THE HOT JOINTS » Legal News

Justice Thomas Defends Campaign Finance Ruling

Chris Jones — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 08:05:25 +0000

Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday forcefully defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision, and in so doing addressed President Obama’s falsehoods about it during last week’s SOTU.

He spoke to a group of students at a law school in Florida and fielded several questions about the ruling and the controversy surrounding President Obama’s criticism of the decision, and Justice Alito’s reaction.

“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”

The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.

He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”

Justice Thomas went on to say he no longer attends State Of The Union addresses, because they’ve become too partisan. He said there’s a lot you don’t hear on TV and it’s very difficult for a judge to sit there unable to respond and listen to catcalls, heckling, and under-the-breath comments.

Justice Thomas has more intellect and integrity in his finger than the vast majority of the a-holes on Capital Hill — the president included.

President Obama showed breathtaking ignorance of the Constitution when he criticized the campaign finance ruling during his SOTU. The fact that he taught constitutional law for 10 years makes it all the more troubling.

If anything it shows the sorry state of our law schools. The Constitution as it’s written is no longer taught. Instead, leftist professors indoctrinate students with left-wing legal theories and phony case law.

-Chris Jones

More On IG-Gate Investigations

Chris Jones — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:33:37 +0000

Robert Stacy McCain (The Other McCain) has a great piece in The American Spectator about the still simmering IG-Gate investigations on Capital Hill.

Former Inspector General Gerald Walpin filed a lawsuit last week for unlawful termination after president Obama fired him illegally.

He accuses the parent agency of AmeriCorps, and by extension the administration, of politicizing his office and removing him illegally because he refused to agree to a settlement in a fraud case that let an Obama backer off the hook and with access to federal funding.

Just think about how ape shit the media went when president Bush fired U.S. Attorneys who served at his pleasure. He had every legal right to do that, but the media went wild anyway.

Compare that to Obama’s shit-canning of IG’s who uncover things he doesn’t like. You barely hear a thing about it and we’re talking about a real crime being committed.

Sotomayor Brings Diversity, Mediocrity To The Supreme Court

Chris Jones — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:20:24 +0000

The Washington Post has an a very good piece from Richard Cohen today about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Cohen says what most of us recognize to be true. That Obama chose “diversity” over intellect by picking Sotomayor.

She’s an average judge with an average intellect who admittedly used her gender and ethnicity to get to the top.

Don’t get me wrong. She is fully qualified. She is smart and learned and experienced and, in case you have not heard, a Hispanic, female nominee, of whom there have not been any since the dawn of our fair republic. But she has no cause, unless it is not to make a mistake, and has no passion, unless it is not to show any, and lacks intellectual brilliance, unless it is disguised under a veil of soporific competence until she takes her seat on the court. We shall see.

In the meantime, Sotomayor will do, and will do very nicely, as a personification of what ails the American left. She is, as everyone has pointed out, in the mainstream of American liberalism, a stream both intellectually shallow and preoccupied with the past. We have a neat summary of it in the recent remarks of Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), who said he wanted a Supreme Court justice “who will continue to move the court forward in protecting . . . important civil rights.” He cited the shooting of a gay youth, the gang rape of a lesbian and the murder of a black man — in other words, violence based on homophobia and racism. Yes. But who nowadays disagrees?

Sotomayor is no doubt qualified, but let’s not pretend she’s the most qualified. The president chose to make a cynical affirmative action pick to placate his radical left-wing base instead of choosing the best person for the job.

Video: Live Stream Of Sotomayor Hearing

Chris Jones — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:30:08 +0000

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Stop Electing Judges

Chris Jones — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 16:21:40 +0000

The American justice system is supposed to be fair and objective. Yet it was very possibly neither according to the Supreme Court in the case of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co, perhaps the most important decision it has rendered this year.

The plaintiff, Hugh Caperton, brought a successful lawsuit alleging that A.T Massey Coal and its chief executive Don Blankenship drove Capterton’s company into bankruptcy. In the next election cycle, Blankenship spent $3 million to oppose a state Supreme Court justice he thought insufficiently favorable to his cause. When the challenger Blankenship backed won, he refused to recues himself from the case. It was little wonder when he cast the deciding vote to overturn the first verdict.

What a depressing thought that justice in the 21^st century can be sold to the highest bidder. In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts seemed to tacitly acknowledge that money can be a corrupting influence on judges. That is perhaps why he raised practical concerns on implementation instead of attempting to argue that we should not be worried about the influence of campaign contributions on judges.

He lamented that “today’s opinion requires state and federal judges simultaneously to act as political scientists (why did candidate X win the election?), economists (was the financial support disproportionate?), and psychologists (is there likely to be a debt of gratitude?).”

I understand these concerns. So I propose a simple solution: stop making judges stand for election. Even with this decision, there is potential for all sorts of abuse. A judge ruling in a case now might not favor one side because he got campaign contributions from that side. Or so we hope. Remember the decision only says that excessive contributions compel a justice to step aside. But he may well favor one side over another because of other electoral concerns.

For example, a judge who owes his election to say the Religious Right could be a tad biased on cases involving the separation of church and state. In a racially divided area, a judge who wins because of high support from one ethnic group could be predisposed to favor litigants from that group lest he lose favor the next election cycle. Even if we expect that people who are essentially politicians will put aside their electoral concerns immediately after the election, the mere fact that they have to go before voters can create the perception of bias.

Having an independent judiciary is critical to our system of checks and balances. To maintain that system, the judiciary needs to be able to make unpopular decisions in some instances. There are cases brought to court, where the correct decision polls poorly with voters. For example, decisions protecting the rights of disfavored minority groups might cause a judge to lose an election even though it’s the correct decision legally.

During his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice Roberts compared judging to being a dispassionate umpire in a baseball game. Just imagine the havoc on the game if we let umpires stand for election each inning. Or imagine if we made the umpires take polls after each pitch to inform their decision as to whether to call a ball or a strike. Whichever team had the most fans at the game would get the most favorable umpires. Unfortunately, this is not terribly different from judicial systems in state where the judges have to raise money and go before voters.

There is of course a realm for shifting public opinion in the political process. That’s why we let people vote for who represents them in Congress and who serves in the White House. But do we really want our judges looking over their shoulders at polls before rendering a decision? Triangulation is bad enough when politicians use it. It simply does not belong in the judiciary.

-Marcus Gadson

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of White Firefighters and Against Sotomayor

Chris Jones — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:34:07 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut who denied a promotion based on their skin color.

The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her nomination for the high court.

The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal laws that said such “disparate impacts” on test results could be used to show discrimination.

In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another.

The court’s conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what happened in New Haven.

“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.

I find it absolutely stunning that any American of any color could look at this situation and believe it was fair.

A group of firefighters studied hard and passed their promotion test. When the tests were graded, the white firefighters plus two Hispanics passed.

However, the City of New Haven denied the firefighters their promotion because it feared the black firefighters who did not pass would file a lawsuit claiming racism.

I cannot think of anything more un-American than denying someone a promotion on the basis of skin color.

This kind of social engineering is about the sickest and most destructive thing I’ve ever seen.

Skin color didn’t have a damn thing to do with that test. The racial make-up of those who passed the test should be irrelevant.

Why do liberals like to assume the test was flawed simply because no blacks passed it?

Have no blacks ever passed that same test in the City of New Haven before? How do you account for the two Hispanics who passed?

I think it sells black people short for liberals to assume a test is flawed because a black person can’t pass it. Maybe the person didn’t study as hard or maybe there’s a whole host of reasons why the person didn’t pass.

The only people who refuse to get passed race in this country are liberals. As long as white liberals and black race hustlers like Jesse Jackson keep using race as an excuse for poor performance, blacks will never achieve their full potential.

Incidentally, I haven’t heard a thing from the black firefighters who failed the test. All they have to do is study harder and they’ll pass it next time.

It’s incredibly damaging to the black community for high-minded liberals to constantly accept mediocrity, on the basis of phony racism.

This notion that black people should not be blamed for failing, because the white man and his racist tests won’t let them succeed is absurd and outdated.

It’s absolutely ridiculous to believe that somehow a black person because of his skin color is unable to pass the exact same firefighters exam that whites and Hispanics can.

The final decision by SCOTUS was 5-4 so it broke along idealogical lines. However, it should be deeply troubling to all Americans that a significant portion of the country believes discriminating against one group to prevent the discrimination of another group is okay.

Ace has some excellent analysis of this ruling as well.

Obama Picks Sotomayor

Chris Jones — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:55:17 +0000

President Obama announced today that federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor is his choice to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.

Here’s what the AP has about her:

Sotomayor is a self-described "Newyorkrican" who grew up in a Bronx housing project after her parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico. She has dealt with diabetes since age 8 and lost her father at age 9, growing up under the care of her mother in humble surroundings. As a girl, inspired by the Perry Mason television show, she knew she wanted to be a judge.

A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, a former prosecutor and private attorney, Sotomayor became a federal judge for the Southern District of New York in 1992.

As a judge, she has a bipartisan pedigree. She was first appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997.

At her Senate confirmation hearing more than a decade ago, she said, "I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."

In one of her most memorable rulings as federal district judge, Sotomayor essentially salvaged baseball in 1995, ruling with players over owners in a labor strike that had led to the cancellation of the World Series.

As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because two few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court.

Just because she was first appointed by President George H.W. Bush doesn’t mean she has a “bipartisan pedigree” like the AP claims.

Make no mistake about it, Sotomayor is a liberal through and through. One only has to look at her judicial record to know this.

She’ll be a reliable tool of labor unions (like our president) and will rule in favor of minorities not because they have the best legal case but because she has “empathy.”

Having said all that, Obama can nominate anyone he wants and at this moment in time Republicans can do little to stand in the way.

All things considered Obama could have picked someone much worse. Sotomayor is not going to change the balance of the court so it’s really not that big a deal.

It’s the next SCOTUS pick that’s going to change the game.

As liberal as Sotomayor is, I suspect Obama’s next pick is going to make her seem to the right of Scalia.

-Chris Jones

Court Says Marine Can’t Sue John Murtha For Haditha Smear

Chris Jones — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:38:50 +0000

A federal appeals court ruled today that corrupt congressman John Murtha can’t be sued for accusing a group of Marines of cold-blooded murder on national television.

Bush Pardons 19

Chris Jones — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:26:14 +0000

President Bush granted 19 pardons today before leaving town for the holidays. This brings president Bush’s total number of pardons to 191 which is half as many as Reagan and Clinton issued.

Child’s Remains Found Near Casey Anthony’s Home

Chris Jones — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 20:50:18 +0000

The remains of missing toddler Caylee Anthony are believed to have been found near the girl’s home:

A utility worker on Thursday found the skeletal remains of a child in Orange County in a wooded area located less than half a mile from the home of George and Cindy Anthony, whose 3-year-old granddaughter, Caylee, has been missing since mid-June, authorities said.

The remains, located inside a garbage bag, were discovered by an Orange County water meter reader around 9:30 a.m. near South Chickasaw Trail and Suburban Drive, less than four-tenths of a mile from the Anthonys’ home on Hopespring Drive.

This is gonna be the end of the line potentially for Caylee’s lying mother. Casey Anthony had better look forward to getting the needle if it turns out that she did kill her daughter — which it certainly looks like she did.

THE HOT JOINTS » Legal News

Justice Thomas Defends Campaign Finance Ruling

Related Posts

More On IG-Gate Investigations

Related Posts

Sotomayor Brings Diversity, Mediocrity To The Supreme Court

Related Posts

Video: Live Stream Of Sotomayor Hearing

Related Posts

Stop Electing Judges

Related Posts

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of White Firefighters and Against Sotomayor

Related Posts

Obama Picks Sotomayor

Related Posts

Court Says Marine Can’t Sue John Murtha For Haditha Smear

Related Posts

Bush Pardons 19

Related Posts

Child’s Remains Found Near Casey Anthony’s Home

Related Posts