Missouri Figures Prominently In First Supreme Court Deadlock

So the first voting deadlock since Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death from the now 8-member US Supreme Court comes straight out of a case that began right here in Missouri:

Supreme Court hits first post-Scalia deadlock in bankruptcy case

WASHINGTON -- The risk created by last month's death of Justice Antonin Scalia became a reality Tuesday when the Supreme Court deadlocked in a bankruptcy case that had been pending since the first day of the term last October.

Chief Justice John Roberts read the one-sentence verdict, which could be repeated many times before a replacement for Scalia overcomes a similar deadlock between President Obama and Senate Republicans: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided court."

The case was one of the high court's least noticed -- a bankruptcy dispute between a Missouri bank and a development company that defaulted on its loans. The company was owned by two couples, and the wives filed suit, claiming discrimination for being required to guarantee their spouses' loans.

The justices clearly were divided in the case, as evidenced by the length of time it took to issue a decision. By the time Scalia died Feb. 13, the case had been under review for more than four months -- an indication of a close decision with one or more dissents.

Left without Scalia's vote, the justices had to ditch all the opinions, concurrences and dissents they may have been writing and, in essence, throw up their hands.

As a result, the Community Bank of Raymore emerges victorious over the two wives, Valerie Hawkins and Janice Patterson, by virtue of the earlier decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

Here's hoping our Congress will, very soon, interview and discuss President Obama's nomination for the Court and have a vote on it.

Hey, we can hope.

Quote of the Day -- Timely

What part of equality do people not understand?

Worried About Gay Marriage?

Relax!

After last week's McCutcheon decision by the Supreme Court

A timely quote:

"We must make our choice. 

We may have democracy or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."

--Justice Louis Brandeis, former associate Justice of the Supreme Court, as quoted by Raymond Lonergan in Mr. Justice Brandeis, Great American (1941), p. 42.

Links:  85 richest people own as much as bottom half of population

Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Political Donation Cap

Louis Brandeis - Wikipedia

US Supreme Court lets the wealthy buy everything

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's blistering dissent in McCutcheon:

"Corruption breaks the constitutionally necessary “chain of communication” between the people and their representatives. It derails the essential speech-to-government-action tie. Where enough money calls the tune, the general public will not be heard. Insofar as corruption cuts the link between political thought and political action, a free marketplace of political ideas loses its point. That is one reason why the Court has stressed the constitutional importance of Congress’ concern that a few large donations not drown out the voices of the many…."

Link:  A Blistering Dissent in 'McCutcheon'

Money in our elections and government

Thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States, this Chief Justice John Roberts court, corporations are people and money is speech.

We're screwed.


Link:  Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Political Donation Cap

SCOTUS to the 99%: Screw you people

Yesterday, our own US Supreme Court took ur, all of us, the entire nation, yet further down the deep, dark hole--the money hole--in our politics. It was huge, ugly news for the country and an extremely dark day for the nation:

Supreme Court's abomination: How the McCutcheon decision will destroy American politics

In case you haven't been following this or aren't aware of what was possibly going down:

“Money talks,” Elvis Costello once observed, “and it’s persuasive.” The belief that this is especially true in the world of politics led to the passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act. In the aftermath of Watergate the FECA was strengthened in an attempt to limit the corrupting influence of money on politics, and, until 2010, the Supreme Court largely upheld Congress’s power to do so.

That year the Citizens United case, which essentially found that the free speech rights of corporations were more important than legislative attempts to keep money from corrupting the political process, occasioned a great deal of outrage. But that case marked merely the beginning of what is likely to prove to be a series of increasingly successful assaults on campaign finance laws.

And now, Wednesday, the next blow to attempting to keep the rich from being able to buy politicians as effortlessly as they purchase anything else has been struck by McCutcheon v. FEC, a Supreme Court case dealing with limits on how much money individuals can contribute to candidates.

McCutcheon has now struck down overall limits on individual campaign contributions. This latest outburst of judicial activism in the struggle to render campaign finance laws completely toothless is merely accelerating a historical process that is coming to seem almost inevitable.

So it's been decided by the Court and now the wealthy and corporations have even fewer limitations on the amounts of their millions and billions of dollars they can use to buy, well, every legislator and every possible government bill and law and so, ultimately, our own government, even more than they're already doing now.

And no, it's not that it wasn't unexpected. Too many of us thought this Court might well come down on the side of that same wealthy and corporations but still, here it is. The worst we thought might happen, has, in fact, occurred.

Fortunately, not everyone on the Court voted for the 1%. It just wasn't enough of them.

The fact is, we, the people have to stand up and demand an end to the money, the big, ugly, corrupting, pervasive money of the wealthy and corporations that's buying our legislators, our laws and so, our government.  It has to come from us.  It will only happen if we stand up. we have to take our government back. It can happen but it has to come from us. We must demand it.

Link to pdf of the Court's decision:   McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm'n - Supreme Court

What we need in America

We need to end campaign contributions. 

Totally, utterly. 

We need to end the big, ugly, corrupting influence of money from the wealthy and corporations in our election system and government.  It's the only way we'll get back our representatives, their legislation, our laws and so, our government for the people.

And it has to come from us.

Corporations are crushing America and Americans

I spoke to a woman, the manager of a "dollar store", this morning.

Turns out she was alone in the entire store.

Whenever I find that the case--that a person is working a retail store, anywhere, all by themselves--I am invariably stunned. All it would take is one person, walking in the door, seeing the situation and realizing what a vulnerable situation it is for that worker, male or female, and how it could be exploited, however illegally or worse.

She and I started up a conversation. Turns out she's the manager, apparently. I told her I emphasized.

It got worse.

She said it really was bad.

Not only was she working alone, vulnerable and really, potentially dangerous as that was and is, she also had to get and keep the stocking up, of course, all by herself, the entire time.

Then she'd have to also wait on the customers, of course, and keep them happy.

And then there was the watching for shoplifters.

She added that she had a monthly inventory coming up in just a day or two so that pressure was also on.

Then there was the pay. 

$7.25 an hour.

Then there was the fact, as though that isn't enough, that she was there, alone, for 6 hours.

Added to all that is that she couldn't step away during all that to go to the bathroom.


This is what we've come to in America.

Business is in control. It's all about profit.  And profits.  Forget the people.   Forget that $7.25 isn't even a true working wage. Nowhere close to it.  How do you make only $7.25 an hour and still keep up a car and a good, safe place to live and keep food on the table?  It can't be done.  Not in America.

This was a dollar store but it's widespread across companies in this country.

I've written before how 24 Hour Fitness hires far more people than they need but all at far less than a full 40 hour work week so they don't have to pay health care and/or other benefits.  And the starting pay there?  In the neighborhood of $9 per hour.  It's not much.  Not enough, again, to make a good, true living.

We've known about Walmart and how they do this and how horrible that all is. My point is, it's far more widespread than just that one very large company.

The companies, businessmen and corporations are in control.  And it's crushing America.  It's crushing Americans. It's shrinking the middle class, quickly, thoroughly and effectively.

The Supreme Court, just this week, made a few more rulings, too, supporting the companies and corporations over the people, over the workers and individuals. Justice John Roberts and his Right Wing cohorts have been and are still being very effective in ruling, time and again, for the wealthy, for the rich, for the corporations and companies, repeatedly.  It's very disheartening.

If you've got money and a company behind you, you have it made.

You and me?

We're screwed.

We simply HAVE to start the push to end campaign contributions.

We have to end the big, ugly, corrupting influence of the money from the wealthy and corporations that, at present, own our government representatives and their legislation and so, our laws and finally, our government.

It's the only way we'll get our country back for the people.

Kansas Governor Sam Brownback vs. Kansans and the US Constitution

"In addition to throwing away a $31.5 million grant that would have helped Kansans, Brownback and his minions in the Legislature passed a law in 2011 that said Kansans do not have to pay any fines, etc. for not obeying the ACA (Affordable Care Act). That law is unconstitutional (remember the Supremacy Clause from high school civics class?) and will just cost the state money to defend it in court." --Curtis Barnhill, friend of a friend.

Missouri and Kansas Republicans won't act on the insurance exchanges so their constituents can possibly, hopefully access lower insurance rates for health care. They're protecting the insurance companies instead of the people. It's disgusting.

Link: https://www.facebook.com/curtis.barnhill.5?ref=ts

On "corporate personhood"

Montana State Supreme Court Justice James Nelson, on "corporate personhood", as set forth in the 2010 US Supreme Court's "Citizens United" ruling: "Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.” No one could say it any better, more forcefully or clearer. Thank you, Justice Nelson. Link: http://www.alternet.org/story/153623/montana_high_court_says_%27citizens_united%27_does_not_apply_in_big_sky_state?page=1

Montana State Supreme Court sees things clearly

The Montana Supreme Court sees what you and I see and what the Supreme Court can't: Montana High Court Says 'Citizens United' Does Not Apply In Big Sky State State Supreme Court Issues Remarkable Ruling Against Corporate Speech

From the article: “Organizations like WTP that act as a conduit for anonymously spending by others represent a threat to the political marketplace,” wrote Mike McGrath, Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court, for the majority. “Clearly the impact of unlimited corporate donations creates a dominating impact on the political process and inevitably minimizes the impact of individual citizens.” And thank goodness. The whole world hasn't lost its collective mind after all. Now, one down, 49 states to go. It's enough to give one a glimmer of hope, at least. Thank you, Montana State Supreme Court. It's a new year's gift. Link: http://www.alternet.org/story/153623/montana_high_court_says_%27citizens_united%27_does_not_apply_in_big_sky_state

States vs. US Government on Health Care Reform Act

There are some really interesting legal questions in the country pending right now dealing with the health care reform of last year.

It seems 26 States Attorneys General and their governors have filed suit against the Federal Government over this Health Care Reform Act.  They're fighting the mandate that we all have to buy health insurance.

If you've read anything here, over time, you know I've pointed out how badly, badly broken our health care system is, how expensive it is and how it doesn't work for too many millions of us so yes, I think--know--we need some solutions.

That said, here are the questions I see as pertinent to this lawsuit that either seem obvious or have no answer:

First, if, as these representatives of their respective states contend, the Federal Government can't require us to have health care, then how is it that states can mandate we have car insurance?  Doesn't that give the Feds carte blanche, legally, anyway, to be able to require it of us?

Second, sure, as I said, I'm all for health care reform because we need it so badly but as I've asked here before, if you can't afford health insurance, how is passing a law requiring it going to somehow make you paying for it possible?  How does that work?  If I can't afford it, where is that money going to come from?  And isn't, then, some financial penalty if I don't get health insurance rather superfluous?  If I didn't have money before, how am I going to pay the penalty?  And even if I do pay the penalty, that still doesn't mean I can pay for health insurance.

This requiring us all to have health insurance was just a big hand-off and payday for the insurance companies, as we all know.  What good thing was supposed to happen for us regarding affordability?  That was where the "public option" for health insurance, where the Feds would be able to offer the health insurance companies some good, positive competition, was going to come in.  As we also know, unfortunately President Obama gave up that possibility early in his negotiations with the insurance industry.

Thirdly, on this issue and in this case before the Supreme Court, it will be fascinating to see if they don't come down squarely for the health insurance companies, what with their strong and undeniable record of, time and again, coming down on the side of "Big Business".  I think the likelihood they'll throw out the mandate is very strong.

Finally, if they come down against the mandate, the question becomes how far will they interpret this?  Will they then say the entire Health Care Reform Act is unconstitutional or will they merely throw out that one stipulation?

Interesting stuff.

Regardless?  I think the American public--the "little guy", you and I--will lose on this deal, yet again.

Stay tuned.

Link:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=136952195

To hell in a handbasket

The Supreme Court's "Citizen's United" Ruling, opening up virtually unlimited amounts of corporate money into our election system and campaigns wasn't enough last year, now we got this:

Federal Judge Reverses Ban on Direct Corporate Contributions

Which means that:  the long-standing ban on corporations contributing directly to candidates running for federal office was unconstitutional.

And we thought we had the worst government money could buy.

We'll certainly get it now.

Supreme Court came down on side of business---yet again

Well, no surprise here.  Move along.  Move along.

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday yet again for business, big business, corporations and against you and I, the "little guy":

Supreme Court Allows Contracts That Prohibit Class-Action Arbitration

By ADAM LIPTAK

WASHINGTON — Businesses may use standard-form contracts to forbid consumers claiming fraud from banding together in a single arbitration, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a 5-to-4 decision that split along ideological lines.

Though the decision concerned arbitrations, it appeared to provide businesses with a way to avoid class-action lawsuits in court.

Yet more power for corporations, stripping you and I of control over our lives.

Get cheated by a business or corporation, along with a great deal of others in the country?  Want to sue in order to get back at least some of what was taken from you?

Well, bucko, forget that.  The Supreme Court said it's okay for businesses to have put in the contract that you are out of luck on that.  It will be you and your meager pocket book--all alone--vs. the giant corporation, their money and their big, multi-millionaire pocketbooks.

Guess who's going to win everytime?

One guess---and it ain't gonna' be you or me.

I miss the time in America when I felt government was the one last, big bastion between corporations and big business and all the rest of us.  

I miss it when government was on our side.

Particularly and especially the courts.

Link:  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/business/28bizcourt.html?_r=1&ref=supremecourt

The First Amendment may be the death of us

First it was the Westboro Baptist Church's First Amendment right to picket "gays" at the funerals of service members--American soldiers who died while in service to our country.  That was protected.

Next up was the "Citizen's United" by the Supreme Court last year, which gave corporations the ability to spend literally unlimited amounts of money in political campaigns, all for the sake of their "First Amendment rights."

Earlier his week, the Supreme Court began deciding whether a government representative's First Amendment rights are denied if--get this--he or she is expected to be recused from any governmental decision if he or she has, say, taken money from someone involved.

Say what?

Here you go:

Supreme Court Hears Dispute Over Nevada Ethics Law

by NINA TOTENBERG

At a time when some groups are calling for stricter ethics rules for the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices on Wednesday seemed disinclined to interfere with state ethics laws.

At issue was a question never examined by the court before: whether a legislative vote is free speech protected by the Constitution, and more specifically, whether states may forbid officeholders to vote on matters that appear to involve a personal conflict.

In 2007, the Nevada Ethics Commission ruled that Michael Carrigan, a city councilman in Sparks, Nev., had violated the state ethics code by voting for a casino development at a time when his close friend and campaign manager was being paid $10,000 a month by the developer. After consulting the city attorney, Carrigan disclosed his relationship but voted to approve the casino project. The Ethics Commission ruled that Carrigan should have recused himself from voting.

Nevada Ethics Commission Executive Director Caren Jenkins said the ruling was based on a determination that "a reasonable person in Mr. Carrigan's position would be materially affected by the conflict such that they would have a hard time exercising independent judgment."

But Carrigan disagreed, saying he had no conflict and had done nothing wrong. He appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor, declaring that voting by an elected public officer is protected speech under the First Amendment.

So now, if this goes the First Amendment freedom way, you can pay off a government representative and STILL have him vote in your favor.

If you're a praying person, get busy on this one.  Let's hope it goes against this guy in Nevada.

Link:  http://www.npr.org/2011/04/27/135778737/top-court-hears-protected-speech-arguments

Good news/bad news on the Wal-mart discrimination lawsuit

The good news is, the lawsuit, filed by thousands of women across the country, is going forward.

The bad news is, it's going before a Supreme Court that has made itself known for being so Right-wing, so Republican and so Conservative that the likelihood is strong that they may well come down in favor of the big, ugly and all-powerful corporation, Civil Rights be damned.

Some brief background (from NPR and their website):

The U.S. Supreme Court takes on the biggest employment discrimination case in history on Tuesday — a case that pits Wal-Mart against roughly 1.5 million of its current and former female workers.

The case was filed 10 years ago, and Tuesday's argument is Wal-Mart's last-ditch effort to prevent a trial. The issue comes down to whether Wal-Mart is too big to be sued in a single nationwide class action lawsuit claiming gender discrimination.

The chutzpah of attorneys and a company claiming they're "too big to be sued" is just so nearly incomprehensible, I'm not sure if I want to scream or bang my head against a wall.

I love and agree with what the women's attorney, Joseph Sellers, said earlier today, in the story:  "There is no large company exception to the Civil Rights laws."

So true.

Think about it--if this is true, that companies can be "too big to be sued", then Civil Rights and your and my claim for them go out the window, folks.  Sure, you and I, individually, can sue a company we work for.

Right.

Good luck with that.

First, you won't keep that job you need so there goes feeding your family or keeping that roof over your head.

Then, good luck finding a new job.

And this is just one note of a long list of things I can find and say that's wrong with this going in Wal-Mart's and corporate America's favor.

God help us.  I hope this goes right and for us, for the plaintiffs, the women.

Links:  http://www.npr.org/2011/03/29/134866747/can-a-business-be-too-big-for-a-class-action-suit
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126787308&ps=rs

The corporation vs. littlest of "little guys"

So we're clear, too, the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to everyone born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction and protects civil and political rights  

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and proceduralrights.

Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.

Ain't America great?  We don't try to extend the Constitution's 14th Amendment rights to citizens--in this case, African-Americans--hardly a lick but we crawl all over ourselves to advance those same rights to non-entity, really, corporations, just because of their big bucks.

As the old song goes, "It's money that matters, in the USA..."

Thanks and a hat tip to the following blogging colleagues for this political cartoon:

http://www.nocorprule.blogspot.com/;  

http://www.poclad.org/?pg=Art&show=wuerker04.jpg

Link to Wikipedia definition/description of the 14th Amendment:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

From Senator Arlen Specter: What we've become?

What kills me is that so many people, time and again, keep asking why and how we've gotten to where we've gotten when it seems so obvious it's from having killed the "Fairness Doctrine" and because we don't get and keep money--big money--out of our government, most specifically with true, thorough federal campaign financing.

But it won't happen.

The Supreme Court's next decisions: On free speech and taking our rights

The Supreme Court starts their new session Monday so I thought I'd point out a couple (few?) of my favorites--one I've got more of a "dog in the fight".

The first one is this whole thing of those judgemental, damning and condemning crackpots from Topeka, the Phelps clan.  As you likely know, they've gotten their case on their ability to protest at military service people's funerals all the way to the Supreme Court.  Pitiful, isn't it?  Doesn't it seem like these nut cases should be able to "protest" these things--gays in the military--some several hundred feet AWAY from the service person's funeral, so the family can have their peace and quiet while they bury their son or daughter but these pathetic people can have their precious say and First Amendment rights?  Doesn't that seem fair and workable?  Hopefully, that's what the court will decide.  Here's hoping.

Second: Another case involves a different aspect of the First Amendment, the government's relationship to religion. The justices will decide whether Arizona's income tax credit scholarship program, in essence, directs state money to religious schools in violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.

My feeling on this is always the same:  government out of religion, religion out of government.  Any "non-denominational" group or person, along with Christians in this country will immediately go ballistic and protest the first time a Muslim or other religious group wants to go for this same thing.  It's crazy.  We should stop it now, here, and be done with it.

Here's one that really gets me going:  Several cases that pit consumers against business also revolve around when federal law trumps state action. In one case, parents of a child who suffered severe, lasting damage from a vaccine want to use state law to sue a drugmaker, even though Congress has established a special court to hear disputes over vaccines.


The business community is asking the court to rein in the use of class actions in suits and arbitrations in state courts. Plaintiffs often can force large settlements without a trial if they succeed in pooling the claims of everyone who might be affected.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., backed by many business groups, wants the court to toss out an enormous class-action sex discrimination suit over allegations that it pays women less than men and promotes women less frequently. The case could involve millions of women who once worked at the world's largest private employer.

And you know what that means, folks.  Here we go again.  This court will, I'd almost wager, side with the big corporations and their lawyers, making it that much easier for corporations to do whatever they want in the marketplace all for the sake of profits.  Then, if/when they get caught doing something illegal, as in this case with discrimination which, I remind you, has been declared illegal decades ago (and decades, at least, later than it should have been declared illegal), they want to be able to reduce their damages big time, weakening your and my rights that much more but making it easier for them to keep pocketing profits.  It's disgusting. 

Finally, not any more cases but on the specter of this President possibly, hopefully, replacing more justices:

In recent years, the start of a new term has been accompanied by speculation over who might soon retire. The same nine justices served together from 1994 to 2005, an unusually long period of stability. Since 2005, four new justices have joined the court.


The oldest justice is Ginsburg, at 77. Scalia and Kennedy are 74, while Justice Stephen Breyer is 72.

Ginsburg has said she intends to stay on the court for five more years or so, and the other three septuagenarians have given no indication they are leaving anytime soon.

Here's hoping President Obama can and does end up getting to select a replacement for Antonin Scalia. 

What a happy day that would be.

Have a great weekend, y'all.

Link to original post:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/02/free-speech-cases-at-top-_n_748039.html