Supreme Court

During a NBC’s Today show segment yesterday on Supreme Court Justice John Paul Steven’s retirement, Senator Orrin Hatch(R-Utah) said he's heard Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's name mentioned as a possible replacement. Hatch appeared on the show with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy when he made his remark. The Utah Republican simply said: "I heard Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's name today and that would be an interesting person in the mix."

Matt Lauer asked, “In your opinion, would she be qualified?” Hatch responded, “I have a high respect for her and think a great deal of her, but I’m not going to pre-judge that.” Hatch didn’t say he’d support a Clinton nomination, but he did say "I like Hillary Rodham Clinton." He also added that he believes she’s done a good job for Democrats.

Hillary Clinton, a Supreme Court Justice? For a short time yesterday, blogs embraced the idea. Then, Vanity Fair’s Juli Weiner had an article posted before noon about the Internet reaction. She wrote:

... [T]he Web punditry has already begun issuing pronouncements on Supreme Court Justice Clinton. Even before today’s Today rumor mongering, Slate’s Emily Bazelon wrote that “Clinton has all the makings of a full-throated, strong-minded liberal stalwart on the bench.”  The Daily Beast’s Mark McKinnon agrees: “Stripping away the drama, the politics and psychobabble, she’d be a great choice for Obama and the Democrats. She’s as smart and as qualified as any prospect her party could nominate.”  Seventy-one percent of NPR.com readers also say they would welcome a Clinton nomination.

 

On the other hand, Mediaite’s Glynnis MacNicol suggests embracing the politics and psychobabble, and is positively giddy about the potential procedural spectacle: “I’m not sure a Supreme Court confirmation hearing can ever be considered must-see TV, but a Clinton nomination might make it so.” True! It is just too bad for C-SPAN that Stevens is not retiring in time for May sweeps.

 

January 21, 2010 statement from Doris “Granny D” Haddock in response to the Supreme Court’s decision today to overturn campaign finance limits:

           Ten years ago, I walked from California to Washington, D.C. to help gather support for campaign finance reform. I used the novelty of my age (I was 90), to garner attention to the fact that our democracy, for which so many people have given their lives, is being subverted to the needs of wealthy interests, and that we must do something about it. I talked to thousands of people and gave hundreds of speeches and interviews, and, in every section of the nation, I was deeply moved by how heartsick Americans are by the current state of our politics.

            Well, we got some reform bills passed, but things seem worse now than ever. Our good government reform groups are trying to staunch the flow of special-interest money into our political campaigns, but they are mostly whistling in a wind that has become a gale force of corrupting cash. Conditions are so bad that people now assume that nothing useful can pass Congress due to the vote-buying power of powerful financial interests. The health care reform debacle is but the most recent example.

h/t to rentarainbow for bringing this to my attention.

Supreme Court lifts curbs on corporate political donations

The conservative court has finally freed the corporations to spend freely to elect whomever they please.  As my friend said, "Game over, we lost".

Some might say, like the jerks on the court, that hey it's freedom of the press and companies should be free too.  The court in Kennedy's opinion took the other side saying we are free to receive and hear whatever we want to believe.  Unless of course it's porn.  the last part is mine.

It is not 1776 anymore.  The Constitution was written to be an evolving document that grows as the country grows, but these asshats insist on interpreting everything in the brown and beige of the parchment it's written on.  They did not have 24/7 communications and TV that will now be used to sell us candidates in new and powerful ways.  She who has the biggest donor base will now have the flashiest and best marketing.  Nothing will prevent an Apple for example, paying one or two billion to produce a series of specials on their candidate of choice.  Nothing.

Here's how Obama is going to do it.

Incrementally.

First, Obama invites Rick Warren - the anti-gays, anti-abortion, anti-divorce (even if your husband beats you) preacher -- to give the main prayer at the Inauguration.

Only a few pro-choice people complain, and most say, "Well, it's just one appointment."

Then, Obama appoints Gov. Tim Kaine -- who is anti-gays, anti-abortion, and anti embryonic stem cell research -- to be chairman of the Democratic Party.

Now, a few more complain but not enough to rock Obama's coronation.

Then, some of us notice that Obama has put Tom Daschle in charge of the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services -- and we discover Daschle has said multiple times that he is ANTI-abortion.

The case pdf

http://www.onthedocket.org/cases/2008/att-corp-v-hulteen

Justices will hear pregnancy leave discrimination case

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether maternity leave taken before the passage of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act can be considered in calculating employee pension benefits.

Noreen Hulteen took maternity leave in 1968, and was then hospitalized for a medical condition requiring surgery after giving birth. She missed a total of 240 days of work due to her pregnancy and surgery, but her employer, AT&T, gave her only 30 days of paid leave. Under company policy, by contrast, employees who took disability leave were entitled to be paid as long as they were disabled.

For many months, we PUMAs heard that the main reason people were voting for Obama was the Supreme Court. NOW and NARAL endorsed him without qualifications, so Obama must be pro-choice, right? Hey, ladies, what's yer problem? Barack Obama will preserve Roe v. Wade forever, won't be too mean when you're periodically down, and will even give you a kiss, sweetie!

Well, now that a majority of women believed this Supreme Court Roe-Hopenol and voted for Obama, let's see how realistic that whole relentless campaign was, shall we?