IOKIYAR

From the Midday Open Thread at Daily Kos:

New Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from 25 of the 51 cases the Court will hear, this term. She is doing so because of potential conflicts from the work she did in her previous role as Solicitor General. Her recusals speak to her sense of honor and integrity.

Justice Clarence Thomas did not recuse himself from the Citizens United ruling, which directly affected his wife's work at the politically active non-profit she founded. Justice Thomas also didn't recuse himself from the Bush v. Gore ruling, which also directly affected his wife's work. His refusals to recuse himself speak to his sense of honor and integrity.

Indeed.

--the BB

Pecunia Rex (updated with additional graphic)

As Watertiger puts it:

So much for Scalia's "strict construction" of the Constitution. SCOTUS just handed down its decision in FEC v. Citizens United, and it's the most blatant piece of judicial activism you'll read.

Nice Republic we had. Shame something happened to it.

Adam B has a nice post up at Daily Kos on today's decision. You may read it all here. In a nutshell:

In a long-awaited 5-4 decision today, the Supreme Court of the United States has overturned its 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce which had allowed states to ban corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates through independent expenditures. [Bans on direct corporate contributions to candidates were not at issue in this case; you'll have to wait a few years on that one.]

Arthur Delaney also writes about it at Huffington Post. The President was not amused.

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics," said President Obama in a statement. "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans... That's why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision."

Rep. Alan Grayson is fighting back. His bills have blunt, humorous titles but that makes for clear concepts and the intent is serious.

As Randi Rhodes has said on several occasions, when corporations have colonoscopies we can start considering them persons.

Bush succeeded in creating the most "business-friendly" Supreme Court in history. For "business-friendly" you may read "friendly to the corporatocracy."

Put another way, the corporations can haz all ur chezeburgers. The American People can suck eggs.


--the BB

Then there's effing SCOTUS

NYT editorial:

In an appalling 5-to-4 ruling on Thursday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority tossed aside compelling due process claims, the demands of justice and a considered decision by a lower federal appeals court to deny the right of prisoners to obtain post-conviction DNA testing that might prove their innocence.

...

We are also puzzled and disturbed by the Obama administration’s decision to side with Alaska in this case — continuing the Bush administration’s opposition to recognizing a right to access physical evidence for post-conviction DNA testing.

Thursday’s ruling will inevitably allow some innocent people to languish in prison without having the chance to definitively prove their innocence and with the state never being completely certain of their guilt.

Hmph!

The Rude Pundit had a lot of rude but right-on things to say about this too.

Almost every state grants the request that Osborne made. They all seem to be able to handle it without the foundations of justice tumbling. As Justice Stevens writes in dissent, "The arbitrariness of the State's conduct is highlighted by comparison to the private interests it denies. It seems to me obvious that if a wrongly convicted person were to produce proof of his actual innocence, no state interest would be sufficient to justify his continued punitive detention. If such proof can be readily obtained without imposing a significant burden on the State, a refusal to provide access to such evidence is wholly unjustified."

But, no, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and sometimes Kennedy pull out the states' and legislative rights card when it's convenient, when a case makes them feel ooky (check out Alito's concurring opinion for a creepy dwelling on the facts of the crime). Because we certainly wouldn't want the United States to act like we're states that are united.

What bloody wankers.

h/t to John Aravosis at Americablog

--the BB

We've got yer legacy right here

Dday reminds us (at Digby's Hullabaloo) that Bush's real legacy is the Supreme Court, then goes on to discuss how "[T]he Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that evidence obtained from an unlawful arrest based on careless record keeping by the police may be used against a criminal defendant."

Dday explains:

The case itself is noteworthy. Bernie Herring had an adversarial history with a cop in his Alabama town. His truck was impounded and he went to the sheriff's office to pick it up. The cop ran a check for outstanding warrants and found what he thought to be one, he arrested Herring. The officers detained Herring, and found a gun and traces of methamphetamines on him. Minutes later, the officers discovered that the arrest warrant was faulty. Nevertheless, he was tried for drug possession and sentenced to 27 months(!).

And the Supreme Court now has ruled that the evidence, gained through what amounts to a warrantless search, is admissable.

And reminds us:

That right-wing bloc on the Court is relatively young, incidentally. Weep not for George W. Bush. He's got a legacy. Not content just to screw us for eight years, the pain will be felt for decades.

So there's yer legacy for ya, my friends.

Just to refresh your memory on what is at stake:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Regime change comes not a moment too soon. We're not even certain yet that it has come soon enough.

Deus, in adjuvandum nos festina!

[This post marks a recurrence of Thursday Constitution Blogging.]
--the BB

Three strikes and you're out!

SCOTUS seems to have prompted this return of Thursday Constitution blogging.

w00t!

Linda Greenhouse at The New York Times reports:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered its third consecutive rebuff to the Bush administration’s handling of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, ruling 5 to 4 that the prisoners there have a constitutional right to go to federal court to challenge their continued detention.

The court declared unconstitutional a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that, at the administration’s behest, stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from the detainees seeking to challenge their designation as enemy combatants.

I am so flipping stoked by this. What a great thing to come home to after a very long and intense day at work.

Those who have been paying attention, those who care about the rule of law, those who cherish our Constitution have all noted that the Bush administration's behavior has been resolutely lawless. They have no concern for ancient traditions (making them anything but conservative) and no concern for human rights. Even the Supreme Court, hardly a bastion of liberality these days, has now repeatedly slapped them down.

I pray we may yet see the restoration of the rule of the law. In the meantime, stay informed, stay vigilant, stay feisty, and refuse to shut up until law prevails once more.

You may read the whole article here.

I also got an e-mail from Senator Patrick Leahy. He writes, in part:

A majority of the Court has ruled that provisions in the 2006 Military Commissions Act designed to strip away all habeas rights for detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay detention center are unconstitutional. The Court has ruled that the Constitutional right to habeas corpus extends to territories, including Guantanamo Bay, where the United States exercises de facto control. The Court further held that the administration’s detention procedures were constitutionally inadequate, and that those detainees who have been determined to be "unlawful enemy combatants" are entitled to seek habeas relief in Federal court.

The Court’s 5-4 decision sustains the long-held and bipartisan beliefs that I and others have always maintained: Congress made a grave error when, for the first time in its history, it voted to strip habeas corpus rights, instead leaving in place hopelessly flawed procedures to determine whether detainees can be held indefinitely with no meaningful court review merely by the Executive’s decree.

Senator Obama's comments (via SusanG at Daily Kos):

Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy. We cannot afford to lose any more valuable time in the fight against terrorism to a dangerously flawed legal approach. I voted against the Military Commissions Act because its sloppiness would inevitably lead to the Court, once again, rejecting the Administration's extreme legal position. The fact is, this Administration's position is not tough on terrorism, and it undermines the very values that we are fighting to defend. Bringing these detainees to justice is too important for us to rely on a flawed system that has failed to convict anyone of a terrorist act since the 9-11 attacks, and compromised our core values.

Dday over at Digy's Hullabaloo has this to say (and I say "hear, hear!"):

It's really not enough to mount a campaign to end the practice of torture in a future Administration, although that is of course important. There needs to be continued investigations into how this started and who was responsible, and those responsible absolutely must be brought to justice. John Ashcroft, John Yoo, William Haynes, David Addington and Doug Feith all will be sitting before Congressional committees in the next few weeks. Whether it's through the appointment of a special counsel in an Obama Administration, or tracking down anyone involved with authorizing torture when they go abroad and can be charged under international war crimes statutes, justice must out. A truth and reconciliation commission is the best method, but whatever the case, those who betrayed American values and shamed themselves through their actions cannot be allowed to drift free, only to crop up in some successive Republican White House.

I will let the Bill of Rights have the closing comment tonight:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

--the BB