The World turned upside down. GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS. The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt.
The founding fathers learned from the British, as they phrased it, “mixed government is best”. All pure forms of gov’t such as monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy historically led to evil gov’ts. By mixing these pure forms so that the three counter balanced each other a stable and healthy system was established. In a recent speech recently retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’ Connor stated that the framers created three separate and equal branches of gov’t because they knew that preserving liberty requires that no single branch or person can amass unchecked power.
This is the foundation of our gov’t. The framers of our constitution being experienced people knew we could not rely on good intentions, oaths of office, promises etc. We needed an organized gov’t approach to check on the different branches. This makes good sense since no person or branch is above making mistakes or overreaching their constitutional boundaries.
The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is abandoning its oversight responsibilities thru a doctrine of Judicial Restraint. The result is to strengthen the Presidency or Legislature at the expense of the Judiciary and the rights of its citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice. The Court is doing this thru the use of standing and a very strict, “mean”, interpretation of the law,
and legal procedures, to limit cases accepted by the Court.
More to come.
Showing posts with label CIVIL LIBERTIES. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIVIL LIBERTIES. Show all posts
Monday, July 27, 2009
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Another Court's Narrow Interpretation
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice. The Court is also using a very strict, “mean”, interpretation of the law, and legal procedures, to limit cases accepted by the Court.
Speaking for the majority in a recent Supreme Court case, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled, “Time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature and therefore cannot be waived by Judges for reason of fairness”. “We hold that the defendant’s untimely notice—even though filed in reliance upon a District Court order--deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction”,
The defendant’s lawyer sought to reopen an appeal, under a federal rule of civil procedure he had 14 days to file a notice of appeal. The Judge granted the motion to reopen on Feb 10th but inexplicably said the notice must be filed by Feb. 27. The notice was filed Feb.26 the day before the Judge’s deadline but two days beyond the legal deadline.
In dissent, Judge David Souter wrote, ”it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, Congress put no jurisdictional tag on the time limit here” and the court was wrong to add one. Souter pointed out, “We have the authority to recognize an equitable exception to the 14 day limit, 1962 decision, and we should do that here, as it certainly seems reasonable to rely on order from a federal judge.
The Court is accomplishing this by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice. The Court is also using a very strict, “mean”, interpretation of the law, and legal procedures, to limit cases accepted by the Court.
Speaking for the majority in a recent Supreme Court case, Justice Clarence Thomas ruled, “Time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature and therefore cannot be waived by Judges for reason of fairness”. “We hold that the defendant’s untimely notice—even though filed in reliance upon a District Court order--deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction”,
The defendant’s lawyer sought to reopen an appeal, under a federal rule of civil procedure he had 14 days to file a notice of appeal. The Judge granted the motion to reopen on Feb 10th but inexplicably said the notice must be filed by Feb. 27. The notice was filed Feb.26 the day before the Judge’s deadline but two days beyond the legal deadline.
In dissent, Judge David Souter wrote, ”it is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, Congress put no jurisdictional tag on the time limit here” and the court was wrong to add one. Souter pointed out, “We have the authority to recognize an equitable exception to the 14 day limit, 1962 decision, and we should do that here, as it certainly seems reasonable to rely on order from a federal judge.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Supreme Ct Narrow Interpretations
The original thought behind our constitution was to protect the individual against the excesses of a powerful govt. The present Court appears to have taken the opposite tack. It is deciding to protect large businesses and govt institutions against the clams of the citizens.
The Court is accomplishing this by a very narrow, interpretation of the law. It is also being accomplished by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.
For instance in a recent case Lilly Ledbetter a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber sued her employer for paying her less than the male supervisors. The suit was filled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII requires that the complaint be filed within ninety days of the alleged discrimination. Since the 1960’s the Courts and the Equal Employment Commission had ruled that that the 180 days began every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.
This Supreme ruled that the 180 days began when the first unequal paycheck was received. In Ms. Ledbetter’s case this was 19 years earlier. Ms. Ledbetter had been underpaid for 19 years.
This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.
Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.
President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.
With the election of Pres. Obrama and a new Congress legislation was passed to rstore the 180 day period to begin from the date of the last dicriminatory payment.
The Court is accomplishing this by a very narrow, interpretation of the law. It is also being accomplished by limiting citizens rights to go to court to seek relief from what the citizen believes to be an injustice.
For instance in a recent case Lilly Ledbetter a supervisor at Goodyear Tire and Rubber sued her employer for paying her less than the male supervisors. The suit was filled under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This Act prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII requires that the complaint be filed within ninety days of the alleged discrimination. Since the 1960’s the Courts and the Equal Employment Commission had ruled that that the 180 days began every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.
This Supreme ruled that the 180 days began when the first unequal paycheck was received. In Ms. Ledbetter’s case this was 19 years earlier. Ms. Ledbetter had been underpaid for 19 years.
This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.
Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough votes in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.
President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.
With the election of Pres. Obrama and a new Congress legislation was passed to rstore the 180 day period to begin from the date of the last dicriminatory payment.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
The Supreme Court Standing Effects Part 2
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS Often led by Justice Antonin Scalia the Supreme Court has limited access to the Courts on a wide range of issues. Restrictive “standing” has tended to harm liberal public-interests and lenient “standing” to help them.
The three essential requirements for standing are; an actual injury, proof that the injury was due to something the defendant did or failed to do, and proof that the injury would be redressed if the defendant did as the plaintiff
asked.
Of interest, large majorities of Justices have denied or limited access to businesses in cases where they fear the free interplay of the market could be effected.
During the last term the Court voted to protect some business practices from anti-trust suits, require greater evidence of collusion to allow cases to proceed, immunize Wall Street banks and brokers from anti-trust suits relating to activities regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission,, require plaintiffs to state allegations in greater detail. These decisions all set out rules that will bar some future claims from being heard.
The conservative Court is more friendly to business and gov’t and less friendly to individual rights than the liberal courts.
Two cases of interest. The Court ruled that the Freedom from Religion Foundation had no standing to sue over the executive promotion of faith based initiatives because the money came from executive discretionary funds not a congressional appropriation. Citizens can not file suits alleging that the government is spending money illegally, except for suits based on the Constitution’s Establishment clause, first amendment, the basis for separation of church and state.
Chief Justice Roberts has been very much against law suits contesting environmental rulings. Environment is one area, voter ID is another where conservatives rejected the idea of assessing statues as soon as they are passed. The conservatives want to have a clear idea of the nature and effect in the real world. In the voter ID case the lawyer for the people bringing suit pointed out that waiting may influence the outcome of an election. The voter ID requirement was upheld even though there was no evidence of voter fraud.
The three essential requirements for standing are; an actual injury, proof that the injury was due to something the defendant did or failed to do, and proof that the injury would be redressed if the defendant did as the plaintiff
asked.
Of interest, large majorities of Justices have denied or limited access to businesses in cases where they fear the free interplay of the market could be effected.
During the last term the Court voted to protect some business practices from anti-trust suits, require greater evidence of collusion to allow cases to proceed, immunize Wall Street banks and brokers from anti-trust suits relating to activities regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission,, require plaintiffs to state allegations in greater detail. These decisions all set out rules that will bar some future claims from being heard.
The conservative Court is more friendly to business and gov’t and less friendly to individual rights than the liberal courts.
Two cases of interest. The Court ruled that the Freedom from Religion Foundation had no standing to sue over the executive promotion of faith based initiatives because the money came from executive discretionary funds not a congressional appropriation. Citizens can not file suits alleging that the government is spending money illegally, except for suits based on the Constitution’s Establishment clause, first amendment, the basis for separation of church and state.
Chief Justice Roberts has been very much against law suits contesting environmental rulings. Environment is one area, voter ID is another where conservatives rejected the idea of assessing statues as soon as they are passed. The conservatives want to have a clear idea of the nature and effect in the real world. In the voter ID case the lawyer for the people bringing suit pointed out that waiting may influence the outcome of an election. The voter ID requirement was upheld even though there was no evidence of voter fraud.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The Supreme Court on Standing
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS Chief Justice Roberts in an article written in 1993 wrote, ”A relaxed doctrine of ‘standing’. would transform the courts into an ombudsmen of the administrative bureaucracy, a role for which they are ill-suite both institutionally and as matter of democratic theory.” In another.” article written in 1993 Justice Roberts wrote, “The one thing(Congress) may not due is ask the courts in effect to exercise (legislative) oversight responsibility at the behest of any John Q. Public whom happens to be interested in the issue.”
Justice Scalia has gone one step further. Writing about the Lujan vs. Wildlife Defenders, he wrote, “If Congress could authorize mere citizens to ensure that federal agencies followed the law it would interfere with the president’s constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. Diogenes’ personal opinion, nonsense This is what he Supreme Court is supposed to do.
“But the biggest change under Chief Justice John Roberts might not involve who wins on the merits, but rather, it maybe who gets through the courthouse door in the first place. In case after case the court shifted toward what Chief Justice Roberts has previously referred to as ‘judicial restraint’. As it addressed issues large and small, in civil liberties and criminal justice alike, the conservative bloc repeatedly found that the question didn’t belong before a judge at all.
One of the major thoughts behind judicial restraint is the “conservative’s antipathy to what they label as judicial activism—courts making decisions they believe are best left to an elected executive, a legislature or the rough and tumble of the free market”. The court’s conservatives have used judicial arguments such as finding the plaintiff had no right to sue, or the courts lack jurisdiction to hear the claim. When interpreting statutes the conservatives have strictly interpreted deadlines and procedural requirements to keep claims out of court. When the Court reviews the actions of lower courts the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of a trial judge’s discretion.
When a suit is dismissed preventing the court from deciding the merits of the case, it is without “standing”. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Standing is thus properly regarded as a doctrine of judicial self-restraint”. More om standing.
.
Justice Scalia has gone one step further. Writing about the Lujan vs. Wildlife Defenders, he wrote, “If Congress could authorize mere citizens to ensure that federal agencies followed the law it would interfere with the president’s constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. Diogenes’ personal opinion, nonsense This is what he Supreme Court is supposed to do.
“But the biggest change under Chief Justice John Roberts might not involve who wins on the merits, but rather, it maybe who gets through the courthouse door in the first place. In case after case the court shifted toward what Chief Justice Roberts has previously referred to as ‘judicial restraint’. As it addressed issues large and small, in civil liberties and criminal justice alike, the conservative bloc repeatedly found that the question didn’t belong before a judge at all.
One of the major thoughts behind judicial restraint is the “conservative’s antipathy to what they label as judicial activism—courts making decisions they believe are best left to an elected executive, a legislature or the rough and tumble of the free market”. The court’s conservatives have used judicial arguments such as finding the plaintiff had no right to sue, or the courts lack jurisdiction to hear the claim. When interpreting statutes the conservatives have strictly interpreted deadlines and procedural requirements to keep claims out of court. When the Court reviews the actions of lower courts the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of a trial judge’s discretion.
When a suit is dismissed preventing the court from deciding the merits of the case, it is without “standing”. Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Standing is thus properly regarded as a doctrine of judicial self-restraint”. More om standing.
.
Friday, June 26, 2009
WHERE IS THE SUPREME COURT JUNE 2009?
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
The nomination of a new Supreme Court Justice is a good time to have a look at the Court. To see what its approach to the role of the Supreme Court has been and the direction the Court decisions seems to be taking.
At present the majority of the Court has a very conservative outlook. The Justice retiring is a member of the minority. Therefore it will be interesting to see if and how the new member of the Court will effect its thinking and direction.
Since 1968 there have only three democratic Presidents, Carter-4 yrs., Clinton—8 yrs., Obrama—1 yr. The other 29 years have. been Republican. Republicans generally nominate conservatives to the court. At the present time the conservatives—Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. Kennedy is a swing vote he is usually conservative but on civil liberties he has voted with the minority. The minority group is Stevens, Bryer, Ginsberg and Souter, the Justice who is leaving the Court.
The election of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to the Court means the end of an era where many thought that the Court would be a protector of our rights and civil liberties. These people thought the Court would be a force for “equality” as promised by the constitution. Equality in respect to color, gender, race, religion, minorities, etc. Secondly the Court would be a force for expanding the constitutional rights of individuals .including criminal suspects, against the power of the state.
Chief Justice Roberts believes that the Court should not legislate from the bench and should exercise ‘judicial restraint’. Judicial restraint means the Court should be very careful not to overrule legislatative and executive decisions, or decisions reached in the free marketplace. One of the main methods of doing this is called “standing”. Next blog more on “standing”
The nomination of a new Supreme Court Justice is a good time to have a look at the Court. To see what its approach to the role of the Supreme Court has been and the direction the Court decisions seems to be taking.
At present the majority of the Court has a very conservative outlook. The Justice retiring is a member of the minority. Therefore it will be interesting to see if and how the new member of the Court will effect its thinking and direction.
Since 1968 there have only three democratic Presidents, Carter-4 yrs., Clinton—8 yrs., Obrama—1 yr. The other 29 years have. been Republican. Republicans generally nominate conservatives to the court. At the present time the conservatives—Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. Kennedy is a swing vote he is usually conservative but on civil liberties he has voted with the minority. The minority group is Stevens, Bryer, Ginsberg and Souter, the Justice who is leaving the Court.
The election of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to the Court means the end of an era where many thought that the Court would be a protector of our rights and civil liberties. These people thought the Court would be a force for “equality” as promised by the constitution. Equality in respect to color, gender, race, religion, minorities, etc. Secondly the Court would be a force for expanding the constitutional rights of individuals .including criminal suspects, against the power of the state.
Chief Justice Roberts believes that the Court should not legislate from the bench and should exercise ‘judicial restraint’. Judicial restraint means the Court should be very careful not to overrule legislatative and executive decisions, or decisions reached in the free marketplace. One of the main methods of doing this is called “standing”. Next blog more on “standing”
Sunday, May 3, 2009
WHERE OBRAMA WENT WRONG
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS No.2
By no later than the summer of 2004, the American people had before them the basic narrative of how the elected and appointed officials of their government decided to torture prisoners and how they went about it.” When the Obama administration said it declassified four new torture memos 10 days ago in part because their contents were already largely public, it was right.
Yet we still shrink from the hardest truths and the bigger picture: that torture was a premeditated policy approved at our government’s highest levels; that psychologists and physicians were enlisted as collaborators in inflicting pain; and that, in the assessment of reliable sources like the F.B.I. director Robert Mueller, it did not help disrupt any terrorist attacks
We now have evidence for an explanation of what motivated Bybee to write his memo
that August, thanks to the comprehensive Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainees released last week.
The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.
In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack on America but the Bush administration’s ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the 2002 midterm elections. Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” A month after Bybee’s memo, on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney would make his infamous appearance on “Meet the Press,” hyping both Saddam’s W.M.D.s and the “number of contacts over the years” between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If only 9/11 could somehow be pinned on Iraq, the case for war would be a slamdunk.
But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.
By no later than the summer of 2004, the American people had before them the basic narrative of how the elected and appointed officials of their government decided to torture prisoners and how they went about it.” When the Obama administration said it declassified four new torture memos 10 days ago in part because their contents were already largely public, it was right.
Yet we still shrink from the hardest truths and the bigger picture: that torture was a premeditated policy approved at our government’s highest levels; that psychologists and physicians were enlisted as collaborators in inflicting pain; and that, in the assessment of reliable sources like the F.B.I. director Robert Mueller, it did not help disrupt any terrorist attacks
We now have evidence for an explanation of what motivated Bybee to write his memo
that August, thanks to the comprehensive Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainees released last week.
The report found that Maj. Paul Burney, a United States Army psychiatrist assigned to interrogations in Guantánamo Bay that summer of 2002, told Army investigators of another White House imperative: “A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful.” As higher-ups got more “frustrated” at the inability to prove this connection, the major said, “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures” that might produce that intelligence.
In other words, the ticking time bomb was not another potential Qaeda attack on America but the Bush administration’s ticking timetable for selling a war in Iraq; it wanted to pressure Congress to pass a war resolution before the 2002 midterm elections. Bybee’s memo was written the week after the then-secret (and subsequently leaked) “Downing Street memo,” in which the head of British intelligence informed Tony Blair that the Bush White House was so determined to go to war in Iraq that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” A month after Bybee’s memo, on Sept. 8, 2002, Cheney would make his infamous appearance on “Meet the Press,” hyping both Saddam’s W.M.D.s and the “number of contacts over the years” between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If only 9/11 could somehow be pinned on Iraq, the case for war would be a slamdunk.
But there were no links between 9/11 and Iraq, and the White House knew it. Torture may have been the last hope for coercing such bogus “intelligence” from detainees who would be tempted to say anything to stop the waterboarding.
Monday, April 20, 2009
WHERE OBRAMA WENT WRONG
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS No.1
An important part of our effort to improve the present economic situation depends on building confidence in govt and industry. The public cannot have confidence in a gov’t that looks the other way whenever wrong doing is discovered, no matter what the reasons for the neglect. This is particularly true when the guilty parties indicates they knew they ware doing wrong.
Recently the Dept of Justice released torture memos. The Pres released a statement
that the torturers would not be prosecuted because the Dept of Justice had okayed
the procedures. WRONG ANSWER. These people have committed a crime they should stand trial. The statement added that you are looking to the future and don’t want to dredge up the past. WRONG ANSWER. The writers of these memo’s should also be brought to Justice.
At the Nuremberg trials the Nazi generals tried this “only following orders” ploy. The Nuremberg Court rejected this ploy and so should we. This is one of the poorest discredited excuses for avoiding justice. It is also important to point out that the rash of destroyed files and videos probably indicates the torturers knew they were doing illegal acts and were trying to destroy incriminating evidence. How can we respect a gov’t that protects law breakers?
The second statement about focusing on the future is true. All our efforts should not be focused on the mistakes of the past. However some effort has to be made to bring criminals to justice. This is a bizarre and complete co-out. I don’t recall FDR or Winston Churchill telling this to Hitler, or the FBI saying this to Al Capone or John Dillinger.
The President’s statement on April 20th. that he understands the hard choices people in the agency had to make as an excuse for not prosecuting tortures is the worst. Does this mean that torture is okay if the struggle is difficult? This is beneath a good Pres and good leader.
Furthermore these crimes strike at the very foundation of our democratic society, the
Bill of Rights and should not be taken lightly. This together with your complete indifference to prosecuting the greedy and shady business people who brought on our economic problems,the readiness to overlook illegal surveillance by the CIA that is still going on under your administration and your deference to the National Rifle Association clearly anti- public policies indicate a lawless administration that is failing to protect and further the interest of the public. The public can have no confidence in the Obrama Administration.
An important part of our effort to improve the present economic situation depends on building confidence in govt and industry. The public cannot have confidence in a gov’t that looks the other way whenever wrong doing is discovered, no matter what the reasons for the neglect. This is particularly true when the guilty parties indicates they knew they ware doing wrong.
Recently the Dept of Justice released torture memos. The Pres released a statement
that the torturers would not be prosecuted because the Dept of Justice had okayed
the procedures. WRONG ANSWER. These people have committed a crime they should stand trial. The statement added that you are looking to the future and don’t want to dredge up the past. WRONG ANSWER. The writers of these memo’s should also be brought to Justice.
At the Nuremberg trials the Nazi generals tried this “only following orders” ploy. The Nuremberg Court rejected this ploy and so should we. This is one of the poorest discredited excuses for avoiding justice. It is also important to point out that the rash of destroyed files and videos probably indicates the torturers knew they were doing illegal acts and were trying to destroy incriminating evidence. How can we respect a gov’t that protects law breakers?
The second statement about focusing on the future is true. All our efforts should not be focused on the mistakes of the past. However some effort has to be made to bring criminals to justice. This is a bizarre and complete co-out. I don’t recall FDR or Winston Churchill telling this to Hitler, or the FBI saying this to Al Capone or John Dillinger.
The President’s statement on April 20th. that he understands the hard choices people in the agency had to make as an excuse for not prosecuting tortures is the worst. Does this mean that torture is okay if the struggle is difficult? This is beneath a good Pres and good leader.
Furthermore these crimes strike at the very foundation of our democratic society, the
Bill of Rights and should not be taken lightly. This together with your complete indifference to prosecuting the greedy and shady business people who brought on our economic problems,the readiness to overlook illegal surveillance by the CIA that is still going on under your administration and your deference to the National Rifle Association clearly anti- public policies indicate a lawless administration that is failing to protect and further the interest of the public. The public can have no confidence in the Obrama Administration.
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Act lists new Federal crimes
The Act also lists several new federal crimes. Two of the more important ones are “domestic terrorism” and “material support”.
“Domestic terrorism” extends beyond acts of violence to include any “ acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws- - - if such acts - -appears to be intended- - to influence the policy of a gov’t by intimidation or coercion” and are conducted primarily within the” U. S. (Room for protest or disagreement?)(Martin Luther King protests for instance.)
Lending material support, “to any terrorist organization designated as such by federal officials, who have complete discretion in deciding which groups have “terrorist” aims. “Material support” is broadly defined to include any, ”physical asset,” “personnel”, “training” or “expert advice or assistance.” This provision does not require proof that a person charged with this crime intended to further any terrorist activities.
“Domestic terrorism” extends beyond acts of violence to include any “ acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws- - - if such acts - -appears to be intended- - to influence the policy of a gov’t by intimidation or coercion” and are conducted primarily within the” U. S. (Room for protest or disagreement?)(Martin Luther King protests for instance.)
Lending material support, “to any terrorist organization designated as such by federal officials, who have complete discretion in deciding which groups have “terrorist” aims. “Material support” is broadly defined to include any, ”physical asset,” “personnel”, “training” or “expert advice or assistance.” This provision does not require proof that a person charged with this crime intended to further any terrorist activities.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
2 Views on the Patriot Act
In looking at the Patriot Act we should keep in mind not only what the Act authorizes but what are the possibilities for abuse particularly if there is no oversight.
The Dept of Justice(DOJ) say “the ACT equips federal law enforcement with the tools they need to mount an effective coordinated campaign against our nation’s terrorist enemies.”
The American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) claims that the ACT “vastly expands the gov’t’s authority to spy on its own citizens “ “while reducing checks and balances on these powers like judicial oversight, public accountability and the ability to challenge gov’t searches in court.
The Dept of Justice(DOJ) say “the ACT equips federal law enforcement with the tools they need to mount an effective coordinated campaign against our nation’s terrorist enemies.”
The American Civil Liberties Union(ACLU) claims that the ACT “vastly expands the gov’t’s authority to spy on its own citizens “ “while reducing checks and balances on these powers like judicial oversight, public accountability and the ability to challenge gov’t searches in court.
Friday, September 26, 2008
WHAT HAS THE PATRIOT ACT DONE?
4th Amendment and the Patriot Act Part I
USA PATRIOT ACT (USAPA) introduced changes which significantly increase the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the US. These new powers included criminal as well terrorism activities. The ACT did not provide for a system of checks and balances that safeguard civil liberties. Probable cause and judicial review were frequently replaced by certification by law enforcement officials. In this process a law official appears before the court and certifies that the requested procedure is for a criminal or terrorism investigation. The Court has to approve it. There is no judicial opinion involved. Other methods used to avoid judicial review are the allowable use of subpoenas and search warrants.
USA PATRIOT ACT (USAPA) introduced changes which significantly increase the surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies in the US. These new powers included criminal as well terrorism activities. The ACT did not provide for a system of checks and balances that safeguard civil liberties. Probable cause and judicial review were frequently replaced by certification by law enforcement officials. In this process a law official appears before the court and certifies that the requested procedure is for a criminal or terrorism investigation. The Court has to approve it. There is no judicial opinion involved. Other methods used to avoid judicial review are the allowable use of subpoenas and search warrants.
Monday, May 5, 2008
GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex based wage discrimination.
Lilly Ledbetter worked for 19 years at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. plant in Gadsen, AL. She received an anonymous tip that she was making $6,500 less than the lowest paid man who had her job... Lilly sued. This looked like an open and shut case. (see above)
However the law said she had to file her discrimination complaint wthin 180 days of the alleged unlawful discrimination. Since the 1990’s nine federal circuit courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had ruled that the 180s started every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.
The Supreme Court ruled that the 180 days began with Lilly’s first discriminatory payment about 20 years earlier. This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.
Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough support in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.
President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.
This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex based wage discrimination.
Lilly Ledbetter worked for 19 years at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. plant in Gadsen, AL. She received an anonymous tip that she was making $6,500 less than the lowest paid man who had her job... Lilly sued. This looked like an open and shut case. (see above)
However the law said she had to file her discrimination complaint wthin 180 days of the alleged unlawful discrimination. Since the 1990’s nine federal circuit courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had ruled that the 180s started every time the employee received an unequal paycheck.
The Supreme Court ruled that the 180 days began with Lilly’s first discriminatory payment about 20 years earlier. This is very unfair. Wages are a subject that is usually not discussed particularly when there is discrimination between employees, Secondly the Supreme Court’s interpretation means that if an employer discriminates for six months without getting caught they are exempt from future discrimination lawsuits for that individual. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg in her dissent asked Congress for new legislation to clarify and restore the original intent of the 1964 Act.
Senator Edward Kennedy(D) of Massachusetts prepared “The Fair Pay Act”. The Act reinstated the 180 days would begin whenever a discriminatory paycheck was made. The bill passed the House of Representatives. President Bush THREATENED TO VETO the bill. Without republican support there was not enough support in the Senate to override a veto SO THE VOTE FAILED.
President Bush said the bill would cause a flood of lawsuits. Legislation should pass or fail on the merits of its content and NOT ON THE NUMBER OF LAWSUITS SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT GENERATES. Actually it would not have caused a flood of lawsuits because the law never had.
This is another instance where President Bush used a lame excuse to show his lack of concern to protect the public, and favor corporate interests over American workers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)