ABA President Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III has issued a statement criticizing President Obama’s statement that voting against the health care law would be “judicial activism” In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Robinson called the remarks “troubling.”
Continue reading “ABA President Criticizes Obama For Judicial Activism Comments”
While Michigan’s Attorney Grievance Commission sought disbarment, a state discipline panel headed by Assistant United States Attorney William Sauget has handed down only a 90 day suspension for Detroit City Attorney Valerie Colbert-Osamuede. Colbert-Osamuede who is accused of lying to the Detroit City Council, a Wayne County Circuit Court judge and the Attorney Grievance Commission about a settlement and alleged coverup benefitting then-mayor (and now convicted felon) Kwame Kilpatrick. Despite this trifecta of false statements and the panel’s conclusion that she was still not sure she is telling the truth, Sauget’s panel still refused to hand down a disbarment or something more substantial as a punishment.
By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
Joshua Thompson, 20-ish, of Livonia, Michigan loves the movies, but could not understand why his soda pop and candy purchase rang up the till for another $8.00 on top of the price of admission. In the same cinema, popcorn and a soda can run you $11.00. Rather than just griping, he filed a consumer class action suit in Wayne County (Michigan) Circuit Court on behalf of us all to get some answers.
While the White House and the President backtracked from Obama’s recent statements regarding the Supreme Court, Attorney General Eric Holder succeeded in reigniting the controversy by calling the comments about judicial activism “appropriate.” As I noted earlier, the effort of the White House to modify the statement of the President notably did not include a retraction of the judicial activism statement. Holder’s statement appeared to reaffirm that the omission was intentional.
Continue reading “Doubling Down: Holder Calls Obama’s Judicial Activism Criticism “Appropriate””
Yesterday, we discussed President Obama’s comments on the Supreme Court and the pending health care litigation — comments I viewed as unwise and unfounded. In addition to wrongly suggesting that any justice voting against the law would be a judicial activist, Obama seemed to suggest that the law should be upheld on the ground that it is the result of a democratic process and the will of the majority. Putting aside the fact that all unconstitutional law were passed by a democratic process in this country, I noted that the comments were extremely unwise at a time when the Court appears split on the key issues and currently deliberating the outcome. Well, the Supreme Court is not the only court considering the health care law and the timing could not have been worse for Obama to hold forth on his view of the courts and the Constitution. While I do not agree with the order of the Fifth Circuit for the Administration to respond in writing to the court, some backlash should have been foreseen by the President in going public with the comments.
Continue reading “Federal Court Slams Justice Department Over Obama Comments”
Yesterday, President Barack Obama made the surprising prediction that the Supreme Court would uphold the health care law and further labeled those who would vote against it as judicial activists. I am not sure what he is basing his prediction on, but the comment on judicial activism is both unfounded and unwise.
by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
On Friday, a small victory was had against the ever encroaching corporatism threatening our democracy. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D – MD) brought suit against the FEC last year. In his suit, Van Hollen charges that in 2007 the FEC created a loophole allowing undisclosed donors to contribute money for “electioneering communications” to organizations like Karl Rove’s 501(c)(4) advocacy group Crossroads GPS and to 501(c)(6) business associations like the Chamber of Commerce for the purposes of by willfully misinterpreting disclosure requirements in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold). “Electioneering communications” are broadcast ads that refer to a federal candidate in the period 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary election. These ads may call for either the election or defeat of a specific candidates.
In 2007, the FEC added a regulation that complicated the situation. The rule in question – C.F.R. Title 11 § 104.20 (c)(9) – (found at 2 U.S.C. 434(f)) – says “If the disbursements were made by a corporation or labor organization pursuant to 11 CFR 114.15, the name and address of each person who made a donation aggregating $1,000 or more to the corporation or labor organization, aggregating since the first day of the preceding calendar year, which was made for the purpose of furthering electioneering communications.” Clearly the FEC is saying that disclosure is only required if a donation is explicitly made “for the purpose of electioneering communication.” Being that few, if any, donors to these groups ever earmark their donation for a specific election expense there has been little or no disclosure of the donors to these groups.
There is a problem with that regulation though.
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, Guest Blogger
A recurring meme used in American society by leaders and politicians is that certain acts must be done to “Defend Our Freedoms”. The use of this meme has occurred repeatedly in our history as a justification for certain governmental actions, particularly in defense of war. In some cases like our Revolution, or World War II its usage has been right on point, in others like Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan it’s been used as untruthful propaganda. On national and local levels the meme has also had a mixed history. It has been used to persecute radicals, as a States Rights justification of “Jim Crow” and post 9/11 to enact “security” legislation that many of us think actually diminishes freedom in the name of saving it. Continue reading “Defending Our Freedoms?”
Last night, the police released this video showing George Zimmerman shortly after he killed an unarmed Florida teen. I discussed the legal significance of the video on Countdown last night.
Continue reading “The Immaculate Assault? Police Video Shows Zimmerman Without Obvious Injuries”
Some of the Supreme Court appear skeptical of the claim that, if they strike down the individual mandate provision, they must strike down the entirety of the Act. Early accounts of the justices from the courtroom appeared to be favoring severability but new reports have cast doubt — yet another example how artificial the denial of cameras and live coverage has become. As the argument unfolded, conservative justices appear to suggest that it really is an all-or-nothing proposition.
As I mentioned on Countdown last night, my Supreme Court class (which reviews the leading cases of the term and deliberates as an alternative Supreme Court) ruled on the constitutional challenge over the individual mandate provision (we will be considering the other issues in a separate class). The class ruled 12 to 2 to reverse the 11th Circuit and uphold the health care law. The class also voted on the ethical question of Kagan’s recusal as well as their prediction of what that other Court would do. The associate justices were not sway by the stated concerns of the Chief Justice (here and here) over the future of federalism if the Act is constitutional.
Was the first day of arguments over the health care law historic . . . or just a giant practical joke? Paul Clement, representing the 26 states challenging the law, said the first day of arguments in the litigation was “a kind of practical joke that the court is playing on the public.” It would not seem the most politic comment to make when you will be seeing these nine jokers in the morning.
This week, the Supreme Court will take up its historic three-day consideration of the health care law. My Supreme Court class will be spending two weeks on the four insular issues before the Court, including the question of federalism.
The facts behind the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida continue to slowly emerge. I have previously stated that I view critical facts as murky for a prosecution — even though I believe that there was sufficient evidence to arrest George Zimmerman at the scene. While we have still not seen some of the forensic evidence, a new report indicates that police may have based their initial decisions in part on the statement of a witness. We have been discussing the maddening gap in witness testimony at the critical moment of the confrontation. Now a new report suggests that there may have been a witness to the struggle and that witness reportedly told police that it was Martin who was on top of Zimmerman before the fatal shot was fired.
The former chief drug prosecutor for Wayne County, Michigan has been disbarred for her role in soliciting false testimony. Former Wayne County assistant prosecutor Karen Plants had originally been suspended for only two years, but the Attorney Discipline Board on reconsideration bumped the penalty up to full disbarment on reconsideration of her case due to her “lack of reflection.”
Continue reading “Top Drug Prosecutor In Michigan Disbarred For Soliciting False Testimony”