions decides to act.
But let's keep in mind the real reason why Republicans in the Senate are trying to obstruct President Obama's nominations to the bench. President Obama has shown by his first appointments that he wants highly qualified judges who will uphold our Constitution and the law to provide equal justice and protect personal freedoms for everyone in America, not just a few.
The Supreme Court and Appeals Courts have been stacked in recent years with judges who rule based on their own political agenda that favors a few at the top instead of providing equal justice and protecting personal freedoms for all.
Republicans in the Senate enthusiastically supported that kind of judicial appointment. Now they are threatening to filibuster to prevent a majority vote on any nominee for judge who doesn't share that agenda. The American people can't let that happen. We can't continue to have judges who think there should be one set of rules for a few at the top and a different set for the rest of us.
With Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) switching to the Democratic Party, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has taken over as the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He will lead the charge on the Republican response to Obama's judicial and executive branch nominations.
Who is Senator Sessions?
He's has been an outspoken opponent of the Voting Rights Act (though he did vote to extend it in 2006), immigration reform, embryonic stem cell research, and a woman's right to choose.
He has sided with the most conservative members of his party on foreign affairs, taxes and social legislation.
Sessions was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama by President Reagan in 1981 and served for 12 years. He achieved notoriety for prosecuting African Americans for vote fraud in 1984. The prosecutions ended in acquittals.
In 1986, President Reagan nominated him to a seat on the federal district court. The Senate Judiciary Committee rejected his nomination and refused to report it to the full Senate. During the confirmation process, attorneys who had worked with Sessions testified that he had made comments that were racist and disparaging of civil rights groups. He praised Ku Klux Klan members, called the NAACP and ACLU "un-American" and "communist-inspired,' called a white civil rights lawyer a "disgrace to his race," and called an African American employee "boy." Sessions admitted making many of the statements, but said he was just joking.
Sessions was elected to the Senate in 1996 and took a seat on the Committee that had rejected his judicial nomination.
He has also been vocally opposed to the use of filibusters and in 2003 stated on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer "But they [the Democrats] blocked an up-or-down vote by carrying out the filibuster rule, and I think that's a very, very grim thing. It should not occur."
Though it remains to be seen whether Sessions statements on filibusters were truly about procedure rather than ensuring that nominees who shared his partisan political agenda were confirmed, he told The Hill on May 5, 2009 that he disagrees with the "Schumer standard" - that he does not think judicial nominees should be evaluated based on their political views or ideology.
While Sessions' new role as ranking member on the Judiciary committee may mean that a filibuster is less likely, it certainly does not mean that it is off the table. We will have to wait and see how Sessions decides to act.
But let's keep in mind the real reason why Republicans in the Senate are trying to obstruct President Obama's nominations to the bench. President Obama has shown by his first appointments that he wants highly qualified judges who will uphold our Constitution and the law to provide equal justice and protect personal freedoms for everyone in America, not just a few.
The Supreme Court and Appeals Courts have been stacked in recent years with judges who rule based on their own political agenda that favors a few at the top instead of providing equal justice and protecting personal freedoms for all.
Republicans in the Senate enthusiastically supported that kind of judicial appointment. Now they are threatening to filibuster to prevent a majority vote on any nominee for judge who doesn't share that agenda. The American people can't let that happen. We can't continue to have judges who think there should be one set of rules for a few at the top and a different set for the rest of us.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Should Torture Memo Author Be Accountable
Cross post from Nan Aron on Huffington Post.
One clear message from voters in the 2008 elections was that Americans want accountability from those at the top, whether it's the President of the United States, members of Congress, or corporate CEOs.
That's one reason it's so important to have an open debate about how to hold Jay Bybee accountable for authoring a memo that gave the Bush White House permission to illegally torture detainees.
As the Washington Post reported on April 25, Bybee flew to Washington early in the Bush administration to be interviewed by then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales for a possible opening on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Gonzales reportedly told him that while they waited for an expected retirement on that circuit, the White House would like Bybee to head up the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. That office is supposed to be the legal watchdog that gives impartial and professional analysis about whether executive orders or other actions by the administration are legal and constitutional.
In other words, Bybee knew that if he did the Bush administration's bidding he had a prestigious judgeship waiting for him. Asked to come up with some legal theory for why the administration could engage in illegal torture, Bybee complied, producing a memo that objective observers say would not be worthy of a first-year law student.
Sure enough, Bybee was then rewarded a few months later with that lifetime seat on the Ninth Circuit, with the enthusiastic support of members of the U.S. Senate.
So now come the questions that will be debated by a panel of scholars and legal experts on May 13 at the National Press Club.
Can a judge be impeached for conduct that occurred before he or she was named to the bench?
Are there consequences for the independence of the judiciary in pursuing impeachment for this conduct?
Can the public have confidence in a judge who was willing to torture the law, apparently for personal gain?
Was the memo written in good faith as Bybee's true legal analysis, or is there evidence that he knew at the time that his job was simply to reach a predetermined conclusion?
An investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility into the internal process that led to the Bybee torture memo is expected to be completed soon. It may shed important light on what really went on behind closed doors.
The best remedy will have to be determined once all the facts are in, but one principle is already clear. If high-ranking officials order or produce a memo authorizing illegal activity, they must be held accountable.
One clear message from voters in the 2008 elections was that Americans want accountability from those at the top, whether it's the President of the United States, members of Congress, or corporate CEOs.
That's one reason it's so important to have an open debate about how to hold Jay Bybee accountable for authoring a memo that gave the Bush White House permission to illegally torture detainees.
As the Washington Post reported on April 25, Bybee flew to Washington early in the Bush administration to be interviewed by then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales for a possible opening on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Gonzales reportedly told him that while they waited for an expected retirement on that circuit, the White House would like Bybee to head up the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. That office is supposed to be the legal watchdog that gives impartial and professional analysis about whether executive orders or other actions by the administration are legal and constitutional.
In other words, Bybee knew that if he did the Bush administration's bidding he had a prestigious judgeship waiting for him. Asked to come up with some legal theory for why the administration could engage in illegal torture, Bybee complied, producing a memo that objective observers say would not be worthy of a first-year law student.
Sure enough, Bybee was then rewarded a few months later with that lifetime seat on the Ninth Circuit, with the enthusiastic support of members of the U.S. Senate.
So now come the questions that will be debated by a panel of scholars and legal experts on May 13 at the National Press Club.
Can a judge be impeached for conduct that occurred before he or she was named to the bench?
Are there consequences for the independence of the judiciary in pursuing impeachment for this conduct?
Can the public have confidence in a judge who was willing to torture the law, apparently for personal gain?
Was the memo written in good faith as Bybee's true legal analysis, or is there evidence that he knew at the time that his job was simply to reach a predetermined conclusion?
An investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility into the internal process that led to the Bybee torture memo is expected to be completed soon. It may shed important light on what really went on behind closed doors.
The best remedy will have to be determined once all the facts are in, but one principle is already clear. If high-ranking officials order or produce a memo authorizing illegal activity, they must be held accountable.
Friday, May 1, 2009
President Should Add Strong Voice to Supreme Court
With Justice David Souter retiring, President Obama has an opportunity to add to the Supreme Court a strong voice for upholding the Constitution to ensure equal justice and basic freedoms for all.
This is particularly urgent after eight years during which federal judges were appointed who put their own political agenda ahead of the Constitution, applying one set of rules for those at the top and another for the rest of us.
Republicans in the Senate cannot be allowed to obstruct the best possible nomination. Most of them will oppose any nominee regardless; little would be accomplished by choosing someone who will not be a strong voice for equal justice for all.
Many Republican senators, already on the defensive because their policies appeal to a rapidly shrinking number of voters, have said publicly on many occasions that they oppose the use of filibusters to prevent majority votes on judicial nominations. Their hypocrisy should be made clear if they fail to abide by their own principle.
The choice our very popular president makes will help shape justice in America and renew our commitment to core constitutional values. He should make a nomination that will leave a legacy befitting his historic presidency.
This is particularly urgent after eight years during which federal judges were appointed who put their own political agenda ahead of the Constitution, applying one set of rules for those at the top and another for the rest of us.
Republicans in the Senate cannot be allowed to obstruct the best possible nomination. Most of them will oppose any nominee regardless; little would be accomplished by choosing someone who will not be a strong voice for equal justice for all.
Many Republican senators, already on the defensive because their policies appeal to a rapidly shrinking number of voters, have said publicly on many occasions that they oppose the use of filibusters to prevent majority votes on judicial nominations. Their hypocrisy should be made clear if they fail to abide by their own principle.
The choice our very popular president makes will help shape justice in America and renew our commitment to core constitutional values. He should make a nomination that will leave a legacy befitting his historic presidency.
The Retirement of Associate Justice David H. Souter
Well, it's been a busy day around here, but we wanted to give you a brief update on Justice Souter's retirement:
Associate Justice David Souter announced yesterday that he intends to retire as soon as his replacement can be sworn in. Justice Souter deserves the thanks of this nation for his commitment to public service and the rule of law. He has served the Court and the country well for nearly two decades dedicating his life to public service, the rule of law and to the Constitution.
Justice Souter’s retirement is a reminder of the legacy a president leaves with his appointments. Justice Souter remained on the bench long after the president who appointed him left office. President Obama now has the opportunity to nominate someone worthy of his own historic legacy. We have been busy here at Alliance for Justice researching, coordinating with progressive allies, and preparing for the fight ahead.
Associate Justice David Souter announced yesterday that he intends to retire as soon as his replacement can be sworn in. Justice Souter deserves the thanks of this nation for his commitment to public service and the rule of law. He has served the Court and the country well for nearly two decades dedicating his life to public service, the rule of law and to the Constitution.
Justice Souter’s retirement is a reminder of the legacy a president leaves with his appointments. Justice Souter remained on the bench long after the president who appointed him left office. President Obama now has the opportunity to nominate someone worthy of his own historic legacy. We have been busy here at Alliance for Justice researching, coordinating with progressive allies, and preparing for the fight ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)