No Law is Above THE MAN

[boutons_deux]

Study: Justices More Likely To Support Free Speech They Agree With

In the Supreme Court, free speech is often a partisan issue.

Justices -- liberal and conservative -- are more likely to vote for free-speech rights when the speaker shares their ideology, according to an eye-opening new study (http://epstein.usc.edu/research/InGroupBias.pdf) by the University of Southern California which looks at 4,519 votes from 1953 to 2011 and concludes that "justices are opportunistic free speechers."

The most opportunistic member over that span was found to be Justice Antonin Scalia, who was just over three times as supportive of free-speech rights of conservatives as compared to liberals.

Not far behind him was Justice Clarence Thomas, who was just under three times as likely to back conservatives' free-speech rights over liberals.

Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor -- both Reagan appointees, and often swing votes -- were also found to have a statistically significant preference for free speech rights of conservatives over liberals.

The disparity exists with liberal members, too. Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in 2010, was likelier to support the free speech claim by a liberal as compared to a conservative. Clinton appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were not found to have a statistically significant preference in their cases.

"[Justices'] votes are neither reflexively pro- or anti-the First Amendment but rather pro- or anti- the speaker's ideological enclave," the researchers say

http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/w_652/d5ryuucuzpclvbj7n1x5.jpg

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scalia-thomas-free-speech-usc-study?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+tpm-news+%28TPMNews%29

[BradLohaus]

When demographics move TX and the US permanently Left the dying conservative view won't matter. See European speech laws for that future.

[boutons_deux]

The Polarized Court

The partisan polarization on the court reflects similarly deep divisions in Congress, the electorate and the elite circles in which the justices move.

The deep and often angry divisions among the justices are but a distilled version of the way American intellectuals — at think tanks and universities, in opinion journals and among the theorists and practitioners of law and politics — have separated into two groups with vanishingly little overlap or interaction. It is a recipe for dysfunction.

The perception that partisan politics has infected the court’s work may do lasting damage to its prestige and authority and to Americans’ faith in the rule of law.

“An undesirable consequence of the court’s partisan divide,” said Justin Driver (http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/jd29939/), a law professor at the University of Texas, “is that it becomes increasingly difficult to contend with a straight face that constitutional law is not simply politics by other means, and that justices are not merely politicians clad in fine robes. If that perception becomes pervasive among today’s law students, who will become tomorrow’s judges, after all, it could assume a self-reinforcing quality.”

Presidents used to make nominations based on legal ability, to cater to religious or ethnic groups, to repay political favors or to reward friends. Even when ideology was their main concern, they often bet wrong.
Three changes have created a courthouse made up of red and blue chambers. Presidents care more about ideology than they once did. They have become better at finding nominees who reliably vote according to that ideology. And party affiliation is increasingly the best way to predict the views of everyone from justices to bank tellers.

But the number of opportunities played a role, too, as there have been twice as many Republican appointments since 1953. And Republican justices were until recently more apt than Democratic ones to drift away from the positions of the presidents who appointed them.

The partisan split is likely to deepen, said Neal Devins (https://www.wm.edu/as/publicpolicy/facultydirectory/affiliated_faculty/devins_n.php), a law professor at William & Mary and an author, along with Professor Baum, of a study (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2432111) examining, as its subtitle put it, “how party polarization turned the Supreme Court into a partisan court.”

With the exception of Justice Clarence Thomas, the five most senior members of the current court were confirmed easily, receiving an average of three negative votes. The four more recent nominees received an average of 33.

the justices reject the idea that their work is influenced by politics. :lol

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/11/upshot/the-polarized-court.html

iow, No Law Is Above The (Political) Man

[boutons_deux]

When demographics move TX and the US permanently Left the dying conservative view won't matter. See European speech laws for that future.

See American "money is speech" law for the corrupt present.

[BradLohaus]

The money that elected Obama? 8/10 of the richest counties in the US went for him. The greatest left/right myth is that the elite rich vote Rep.

Money is speech laws don't get you a Rep. president, nor Rep. SCOTUS. Demographics is destiny.

Be patient boutons. That money is speech ruling will work out in your favor, more so.

[boutons_deux]

agreed, even hyper liberal wealthy are often liberal on social issues but hyper conservative on business/tax policies. Everybody's a whore for money.

"Money is speech laws don't get you a Rep. president"

that's why Repugs/VRWC/ALEC have been so concentrated on state, local elections, (Kock Bros even go after city zoo financing bonds) on voter suppression and extreme gerrymandering, changing their electoral vote rules.

They know demographics is increasingly not in their favor, so they plan to fuck up as many states as they can, maintain/increase an obstructive minority (minority rule) in Congress.

Obstructing is a legit strategy because it maintains, solidifies, enriches the status quo, which is now rigged catastrophically in favor the oligarchy, corps, wealthy.

iow, they don't NEED to have Repug Pres to fuck up USA. But a Repug Pres + Repug Congress will totally fuck up USA quicker.

[BradLohaus]

IOW, it's just a matter of time until the Reps. are demographically fucked. Your side should be thrilled. This surely happened by accident.

I guess you would like to get as much money as possible out of elections. What would you do with speech laws other than campaign finance? One thing that concerns me is the new hate speech law that has been sponsored by a couple of congressman just the other day.

[Wild Cobra]

Most liberal free speech rallies end in destruction of property, arrests, etc. Very few conservative activities do. Is the OP suggesting that free speech needs to include the right to vandalize?

[BradLohaus]

When the Left owns the Supreme Court indefinitely they will crush people speaking out against the same things that the Left in Europe has crushed people speaking out against. Why would anyone think otherwise? The 1st? One case: hate speech causes damage, and isn't protected speech. Done.

Interestingly Bill Mahar talked about this at the end of his last show with regards to Donald Sterling. He's one Leftist that sees the future on this.

[boutons_deux]

When the Left owns the Supreme Court indefinitely they will crush people speaking out against the same things that the Left in Europe has crushed people speaking out against. Why would anyone think otherwise? The 1st? One case: hate speech causes damage, and isn't protected speech. Done.

Interestingly Bill Mahar talked about this at the end of his last show with regards to Donald Sterling. He's one Leftist that sees the future on this.

I know Germany and France have laws against pro-Nazi stuff, against Holocaust deniers, but It's Their Country, what else have they "crushed"?

[boutons_deux]

You want "free" speech in USA?

It doesn't take specific laws to intimidate people into silence.

How the US Propaganda System Works
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/09/how-the-us-propaganda-system-works/

[Infinite_limit]

I know Germany and France have laws against pro-Nazi stuff, against Holocaust deniers, but It's Their Country, what else have they "crushed"?
UK imprisoned people for racist comments on Twitter

Putin was right in his criticism of America. Over half the USA states don't recognize same sex marriage and yet the President preaches to the World concerning the matter.


"Putin asserts, the new immorality has been imposed undemocratically. The “destruction of traditional values” in these countries, he said, comes “from the top” and is “inherently undemocratic because it is based on abstract ideas and runs counter to the will of the majority of people.”

Does he not have a point?

Unelected justices declared abortion and homosexual acts to be constitutionally protected rights. Judges have been the driving force behind the imposition of same-sex marriage. Attorney General Eric Holder refused to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act."

[MultiTroll]

UK imprisoned people for racist comments on Twitter

Putin was right in his criticism of America. Over half the USA states don't recognize same sex marriage and yet the President preaches to the World concerning the matter.

True, but the average packer still has it wayy wayy better in the US.
Let Dougie Howser try flashing his smirky face on National TV Putin. Hosting every faggy awards show.

[boutons_deux]

Another way to be above the law, elect/appoint totally politicized judges:

Meet The Republican Judge Fighting To Bail Scott Walker Out Of A Criminal Investigation (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/05/11/3436347/meet-the-republican-judge-fighting-to-bail-scott-walker-out-of-a-criminal-investigation/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Judge-Randa-e1399656918362-638x328.jpg


Last Tuesday, a Republican federal judge named Rudolph Randa handed down an unusual order (http://media.jrn.com/documents/doeruling.pdf) cutting off a criminal investigation alleging illegal coordination between several political campaigns (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/05/12469/randa-kills-wisconsin-campaign-finance-law) — including Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) 2012 recall campaign — and conservative groups such as the Wisconsin Club for Growth.

Randa speckled his order with uncharacteristic rhetoric for a judge tasked with being a neutral and impartial arbiter of the law. At one point, he labels the criminal probe “a long-running investigation of all things Walker-related.” At another point, he compares efforts to reign in excessive campaign spending to “the Guillotine and the Gulag.”

One day after Randa ordered this investigation halted, even requiring prosecutors to return or destroy documents that provided evidence that illegal coordination took place (http://electionlawblog.org/?p=61292),

the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a brief order holding that Randa had no business deciding this case in the first place (http://media.jrn.com/documents/courtdecision.pdf) — as the case was already on appeal.

“[O]nce a litigant files a notice of appeal,” the Seventh Circuit explained, “a district court may not take any further action in the suit unless it certifies that the appeal is frivolous. The district court failed to follow that rule when, despite the notice of appeal filed by several defendants, it entered a preliminary injunction.” Not to be outdone, Randa responded on Thursday by saying that the appeal was, indeed, frivolous (http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/federal-judge-stops-doe-probe-for-second-time-b99265560z1-258474841.html). A position that at least one legal scholar disagreed with, saying that Randa’s original ruling was “extraordinary.” (http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_12911db4-70c9-50ac-935b-27f5f61329de.html)

Extraordinary or not, Randa’s actions in this case do fit a pattern of ideological decisions in politically charged cases:



Wrongful Conviction: Probably the most analogous case to the criminal probe he recently halted was the trial of former Wisconsin state purchasing supervisor Georgia L. Thompson, who was convicted of allegedly steering a state contract to a firm connected to the state’s Democratic governor. When a Democrat was at the center of a scandal, however, Randa handled the case very differently. Although Randa sentenced Thompson to eighteen months in federal prison, she served less than four months because the Seventh Circuit ordered her released. One Seventh Circuit judge said at oral argument that the evidence against Thompson was “beyond thin.” (http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/29354039.html)
?
?
Protecting Sexually Abusive Priests: In 2007, then-Archbishop of Milwaukee Timothy Dolan penned a letter to the Vatican explaining that, by transferring approximately $57 million in church funds to a separate trust set up to maintain church cemeteries, he’d achieved “an improved protection of these funds from any legal claim and liability (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/02/us/dolan-sought-vatican-permission-to-shield-assets.html?hp&_r=1&).” Six years later, Randa held that, by engaging in this accounting trick, the Milwaukee Archdiocese did indeed shield these funds from lawsuits —brought by victims of clergy sex abuse (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/31/2388461/federal-judge-catholic-church-has-a-constitutional-right-not-to-compensate-victims-of-sex-abuse/). Indeed, Randa held that the Catholic Church had a constitutional right to insulate this money from lawsuits brought by the victims of priestly sex abuse.
?
?
Blocking Access To Women’s Health Clinics: In 1994, several individuals blockaded the entrance to a women’s health clinic in Milwaukee by wedging a car into the clinic’s front entryway to prevent people from entering or leaving. Three of them even welded themselves into the car while it was being used to block the clinic. The were charged with violating the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. Randa responded to this incident by declaring this act unconstitutional. The Seventh Circuit reversed Randa, explaining that he “went beyond [his] own authority as defined by the Supreme Court (http://openjurist.org/73/f3d/675/united-states-v-wilson).”
?
?

Beyond whatever ideological lens Randa brings to his courtroom, as George Zornick points out, he also has an unusually personal connection to the criminal probe that he shut down. Randa’s judicial assistant is married to a top lawyer for the Walker campaign (http://www.thenation.com/blog/179755/does-judge-rudolph-randa-have-conflict-scott-walker-case#). According to the Center for Media and Democracy, Randa is also a board member of the Milwaukee Federalist Society (http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/05/12469/randa-kills-wisconsin-campaign-finance-law), a prominent conservative legal group.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/05/11/3436347/meet-the-republican-judge-fighting-to-bail-scott-walker-out-of-a-criminal-investigation/

[BradLohaus]

http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws

First link that came up. Just google for it there are many. Anti Muslim or immigrant posts on facebook for example.

[xrayzebra]

Why cite Germany and France as having speech laws. Just look North, Canada, you can go to jail very easily there for uttering something offensive.

And why is the SOCTUS biased when we have a Conservative opinion issued, but when it is Liberal opinion, why they made the right decision. Can we all say together: Obamacare.

[boutons_deux]

Why cite Germany and France as having speech laws. Just look North, Canada, you can go to jail very easily there for uttering something offensive.

And why is the SOCTUS biased when we have a Conservative opinion issued, but when it is Liberal opinion, why they made the right decision. Can we all say together: Obamacare.

who said SCOTUS decisions when ther are liberal, they are right?

the point was that the LAW is subject to interpretation based on the politics of the judge.

the MUCH BIGGER point is:

Conservative SCOTUS 5 decisions nearly always fuck democracy, fuck Human-Americans, fuck the environment, while enabling, enriching, protecting the wealthy and corporations

while

Liberal/progressive SCOTUS decisions nearly always do the opposite.

Which judicial bias do you prefer? (we know the answer)

[xrayzebra]

boutons, when has politics never played a role in SCOTUS decisions. Good Lord, Roosevelt even tried to pack the court so he could get the decisions out of them he wanted. Look how they pick replacements, by the persons politics.

And your ramblings (hysterical at that) of Human-Americans and environment, you need to go look at some regulations your Liberal buddies have instituted here in recent years. And when you are sitting on you butt in a car with no juice and about the size of a lawn mower think about all those "conservative" decisions that have backed the EPA and their stupidity.

And what in the world is "human-american"?

[angrydude]

who said SCOTUS decisions are liberal, they right?

the point was that the LAW is subject to interpretation based on the politics of the judge.

the MUCH BIGGER point is:

Conservative SCOTUS 5 decisions nearly always fuck democracy, fuck Human-Americans, fuck the environment, while enabling, enriching, protecting the wealthy and corporations

while

Liberal/progressive SCOTUS decisions nearly always do the opposite.

Which judicial bias do you prefer? (we know the answer)

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/05/supreme-court-government-prayer-new-york/4481969/

Yes, those dastardly conservatives upholding a century old tradition allowing prayer to open government meetings really does fuck the "human-americans", "democracy", and really puts profits into the pockets of rich faceless corporations.

[angrydude]

It almost sounds like you're anti marbury v madison.

I suppose the SCOTUS could just give advisory opinions but unfortunately we have a common law system here in the West.

[The Reckoning]

australia has speech laws too

[boutons_deux]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/05/supreme-court-government-prayer-new-york/4481969/

Yes, those dastardly conservatives upholding a century old tradition allowing prayer to open government meetings really does fuck the "human-americans", "democracy", and really puts profits into the pockets of rich faceless corporations.

traditions are laws, aren't legal.

And WTF is all this Pharisaical praying anyway? magic, supestitiion of Christians trumps rational law?

The extreme, activist dastardly SCOTUS5 overturned stare decisis, ake THE LAW, going back 100+ years that corporations aren't people.

Got any other weak bullshit I can bitch-slap?

[boutons_deux]

And what in the world is "human-american"?

If you were well informed, esp about your SCOTUS5 rulings, you would know they created a new kind of American, the Corporate-American PERSON, AND increased its powers to fuck over, protect/enrich itself against Human-American PERSONS.

[xrayzebra]

If you were well informed, esp about your SCOTUS5 rulings, you would know they created a new kind of American, the Corporate-American PERSON, AND increased its powers to fuck over, protect/enrich itself against Human-American PERSONS.

boutons, you are a riot. Your BP must be about 220/110 with all the demons that run around your pea size brain.