tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34907763172632687062024-03-14T01:01:41.398-04:00Justice WatchAlliance for Justicehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10189535173876654505noreply@blogger.comBlogger1593125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-27622356266652183462015-03-31T16:12:00.000-04:002015-03-31T16:12:58.027-04:00Fact-checking American Express claims about forced arbitration<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<span class="article__date" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; float: left; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 0.875rem; position: relative; top: 5px;">March 31, 2015</span><br />
<section class="section-social" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin: 0px; text-align: right; width: auto;"><a class="social-link twitter" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Fact-checking+American+Express+claims+about+forced+arbitration:%20&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afj.org%2Fblog%2Ffact-checking-american-express-claims-about-forced-arbitration&via=AFJustice" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: url(http://www.afj.org/wp-content/themes/afj/library/images/social-sprite-mini.png?1425000770); background-origin: initial; background-position: -30px 0px; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; display: inline-block; height: 22px; margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 100%; white-space: nowrap; width: 22px;">Twitter</a> <a class="social-link facebook" href="http://www.afj.org/blog/fact-checking-american-express-claims-about-forced-arbitration#" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: url(http://www.afj.org/wp-content/themes/afj/library/images/social-sprite-mini.png?1425000770); background-origin: initial; background-position: initial; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; display: inline-block; height: 22px; margin: 0px 10px 0px 0px; overflow: hidden; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 100%; white-space: nowrap; width: 22px;">Facebook</a> <a class="google social-link" href="http://plus.google.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.afj.org%2Fblog%2Ffact-checking-american-express-claims-about-forced-arbitration" style="background-attachment: initial; background-clip: initial; background-image: url(http://www.afj.org/wp-content/themes/afj/library/images/social-sprite-mini.png?1425000770); background-origin: initial; background-position: -60px 0px; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-size: initial; box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; display: inline-block; height: 22px; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 100%; white-space: nowrap; width: 22px;" target="_blank">Goggle</a></section><section class="section-social" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin: 0px; text-align: left; width: auto;">A <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/arbitration-656044-arbitrator-lindemann.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">recent article</a> by <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Orange County Register</em> Watchdog Columnist Teri Sforza explains some of the harm done to consumers and employees from forced arbitration, drawing in part on AFJ’s short documentary <a href="http://www.lostinthefineprint.org/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Lost in the Fine Print</em></a>. The film details the story of Alan Carlson, the owner of Italian Colors restaurant in Oakland, California, who tried to challenge American Express’s high “swipe fees” in court. A forced arbitration clause buried in the fine print of American Express’s terms of service kept Alan from being able to vindicate his rights.</section><section class="page__content prose clearfix" itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px;"><div class="wp-caption alignright" id="attachment_8265" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: right; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px 0px 24px 24px; width: 310px;">
<a href="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/AlanCarlson.png" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="Alan Carlson" class="size-medium wp-image-8265" height="252" src="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/AlanCarlson-300x252.png" style="border: 0px; box-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 0px 0px 0px 5px, rgb(165, 181, 197) 0px 0px 0px 6px; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; font-style: italic; max-width: none; vertical-align: middle;" width="300" /></a><div class="wp-caption-text" style="border-color: rgb(227, 232, 237); border-style: solid; border-width: 0px 0px 1px; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.75rem; font-style: italic; padding: 9px 6px 6px;">
Alan Carlson</div>
</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; padding: 0px;">
Marina Hoffmann Norville, a vice president at American Express, told the paper her company recently made changes to its forced arbitration policy to keep customers satisfied.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
But how significant are the changes for consumers?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
For the past decade, companies have been free to make claims about their arbitration policies with little factual support or scrutiny. There was no way to know what the typical arbitration process looked like, if customers were able to take advantage of seemingly consumer-friendly clauses, and whether consumers were actually winning cases in arbitration. But all that changed earlier this month, when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau released its comprehensive, in-depth <a href="http://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/afj-urges-cfpb-to-prohibit-forced-arbitration-in-consumer-financial-products" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">study</a> of forced arbitration. Now, consumers are able to fact-check company claims.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
So we decided to fact-check American Express. Is its arbitration clause as consumer-friendly as the company implies?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
The answer is a resounding no.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
American Express touts its new opt-out policy, which gives customers 45 days from when they first use a new card to opt out of the agreement’s arbitration provision. While “agreeing” to forced arbitration is as easy as swiping your Amex card, opting out is a bit more onerous. To even find the provision, customers have to get to one of the last pages of the <a href="https://web.aexp-static.com/us/content/pdf/cardmember-agreements/blue-cash/BlueCashAECB.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">cardmember agreement</a>—just past the “governing law” and “assigning the agreement” sections. Customers then have to print, sign, and snail mail a <a href="https://web.aexp-static.com/us/content/pdf/GCO/gco_reject.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">rejection notice</a> to a P.O. box in El Paso.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
It’s unsurprising that consumers rarely take advantage of these opt-out provisions. According to the CFPB’s study, though over a quarter of credit card contracts include a similar provision, not a single consumer of the 570 interviewed had opted out. Only three consumers reported being given an opportunity to do so—but those three were mistaken. None of them actually had a contract which would have allowed them to opt out.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
We did find one place where American Express is an industry leader: conducting forced arbitration in secret.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/lost_fine_print_675x390-e1412106134817.jpg" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="lost_fine_print_675x390" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-6192" height="213" src="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/lost_fine_print_675x390-e1412106134817-300x213.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 0px 0px 0px 5px, rgb(165, 181, 197) 0px 0px 0px 6px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; float: left; font-style: italic; margin: 0px 24px 24px 0px; max-width: none; vertical-align: middle;" width="300" /></a> Only two credit card issuers of the 66 examined by the CFPB expressly includes a confidentiality or non-disclosure clause in its forced arbitration provision. American Express, which mandates that “[t]he arbitration will be confidential,” is presumably one of them. These clauses prevent wrongdoing from being exposed and remedied on a large scale. Consumer laws, which protect us all from fraud and discrimination, vindicate critically important societal goals. They should be enforced in the full sunlight of the courtroom—not in a private tribunal that American Express closes off to the public.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
The rest of Amex’s arbitration clause is similarly unfriendly to consumers. The company provides a carve-out from forced arbitration for small claims court, as do 99 percent of credit card contracts. But like the opt-out clauses, these provisions rarely help consumers; they are more likely to be used by companies trying to collect debt. In 2012, looking at selected states and large cities, the CFPB was only able to identify—at most—39 small claims cases brought against American Express by a consumer.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Like 40.9 percent of credit card forced arbitration clauses, American Express’s includes a right to appeal an arbitrator’s decision—but only to three more arbitrators. The company is also unusual in that it “will consider in good faith making a temporary advance of your share of any arbitration fees.” Over 40 percent of credit card contracts require the issuer to do so.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
If American Express truly wants a consumer-friendly arbitration policy, it should give its customers the right to choose whether or not they arbitrate—not in the form of an arcane opt-out policy, but after a dispute arises. If arbitration is as fair, quick, and affordable as proponents claim, it’s hard to imagine why customers would turn it down.</div>
<ul style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 16px; list-style-type: none; margin: 12px 0px 1.5rem 3rem; padding: 0px;">
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style-type: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6539/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=19717" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tell the CFPB to prohibit forced arbitration in consumer financial products</a></strong></li>
<li style="box-sizing: border-box; list-style-type: none; margin: 12px 0px 0px; padding: 0px; position: relative;"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6539/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=19676" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Tell the music streaming service Spotify to stop using forced arbitration</a></strong></li>
</ul>
</section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-43243833963686949492015-03-26T11:23:00.000-04:002015-03-26T11:23:49.981-04:00<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<br />
<h1 class="title" style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #111111; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 32px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 36px; margin: 0px 0px 10px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 26px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">
How Spotify Lets Your Rights Get Lost in the Fine Print - and What You Can Do About It</h1>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">
March 26, 2015<br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>
<b>Nan Aron | President, Alliance for Justice</b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; direction: ltr; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: 21px; margin-bottom: 15px; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility; vertical-align: baseline;">
The moment you sign up for the music streaming service Spotify, you lose some very important rights - and Spotify wants to bury what you're losing in the fine print.</div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;">Spotify specifies that when listeners click "sign up," they agree to its terms and conditions - found on a separate page of the Spotify website. Buried in the fine print of those "terms and conditions of use" is a forced arbitration clause. As the ad says, that means if you have a dispute with Spotify, you have to take your case to a decision-maker at a firm they choose - not a judge or jury. In addition, if Spotify violates the rights of thousands, even millions of its listeners, they can't band together to seek justice.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, Century, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 21px;">Interested in learning more, see the full text of Nan's piece at the <i><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nan-aron/how-spotify-lets-your-rig_b_6947372.html" target="_blank">Huffington Post</a></i>.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-26688821521794581112015-02-24T16:57:00.003-05:002015-02-24T16:59:40.063-05:00GUEST BLOG: The Supreme Court should protect Muslim worker from job discrimination for wearing a headscarf<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<h2 style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: Rokkitt, serif; font-weight: 200; line-height: 1; margin: 36px 0px 0.75rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">
<span class="article__date" style="box-sizing: border-box; float: left; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 0.875rem; position: relative; top: 5px;">February 24, 2015</span><div style="font-size: 2rem;">
<span style="font-size: 2rem; line-height: 1;"><br /></span></div>
</h2>
<h4>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 1;">The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments tomorrow in </span><i style="box-sizing: border-box; line-height: 1;">Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.,</i><span style="line-height: 1;"> </span><span style="line-height: 1;">a case testing the rights of job applicants who need a religious accommodation from their would-be employer.</span></span></h4>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
The plaintiff is a 17-year-old Muslim woman, Samantha Elauf, whose job offer to work at an Abercrombie & Fitch store in a mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma was revoked when managers discovered that she intended to wear a religious headscarf while at work. Doing so, they said, would violate the corporate “look policy” for employees.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
A federal district court ruled in Samantha’s favor, finding that she had been subject to illegal discrimination because of her religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal statute that bars employment discrimination. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed this ruling. It found that, even though she had worn her <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">hijab</em>to the job interview, she had not explicitly told Abercrombie that she wore a headscarf for religious reasons and expressly requested an accommodation under Title VII. The Tenth Circuit’s ruling on this issue differed from other federal appeals courts, which have found that the notice element of a plaintiff’s <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">prima facie </em>claim is met if the employer has actual knowledge of a job applicant’s religious practice even if an express request for an accommodation is not made.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
The particular issue raised on appeal in the Supreme Court is <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">not</em> the underlying substantive one of whether Samantha has the right to an exception from Abercrombie’s dress policy for religious reasons under Title VII, though her case is a strong one. Employers are required to “reasonably” accommodate an employee’s religious practices, meaning that they must do so when it does not impose an “undue burden” on them. The expense associated with allowing an employee to wear a headscarf (i.e. the harm created by a slight deviation from its dress code) is minimal, and her practice would not impose on burden on her co-workers.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
In this case, however, the Supreme Court is considering the narrower issue of whether “explicit notice” should be required. Samantha did not expressly request an accommodation in part because she had no idea she would need one. After all, it is employers, not job applicants, who know what corporate policies the employer has established governing employees. How was she to know that she would need an exception to a rule that she didn’t know even existed?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
For that matter, how can Abercrombie plead ignorance of Samantha’s need for an accommodation that was as plain as the scarf on her head?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
As the Supreme Court hears arguments, the justices should focus on the difficult situation that job applicants would be placed in if it adopts the Tenth Circuit’s explicit notice rule. In a job interview, a moment when the employer has the upper hand, an applicant should not be forced to raise the issue of a need for special treatment. Employers would be tempted simply to hire someone without any such needs, leading to increased illegal discrimination against religious minorities.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
The Supreme Court should not permit an employer to discriminate against a job applicant on the basis of her religion without legal consequence just because the applicant does not expressly state her need for a religious accommodation and is unaware of employer policies that would require it. When an employer actually knows someone will need an accommodation, the applicant should not be punished for failing to say the right magic words.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">William Burgess is the Senior Staff Attorney at the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which </em><a href="http://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/12768-cair-files-supreme-court-brief-on-abercrombie-fitch-hijab-case.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">filed an amicus brief</em></a><em style="box-sizing: border-box;"> with the Supreme Court in this case in support of the EEOC. CAIR’s Oklahoma chapter assisted the plaintiff in this case in preparing her complaint to the EEOC. </em></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">CAIR is the largest American Muslim civil rights organization in the country, dedicated to protecting the civil rights and liberties of all Americans and fostering a greater understanding of Islam in the U.S.</em></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-55382919276991119052015-02-12T16:12:00.000-05:002015-02-13T16:15:34.519-05:00Benched! The more things change…<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<span class="article__date" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; float: left; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; position: relative; top: 5px;"><b>February 12, 2015 |<span style="font-size: 0.875rem;"> </span></b></span><br />
<section class="page__content prose clearfix" itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px;"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 1.5rem; margin-bottom: 36px; padding: 0px;">
In an interview with Iowa Public Radio, shortly after being named chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said, “I have no reason to believe that the future is any different” for the committee.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
He was righ<img alt="Benched!" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-7626" height="168" src="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Benched-300x168.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 0px 0px 0px 5px, rgb(165, 181, 197) 0px 0px 0px 6px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; float: left; font-style: italic; margin: 0px 24px 24px 0px; max-width: none; vertical-align: middle;" width="300" />t. Even with Senator Grassley as chair, Republican obstructionism continues in the Senate Judiciary Committee.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
In a <a href="http://www.afj.org/blog/benched-busy-and-accommodating" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">previous edition</a> of Benched!, we explained how, when Democrats controlled the Senate, Republicans would routinely and needlessly “hold over” judicial and executive nominees rather than allowing the committee to vote at the first opportunity. This procedural tactic, normally reserved as a courtesy to senators who need more time to examine a candidate’s record, allowed Republicans to take an extra week before sending nominees to the Senate floor.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
But now it’s the Republicans, not Democrats, who are setting the committee schedule. And while it might be reasonable in some cases for the minority party to need more time on a nominee, it is plainly a pretext for the majority party to claim it needs more time than it has given itself. Paul Gordon at People for the American Way <a href="http://blog.pfaw.org/content/thursday-test-day-senate-judiciary-republicans" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">explained this yesterday</a>, writing that today we would find out “whether Republicans will continue one of the indefensible forms of obstruction that they engaged in for six years while in the minority.”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
This morning, we got our answer. Without explanation, Senator Grassley held over the nominations of four federal judges and Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
All four of the judicial nominees are uncontroversial. They would fill district court seats in Utah and Texas, and have the support of their home-state Republican senators on the committee. Lynch has the support of many Republicans on the committee, including Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/loretta-lynch-attorney-general-delayed-confirmation-115138.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">told</a> reporters “I’m ready to vote.”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
For no apparent reason, Texans will now have to wait an extra week until two vacancies deemed “judicial emergencies” by the U.S. Courts—seats that have been empty for over 700 days each—will be filled. The country will have to wait an extra week for a new attorney general, whose confirmation has already taken the longest of any attorney general nominee in the past 30 years.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Republican obstructionism stays the same.</div>
</section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-12813111336833704122015-01-23T17:21:00.000-05:002015-01-26T17:22:39.617-05:00<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<h1 class="page__title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: Rokkitt, serif; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0.46154rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">
<span style="font-size: x-large;">Abe Lincoln in a skirt; Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a beard</span></h1>
<div>
Michelle D. Schwartz</div>
<div>
Director of Justice Programs</div>
<div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 28.7999992370605px;"><i>As I read Mike Sacks’s piece in the National Law Journal yesterday on Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch, I was struck with a bout of déjà vu.</i></span></div>
<div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
It hit me <a href="http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202715702330/Where-Are-the-Letters-For-and-Against-Loretta-Lynch?cmp=share_twitter" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">when I saw this gem</a> from Gun Owners of America president Larry Pratt:</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">“She’s kind of like Eric Holder in a skirt.”</em></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Where have I heard that before?</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Ah, yes. In November 2013, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/364652/making-case-against-dc-circuit-nominee-cornelia-pillard-ed-whelan" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">Ed Whelan</a> of National Review Online had this to say about then-D.C. Circuit nominee (now D.C. Circuit Judge, thanks to Senate rules reform) Nina Pillard:</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">“[F]olks who know Pillard well have described her to me as ‘[Ninth Circuit Judge Stephen] Reinhardt in a skirt but </em>less<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"> moderate.’”</em></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
It’s a safe bet that neither Pratt nor Whelan meant these comparisons as compliments. Pratt’s group calls Holder “<a href="http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/hpsc16_letter.pdf" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">a committed anti-gun radical</a>” and Whelan calls Reinhardt an “arch-activist.” Nor can I recall a time when I’ve seen the “in a skirt” construction used with a name the speaker revered. “That talented female debater is like Abe Lincoln in a skirt,” said nobody ever.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
But even if you do like Eric Holder and Stephen Reinhardt (and I do), these statements are insulting, not only to Lynch and Pillard, but to all women. They demean women by implying that they do not have thoughts, ideas, or accomplishments of their own, but are merely dressed up versions of men. They focus on women’s appearance and dress rather than their experiences and intellect. In short, they seek to put women in their place.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
For those who think I’m being overly sensitive, I challenge you to come up with a single example where a man has similarly been compared to a woman (“Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a beard”?). Until then, please stop skirting the issues and start judging women on their own merits.</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-57069311946946145652015-01-13T13:34:00.000-05:002015-01-14T13:42:37.667-05:00<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Benched! Keeping Credit </span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-size: x-large;">Where Credit is Due</span></b><br />
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
January 13, 2015</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="line-height: 36px;"><i>A little over a week into the new Congress, and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has already begun laying the groundwork to limit the number of President Obama’s judicial nominees the Senate will confirm.</i></span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/grassley2.png" style="box-sizing: border-box; clear: left; color: #cc002c; float: left; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="Sen. Charles Grassley has his own version of "new math."" class="size-full wp-image-6879" src="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/grassley2.png" height="141" style="border: 0px; box-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 0px 0px 0px 5px, rgb(165, 181, 197) 0px 0px 0px 6px; box-sizing: border-box; display: inline-block; font-style: italic; max-width: none; vertical-align: middle;" width="139" /></a>As we detailed <a href="http://www.afj.org/blog/2014-was-a-banner-year-for-judicial-confirmations-now-lets-get-back-to-work" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">earlier this week</a>, presidents have historically continued filling judicial vacancies even with an opposition Senate in their final two years of office. On average, 20 percent of a president’s total judicial confirmations—which would be 76 judges for President Obama—are confirmed in the final two years of office.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
The Senate has not yet confirmed any nominees this year. Nonetheless, in a recent <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/13/us-usa-politics-judges-idUSKBN0KM02Q20150113" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">article</a>, a Grassley spokeswoman said that the Senator has already started tallying his confirmations for the 114<span style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 12px; line-height: 0; position: relative; top: -0.5em; vertical-align: baseline;">th</span> Congress, presumably to limit the number of additional nominees the Senate will confirm.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Under Grassley’s version of new math, the current Senate has already confirmed 11 judges. Grassley counts these judges even though they were reported out of committee and confirmed not in the current Senate, the one in which Republicans are in the majority, but by the <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">last</em> Senate during its “lame duck” session.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Of course, these confirmations were not the accomplishments of Senator Grassley or Senate Republicans. In fact, Senator Grassley <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/republicans-judicial-nominees_n_6172552.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">delayed</a> the confirmations for which he now seeks credit and <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2014-12-13/html/CREC-2014-12-13-pt1-PgS6806-2.htm" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">opposed</a> confirming any nominees reported out of committee during the lame duck session. Senate Republicans even <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/18/republicans-judicial-nominees_n_6172552.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">blocked</a> their own states’ nominees and forced Democratic leadership to file cloture motions on uncontroversial judges, all while many argued that confirmations should be shut down entirely during the lame duck.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Manipulating confirmation numbers and claiming credit where it isn’t due does nothing to fill the 44 current judicial vacancies and many more (25 already announced) that will open in 2015. It does nothing for people living in Pennsylvania and Texas, where numerous, longstanding vacancies and rising caseloads have left individuals waiting in line for justice.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Iowa’s largest newspaper has <a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/2014/11/15/editorial-nation-needs-chuck-grassleys-leadership/19093843/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">called</a> on Senator Grassley to end obstructionist policies and confirm qualified judges to the bench, and Grassley himself has <a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2015/01/07/grassley-checklist-priorities-judiciary-committee/21394233/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">promised</a> to hold hearings soon on pending nominees. We hope he chooses to do so.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-83642600610107076562014-12-09T16:00:00.000-05:002014-12-10T15:06:13.709-05:00Call your senators and tell them: Do your job before leaving Washington!<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: large;">The Senate is getting ready to leave on a three-week vacation. But dozens of nominees to judicial and executive branch posts are still waiting to start the jobs for which they’ve been nominated.</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">It’s not right for senators to leave Washington for the year before their job is done.</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"><a href="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/capitolbeautyshotNOFONT.jpg" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;"><img alt="capitolbeautyshotNOFONT" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-6956" height="189" src="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/capitolbeautyshotNOFONT-300x189.jpg" style="border: 0px; box-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 0px 0px 0px 5px, rgb(165, 181, 197) 0px 0px 0px 6px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; float: right; font-style: italic; margin: 0px 0px 24px 24px; max-width: none; vertical-align: middle;" width="300" /></a></strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
With your help, we’ve been keeping the pressure on the Senate to do its job and confirm nominees. Since the November election, the Senate has confirmed 15 judges. But there still are at least a dozen more who can and should be confirmed this year. And many executive branch nominees have been waiting months and even years for yes-or-no votes.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
As AFJ President Nan Aron said: “When judgeships sit vacant, all Americans suffer. Judicial vacancies mean small businesses struggle with uncertainty, injured individuals drown under the weight of medical bills, and victims of discrimination must wait for justice.”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">Please take a moment to call the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121. Ask for your senators’ offices and tell them why it is so important to confirm these nominees.</strong></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;"> </strong><a href="http://www.afj.org/blog/four-reasons-why-we-need-judicial-confirmations-in-the-lame-duck-and-the-republican-takeover-isnt-one-of-them" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;"><strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">Find out more about why we need to confirm judges now</strong></a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-64080340813087061872014-12-09T15:01:00.000-05:002014-12-10T15:05:00.317-05:00Nan Aron: It’s time to stop tinkering with the machinery of death<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<i><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 36px;">Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron was among the speakers today at the launch of </span><a href="http://www.90millionstrong.org/campaignlaunch/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 36px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">90 Million Strong</a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 36px;">,</span><span style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 36px;"> a new campaign to abolish the death penalty. She spoke at a news conference at the National Press Club. These are her prepared remarks:</span></i><br />
<em style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 36px;"><br /></em>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/NAN-OFFICIAL-300x200.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/NAN-OFFICIAL-300x200.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; padding: 0px;">
My name is Nan Aron. I am President of Alliance for Justice. On behalf of the more than 100 groups that make up the Alliance, I would like to thank the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty for organizing this campaign and this event and for inviting us to participate.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
AFJ works to promote a fair and independent judiciary. There can be no clearer reminder of the importance of who sits on our courts than that these jurists are called upon to make life and death decisions. For decades the Supreme Court has tried to reconcile state-sanctioned killing with the Constitution of the United States. That cannot be done.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Justice William Brennan wrote that</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">“moral concepts” require us to hold that the law has progressed to the point where we should declare that the punishment of death, like punishments on the rack, the screw, and the wheel, is no longer morally tolerable in our civilized society. </em></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Justice Thurgood Marshall, who believed most Americans were uninformed about the death penalty, wrote that</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Assuming knowledge of all the facts presently available regarding capital punishment, the average citizen would, in my opinion, find it shocking to his conscience and sense of justice.</em></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
But today, instead of a Brennan or a Marshall, the life of an accused might be in the hands of a judge like Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Judge Jones has said that capital defendants’ claims of racism, arbitrariness and even claims of innocence are nothing more than – her words – red herrings.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
She also has declared that,</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">a killer is only likely to make peace with God and the victim’s family in that moment when the killer faces imminent execution, recognizing that he or she is about to face imminent judgment. </em></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
I don’t know how one makes peace with upholding the execution of someone who may be innocent. And I don’t know how one makes peace with using the mechanism of the state to punish people by taking their lives.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Justice Harry Blackmun struggled with the death penalty. At first, he thought there might be some way to reconcile it with the Constitution. But in 1994, he wrote:</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
“I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. …”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Declared Blackmun: “From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death.”</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Alliance for Justice agrees: It is time to stop tinkering with the machinery of death.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
We look forward to the day when we have a Supreme Court that will rule, once and for all, that the death penalty is unconstitutional.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
We look forward to being a part of the 90 Million Strong campaign, and mobilizing our more than 100 members to act on this vital issue.</div>
<em style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 36px;"></em><br />
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Thank you.</div>
<section class="page__content prose clearfix" itemprop="articleBody" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px;"><div style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;"><a href="http://www.90millionstrong.org/campaignlaunch/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">Find out more at the 90 Million Strong campaign website.</a></strong></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</section>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-669085439521249272014-12-08T16:07:00.003-05:002014-12-08T16:09:27.379-05:00Retailer tries to hold customer’s money hostage to forced arbitration<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">By Trevor Boeckmann</strong><br />
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">AFJ Dorot Fellow</strong><br />
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">As we detail in our short documentary </span><a href="http://www.afj.org/multimedia/first-monday-films/films/lost-in-the-fine-print" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-decoration: none;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Lost in the Fine Print</em></a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">, forced arbitration clauses have become omnipresent in American society. They’re used by companies to prevent consumers from having the chance to stand up for their rights in court when they’re harmed. Yet most of these clauses are buried deep in the fine print of contracts and terms of service.</span><br />
<div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Now Walmart, <a href="http://www.afj.org/multimedia/videos/content/unequal-justice-wal-mart-v-dukes" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">already a corporate bad actor in so many ways</a>, has taken this strategy to a whole new level. They found a way to hold a customer’s money hostage until she agreed to forced arbitration.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<a href="http://abc13.com/shopping/fine-print-on-walmart-deal-stymies-refund-process/420949/" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">KTRK-TV in Houston reports</a> tha<img alt="Walmart_Store_Sign" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-6927" src="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Walmart_Store_Sign-300x194.jpg" height="194" style="border: 0px; box-shadow: rgb(255, 255, 255) 0px 0px 0px 5px, rgb(165, 181, 197) 0px 0px 0px 6px; box-sizing: border-box; display: block; float: left; font-style: italic; margin: 0px 24px 24px 0px; max-width: none; vertical-align: middle;" width="300" />t on Black Friday, local shopper Maria Selva tried to buy a new TV at the big-box retailer. Walmart had sold out of the TV by the time Selva came to purchase it, but employees gave her a coupon, and had her pay in full.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
She thought she could just pick up the TV at a later date. But after she’d already paid, she was given a notice telling her she had to register online. When she went online, she found that registering the coupon meant agreeing to forced arbitration. She refused to accept the terms, and contacted Walmart to ask for a refund.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Walmart said no.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Instead, the company told her she would have to agree to forced arbitration, receive the TV, and return the TV. Only then could she receive a refund.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
It wasn’t until KTRK contacted the company that Walmart finally relented and issued a refund.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
The consequences of forced arbitration can be great. In <em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Lost in the Fine Print</em> we document the stories of <a href="http://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/afj-documentary-exposes-how-our-rights-get-lost-in-the-fine-print-and-how-to-fight-back" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">Nicole Mitchell and Debbie Brenner</a>, victims of discrimination and fraud who were never allowed to defend their rights in court.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Walmart isn’t the only company that has tried to find creative ways to impose forced arbitration.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
Take General Mills, for example. Last spring, <a href="http://www.afj.org/blog/unlucky-charms-general-mills-updates-its-privacy-policy-to-include-forced-arbitration" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">we told you</a> about their new arbitration policy, which purported to force consumers into arbitration if they entered a company contest, printed a General Mills coupon, or even “liked” Cheerios on Facebook.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
But public pressure forced General Mills to back down. Now we’re putting the pressure on other companies. <a href="http://www.afj.org/multimedia/first-monday-films/films/lost-in-the-fine-print" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; text-decoration: none;">Join our campaign</a> to end forced arbitration and protect everyday Americans.</div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box;">Watch one consumer’s battle against Walmart and forced arbitration</strong></div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="http://abc13.com/video/embed/?pid=420949" width="476"></iframe>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-74665866810947051442014-11-14T13:39:00.000-05:002014-12-08T13:49:35.844-05:00Scalia on retirees losing their health insurance: “I can’t feel bad about it.”<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<br />
<h4>
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 36px;">By Trevor Boeckmann</strong></h4>
<h4>
<strong style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; line-height: 36px;">AFJ Dorot Fellow</strong></h4>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;">It’s no surprise to see the majority on the United States Supreme Court siding against consumers, employees, and everyday </span><span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;">Americans. In the past, we’ve told you about the Court upholding </span><a href="http://www.afj.org/multimedia/first-monday-films/films/lost-in-the-fine-print" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none;">forced arbitration</a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;"> clauses that keep those harmed by big businesses out of court, </span><a href="http://www.afj.org/multimedia/first-monday-films/unequal-justice" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none;">preventing women</a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;"> from banding together to stop employment discrimination, and allowing employers to </span><a href="http://www.afj.org/our-work/issues/supreme-court/the-affordable-care-act" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none;">impose their religious views</a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;"> on employees.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;">At some point, one would think the majority would start to feel bad about how their actions affect us. Apparently not.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;">This week, the Court heard oral arguments in a case involving health insurance for retirees.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Scalia-Quote_edited-4-1024x682.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Scalia-Quote_edited-4-1024x682.jpg" height="213" width="320" /></a></div>
<em style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;">M&G Polymers USA, LLC v. Tackett</em><span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;"> involves a chemical company in West Virginia that had a series of collective bargaining agreements with its employees’ union. At issue was a clause in the agreement that said retired employees “will receive a full company contribution towards the cost of [health] benefits.” The union argued the benefits were guaranteed for life. The company argued it could take away these benefits whenever it chose—which it did in 2007.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;">As Professors Susan Cancelosi and Charlotte Garden </span><a href="http://www.afj.org/blog/guest-blog-u-s-supreme-court-should-uphold-promises-made-to-retirees" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start; text-decoration: none;">wrote in a previous post</a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;">: “The equitable case for retirees is compelling: they devoted their working lives to their employer with the expectation that they would then have health insurance to see them through their retirement.” Compelling, unless you’re Justice Antonin Scalia.</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-align: start;">During oral argument, Justice Scalia mused:</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"> You know, the nice thing about a contract case of this sort is you can’t feel bad about it. Whoever loses deserves to lose. I mean, this thing [the duration of the health benefits] is obviously an important feature. Both sides knew it was left unaddressed, so, you know, whoever loses deserves to lose for casting this upon us when it could have been said very clearly in the contract. Such an important feature. So I hope we’ll get it right, but, you know, I can’t feel bad about it.</em></div>
<div>
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"></em><br />
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"> Justice Stephen Breyer was quick to disagree:</em></div>
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</em>
<br />
<div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 30px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Well, you know, the workers who discover they’ve been retired for five years and don’t have any health benefits might feel a little bad about it.</em></em></div>
</div>
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</em>
<br />
<div>
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;"></em><br /></em>
<br />
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">Listen to the comments of Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer:</em></em></div>
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</em>
</em><br />
<div>
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><br /></em></em></div>
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;"><em style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</em></em></div>
<em style="box-sizing: border-box;">
</em></div>
<iframe frameborder="no" height="166" scrolling="no" src="https://w.soundcloud.com/player/?url=https%3A//api.soundcloud.com/tracks/176925643&color=ff5500" width="100%"></iframe>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;">This is nothing new for Justice Scalia. Last year, he </span><a href="http://www.afj.org/blog/scalias-latest-unethical-or-merely-appalling" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-decoration: none;">compared</a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"> the LGBT community to “child abusers” and </span><a href="http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2013/02/shelby-county-v-holder-or-more-things.html" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #cc002c; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; text-decoration: none;">referred</a><span style="color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"> to the Voting Rights Acts as a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.”</span></div>
<div style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: 'Open Sans', sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px; margin-top: 24px; padding: 0px;">
And if the majority sides with the chemical company, that won’t be anything new either.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-50502103361987911462014-07-09T13:36:00.003-04:002014-07-09T13:38:04.100-04:00Nan Aron in The Huffington Post: Supreme Court to women: Father knows best<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<br />
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<strong><em>From AFJ President Nan Aron's latest column in The Huffington Post:</em></strong></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<strong><em><br /></em></strong></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
This is a very bad time for American women in the Supreme Court.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Three big cases were decided right at the end of its term that will profoundly affect women’s lives, subject them to conditions that are never applied to men, and damage their ability to control their own lives and health.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
In <i>McCullen v. Coakley</i>, the Court in a <a data-mce-href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/scotus_end_of_term_massachusetts_abortion_clinic_buffer_zone_law_goes_down.html" href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2014/scotus_roundup/scotus_end_of_term_massachusetts_abortion_clinic_buffer_zone_law_goes_down.html">“faux-nanimous”</a> decision in which the four moderate-liberals clearly played defense, found that a 35-foot buffer zone around the entrance to abortion clinics in Massachusetts was a violation of the First Amendment. The Commonwealth had established the zones in reaction to the brutal murder of two people at a Boston clinic in 1994 and the endless harassment of women and their families attempting to enter reproductive health clinics.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the Court, swept aside reality, superimposed his own view of what happens outside clinics, and somehow found that so-called “sidewalk counselors” need to be protected more than the people who work at or make use of the clinics.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<a data-mce-href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nan-aron/supreme-court-to-women-fa_b_5571163.html" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nan-aron/supreme-court-to-women-fa_b_5571163.html" target="_blank"><strong>Read the full column here</strong></a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-27917238195211669122014-06-19T10:50:00.000-04:002014-06-19T11:18:12.745-04:00Don't let Microsoft clip our rights<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<br />
<h2 style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; line-height: 19px;">
<b>The computer giant is trying to force us into forced arbitration</b></h2>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<a data-mce-href="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Clippy-Shareable.jpg" href="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Clippy-Shareable.jpg"><img alt="Clippy Shareable" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-5351" data-mce-src="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Clippy-Shareable.jpg" src="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Clippy-Shareable.jpg" height="266" style="border: 0px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Microsoft, the company that gave us Vista, Ctrl-Alt-Delete and Clippy, has something in store for us that’s even worse. The company has been phasing in forced arbitration clauses in its “<a data-mce-href="http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/microsoft-services-agreement" href="http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/microsoft-services-agreement" target="_blank">services agreement</a>.”</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
That means if you are harmed by a Microsoft product or service, you can’t stand up for your rights in court. Instead, you have to take your case to an arbitrator hired by Microsoft. Arbitrators do not need to be lawyers or follow precedent, yet their word is nearly always final and unappealable. One study found that such arbitrators rule for the businesses that hire them 94 percent of the time.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Microsoft also won’t let you band together with others the company has wronged and bring a class-action suit – often the only way to stop a corporation from cheating millions of consumers. The latest version of the services agreement makes this ban even more strict.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
One can see why Microsoft might be fond of forced arbitration. <a data-mce-href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2008/06/24/full-text-an-epic-bill-gates-e-mail-rant/" href="http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2008/06/24/full-text-an-epic-bill-gates-e-mail-rant/">In a 2003 e-mail</a>, company founder Bill Gates used the following terms to describe what it was like to use one of his own products:</div>
<blockquote style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<i>disappointed, backwards, unusable, totally confusing, strange, pathetic, completely odd, weird, scary, crazy, slow, garbage, not usable, crapped up, crap, absolute mess, craziness, terrible</i>.</blockquote>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Microsoft joins a lengthening list of big businesses that are taking away our rights when we’re harmed by their products and services. Public outrage <a data-mce-href="http://www.afj.org/blog/unlucky-charms-general-mills-updates-its-privacy-policy-to-include-forced-arbitration" href="http://www.afj.org/blog/unlucky-charms-general-mills-updates-its-privacy-policy-to-include-forced-arbitration" target="_blank">forced General Mills to back down</a>. But odds are you’ve clicked through at least one contract with a forced arbitration clause in the fine print. They are showing up everywhere, from credit card contracts to the Instagram terms of use. And in the case of Microsoft, using one of the affected products means you’ve consented to surrendering your rights.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Perhaps the best indicator of just how bad a deal forced arbitration is for consumers is the sneaky way big businesses force it on us.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Take Microsoft’s latest email announcing the changes. “Our users' needs are at the center of everything we do,” says the happy little email. “That's why we are updating the Microsoft Services Agreement.” But there’s no mention of forced arbitration in the email itself. And there’s <a data-mce-href="http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/microsoft-services-agreement-faq" href="http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/microsoft-services-agreement-faq" target="_blank">no mention of it in the FAQ</a> that supposedly offers the “highlights.”</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
No, you have to click on the <a data-mce-href="http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/microsoft-services-agreement" href="http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/microsoft-services-agreement" target="_blank">link to the fine print</a> and scroll down to Section 10 before you find out what Microsoft is taking away. If forced arbitration is so great, why does it have to be forced? Why not offer it on a voluntary basis? And why aren’t companies bragging about it instead of tucking it away in those long, long “agreements” that few of us have the time to read?</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
There is a solution. The <a data-mce-href="http://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/arbitration-fairness-act-would-reopen-the-courthouse-doors-to-millions-of-americans" href="http://www.afj.org/press-room/press-releases/arbitration-fairness-act-would-reopen-the-courthouse-doors-to-millions-of-americans" target="_blank">Arbitration Fairness Act</a> would put an end to these outrages. If you don’t want your rights “clipped” by the company that gave us Clippy – or by all the other corporations on the forced arbitration bandwagon – <a data-mce-href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6539/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=17271" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6539/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=17271" target="_blank">tell your Members of Congress to pass the Arbitration Fairness Act</a>.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<a data-mce-href="http://www.afj.org/our-work/issues/eliminating-forced-arbitration" href="http://www.afj.org/our-work/issues/eliminating-forced-arbitration" target="_blank"><strong> Read more about forced arbitration</strong></a></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-63122421276833939472014-06-13T06:00:00.000-04:002014-06-13T06:00:02.067-04:00AFJ to host reception for filmmaker Abby Ginzberg<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<h2 style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; line-height: 19px;">
<b>Join us to preview the new film, </b><b><i><a data-mce-href="http://www.softvengeancefilm.org/TRAILER.html" href="http://www.softvengeancefilm.org/TRAILER.html">Soft Vengeance: Albie Sachs and the New South Africa</a></i></b><strong data-mce-style="font-size: 13px;" style="font-size: 13px;"></strong></h2>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<strong>By Julius Goldberg-Lewis, AFJ Outreach Intern</strong></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div data-mce-style="text-align: center;" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; text-align: center;">
“All revolutions are impossible until they happen. Then they become inevitable.”<br />--Albie Sachs</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<i>On Friday, June 20<sup>th</sup>, Alliance for Justice will host a </i><a data-mce-href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6539/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=71349#afjscreeningRSVP" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6539/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=71349#afjscreeningRSVP"><i>reception for Abby Ginzberg</i></a><i>. During the reception Abby will present clips of her new film, </i><a data-mce-href="http://www.softvengeancefilm.org/TRAILER.html" href="http://www.softvengeancefilm.org/TRAILER.html"><i>Soft Vengeance: Albie Sachs and the New South Africa</i></a><i>. The film chronicles the extraordinary story of Albie Sachs’ journey through imprisonment, assassination attempts, his place on the South African Constitutional Court, and his authorship of a new South African Constitution. <strong><a data-mce-href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6539/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=71349#afjscreeningRSVP" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6539/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=71349#afjscreeningRSVP" target="_blank">RSVP here.</a></strong></i></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<i><br /></i></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<i> </i>The story of Albie Sachsis one of struggle and triumph against Apartheid South Africa, where violence, oppression and injustice were a daily reality. A lawyer by trade, Sachs defended his clients against the racial laws that existed at the time. He continuously fought against apartheid and because of this, was tortured, imprisoned in solitary confinement, and eventually exiled. During his exile in Mozambique, South African security forces planted a bomb in his car. He survived, but lost an eye and an arm.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
There were those who promised vengeance against the perpetrators of the attack, but Sachs had a different end in mind. After the release of Nelson Mandela, Sachs was able to return to South Africa and exact his ‘soft vengeance.’ The vengeance that Albie Sachs sought was not harm to those who tried to kill him, but a new constitution enshrining the egalitarian values, which apartheid sought to destroy. Sachs was nominated by Mandela to be one of the first 11 justices on the South African Constitutional court. Serving on that Court for 15 years, Sachs had the opportunity to continue to shape the constitution and direction of South Africa.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<a data-mce-href="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SoftVengence.jpg" href="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SoftVengence.jpg"><img alt="SoftVengence" class="alignleft size-full wp-image-5300" data-mce-src="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SoftVengence.jpg" height="207" src="http://www.afj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/SoftVengence.jpg" style="border: 0px; cursor: default; float: left;" width="250" /></a>In telling the story of Albie Sachs, award-winning filmmaker Abby Ginzberg presents not only the story of Sachs’ fight for justice and equality, but also a personal narrative of how Sachs viewed his work as a form of art. </div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Ginzberg highlights Sachs’ lifelong love of art and music, which drove him to be the Chief Curator for the Constitutional Court and dramatically influenced what he hoped to see in the new South Africa. For Sachs, human dignity, equality, art and music all come from the same wellspring, and Ginzberg’s film presents a unique picture of how that philosophy was able to shape the future of South Africa.</div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px;">
Ginzberg will be screening <i>Soft Vengance</i> <a data-mce-href="http://www.afi.com/afidocs/about.aspx#.U5nO8_ldU74" href="http://www.afi.com/afidocs/about.aspx#.U5nO8_ldU74">at AFI Docs</a> in Silver Spring, MD on June 10. Afterwards she will screen excerpts at Alliance for Justice headquarters in Washington, D.C., during a reception cosponsored by <a data-mce-href="http://www.ips-dc.org/events/reception_abby_ginzberg_and_soft_vengeance" href="http://www.ips-dc.org/events/reception_abby_ginzberg_and_soft_vengeance">The Institute for Policy Studies</a> and the <a data-mce-href="http://www.civilrights.org/" href="http://www.civilrights.org/">Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights</a>. Refreshments will be served during the reception and guests will have a special opportunity to chat with the filmmaker. The reception is free and open to the public, but guests are asked to <a data-mce-href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6539/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=71349#afjscreeningRSVP" href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6539/p/salsa/event/common/public/?event_KEY=71349#afjscreeningRSVP">rsvp</a>.</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-49253565101112623472014-06-10T14:05:00.001-04:002014-06-10T14:05:58.065-04:00AFJ report: Bold action by Senate Democrats reduces number of judicial vacancies to lowest in five years<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<br />
<h1 class="page__title" itemprop="headline" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: #444444; font-family: Rokkitt, serif; line-height: 1; margin: 0px 0px 0.46154rem; padding: 0px; text-rendering: optimizelegibility;">
</h1>
<h3 style="text-align: center;">
<b><span style="font-size: large;">But
early stage Republican obstruction still delays justice </span></b><b style="line-height: 1;"><span style="font-size: large;">as
scores of judgeships remain vacant</span></b></h3>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: #444444; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">WASHINGTON, D.C., June 10, 2014: Bold action by Senate Democrats
has reduced the number of judicial vacancies to a five-year low, according to a
new report from Alliance for Justice. But even as President Obama
has picked up the pace of nominations, and Senate rules reform and a commitment
to moving confirmations have significantly reduced the backlog of nominees on
the Senate floor, Republican obstruction continues at earlier stages in the
process often hidden from public view, the report said.</span><span style="color: #444444; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="color: #444444; font-weight: normal;">AFJ’s <i>State
of the Judiciary</i> report also found significant improvement in the
professional diversity of judicial nominees sent to the Senate by President
Obama in the months since AFJ issued a report and hosted a Capitol Hill forum
on the topic. </span><b><span style="color: #444444; font-size: 13.5pt; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="http://bit.ly/1oR9RTu" target="_blank">Read the full release</a> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<a href="http://bit.ly/1qoDZXu" style="font-size: medium;" target="_blank">Read the full report </a></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</h3>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-20711728295642497092013-11-21T14:52:00.001-05:002013-11-21T16:28:25.740-05:00AFJ commends Senate for changing rules<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;"><b>So many people wanted to know our take on this that it crashed our website for awhile, so we posted our statement on today's rules reform victory here. But the site is back up and you can find out more about Senate rules reform and the D.C. Circuit at www.afj.org</b></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;"><b><br /></b></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;"><i>WASHINGTON, D.C., November 21, 2013 – Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron issued the following statement in response to today’s vote to change the rules of the Senate: </i></span><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;" /><br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;" /><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; line-height: 18px;">Alliance for Justice commends Senate Majority Leader Harry R</span><span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #333333; display: inline; line-height: 18px;">eid and the Senators who voted to change Senate rules today for their courageous decision to end the unprecedented abuse of Senate rules by a Republican minority dedicated to obstruction-at-all-costs.<br /><br />This was not a decision made easily or taken lightly. There was no choice. The Republican minority had turned the existing rules into weapons of mass obstruction. Most recently, they acknowledged that they had no grounds to oppose on the merits President Obama’s supremely-qualified nominees for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. But they filibustered those nominees anyway.<br /><br />This change in the rules is the only way to return the Senate to its place as the world’s greatest deliberative body; it is the only way to ensure that the Senate can put the well-being of the American people ahead of the political interests of an extremist minority.<br /><br />Now that the rules have changed, the Senate must move quickly to confirm President Obama’s D.C. Circuit nominees, and all of the other nominees that, until now, have been held hostage to obstruction. Those nominees include 14 more nominees for judgeships who are currently awaiting Senate floor votes, and executive branch nominees such as Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., whose nomination to run the Federal Housing Finance Agency was filibustered last month.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-62196145398797078872013-10-15T12:14:00.001-04:002013-10-15T12:14:08.045-04:00GUEST BLOG: Will the Supreme Court Further Roll Back Accountability and Immunize Foreign Corporations from Judicial Scrutiny?<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script> <b>By Michelle Harrison, <i>Human Rights Attorney and Bertha Foundation Fellow, EarthRights International</i></b><br />
<br />
This week, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in <i><a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/daimlerchrysler-ag-v-bauman/" target="_blank">DaimlerChrysler v. Bauman</a> </i>(docket 11-965), a case that has received little attention despite the fact that it has the potential to dramatically alter the ability of federal and state courts to assert jurisdiction over foreign corporations. <br />
<br />
The case involves <a href="http://www.iradvocates.org/case/latin-america-argentina/bauman-v-daimlerchrysler-ag" target="_blank">claims brought by former employees</a> and family members of deceased employees of a Mercedes-Benz plant in Argentina who were violently kidnapped, tortured, and killed against DaimlerChrysler AG (now Daimler AG), a German corporation that owns the plant. The company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz Argentina, is <a href="http://iradvocates.mayfirst.org/sites/default/files/02.11.04%20First%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf" target="_blank">accused</a> of conspiring with, directing, and aiding and abetting state security forces to carry out egregious human rights violations during Argentina’s “Dirty War” in order to silence union activism and maintain the company’s production levels. <br />
<br />
The plaintiffs filed suit in 2004 in federal district court in California, asserting that jurisdiction was proper due to the substantial and systematic business Daimler conducts in the state through another wholly owned subsidiary, Mercedes-Benz USA (MBUSA). Technically, MBUSA and Daimler are “separate” corporate entities; however, they shared the same chairman, MBUSA sold cars solely for Daimler, Daimler set prices for the cars, had authority over virtually all aspects of MBUSA’s operations, and received all of MBUSA’s profits. <br />
<br />
The district court initially dismissed the case, agreeing with Daimler that it lacked jurisdiction. On appeal, the <a href="http://iradvocates.mayfirst.org/sites/default/files/05.19.11%20corrected%20reprint%20Opinion%20from%209th%20Circ%20recvd.pdf" target="_blank">Ninth Circuit reversed</a> the decision, holding that a court may exercise general jurisdiction over a foreign corporation when its subsidiary acts as its agent in the forum state, performing a role important enough that, if the subsidiary went out of business or otherwise could not perform that role, the parent corporation would sell the product itself or through a new representative. The Ninth Circuit found that because MBUSA acted as an agent for Daimler in California, jurisdiction was reasonable. <br />
<br />
Now before the Supreme Court, the question presented is whether a U.S. court can assert jurisdiction over a foreign corporation on the basis of services performed in the forum state by the corporation’s wholly owned subsidiary. <br />
<br />
The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case just days after issuing its decision in<i> <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kiobel-v-royal-dutch-petroleum/" target="_blank">Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum</a></i>, which <a href="http://www.earthrights.org/media/kiobel-v-shell-supreme-court-limits-courts-ability-hear-claims-human-rights-abuses-committed" target="_blank">limited</a> the ability of victims of human rights abuse to bring cases against foreign corporations under the <a href="http://www.earthrights.org/legal/alien-tort-statute" target="_blank">Alien Tort Statute (ATS)</a> when the abuse occurred outside the U.S. Many commentators see <i>Bauman</i> as a sequel to that case because, like <i>Kiobel</i>, <i>Bauman </i>is a case against a foreign corporation, under the ATS, for human rights abuses that occurred in another country. The issue here, however, is actually much broader. While <i>Kiobel </i>considered only the narrow question of whether an ATS claim could be brought in a case involving foreign conduct, <i>Bauman </i>is not limited to claims brought under the ATS, and will raise questions about the ability to bring claims against a foreign corporation at all. <br />
<br />
Daimler—and the Chamber of Commerce—have made a number of sweeping arguments that, if accepted, could fundamentally alter the jurisdictional reach of U.S. courts. According to Daimler, the Due Process Clause prevents a court from exercising jurisdiction over it on the basis of its U.S. subsidiaries, even where the subsidiary carries out the parent’s business, on the parent’s behalf, and for the parent’s benefit. Daimler and the Chamber have gone so far as to argue that there is <i>a constitutional right</i> for a parent corporation to be treated as separate from its subsidiary—an argument that has never before been recognized and is fundamentally at odds with the history of the corporate form. <br />
<br />
Indeed, the Supreme Court has already rejected the notion that due process requires separate treatment of a parent and its subsidiary. In<i> <a href="http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/445/425/case.html" target="_blank">Mobil Oil Corp v. Comm’r of Taxes of Vermont</a></i>, the Supreme Court considered Vermont’s tax on companies doing business within the state, which was based upon a share of their total income earned inside and outside of the state. Mobil argued that due process required that dividends from subsidiaries that were not incorporated in that state, did no business in the state, and were not managed in that state must be excluded from the calculation of total income because they lacked a sufficient nexus to Vermont. The Supreme Court, however, concluded there was no due process problem because, irrespective of corporate formalities, Vermont’s tax treated a “functionally integrated enterprise” as a unitary business. <br />
<br />
Such treatment is consistent with the fact that federal and state laws often treat corporations and their subsidiaries as single entities for purposes of attributing civil liability or other obligations. Corporations are, and always have been, the creation of states, possessing only such rights as were expressly granted. No corporation has a constitutional right to be a corporation, let alone a constitutional right to a particular organizational structure. <br />
<br />
Daimler’s sweeping constitutional arguments are also contradicted by the historical understanding of corporate personality at the time of the passage of both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Corporations were in fact expressly prohibited from owning other companies until the end of the nineteenth century. The parent-subsidiary relationship was unheard of; only the simple, single entity corporate structure was permitted. <br />
<br />
Due process requires only that the maintenance of a suit not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Corporations purposefully avail themselves of the privileges of doing business within a forum state by virtue of their subsidiaries. Under Daimler’s view, however, that privilege does not come with any responsibilities. <br />
<br />
The case deserves far more attention than it has received. If the Court accepts Daimler’s position, it would call into question existing laws in areas as diverse as tax, labor, and antitrust. Worse, it would effectively insulate foreign corporations from lawsuits anywhere in the United States—even when the plaintiffs are U.S. citizens. As long as they keep a separation, on paper, from their U.S. subsidiaries, foreign corporations would be able to enjoy all of the privileges of doing business in the United States with the guarantee that their operations will not be subjected to scrutiny by U.S. courts. <br />
<br />
<i>Michelle Harrison is a Human Rights Attorney and Bertha Foundation Fellow at <a href="http://www.earthrights.org/" target="_blank">EarthRights International</a>, a Washington-D.C. based non-profit organization specializing in legal actions against perpetrators of human rights abuses. EarthRights International submitted <a href="http://dg5vd3ocj3r4t.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/Bauman-ERI-amicus.pdf" target="_blank">an amicus brief</a> in this case. </i>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-32179120043168549502013-10-09T09:04:00.000-04:002013-10-15T16:58:55.220-04:00GUEST BLOG: Madigan v. Levin: Justices ask if they should be hearing the case at all <script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>By Daniel B. Kohrman</b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0in;">
<b>Senior Attorney, AARP Foundation Litigation</b></div>
<br />
<i><b>Update, OCT. 15</b>: On Tuesday, October 15th, the Supreme Court dismissed Madigan v. Levin as improvidently granted.</i><br />
<hr />
<br />
The Fall 2013 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court began Monday with an age discrimination case, with broad implications for civil rights enforcement under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. A lively argument left questions as to whether the Justices had chosen the right case to begin their year. In fact, many justices expressed skepticism about whether <i>Madigan v. Levin,</i> No. 12-872, was properly before them.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pzWY6sSvOgA/UM95g8a7a_I/AAAAAAAAAbg/9o5WapbOWa4/s1600/supremecourtbuilding.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pzWY6sSvOgA/UM95g8a7a_I/AAAAAAAAAbg/9o5WapbOWa4/s320/supremecourtbuilding.jpg" width="313" /></a><i>Madigan v. Levin</i> is a challenge to <a href="http://www.blogger.com/link%20to:%20http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/11-2820/11-2820-2012-08-17.html" target="_blank">a 7th Circuit ruling, 692 F.3d 607</a>, upholding the right of Harvey Levin, a former senior member of the Illinois Attorney General’s Office, to contest his termination, allegedly based on his age, under the Age Discrimination Employment Act (ADEA), the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. <br />
<br />
The petitioner, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, argued that the ADEA is the exclusive remedy for age discrimination claims. She asserted that federal anti-discrimination statutes, including the ADEA, are so comprehensive as to demonstrate Congress’ intent to preclude a parallel anti-discrimination claim under the Constitution, and therefore that the ADEA displaced any competing, constitutional claim for age discrimination under the Constitution or § 1983. <br />
<br />
The 7th Circuit noted that "[a]ll other circuit courts to consider the issue have held that the ADEA is the exclusive remedy for age discrimination claims.” … But they disagreed. The court said the matter was “admittedly a close call, especially in light of the conflicting decisions from our sister circuits." <br />
<br />
The 7th Circuit also affirmed a judgment that qualified immunity did not shield Madigan from Levin’s § 1983 claim for damages. To establish a qualified immunity defense, a defendant may show either that the plaintiff failed to set forth a viable claim, or that the rights allegedly violated were not clearly established at the relevant time. The 7th Circuit’s ruling did not disturb the trial court’s decision that Levin had no age discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), because his former job fit within an exemption to ADEA coverage. <br />
<br />
The themes presented by Madigan are essentially threefold:<br />
<br />
1. To what extent may civil rights plaintiffs rely on multiple, overlapping claims to remedy injustices, or are various civil rights protections – here for older workers – mutually exclusive?<br />
2. To what extent does the doctrine of “qualified immunity” prevent state employees from invoking federal civil rights protections?<br />
3. To what extent will the Court reach out to issue rulings in civil rights cases, even when full briefing and argument reveals that the issue(s) the Court elected to hear are not those actually presented? <br />
<br />
Arguing for Madigan, Illinois Solicitor General Michael Scodro began with a<a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-872_ca7d.pdf" target="_blank"> straightforward recital of the issue</a>. Illinois sought the Court to decide: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Congress has crafted a comprehensive body of administrative and judicial procedures and remedies that are tailored specifically to combatting discrimination against older workers. In extending these procedures and remedies to government employees, Congress did not intend to permit State and municipal workers alone to frustrate this regime or bypass it entirely using the more general remedies of Section 1983.</i></blockquote>
<br />
That is, the ADEA requires exhaustion of private and state and local government employee age discrimination charges before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Allowing state employees like Levin (and many municipal employees as well) to assert claims of employment discrimination by government employers (whose alleged misconduct constitutes state action) under the Constitution, via the Civil War era statute 42 U.S. C. § 1983 (ch.22, §1 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act), would “frustrate” the legislative scheme Congress enacted in the ADEA.<br />
<br />
The fight in Madigan over a constitutional claim of age discrimination is ironic because proving such a claim, the parties agree, is very difficult, and it is far easier to prove a violation of the ADEA. Thus, plaintiffs only are likely to bring such a claim if they cannot sue under the ADEA, such as when they have failed to follow EEOC filing requirements, or, as here, when the ADEA does not provide a claim in the first place. <br />
<br />
But before Scodro got to address the merits, he was bombarded by a series of preliminary, jurisdictional questions. Justice Ginsburg launched the first salvo: The case came to the 7th Circuit on an interlocutory appeal, which is a rare type of appeal that takes place to contest an issue that the court has decided but occurs before a final decision is handed down. In this case the appeal dealt only with the trial cout’s finding that there was no qualified immunity. That raised a fundamental question: What authority did the Court of Appeals have to also address other aspects of the interplay between the ADEA and Section 1983?<br />
<br />
Justice Alito came to Scodro’s defense, pointing out that “although the Seventh Circuit should not have considered the question of whether there was a cause of action under Section 1983,” the Supreme Court itself has “jurisdiction to consider that question” as “a matter of discretion.” But Justice Kennedy, the swing vote in most major cases, sounded skeptical: “What’s the rationale that we can exercise jurisdiction where a court of appeals could not?” Is there “authority to grant certiorari before judgment?” <br />
<br />
Justices Kagan, Scalia and Sotomayor then each pressed Scodro still further to justify the Court’s jurisdiction to consider anything more than the issue of qualified immunity – which Justice Ginsburg characterized as clear, in that the record establishes that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits irrational age bias. Only Justice Alito returned to Scodro’s defense, worrying that for the Court to ignore the issue of ADEA preclusion of a Section 1983 claim until the end of the case might be wasteful.<br />
<br />
Scodro seemed to be struggling mightily to stay afloat when Justice Scalia intervened to suggest he “say a few words about the merits.” But Scodro was on the defensive almost immediately once more.<br />
<br />
This time his struggle centered on the fact that that, as Justice Ginsburg noted, petitioners acknowledge it would be very difficult for Levin to sustain an ADEA claim because, as the district court found, he is an “appointee on the policymaking level” exempt from ADEA coverage. See 29 USC § 630(f). Thus, key premises of petitioners’ case – that Levin has rights under the ADEA he failed to invoke, that he seeks to invoke alternative rights and thus would “bypass” his actual ADEA rights, and that he would thereby “frustrate” Congress’ intent that he invoke those rights and no others—are highly misleading.<br />
<br />
Madigan’s merits briefs argued for the first time that Levin has a sort of ADEA claim in the form of a claim under the Government Employee Rights Act of 1991 (GERA), 42 USC 2000e-16a to16c. The GERA created a claim for employees like Levin exempted by the ADEA. But Levin never asserted such a claim, and until the case came to the Supreme Court Madigan never asserted that the GERA provided rights to Levin that would support preclusion of a §1983 age discrimination claim under the Equal Protection Clause.<br />
<br />
Justices Kagan, Breyer and most significantly, Alito, hit Scodro hard on the GERA. Kagan: “the point here is that Mr. Levin is covered not by the ADEA, but by a separate statute, the GERA. And there's a separate question whether the GERA would displace constitutional relief, which apparently has -- has never been argued to anybody in this case.” Breyer: “I looked to see what the Seventh Circuit said [about the GERA]. Nothing. I looked to see what you argued below. Nothing. I looked to see whether it's obvious that GERA does apply or doesn't apply and simply picks it up or not. I don't know. Maybe I'm just being thick. But nonetheless, where I don't know so much and the whole case turns on it, why are we hearing an issue that might not even be in the case?” And Alito: “Has the Court ever held that an antidiscrimination statute that does not provide any rights for a particular class of plaintiffs nevertheless extinguishes the right of action that those plaintiffs would have under Section 1983?” Justice Breyer suggested Scodro wanted an “advisory opinion,” and then said, “Sometime on occasion we dismiss a case as improvidently granted, which is not a particularly desirable thing to do. But how could we avoid doing that here?”<br />
<br />
At the outset, Levin’s Attorney, Edward Theobald, spent an extended period on a losing gambit: fencing with Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts about whether his client is an “employee” under the ADEA. Justice Breyer bluntly opined that, but for the GERA, Levin had no such argument.<br />
<br />
Justice Kennedy seemed to explore with Theobald another approach that would have the Court dodge a decision on the merits. He asked about sending the case back to the lower courts, to decide “whether or not the GERA issue has been properly presented or waived and to consider that[.]” Theobald objected that the case was scheduled for trial in 2014, and Justice Kennedy responded “that argument could be made in the district court.”<br />
<br />
On rebuttal Justices Ginsburg and Kagan focused on the merits, alluding to support for Levin’s claim that both the ADEA and the Constitution are open to age discrimination in employment claims. Kagan: “All you have is a complicated remedial scheme, which would be enough to say, look, you can't bring 1983 suits to vindicate this statute. But seems as though it's not enough under our case law to repeal preexisting rights and remedies.” Ginsburg: “isn't it strange to think that Congress at the same time wanted employees to have these expanded [ADEA] rights and to do away with the preexisting remedies?” <br />
<br />
By the end, while several of the so-called “liberal” Justices expressed support for a 14th Amendment age discrimination claim, none of the Justices articulated clear enthusiasm for a decision on the merits.<br />
<br />
The arguments in <i>Madigan v. Levin</i> leave unclear whether there is a majority for recognition of an age discrimination claim under §1983 and the Equal Protection Clause. More apparent are signs of majority support for a decision acknowledging, or at least demonstrating, that the case is not ready for resolution of the issues for which <i>certiorari</i> was granted. Many of the comments and questions of the Justices suggest the most likely result is some sort of remand for further consideration of all or some of the issues addressed by the parties. <br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/madigan-v-levin/" target="_blank">Links to briefs in this case, and additional coverage from SCOTUSblog</a></b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-16599477690228530042013-10-08T12:07:00.001-04:002013-10-11T13:22:58.716-04:00Nan Aron: Justice system already in crisis worsened by shutdown, sequester<i><b>UPDATE, OCT. 11:</b> Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron was among the witnesses testifying at <a href="http://democrats.judiciary.house.gov/hearing/forum-examining-impact-government-shutdown-and-sequestration-provision-justice" target="_blank">a forum on the impact on justice of the sequester and the government shutdown</a> convened by Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee. </i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<i>Watch video of the event from C-SPAN (Nan's testimony starts at about 54 minutes in):</i><br />
<i><br /></i>
<object align="middle" classid="clsid:d27cdb6eae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,0,0" height="500" id="cspan-video-player" width="410"><param name='allowScriptAccess' value='true'/><param name='movie' value='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=315519-1'/><param name='quality' value='high'/><param name='bgcolor' value='#ffffff'/><param name='allowFullScreen' value='true'/><param name='flashvars' value='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=325545&style=full'/><embed name='cspan-video-player' src='http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/assets/swf/CSPANPlayer.swf?pid=315519-1' allowScriptAccess='always' bgcolor='#ffffff' quality='high' allowFullScreen='true' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' flashvars='system=http://www.c-spanvideo.org/common/services/flashXml.php?programid=325545&style=full' align='middle' height='500' width='410'></embed></object><i><br /></i>
<i><br /></i>
<i>This is Nan's statement:</i><br />
<br />
Mr. Conyers, distinguished members of the Judiciary Committee, thank you for inviting me to join you for this important conversation about the sequester, the shutdown, and access to justice.<br />
<br />
As President of Alliance for Justice, I am proud to speak on behalf of our more than 100 member organizations, all of which are committed to a justice system that truly serves all Americans. Yet today, we see the evenhanded administration of justice being threatened at every turn.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2ssun5FGog4/Udx6o3oAQtI/AAAAAAAAA8A/Eyr57CNqt9c/s1600/NAN+OFFICIAL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="213" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2ssun5FGog4/Udx6o3oAQtI/AAAAAAAAA8A/Eyr57CNqt9c/s320/NAN+OFFICIAL.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Nan Aron</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Even before the shutdown, even before the sequester, our justice system was in crisis. The reason will be familiar to everyone in this room—politically-motivated obstruction. Today’s budget crisis is appalling, but it’s important to understand that it is just one more manifestation of the relentless attacks on the courts and their ability to effectively and efficiently dispense justice that have characterized the last five years. <br />
<br />
As of today, more than 90 federal court judgeships sit vacant—that’s more than one in 10 federal judgeships across the country. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has deemed 39 of those vacancies “judicial emergencies,” meaning there are simply not enough judges to handle the caseload in those courts.<br />
<br />
When there are too few judges, the wait for justice can be unbearable. Individuals and businesses often have to wait months and even years to stand up for their rights in court. Memories may fade, witnesses may die, financial and personal calamities may be compounded.<br />
<br />
For example, in the Eastern District of California, which was home to two judicial emergencies until one was finally filled in March, it took nearly four years for a civil case to get to trial. With waits like those, victims too often give up on ever seeing justice served. <br />
<br />
Republican obstruction at every step of the judicial selection process is to blame. This obstruction takes many forms: Republican senators refuse to work with the President to recommend nominees for vacancies in their states. Some refuse to return “blue slips” for nominees they previously supported—as we’ve recently seen in Florida. Votes are delayed for months, even on noncontroversial nominees, while a huge number of nominees are filibustered. <br />
<br />
The games being played with the budget will do enormous damage to our system of justice, but those problems are being piled on top of a mountain of dysfunction that already exists.<br />
<br />
In Texas, for example, there are currently nine federal judicial vacancies without nominees, six of which are judicial emergencies. One of those judicial emergencies is Judge Furgeson’s seat, which he vacated nearly five years ago. If you add up the time those nine seats have been vacant, it amounts to more than 15 years. Each day, each month, each year without a judge means justice is being denied to the people of Texas.<br />
<br />
Yet the Texas senators—one of whom, Ted Cruz, will be familiar to anyone following the government shutdown—are all too happy to let these benches sit empty. The judicial selection commission they set up to recommend nominees for the vacant district court seats has not even started interviewing candidates. <br />
<br />
And now we’ve added the sequester and the shutdown to this already untenable situation. Court personnel, Department of Justice lawyers, and federal defenders have been furloughed and downsized. Despite growing caseloads, court staffing levels are at their lowest since 1999. Many civil cases are on hold. <br />
<br />
This will only get worse as the shutdown persists. More court staff could face furloughs, and judges will be forced to devote scarce resources to their criminal dockets, slamming the brakes on the civil justice system. <br />
The upshot is that plaintiffs seeking to vindicate civil rights, collect disability benefits, resolve business disputes, recover lost wages, or prevent some imminent environmental harm will be stuck in a holding pattern.<br />
<br />
The impact on indigent criminal defendants—some of the most vulnerable members of our society—has been particularly dire. About 90 percent of federal criminal defendants require court-appointed counsel to satisfy their constitutional right to adequate representation. But the sequester has forced Federal Public Defender offices, which were already stretched tight, to cut and furlough their ranks, and the shutdown promises more of the same. <br />
<br />
In August, former Ohio Federal Public Defender Steven Nolder <a href="http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2013/08/why-i-fired-myself.html" target="_blank">wrote on AFJ’s <i>Justice Watch</i> blog</a> about why he fired himself rather than having to sacrifice his staff attorneys to the sequester. As Nolder wrote, “If the intention is to dismantle the ‘gold standard’ of our nation’s public defense systems, our lawmakers are succeeding.”<br />
<br />
In fact, the status of our entire justice system as the world’s “gold standard” is at risk. <br />
<br />
When the courts and the entire judicial system are starved for funds, justice is weakened. But when that harsh reality is combined with a court system already reeling from the effects of political gamesmanship and endless obstruction, we jeopardize not just the ability of courts to resolve disputes and dispense justice, but faith in our democratic system itself.<br />
<br />
If we are to be a beacon for people all over the world who long for justice, the obstruction must end.<br />
<br />
Thank you, and I am happy to answer questions at the appropriate time.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-75936778119808430112013-10-04T06:00:00.000-04:002013-10-07T11:03:33.916-04:00Previewing First Monday: Cases to watch in the Supreme Court’s coming term<b>UPDATE, Oct. 7, 2013: Our full report on the current term <a href="http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/the-corporate-court/2013-2014-supreme-court-docket.pdf" target="_blank">is available here</a>.</b><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
Much of the government still may be shut down on Monday, but the Supreme Court will be open for business. Every year, the first Monday in October ushers in a new Supreme Court term, during which the nine justices of the Supreme Court will decide critical constitutional and statutory questions that will shape the future of our rights and our everyday lives. <br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-osGpxZRjkzk/Uk3WXP8_JxI/AAAAAAAABBo/mrmROs9kxO8/s1600/johnroberts.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-osGpxZRjkzk/Uk3WXP8_JxI/AAAAAAAABBo/mrmROs9kxO8/s1600/johnroberts.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Chief Justice John Roberts</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Last term, the Roberts Court <a href="http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/the-corporate-court/the-roberts-court-and-judicial-overreach.pdf" target="_blank">continued its trend of favoring corporate and other powerful interests</a> over those of everyday Americans. The conservative bloc of five justices shielded generic-drug manufacturers from liability for harm caused by their drugs, curbed access to justice for consumers by making it more difficult to litigate against big business, and greatly restricted the ability of individuals facing workplace discrimination to bring claims against their employers. <br />
<br />
This term the Court will be deciding issues affecting corporate accountability, abortion rights, racial discrimination, affirmative action, rights of criminal defendants, human rights, separation of powers, separation of church and state, and more. They will be answering questions like:<br />
<br />
●How easily may the police search our homes or our cars? <br />
● What are the rights of the indigent when it comes to effective counsel and fair sentencing? <br />
● What recourse do consumers have when they are harmed by corporations? <br />
● When can people who have been discriminated against seek redress in the courts? <br />
<br />
<b>Alliance for Justice will release our full report previewing the 2013-2014 Supreme Court term on Monday. Today, we highlight just a few of the cases we’re following.</b><br />
<br />
<i><b>Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action:</b></i> In 2006 the state of Michigan put affirmative action to a vote. As a result, voters passed Proposal 2, which amended the state constitution to prohibit race- and sex-based affirmative action in public-university admissions. The constitutional amendment went so far as to bar university admission officials from even considering whether to use race as a relevant factor in admission. <br />
<br />
As a result, a student who wants her race to be considered in admission must seek an amendment to the state constitution, but a student who wants the university to consider something like the fact that her father and grandfather attended the same school may petition the regents directly. As the Sixth Circuit held, the voter-initiated ban violated equal protection because it “unconstitutionally alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities.” If the Supreme Court were to reverse the Sixth Circuit’s decision, it would severely limit backers of racial diversity seeking recourse through the political process. <br />
<br />
<i><b>Mount Holly v. Mount Holly Gardens Citizens in Action</b></i>: In this case, the Supreme Court will consider whether individuals suing for discrimination under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) can sue based on a “disparate impact” theory—in which a policy that seems to be race-neutral has such a strong, negative effect on particular groups of minorities that the effect of the law constitutes discrimination—or whether they must prove that there was an intent to discriminate. <br />
<br />
When the Court agreed to hear the case, 11 circuit courts had found that the FHA was meant to apply to discrimination based on disparate impact, despite a lack of explicit text to that effect. Not a single circuit court has found otherwise. <br />
<br />
While the case was pending, the Department of Housing and Urban Development even promulgated a rule stating that the FHA is violated by disparate impact discrimination, and the Solicitor General advocated against the Supreme Court hearing the case. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court accepted the case. A decision striking down disparate impact theory under the FHA could have dire consequences for the enforcement of many civil rights statutes.<br />
<br />
<i><b>McCullen v. Coakley:</b></i> This case, where the Supreme Court will revisit the constitutionality of buffer zone laws outside of clinics where abortions are performed, may have broad implications for women’s safety and access to reproductive services. In the 2000 case <i>Hill v. Colorado</i>, the Supreme Court upheld Colorado’s “buffer zone” law, which created a 100-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics that protesters cannot cross. The zones are needed to prevent patients and staff from being harassed and intimidated.<br />
<br />
The buffer zone law in <i>McCullen</i> is even more modest: it mandates a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics in Massachusetts, and allows clinic employees and representatives, law enforcement officials, and passers-by to enter the buffer zone. Opponents urge the Court to strike the law down as a violation of the First Amendment, while supporters argue such laws are necessary to protect the safety of patients accessing clinics. Although this case is very similar to the decade-old precedent upholding a similar and more restrictive law, one thing has changed since 2000: the makeup of the Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
<i><b>Unite Here Local 335 v. Mulhall</b></i>: In order to avoid the strife and recrimination that sometimes accompanies efforts to unionize a workplace, unions and employers often enter into “neutrality agreements.” These agreements set ground rules for organizing where both sides make promises and concessions. <br />
<br />
Although such agreements are common and viewed as a useful tool by both labor and management, they are being challenged by anti-union forces. <br />
<br />
Based on an obscure legal theory, the Eleventh Circuit held that neutrality agreements violate an anti-bribery statute from 1947 that forbids employers from paying any money or other valuables to labor unions. If the Supreme Court affirms the Eleventh Circuit and finds against neutrality agreements, it could mean the end to one of labor’s most powerful and successful organizing tools.<br />
<br />
These cases represent just a few of the many cases the Court will hear this term that will have important consequences for all of us. In addition to these cases, the Court could:<br />
<br />
• Provide police with a loophole to conduct a warrantless search of a defendant’s home despite his or her explicit objections; <br />
• Severely impair criminal defendants’ ability to receive a fair trial and a just sentence;<br />
• Make it easier for corporate interests to escape accountability for harming consumers;<br />
• Drastically curb the president of authority to appoint officials to vital government positions;<br />
• Weaken the constitutional wall between church and state; and<br />
•<br />
Eliminate limits on aggregate direct contributions to candidates and party committees.<br />
<br />
<b>Read <a href="http://www.afj.org/connect-with-the-issues/the-corporate-court/2013-2014-supreme-court-docket.pdf" target="_blank">our full report</a> on all of the cases Alliance for Justice is following. </b><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-65893864407273950052013-09-30T12:57:00.002-04:002013-10-01T10:57:21.167-04:00Documenting the attack on reproductive rights - and how to fight back<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
Ever since the Supreme Court ruled that banning abortion violates a woman’s right to privacy, those seeking to deny women control over their own bodies have sought to change state and federal laws to chip away at that right.<br />
<br />
Today, Alliance for Justice zeros in on the threat to reproductive rights as we launch our annual “First Monday” social justice campaign. Alliance for Justice has been canvassing the field in the battleground states of Texas and Mississippi, listening to women’s stories and witnessing the day-to-day struggles of women who are watching their reproductive rights slip away. The centerpiece of the campaign is a short video, <i><a href="http://www.roeatrisk.org/" target="_blank">Roe at Risk: The Fight for Reproductive Justice</a></i>, documenting both the struggle and the hope of the men and women fighting to preserve the constitutional right to reproductive freedom and justice. It is more important now than ever to take action, to speak out, and to organize for reproductive rights and access for all.<br />
<br />
You can preview the video here:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="320" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/c_fo0FDNb64?feature=player_embedded" width="540"></iframe>
<br />
<br />
Today also marks the 37th anniversary of one of the first attempts to restrict reproductive rights: the Hyde Amendment, a law that,bars states from using Medicaid money to fund abortion. Many poor people rely on Medicaid to pay for their health care. So while it’s true that the Hyde Amendment does not, technically, eliminate the right to abortion, it renders that right largely meaningless for the many poor and low-income women who simply cannot afford to pay for an abortion on their own. For such women it amounts to a legislative repeal of a constitutional right.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QRaszS1D8fo/UkmwsDNdWxI/AAAAAAAABBY/Q1YYEXY2NXU/s1600/Henryhyde.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QRaszS1D8fo/UkmwsDNdWxI/AAAAAAAABBY/Q1YYEXY2NXU/s1600/Henryhyde.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The late Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill.,<br />
author of the Hyde Amendment</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
And as we show in <i>Roe at Risk</i>, while the federal government took one of the first steps to cut off access to abortion 37 years ago, states have been following suit ever since. In recent years, some state lawmakers have been transparent in their attempts to deny access to abortion, directly attacking the right with legislation that makes abortion unlawful after a set period of time. Such attempts have taken the shape of bans that begin at <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/01/the-20-week-abortion-ban-texas-is-debating-already-exists-in-12-states/" target="_blank">twenty-weeks</a>, at <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/arkansas12-week-abortion-ban-blocked-for-now-91590.html" target="_blank">twelve weeks</a> or <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/07/22/judge_blocks_north_dakotas_extreme_six_week_abortion_ban/" target="_blank">at six weeks</a>. <br />
<br />
In other states, restrictions on access to abortion have been more insidious. One of the popular approaches is to pass “TRAP” laws, which stand for “targeted regulation of abortion providers.” These laws often require abortion providers to <a href="http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/September/16/abortion-law-texas-tribune.aspx" target="_blank">attain admitting privileges at a local hospital</a>, or require abortion clinics to <a href="http://njtoday.net/2013/09/06/trap-laws-gain-political-traction/" target="_blank">meet the same standards</a> as hospitals or ambulatory facilities. <br />
<br />
TRAP laws are passed under the pretext of protecting women’s health and safety, but in reality they are thinly veiled attempts to shut down abortion clinics. For example, hospitals typically are not required to grant admitting privileges, and if they oppose abortion, they <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/us/mississippi-abortion-clinic/index.html" target="_blank">do not have to grant admitting privileges to abortion providers at all</a>. Moreover, the requirements to attain admitting privileges vary and may be impossible for abortion providers to obtain for reasons <a href="http://host.madison.com/news/local/writers/jessica_vanegeren/admitting-privileges-provision-a-successful-pro-life-tool/article_51e88346-e82f-11e2-8d13-0019bb2963f4.html" target="_blank">wholly unrelated to health or safety</a>. <br />
<br />
Predictably, abortion clinics often cannot meet the laws’ unnecessary requirements, and then they are forced to shut down. When clinics shut down, women are left stranded. Ultimately, these TRAP laws have <a href="http://www.policymic.com/articles/31143/north-dakota-trap-could-end-abortion-in-the-state" target="_blank">one purpose</a> and one effect: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/04/politics/mississippi-abortion/index.html" target="_blank">to end abortion</a> in the state.<br />
<br />
<i>Roe at Risk</i> doesn’t just document the threat – it also shows how people across the country are fighting back. Find out more about attempts to curb the right to choose, and about what you can do about it at <b>www.roeatrisk.org </b><br />
<br />
<b>Read more about the harm of the Hyde Amendment:</b><br />
<ul type="disc">
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="http://bit.ly/17j4AO3">How To Ditch Hyde Anti-Abortion Law And Win
Elections.</a><o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="http://bit.ly/17jqtwL">The End of Abortion Funding Restrictions?</a> <o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="http://bit.ly/19iwYMW">Access Denied: There's nothing to cheer about
on the anniversary of the Hyde Amendment</a><o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/the-hyde-amendment-legislating-inequality-for-37-years">The
Hyde Amendment: Legislating Inequality for 37 Years</a>. <o:p></o:p></b></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="http://bit.ly/18kCxNM">37 Years After Hyde, Abortion Access
Still Remains Out of Reach for the Poor</a>. </b></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2013/09/30/millennials-are-fighting-to-overturn-the-hyde-amendment/" target="_blank">Millennials are Fighting to Overturn the Hyde Amendment. </a> </b></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2013/09/the-dangerous-c.html?utm_source=nar.al&utm_medium=urlshortener&utm_campaign=FB" target="_blank">The Dangerous Consequences of the Hyde Amendment.</a> </b></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom-womens-rights/very-unhappy-anniversary-low-income-women" target="_blank">A Very Unhappy Anniversary for Low Income Women. </a> </b></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/09/28/how-hyde-amendment-exceptions-harm-women/" target="_blank">How the Hyde Amendment Hurts Women.</a> </b></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="http://www.choiceusablog.org/support-the-troops-repeal-hyde/" target="_blank">Support the Troops, Repeal Hyde.</a> </b></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="http://reporepro.lsrj.org/2013/09/30/an-anniversary-date-that-should-go-away-the-hyde-amendment/" target="_blank">An Anniversary Date that Should Go Way: The Hyde
Amendment.</a> </b></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="http://reporepro.lsrj.org/2013/09/30/lets-talk-about-sex-and-abortion-baby-how-the-hyde-amendment-hurts-asian-american-and-pacific-islander-women/" target="_blank">Let’s Talk About Sex (and Abortion), Baby. How the Hyde
Amendment Hurts Asian American and Pacific Islander Women.</a> </b></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="https://www.aclunc.org/blog/first-assault-abortion-rights">The First
Assault on Abortion Rights</a>. </b></span></li>
<li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><b><a href="http://feministing.com/2013/09/30/thirty-seven-years-after-the-hyde-amendment-the-movement-is-back-on-offense/" target="_blank">“Thirty-seven Years After the Hyde Amendment…the Movement
is Back on Offense”</a> </b></span></li>
</ul>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-81303570684053287702013-09-26T16:07:00.000-04:002013-10-02T09:13:02.829-04:00Confirmation Hearing exposes Republicans’ partisan opposition to D.C. Circuit nominees<i>This post was updated on Oct. 2, 2013</i><br />
<br />
<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
A funny thing happened at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday: Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Carolyn McHugh appeared for her confirmation hearing, and no Republican Senator complained that the Tenth Circuit’s caseload is too small to confirm another judge.<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-89l4__T-t2M/UkSTj4jl6iI/AAAAAAAABBI/PmyhKZtemgk/s1600/Carolynmchugh.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-89l4__T-t2M/UkSTj4jl6iI/AAAAAAAABBI/PmyhKZtemgk/s320/Carolynmchugh.jpg" width="225" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Judge Carolyn McHugh</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
It’s been a different story for President Obama’s three D.C. Circuit nominees. At each of their respective hearings, the Republicans sounded <a href="http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2013/08/sjc-republicans-to-dc-circuit-nominee.html" target="_blank">the same refrain</a>: the D.C. Circuit doesn’t have enough cases to appoint new judges, new judges are too expensive, and the President’s attempt to fill preexisting, vacant seats is mere “court packing” that should be opposed.<br />
<br />
So when Judge McHugh—currently the presiding judge of the Utah Court of Appeals—came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it was reasonable to expect the same line of argument. After all, based on the <a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/viewer.aspx?doc=/uscourts/Statistics/FederalCourtManagementStatistics/2013/appeals-fcms-profiles-march-2013.pdf&page=3" target="_blank">most recent stats</a> from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (marking the 12 month period ending March 31, 2013), the D.C. Circuit actually has more pending cases per active judge than does the Tenth. The D.C. Circuit has 1,456 pending appeals, which, divided among the court’s eight active judges, is 182 cases per judge. By contrast, the Tenth Circuit’s 1,318 pending appeals and 10 active judges results in 132 cases per judge—50 fewer than the D.C. Circuit. In fact, even if the Senate confirms all three D.C. Circuit nominees, the number of cases per active judge would only drop to 132—which is precisely the Tenth Circuit’s work-rate before either Carolyn McHugh—or her fellow nominee, Nancy Moritz—is added to the bench.<br />
<br />
But these numbers never came up.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE, OCT. 2, 2013: This week, the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts <a href="http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/FederalCourtManagementStatistics.aspx" target="_blank">released the statistics on judicial caseload through June 30, 2013</a>, and the Republican caseload argument has further weakened. Based on these updated numbers, the D.C. Circuit’s caseload has increased from 1,456 pending cases to 1,479—that amounts to an additional three appeals per active judge.</b><br />
<br />
Now, as both <a href="http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-dc-circuit-workload-senator.html" target="_blank">Alliance for Justice</a> and <a href="http://blog.pfaw.org/content/new-data-shows-dc-circuit-caseload-continues-rise" target="_blank">others</a> have already shown, the Republican caseload argument is <a href="http://blog.pfaw.org/content/what-gop-isnt-saying-about-dc-circuits-caseload" target="_blank">wholly without merit</a>. But one would think they would at least apply it consistently, if only to maintain the façade of sincerity.<br />
<br />
None of this is to say that Tenth Circuit seats shouldn’t be filled. To the contrary, Carolyn McHugh is an exceptionally well-qualified jurist who—like the President’s D.C. Circuit nominees—should be swiftly confirmed. But the Republican’s selective use of the caseload argument exposes their staunch D.C. Circuit opposition for what it really is: pure partisan obstructionism employed solely to keep Democrat-appointed judges off the nation’s second most powerful court. The Republicans like the D.C. Circuit’s current conservative bent, and they are groping for whatever argument they can to maintain the <i>status quo</i>.<br />
<br />
On second thought, maybe “funny” isn’t the right word. With the crucial role that the D.C. Circuit plays in the federal judiciary—taking on complex regulatory issues involving the environment, labor, and other areas that directly impact the daily lives of all Americans—there is simply <a href="http://www.afj.org/judicial-selection/dccircuit.pdf" target="_blank">too much at stake</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-38874296229802833052013-09-25T09:46:00.000-04:002013-09-25T09:48:45.909-04:00Marco Rubio’s obstruction of justice<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Suppose you are a United States Senator who must decide
whether to support a nominee for a judgeship.
What are the most important criteria?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->A.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Knowledge of the law<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->B.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Intellect<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->C.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Judicial temperament<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->D.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]-->Diligence<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]-->E.<span style="font-size: 7pt;">
</span><!--[endif]-->If I vote for the guy, will it offend my
extremist base?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left: .75in; mso-add-space: auto;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Most of us would consider the first four. But if the senator in question were Marco
Rubio, and if he were forced to answer honestly, he would have to admit to E.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wbwv4m2NLqI/UkLohq30AaI/AAAAAAAABA4/zILqWwx_Lfg/s1600/Marco_Rubio_by_Gage_Skidmore2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Wbwv4m2NLqI/UkLohq30AaI/AAAAAAAABA4/zILqWwx_Lfg/s320/Marco_Rubio_by_Gage_Skidmore2.jpg" width="241" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Sen. Marco Rubio</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Sen. Rubio made that clear when, having previously supported
the nomination of William Thomas to serve as a judge on the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, he first delayed for
months giving the Senate Judiciary Committee his okay to move forward with the
nomination then changed his mind entirely.
By committee tradition, both home state senators must sign off on a
judicial nomination for it to proceed.
Sen. Rubio’s reversal effectively vetoes the nomination.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As a result, this judgeship, already vacant for more than 18
months, will remain vacant still longer, causing unconscionable delays for residents
of Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach and several other South Florida counties
seeking justice in federal court.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br />
Thomas now serves as a state court judge in Florida. Between the time Rubio said he would support
Thomas and the time he changed his mind, Thomas did not change. He’s the same William Thomas who won the
support of groups like the <a href="http://www.judgingtheenvironment.org/library/letters/Thomas-Dade-County-PBA-11-27-2012.pdf" target="_blank">Dade County Police Benevolent Association</a>, the
<a href="http://www.judgingtheenvironment.org/library/letters/Thomas-Broward-County-PBA-12-31-2012.pdf" target="_blank">Broward County Police Benevolent Association</a>, and the <a href="http://www.judgingtheenvironment.org/library/letters/Thomas-League-of-Prosecutors-12-18-2012.pdf" target="_blank">League of Prosecutors</a>, a
Miami-based group made up of current and former prosecutors.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The only thing that’s changed is Rubio’s need to shore up
his far-right base after flirting with compromise on immigration reform. Apparently, Rubio didn’t want to further
alienate his extremist allies by supporting a highly-qualified judge who would
also happen to be the first openly gay black male judge to serve on the federal
bench.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
As Yolanda Strader, president of Miami’s largest association
for black lawyers <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/politics/rubio-withdraws-support-for-gay-black-judges-nomination-to-the-federal-bench.html?_r=1&" target="_blank">told <i>The New York Times</i></a>:<i> </i></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><span style="background-color: white; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;">As
much as I would like to think that politics has nothing to do with this, it
looks as if it does. It would be unfair
to prevent a well-qualified judicial nominee from proceeding with the
nomination process because he is an openly gay black male.</span></i> </blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But given Rubio’s feeble and illogical excuses for his
reversal, that appears to be exactly what’s happened.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Rubio cites two rulings by Thomas. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the first, Thomas had to throw out a confession in a
horrific rape and murder case because two of the five defendants either had not
been read their <i>Miranda</i> rights, or
did not understand them. Nonetheless,
all five were convicted or pled guilty - and Judge Thomas sentenced one of the
killers to death. Never mind that the ruling at issue was made <i>more than six years ago</i>—and for that
reason alone could not logically serve as Rubio’s justification for changing
his mind about Judge Thomas in the last several months—Judge Thomas’s decision
was a product of exactly what conservatives say they want judges to do: strictly
apply the law, instead of bending it to reach a desired outcome.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In the second case, Rubio felt that Thomas had not imposed a
sufficiently harsh sentence on a driver who killed a cyclist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But Rubio has the complex facts of the case wrong. In January of this year, the prosecutor who
handled the case <a href="http://www.judgingtheenvironment.org/library/letters/Thomas-Anderson-prosecutor-1-25-2013.pdf" target="_blank">set the record straight in a letter to Rubio</a>, saying that
Judge Thomas made his sentencing determination—which was within the guidelines
provided by law—using “careful judgment.” In July, the Administrative Judge for
the court where Thomas serves <a href="http://www.judgingtheenvironment.org/library/letters/Thomas-Sayfie-Letter-07-19-2013.pdf" target="_blank">did the same</a>.
Rubio ignored both letters.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
To make matters worse, these are exactly the sorts of
questions that are best hashed out in the sunlight of a public committee
hearing. But without Rubio’s consent,
Judge Thomas will never have that opportunity.<o:p></o:p><br />
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="MsoPlainText">
The big losers in all this are the people of South
Florida. When federal courts don’t have enough judges, delays can become
unbearable. Medical bills caused by injuries due to negligence may
pile up while families wait for justice; memories may fade; witnesses may die.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoPlainText">
<br /></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Judge Thomas would have filled a seat that has been vacant
for more than a year and a half. The
Administrative Office of the United States Courts says the situation is so bad
that the vacancy is a “judicial emergency.”
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
By his actions on the Thomas nomination, Rubio has given new
meaning to the term “obstruction of justice.”<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<a href="http://www.judgingtheenvironment.org/library/letters/Thomas-League-of-Prosecutors-12-18-2012.pdf" target="_blank">In its letter to Rubio strongly endorsing Thomas</a>, the League
of Prosecutors wrote: </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>If – as we believe
appropriate – the criteria on which you base your decision to confirm district
court judges are judicial ability, work ethic, intelligence, experience, and a
willingness to adhere scrupulously to the dictates of the law, you should
confirm Judge Thomas without hesitation and urge your colleagues to do the
same.</i> </blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Too bad those are not Marco Rubio’s criteria. </div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-1121381699401807192013-09-24T12:04:00.000-04:002013-09-24T15:58:29.381-04:00AFJ applauds confirmation of Todd Hughes to serve on U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<b><span style="font-size: large;">Hughes is first openly gay nominee confirmed </span></b><br />
<b><span style="font-size: large;">as a federal appellate judge</span></b><br />
<br />
<i>Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron issued the following statement today on the confirmation of Todd Hughes to serve as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit:</i><br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lrBddGSRiF0/UkGcs0AdAhI/AAAAAAAABAo/4_cBE69DRBI/s1600/Toddhughes.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="181" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-lrBddGSRiF0/UkGcs0AdAhI/AAAAAAAABAo/4_cBE69DRBI/s200/Toddhughes.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Judge Todd Hughes</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Today’s vote to confirm Todd Hughes marks another milestone in the long journey toward justice and equality. Alliance for Justice long has fought for a federal judiciary that reflects the full diversity of America and a confirmation process that evaluates candidates based on their legal expertise, not how they look or who they love. <br />
<br />
We applaud President Obama for nominating the first openly gay individual confirmed to serve on a federal appellate court. We will continue working with the President and the Senate to ensure our federal judges possess a breadth of personal and professional experience.<br />
<br />
We share President Obama’s confidence that, in his words, Todd Hughes “will be [a] judicious and esteemed addition” to the Federal Circuit.<br />
<br />
<b>● <a href="http://bit.ly/18mRxeE" target="_blank">Read more about Judge Hughes </a></b><br />
<b>●<a href="http://bit.ly/19wgDGh" target="_blank">Read more about President Obama’s record concerning diversity on the federal bench </a></b>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-84124706093272157912013-09-19T10:38:00.000-04:002013-09-19T10:38:41.124-04:00Now the full Senate needs to vote on on Pillard nomination for D.C. Circuit<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<i>Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron issued the following statement in response to the vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee today on President Obama’s nomination of Nina Pillard to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:</i><br />
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BkUMRlopJFA/UjsBDGnN--I/AAAAAAAABAc/6tpmxsUJvRg/s1600/Pillard-FB-v2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BkUMRlopJFA/UjsBDGnN--I/AAAAAAAABAc/6tpmxsUJvRg/s320/Pillard-FB-v2.jpg" width="320" /></a>We commend the majority of the Senate Judiciary Committee for supporting President Obama’s nomination of Nina Pillard for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. We are disappointed, but not surprised, that all of the committee’s Republicans chose to put politics ahead of qualifications and opposed this outstanding nominee.<br />
<br />
The American people have good reason to be fed up with Republican obstruction and delay. They demand and deserve courts that have enough judges to administer justice fairly and swiftly. Americans are entitled to a swift yes-or-no vote by the full Senate on Nina Pillard and President Obama’s other judicial nominees.<br />
<br />
<b><a href="http://afjjusticewatch.blogspot.com/2013/09/dc-circuit-court-of-appeals-nominee.html" target="_blank">Read more about Nina Pillard in this previous post to Justice Watch</a></b><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3490776317263268706.post-43670267783433961772013-09-18T06:00:00.000-04:002013-09-19T09:50:44.307-04:00D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Nina Pillard: 10 things you should know<script type="text/javascript">
var _gaq = _gaq || [];
_gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-2327420-4']);
_gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() {
var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
})();
</script>
<i>On June 4, 2013, President Obama nominated Georgetown Law Professor Nina Pillard to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Over the course of her law career, Professor Pillard has won historic Supreme Court victories, and served two tours as a high-level government lawyer at the Department of Justice. She has spent 15 years teaching at Georgetown Law, where she is co-director of Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute. As the Senate Judiciary Committee prepares to vote on her nomination tomorrow, here are 10 things you might not know about Professor Pillard:</i><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
</div>
<b>1.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>She helped open VMI to women.</b> Professor Pillard wrote the briefs in <i>United States v. Virginia</i>, a case originally filed by the George H.W. Bush Administration. Professor Pillard’s arguments persuaded the Supreme Court to open the Virginia Military Institute to women, ending one of the last male-only admissions policies at a state college. Read an op-ed columns about Professor Pillard<a href="http://goo.gl/7IjiKL" target="_blank"> from a VMI alumna</a> and from <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/pillard-well-qualified-for-seat-on-appeals-court-96936.html" target="_blank">the superintendent of VMI</a> when women first were admitted.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BkUMRlopJFA/UjsBDGnN--I/AAAAAAAABAY/eS3jm2p7K3s/s1600/Pillard-FB-v2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BkUMRlopJFA/UjsBDGnN--I/AAAAAAAABAY/eS3jm2p7K3s/s320/Pillard-FB-v2.jpg" width="320" /></a><b>2.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>She protected the Family and Medical Leave Act. </b>Professor Pillard argued <i>Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs</i> before the Supreme Court, alongside Department of Justice officials from the George W. Bush administration. Their defense of the Family and Medical Leave Act successfully vindicated a state employee’s right to take unpaid leave to care for his ill wife. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote the majority opinion.<br />
<br />
<b>3.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>She has bipartisan support—including from top Republican former Justice Department officials. </b>Professor Pillard’s impressive record, integrity, and impartiality have earned her the support of top Department of Justice officials in previous Republican administrations. President George W. Bush’s Assistant Attorney General <a href="http://www.pfaw.org/sites/default/files/July_18_2013_Letter_in_Support_of_Cornelia_Pillard.pdf" target="_blank">Viet Dinh</a> and former FBI Director <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/pypgofdx68ks2g9/Letter%20to%20Senators%20Leahy%20and%20Grassley.pdf" target="_blank">William Sessions</a> both wrote personal letters to the Senate Judiciary Committee endorsing Professor Pillard for the DC Circuit.<br />
<br />
<b>4.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>She has argued or briefed dozens of cases before the Supreme Court</b>. Over the course of her career, Professor Pillard has litigated at all levels and throughout the country, from trial court to the Supreme Court.<br />
<br />
<b>5.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>If confirmed to the D.C. Circuit, Nina Pillard would be only the sixth woman to serve on that court in its 120-year history.</b> <br />
<br />
<b>6.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>She assisted the American Bar Association in concluding that Samuel Alito was “well qualified” for the U.S. Supreme Court.</b> Because of Professor Pillard’s unbiased approach to the law, she was asked to chair an ABAcommittee that reviewed Judge Samuel Alito’s writings, in the context of his nomination to the Supreme Court. Armed with the review by Professor Pillard’s committee, the Standing Committee unanimously gave Judge Alito its highest rating of “Well Qualified.”<br />
<br />
<b>7.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Professor Pillard has substantial expertise in matters affecting law enforcement</b>. Professor Pillard served two tours at the U.S. Department of Justice and has repeatedly defended and advised law enforcement officials. Her expertise has earned her the endorsement of the International Union of Police Associations and more than two dozen top attorneys in law enforcement and national security.<br />
<br />
<b>8.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>She’s a beloved professor. Over the last 15 years, Nina Pillard has distinguished herself as a professor at Georgetown University Law Center. </b>One of her favorite classes to teach is Civil Procedure, which covers the crucial role that fair process plays in the American legal system.<br />
<br />
<b>9.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Professor Pillard serves as a Co-Director of Georgetown University’s Supreme Court Institute. </b>Here, she prepares lawyers for argument on a pro bono, first-come basis, without regard to which side they represent. Over the past term, the Institute prepared lawyers on one or both sides of every case heard by the Supreme Court. <br />
<br />
<b>10)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Professor Pillard has devoted considerable time and energy to mentoring others throughout her career. </b>During her years at Georgetown, she has mentored countless law students. As a college student, moreover, she mentored low-income girls through a Big Sister program. In addition, she served on the Board of Friends of the Double Discovery Center at Columbia College, which works with low-income and first-generation-college youth to ensure academic skills building, high school graduation, college entrance and completion, and responsible adulthood.<br />
<br />
<b>You can help get Nina Pillard confirmed. <a href="http://org2.salsalabs.com/o/6539/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=15371" target="_blank">Click here to email your Senators. </a></b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b><a href="http://www.afj.org/judicial-selection/nominees/nina-pillard.html?templateName=template-30435193" target="_blank">Read more about Nina Pillard.</a></b><br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0