Novalawcity

Would you like a little Xanax with that fill-up?

According to some court watchers, the Supreme Court appears set to unleash a massive wave of corporate political speech.  In an unusual move, the court ordered a re-hearing of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  The case was a challenge by Citizens United to an FEC ruling that limited the group's ability to broadcast a video that was highly critical of then-candidate Hilary Clinton during the 2008 political campaign.  Corporate money was used in the production of the video, and as the law currently stands, campaign spending by corporations and unions is treated differently from spending by individuals.  These limits on corporations have been in place for more than 100 years.  

Considering the huge advantage in available cash that corporations enjoy, lifting the restrictions on corporate spending is carrying the fiction that a corporation is an artificial person too far.  Given that ExxonMobile had a gross profit of $190,000,000.00 for the last quarter of 2008, while Pfizer grossed a mere $40,184,000.00, I know I would not be alone in feeling that at last I had lost any notional ability to petition my Congressperson, in the rising tide of corporate spending.  Even though lobbying by corporations currently renders private citizens' ability to influence their elected officials risible (check out OpenSecrets.org for a scarifying look at who's spending what to buy whom) , allowing unlimited political spending by corporations would officially put an end to democracy. Unless, of course, you're talking about democracy for corporations.

Judge Sotomayor's Opening Statement

Just in Time for the Fourth, News from the SCOTUS

SCOTUSblog has released its report on October term, 2008.  Among other things, the report shows how many times each Justice voted with the majority, how many decisions each justice wrote, the ideological alignment of each justice, the court's work load, and the majority/dissent break-down of the court on each case decided. 

A particularly fascinating chart shows the number of times each justice was in agreement or disagreement with every other justice.  Chief Justice Roberts, for example, was in full agreement with Justice Alito 85% of the time, with Justice Stevens 37% of the time.  The memo summarizing the Court's year reveals that while seven circuit courts of appeal had all of their decisions reversed, the Eleventh Circuit had a 100% affirmance rate (granted, this was only three cases). 

CQ Video: Notorious Supreme Court Nomination Hearings

Professor Obama's view on the Court

A recent New York Times article on the President focuses on his days teaching law and his views on the Court by the people that knew him. NYT. HT: Faculty Lounge

Calling Names

President Obama has made his first judicial nomination, naming federal district court judge David Hamilton as his pick to fill a vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  Most would view him as a moderate, and he has the backing of Senator Lugar, the Republican Senator from his home state of Indiana.  Regardless, conservatives are tagging him as an "activist" judge, because of his rulings in support of reproductive freedom.  As other commentators have pointed out, though, "activist" is often merely code for "I don't like your decisions."  Your strict constructionalist, say Antonin Scalia, is my activist judge. 

They used to call them the nine old men...

But since Justice O'Connor stormed the formerly all-male bastion that was the United States Supreme Court, that moniker is no longer appropriate.  Paul D. Carrington, writing in The New York Times, draws our attention to the "old" part, though.  He points out that as Article III judges, the Justices are entitled, not to life tenure, but to "hold their offices during good behaviour."  Pointing to Justice Rehnquist's continuing in office as he was dying of cancer and Justice Thurgood Marshall's belated retirement at the age of 82, Carrington suggests that a council with the power to recommend impeachment proceedings to the House of Representatives be established to monitor the justices' behavior.  And you thought taking the car keys away from grandad was tough!

What Not To Do In The Courtroom: The Broward County Edition

Although the defendant was not wearing short-shorts, another clearcut case of "What Not To Do In The Courtroom" unfurled on March 24th when a domestic violence defendant physically attacked his victim in front of Broward County Judge Ian Richards.  Elected in August 2008, the rookie judge vaulted the bench to assist bailiffs in subduing the defendant.  Read the entire story here.  You can also view courtroom footage of the incident thanks to the wonders of YouTube.com.

Major props to Judge Richards for his quick action and compassionate response.  Sometimes justice is swift.

Florida's Rocket-Docket

Florida foreclosure hearings lasting only 15-20 seconds are featured in the WSJ article.

Plea Agreements from US District Court to be on PACER

The Southern District Court of Florida Judge Moreno ordered this beginning Feb 20th, 2009. Details