Thursday, January 19, 2012
Occupy the courts tomorrow!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
My Blog List
-
-
-
Cartoon: Putin can't relate3 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
Maybe Ukraine Will Get Some Aid8 hours ago
-
2:00PM Water Cooler 4/18/20249 hours ago
-
'Green News Report' - April 18, 20249 hours ago
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
State of the Union: Will Biden Resonate?1 month ago
-
In Memorium4 months ago
-
Kansas City NFL Draft Aerial Photos (5)11 months ago
-
-
Search4 years ago
-
-
who links to me?
Counter
The Gallery at night
Warning
Summer field
Late Summer Sunset
Chicago, downtown
under a bridge, by the lake
2 comments:
The Supreme Court takes yet another action on January 10, 2012 in MINNECI ET AL. v. POLLARD ET AL., to erode the ability to hold human rights abusers accountable for their actions. A paraplegic was prevented from getting damages from federal prison employees who he alleged violated his right to adequate medical care. The prisoner sued in federal court challenging the conditions of his confinement in a Georgia prison under, inter alia, 42 U. S. C. §1983 and Title II of the Americans with Disability Act of 1990.
In 2000 it came to light that Texas State run juvenile Texas Youth Commission (TYC) correction facilities, had allowed sexual misconduct and sexual victimization of juvenile inmates. There had been 750 complaints of sexual misconduct which the state officials had refused to investigate. A brave Texas Ranger became a whistleblower and insisted that the sexual abuse constituted a federal crime and he insisted on a federal investigation. The Texas Rangers and the FBI in 2005 accused two of the highest-ranking officials at the school, assistant superintendent Ray Brookins and principal John Paul Hernandez of having sexual relations with several students over an extended period. Without federal investigative intervention this would never have been brought to light because the Texas Attorney General had refused to investigate the allegations of sexual abuse and declined getting involved. This case highlighted the importance of federal agents of the Department of Justice in protecting the human rights of persons in detention and prison situations. When such violations of human rights are identified, it is an obligation under human rights law and the US Constitution that persons harmed should receive appropriate compensation and redress. But the state government which does not want to pay damages for the misbehavior of state employees grants them governmental immunity from being held accountable. In addition the state government also many times through legislation, executive decree and state contracts, grants governmental immunity to governmental subcontractors who also operate private detention facilities and private prisons. So the lack of an avenue for compensation and redress for human rights violations at the federal level means that abusers can just walk away and can never be brought to a court of justice.
Our Supreme Court in its infinite wisdom has now claimed that there is no federal Bivens remedy for damages for human rights violations done by private employees in federal prisons. This expands the level of impunity given to those who within the prison system chose to seriously violate human rights.
A recent Supreme Court Decision in Minneci v Pollard has prevented a disabled prisoner to seek damages from employees at a privately run federal prison in California.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1203.pdf
This disabled prisoner claimed that they had deprived him of adequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Federal District Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the Eighth Amendment does not imply an action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388, against a privately managed prison’s personnel. A Bivens case and 42 U. S. C. §1983 is the way federal employees are held legally responsible in a civil action for deprivation of persons rights.
Supreme Court Decisions: Corporations as powerful “persons”
William Blackstone once said “the most powerful individual in the state will be cautious of committing any flagrant invasion of another’s right, when he knows that the fact of his oppression must be examined and decided by twelve indifferent men.”
The jury is particularly important today, as powerful corporations encroach ever further into our political system.
But in the Supreme Court’s Citizens United case, a slim 5-4 majority allowed giant corporations unlimited license to drown out the voices of American citizens in our elections.
There have been over recent years many Pro-corporate Supreme Court decisions.
For examples of how the Supreme Court decisions have eroded the rights of “human persons” see these important Supreme Court Decisions:
The right to a jury trial - Rent-A-Center
The Supreme Court in the Rent-A-Center case has diverted working Americans away from a jury by forcing them before an arbitrator. In Rent-A-Center, for example, the Court stopped American employees who work under binding mandatory arbitration agreements from challenging unfair treatment by their employers in court.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-497.pdf
The right to bring class action law suits - Walmart
In the largest employee class-action lawsuit in U.S. history the Supreme Court ruled that the case would not go forward as a class action suit. As many as 1.6 million female employees from Wal-Mart were included in the sex discrimination case. Instead the court agreed unanimously that the litigation could not proceed as a class action form.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
The right of small businesses to compete with the big business - Leegin antitrust case
Consider the Leegin antitrust case, where the 5-4 majority on the Court reversed many decades of precedent that had kept prices low for consumers, and had helped small businesses compete with corporate giants.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/06-480.pdf
The right of victims of environmental disasters to obtain adequate compensation - Exxon v Baker
See the Supreme Court Case Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471 (2008). This Supreme Court decision took the opinion that the punitive damages awarded to the victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill should be reduced from US $2.5 billion to US $500 million.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-219.pdf
Post a Comment