Showing posts with label Chief Justice John Roberts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chief Justice John Roberts. Show all posts

Jan 11, 2013

The Voting Rights Act to be Argued in February before U.S. SC

Racism is gone from America?
The Voting Rights Act enacted in 1965 is set to be Argued in February before the United States Supreme Court in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder.

Few are optimistic that the Roberts Court will not take a sledgehammer to this pillar of the modern civil rights movement.

To no one's surprise the case pits those who are pro-voting and pro-democracy against the those who cannot stand the thought that black, brown and yellow Americans are hitting the voting polls at what they view as alarming rates.

Elections are for white Americans; proper, land-owning, white Americans.

Jeffrey Toobin sums up the case in The New Yorker.

No Republican, including those who voted for the Voting Rights Act's reauthorization in 2006, has spoken up and defended the Act against the judicial targeting by the Roberts Court.

Congress reauthorized the act by votes of 390 to 33 in the House and 98 to 0 in the Senate in 2006 for an additional 25 years.

In the 2009, the Roberts Court invited the challenge (Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder) now before the Court in another attack on non-Republican Americans.

As Toobin notes in 2009, "Even more than (Justice) Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party."

Jun 23, 2012

Roberts' Court Decides Issues Not Asked in Body Blow to Organized Labor

Update: In a related article on how First Amendment doctrine is being created for Corporate America by academic shills such as Eugene Volokh, Martin Redish, and Kathleen Sullivan, see How Top Law Professors Are Working to Expand Corporations’ Constitutional 'Rights.' (Rosenfeld. AlterNet; June 18, 2012)

As the nation's top appellate court, the U.S. Supreme Court under chief justice John Roberts again has taken upon itself its power to cast its political vision onto cases where the litigants do not present the issues upon which Roberts decides to cast judicial fiat in yet another 5-4 case, Knox v. Service Employees (628 F. 3d 1115).

Justice Sotomayor concurs in a narrow judgement of the issues presented upon appeal and rightfully heaps judicial scorn upon Roberts and the GOP majority for its authoritarian overreach in its pursuit of partisan power:

I concur only in the judgment, however, because I cannot agree with the majority’s decision to address unnecessarily significant constitutional issues well outside the scope of the questions presented and briefing. By doing so, the majority breaks our own rules and, more importantly, disregards principles of judicial restraint that define the Court’s proper role in our system of separated powers.
Mitt Romney, corrupt GOP justices, Scott Walker and the Republican Party resemble a plundering Army.

Feb 25, 2010

Chief Justice 'Startled' by Gov Errors in Vets Cases

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Renault, I mean Roberts, is shocked, shocked to find that screwing veterans is going on in here!

Justice Roberts said Monday he was "startled" to learn the government makes mostly errors in veterans' disability claim cases.

Just got this in via Dan Cedusky's Veterans Issues Newsletter. Dan cites Marcia Coyle's piece in the National Law Journal (Feb. 24, 2010) in which Coyle quotes Chief Justice John Roberts in oral arguments of a case, Astrue v. Ratliff (08-1322), heard Monday.

"Well that's really startling, isn't it? In litigating with veterans, the government more often than not takes a position that is substantially unjustified?," asks Chief Justice Roberts. Yes. This is really startling. From Coyle:
When he was in private practice at Hogan & Hartson, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. did not handle veterans' benefits claims. So, he understandably found "startling" information with which lawyers for veterans are only too familiar: In litigating with veterans, the government more often than not takes a position that is substantially unjustified.In oral arguments Monday in Astrue v. Ratliff, an attorney fee case under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), James Leach of Rapid City, S.D., told the Court that 42 percent of Social Security cases result in an EAJA attorney fee award.

'If it's 42 percent, that's quite a high number of cases in which the government's position is found substantially -- not substantially justified as well as legally erroneous,' Leach said. 'In veterans cases, it's even worse.'

The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which reports the number of EAJA awards granted annually, reported that for 2008 and 2009, 70 percent resulted in fee awards, Leach told the justices.

When Assistant to the Solicitor General Anthony Yang got up for his rebuttal in the case, Roberts interrupted him and the exchange went like this:

ROBERTS: Counsel do you -- do you dispute your friend's statement that 42 percent of the time in Social Security cases the government's position is unjustified, and 70 percent of the time in veterans' cases?

YANG: Well, I think that reflects the stakes often, Your Honor. Oftentimes the government does not contest, for instance, the $2,000 EAJA award and because it's the government, has to --

ROBERTS: So whenever it really makes a difference, 70 percent of the time the government's position is substantially unjustified?

YANG: In cases in the VA context, the number's not quite that large, but is a substantial number of cases at the court of appeals --

ROBERTS: What number would you accept?

YANG: It was, I believe in the order of either 50 or maybe slightly more than 50 percent. It might be 60. But the number is substantial that you get a reversal, and in almost all of those cases EAJA --

ROBERTS: Well that's really startling, isn't it? In litigating with veterans, the government more often than not takes a position that is substantially unjustified?

YANG: It is an unfortunate number, Your Honor. And it is -- it's accurate.

Bart Stichman, co-executive director of the National Veterans Legal Services Program, said he thinks the percentage is greater than the government’s number. 'That means the quality of decision-making at the Board of Veterans Appeals is not very good,' he said. 'We’ve been saying that for years. The number means not only did they wrongly decide the case but their position wasn’t substantially justified. Not too good.'