Supreme Court Checks and Balances in Boumediene

After the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited opinion, upholding habeas corpus rights for the Guantánamo detainees, I was invited to appear on The O'Reilly Factor with guest host Laura Ingraham. Although she is a lawyer and former law clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, Ingraham has no use for our judicial branch of government, noting that the justices are "unelected." Indeed, she advocated that Bush break the law and disregard the Court's decision in Boumediene v. Bush:

"Marjorie, I was trying to think to myself, look, if I were President Bush, and I had heard that this case had come down, and I'm out of office in a few months. My ratings, my popularity ratings are pretty low, I would have said at this point, that's very interesting that the court decided this, but I'm not going to respect the decision of the court because my job is to keep this country safe."

What did the Court decide that so incensed Ingraham (who has just been rewarded for her "fair and balanced" views with her own show on Fox News)? Will this decision really imperil our safety? And will Boumediene become an issue in the presidential election?

The Supreme Court held in a 5-4 ruling that the Guantánamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus, and that the scheme for reviewing 'enemy combatant' designations under the Combatant Status Review Tribunals is an inadequate substitute for habeas corpus, a result I predicted in a December 3, 2007 article.

Guantánamo detainees have constitutional right to habeas corpus

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 of the Constitution is known as the Suspension Clause. It reads, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." In section 7(a) of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Congress purported to strip habeas rights from the Guantánamo detainees by amending the habeas corpus statute (28 U.S.C.A. § 2241(e)). In Boumediene, the Court held that section of the Act to be unconstitutional, declaring that the detainees still retained the constitutional right to habeas corpus.

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, reiterated the Court's finding in Rasul v. Bush that although Cuba retains technical sovereignty over Guantánamo, the United States exercises complete jurisdiction and control over its naval base and thus the Constitution protects the detainees there. Kennedy rejected "the necessary implication" of Bush's position that the political branches could "govern without legal restraint" by locating a U.S. military base in a country that retained formal sovereignty over the area. In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts flippantly characterized Guantánamo as a "jurisdictionally quirky outpost."

Kennedy worried that the political branches could "have the power to switch the Constitution on or off at will" which "would lead to a regime in which they, not this Court, say 'what the law is.'" "Even when the United States acts outside its borders," Kennedy wrote, "its powers are not 'absolute and unlimited' but are subject 'to such restrictions as are expressed in the Constitution.'"

Thus, Kennedy observed, "the writ of habeas corpus is itself an indispensable mechanism for monitoring the separation of powers." Indeed, habeas corpus was one of the few individual rights the Founding Fathers wrote it into the original Constitution, years before they enacted the Bill of Rights.

"The test for determining the scope of [the habeas corpus] provision," Kennedy wrote, "must not be subject to manipulation by those whose power it is designed to restrain." It is such manipulation that Laura Ingraham would perpetuate. It was a Republican-controlled Congress, working hand-in-glove with Bush, that tried to strip habeas corpus rights from the Guantánamo detainees in the Military Commissions Act. The Supreme Court has determined that effort to be unconstitutional. Fulfilling its constitutional duty to check and balance the other two branches, the Court has carried out its mandate to interpret the Constitution and say "what the law is."

No adequate substitute for habeas corpus

Finding that the Guantánamo detainees retained the constitutional right to habeas corpus, the Court turned to the issue of whether there was an adequate substitute for habeas review. Bush established Combatant Status Review Tribunals ("CSRTs") to determine whether a detainee is an "enemy combatant." These kangaroo courts provide no right to counsel, only a "personal representative," who owes no duty of confidentiality to his client and often doesn't even advocate on behalf of the detainee; one even argued the government's case. The detainee doesn't have the right to see much of the evidence against him and is very limited in the evidence he can present.

The CSRTs have been criticized by military participants in the process. Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a veteran of U.S. intelligence, said they often relied on "generic" evidence and were set up to rubber-stamp the "enemy combatant" designation. When he sat as a judge in one of the tribunals, Abraham and the other two judges - a colonel and a major in the Air Force - "found the information presented to lack substance" and noted that statements presented as factual "lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence." After they determined there was "no factual basis" to conclude the detainee was an enemy combatant, the government pressured them to change their conclusion but they refused. Abraham was never assigned to another CSRT panel. It is widely believed that Abraham's affidavit about the shortcomings of the CSRT's in Boumediene's companion case caused the Supreme Court to reverse its denial of certiorari and agree to review Boumediene. This was the first time in 60 years the Court had so reversed itself.

While the Court declined to decide whether the CSRTs satisfied due process standards, it concluded that "even when all the parties involved in this process act with diligence and in good faith, there is considerable risk of error in the tribunal's findings of fact." The Court then had to determine whether the procedure for judicial review of the CSRTs' "enemy combatant" designations constituted an adequate substitute for habeas corpus review.

"For the writ of habeas corpus, or its substitute, to function as an effective and proper remedy in this context," Kennedy wrote, "the court that conducts the habeas proceeding must have the means to correct errors that occurred during the CSRT proceedings. This includes some authority to assess the sufficiency of the Government's evidence against the detainee. It also must have the authority to admit and consider relevant exculpatory evidence that was not introduced during the earlier proceeding."

But in the Detainee Treatment Act ("DTA"), Congress limited district court review of the CSRT determinations to whether the CSRT complied with its own procedures. The district court had no authority to hear newly discovered evidence or make a finding that the detainee was improperly designated as an enemy combatant.

The Supreme Court noted that "when the judicial power to issue habeas corpus properly is invoked the judicial officer must have adequate authority to make a determination in light of the relevant law and facts and to formulate and issue appropriate orders for relief, including, if necessary, an order directing the prisoner's release." Since the DTA's scheme for reviewing determinations of the CSRTs did not afford this authority, the Court held it was not an adequate substitute for habeas corpus and thus section 7 of the Military Commissions Act acted as "an unconstitutional suspension of the writ."

Boumediene will not imperil the United States

In his dissent, Justice Scalia sounded the alarm that the Boumediene decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Likewise, the Wall St. Journal editorialized, "We can say with confident horror that more Americans are likely to die as a result." Their predictions, however, are not based in fact.

Lakhdar Boumediene and five other Algerian detainees from Bosnia were accused of threatening to blow up an embassy in Bosnia. The Supreme Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina concluded there was no evidence to continue to detain them and ordered them released. The Bosnian officials turned them over to the United States and they were transported to Guantánamo, where they have languished since 2002.

Many of the men and boys at Guantánamo were sold as bounty to the U.S. military by the Northern Alliance or warlords for $5,000 a head. Indeed, Maj. Gen. Jay Hood, the former commander at Guantánamo, admitted to the Wall St. Journal, "Sometimes we just didn't get the right folks," but innocent men remain detained there because "[n]obody wants to be the one to sign the release papers . . . there's no muscle in the system."

The Boumediene decision will not directly impact the criminal cases against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the few others who will be tried in the military commissions. It is the 211 men who have filed habeas corpus petitions challenging their "enemy combatant" designations who will benefit from this ruling. No one will be automatically released. They will simply be afforded a fair hearing. Most Americans would not object to a requirement that our government fairly prove someone guilty before we imprison him indefinitely.

Even Justice Jackson, the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, advocated due process for the Nazi leaders. "The ultimate principle," he said, "is that you must put no man on trial under the forms of judicial proceedings if you are not willing to see him freed if not proven guilty." Jackson understood the importance of the presumption of innocence in our system of law.

Kennedy quoted Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in Federalist 84 that "arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." Justice Souter cut to the chase in his separate opinion, citing "the length of the disputed imprisonments, some of the prisoners represented here today having been locked up for six years." None of them has been charged with a crime and none has been brought before a fair and impartial judge.

"The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." Kennedy wrote. "Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system they are reconciled within the framework of the law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, a part of that law."

"Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles," according to Kennedy. "Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to the separation of powers ... Within the Constitution's separation-of-powers structure, few exercises of judicial power are as legitimate or as necessary as the responsibility to hear challenges to the authority of the Executive to imprison a person."

In responding to Laura Ingraham's false dichotomy between keeping us safe and protecting habeas corpus, I cited Benjamin Franklin's admonition: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Attacking judges under guise of national security

The Boumediene decision split along political lines with the four so-called liberal justices - Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter and Breyer - in the majority, and the four conservative justices - Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito - in the dissent. Kennedy, the swing vote, broke the tie. Curt Levy from the Committee for Justice, which seeks to pack the courts with right-wing judges, blogged that Boumediene has "teed up the Supreme Court issue nicely for the G.O.P."

Indeed, John McCain has already seized upon it as a campaign issue. The day the opinion came out, McCain said, "It obviously concerns me . . . but it is a decision the Supreme Court has made. Now we need to move forward. As you know, I always favored closing of Guantánamo Bay and I still think that we ought to do that." By the next day, McCain had changed his tune. "The Supreme Court yesterday rendered a decision which I think is one of the worst decisions in the history of this country," he declared. McCain, who hopes to overcome the unpopularity of his positions on the war and the economy, will make national security the centerpiece of his campaign.

Barack Obama, who links our national security with how other nations view us, characterized the Boumediene decision as "an important step toward re-establishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus."

It is very likely that the next president will make at least one nomination, and probably two, to the Supreme Court. Boumediene is the poster child for how delicately the Court is now balanced, and the disastrous consequences to the doctrine of separation-of-powers that await us if a President McCain makes good on his promise to appoint judges in the mold of Roberts and Alito.

(The views expressed in this article are solely those of the writer; she is not acting on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild or Thomas Jefferson School of Law)

Read on >>

National Lawyers Guild Welcomes Discussion of Racism Occasioned by Senator Barack Obama's Historic Speech

In response to highly-publicized sound-bites from sermons by Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Sen. Barack Obama delivered an historic speech on racism, titled "A More Perfect Union."

Rev. Wright had strongly criticized the U.S. government for putting Indians on reservations, Japanese in internment camps, and Africans into slavery. He said, "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost." Rev. Wright did not justify the 9/11 attacks; he explained they were blowback for a vicious U.S. foreign policy.

Rev. Wright's words were not unlike those uttered by Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. about the Vietnam War in 1968: "God didn't call America to engage in a senseless, unjust war. . . . And we are criminals in that war. We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it. And we won't stop it because of our pride and our arrogance as a nation. But God has a way of even putting nations in their place."

In his speech, Sen. Obama credited the civil rights movement for the progress we have made in overcoming racism. "But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now," he said, citing segregated, inferior schools that continue to exist 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education.

Yet last term, the Supreme Court, in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, limited the ability of public school districts to address segregation by prohibiting the use of race-conscious measures as a tool to promote integration. Chief Justice John Roberts based his plurality opinion on the myth of "colorblindness," equating the exclusion and segregation of children by race with the inclusion of different races in the same schools. He ignored the decades of racial discrimination caused in part by segregated schools. Roberts ended his opinion with the flip comment, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

Vast disparities with respect to race continue to pervade every aspect of American life. Latinos and African Americans are disproportionately concentrated in poor residential areas with sub-standard housing conditions, limited employment opportunities, inadequate access to health care, under-resourced schools and high exposure to crime and violence.

Racial profiling from the initial police stop to the charging process and trial through the sentencing procedure has been widely documented. Mandatory sentences of life imprisonment are imposed disproportionately on minority defendants. Non-whites are much more likely than whites to be charged with and sentenced to death for substantially similar crimes.

In his 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr. King wrote, "Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

Sen. Barack Obama has injected this critical discussion into the national discourse as a means of tackling the problems of inferior schools, health care, jobs and economic opportunities for all races. He said, "It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper."

The National Lawyers Guild welcomes this long overdue opportunity for a national dialogue on the pernicious racism and class oppression that the U.S. government continues to perpetuate.

Read on >>

Coming Up Short on Habeas for Detainees

The Bush administration has stopped the Supreme Court from giving the Guantánamo detainees their day in court - at least for now.

In Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. United States, 45 men challenged the constitutionality of the habeas corpus-stripping provision of the Military Commissions Act that Congress passed last year.

On Monday Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg fell one vote short of the four needed to grant review of the lower court decision which went against the detainees. It was no surprise that Justices John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas voted to deny review.

Two justices - John Paul Stevens and Anthony Kennedy - declined review on procedural grounds, saying the detainees had to exhaust their remedies before appealing to the high court. That means they must first go through the appeals process of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs).

The CSRTs are used to determine whether a detainee is an unlawful enemy combatant. They deny basic due process protections such as the rights to counsel, to see evidence, and to confront adverse witnesses.

The procedure for challenging a CSRT decision is found in the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It is limited to determining whether the decision was consistent with the CSRT's standards and procedures, and whether the use of those standards and procedures was legal and constitutional.

There are two issues the Supreme Court would have to decide if it did review this case. First, do the Guantánamo detainees have a constitutional right to habeas corpus? In 2004, the Court held in Rasul v. Bush that the habeas statute applied to those detainees because the United States maintains complete jurisdiction and control over Guantánamo.

Second, even if the Court applied its Rasul reasoning to constitutional habeas corpus, it would then need to determine whether the procedure for contesting Combatant Status Review Tribunal decisions constitutes an adequate substitute for habeas corpus.

It should have been a no-brainer for Justices Stevens and Kennedy to vote to hear this case. The DTA's review procedures cannot cure the sub-standard standards of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

Since Justice Stevens authored the Court's two prior decisions upholding rights for the Guantánamo detainees, his vote in this case is puzzling. But if he provided the fourth vote for review, there's no guarantee he could garner the five votes needed to overturn the lower court ruling. Justices Stevens and Kennedy left open the option of future review if "the government has unreasonably delayed proceedings" or causes the detainees "some other and ongoing injury." Justice Stevens evidently thought it prudent to side with Justice Kennedy at this point to cultivate the latter's vote on the merits down the road.

Meanwhile, the detainees languish in confinement that could last the rest of their lives if they are denied the right to have a U.S. judge hear their habeas corpus petitions. Of the 755 men and boys held at Guantánamo in the past five years, Bush has called only 14 of them "high value detainees." Just 10 - not including any of the 45 men appealing the current case - have been charged with a crime.

Although the Supreme Court has stood up to the Bush administration in the past, it is precariously balanced and cannot be relied upon to consistently provide justice. Congress has finally shown the will to challenge the Bush agenda - on the Iraq war, and the U.S. Attorney firing scandal. The ball is in Congress's court to rescind the habeas-stripping provisions of the Military Commissions Act.

Read on >>

Supremes Consider Kangaroo Courts

Today the Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in the most significant case to date on the limits of George W. Bush's authority in his "war on terror." In the first two cases it heard, the high court reined in Bush for his unprecedented assertion of executive power. It held in Rasul v. Bush that the Guantánamo prisoners could challenge their confinement in US federal courts. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court said that "a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to rights of the Nation's citizens."

Salim Ahmed Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's chauffeur, is facing trial in one of the military commissions that Bush created on November 13, 2001. The case pending in the high court will determine the legality of those military commissions, and will decide whether Hamdan and other Guantánamo detainees can challenge their detention in US federal courts.

The importance of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is evident from the sheer number of amicus briefs it has garnered. Of the 42 amici in this case, 37 - including one filed by 280 law professors, this writer among them - support Hamdan's position.

Afghani militia forces captured Hamdan in Afghanistan in November 2001. They turned him over to the United States military, which transported him to the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba, where he continues to be detained.

In 2004, the US government designated Hamdan an "enemy combatant" and charged him with conspiracy to commit the following crimes: attacks on civilians and civilian objects, murder and destruction of property by an unprivileged belligerent, and terrorism. Hamdan has not been charged with committing the underlying substantive crimes. The military commissions only have jurisdiction to try war crimes. Conspiracy is not a war crime.

In November 2004, the US District Court for the District of Columbia granted Hamdan's petition for habeas corpus. That court held that Hamdan could not be tried by a military commission unless a competent tribunal first determined that he was not a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention. The district court also forbade the military commission from trying Hamdan unless the rules for those commissions are amended to be consistent with and not contrary to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

The Third Geneva Convention requires that if there is a doubt about whether someone is a POW, a "competent tribunal" shall make the determination; meanwhile, the prisoner must be treated as a POW.

Geneva III also provides that prisoners of war shall be tried in the same types of courts as members of the armed forces of the detaining power. It says, "In no circumstances whatever shall a prisoner of war be tried by a court of any kind which does not offer the essential guarantees of independence and impartiality as generally recognized."

Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions prohibits "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

Bush crafted the military commissions to deny the accused due process protections the UCMJ guarantees. The accused can be convicted and sentenced to death based on evidence he never sees, in proceedings where he cannot be present. Hearsay is admissible and the standard for admissibility of evidence falls below that required by US military and civilian courts.

In July 2005, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit overturned the district court’s ruling. The appellate court held that the Geneva Convention is unenforceable in court, and that Geneva does not apply to al Qaeda. Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted against Hamdan in the Court of Appeals, will not take part in the Supreme Court decision.

Meanwhile, on December 30, 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, which codifies US law against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. But the act also purports to strip our federal courts of jurisdiction to hear the Guantánamo detainees' habeas corpus petitions, including those that complain of mistreatment.

The Bush administration then moved to dismiss Hamdan's petition, but the Supreme Court kept the case alive and will hear it today.

Hamdan's brief challenges the Supreme Court to stop "this unprecedented arrogation of power." It warns that "if in the interest of 'national security,' this Court concludes that the President has such authority, it will be hard pressed to limit, in any principled manner, the President's assertion of similarly unprecedented powers in other areas of civil society, so long as they purport to serve the same objective. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine a future President invoking this case as precedent, and asserting the need to subject American citizens to military commissions for any offense somehow connected to the 'war on terror.'"

"In the end," the Hamdan brief says, "the President cannot claim that the criminal offenses of the laws of war apply to the war on terror, and at the same time deny the accused the right to invoke any of the protections of the laws of war [the Geneva Conventions]."

Steve Clemons, of The Washington Note, recently quoted Sonia Picado, former Costa Rican ambassador to the US, and the first and only woman judge on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Picado said that Bush's military commissions sent "a cold chill" through democracies around the world, which had suffered historically from oppressive secret military tribunals.

Justice Antonin Scalia, who has already pre-judged this case, should recuse himself. In a March 8 talk at the University of Freiberg in Switzerland, Scalia denied that the detainees have legal rights. "War is war," he declared, "and it has never been the case that when you captured a combatant you have to give them a jury trial in your civil courts." Scalia, who flipped his middle finger at reporters in Boston on Sunday, will give the finger to Salim Ahmed Hamdan and the rule of law if he remains on the case.

Read on >>

Alito Sounds Death Knell for Individual Rights

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee began its confirmation hearings on the nomination of Samuel Alito for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Alito is no John Roberts. Whereas Roberts had barely been a judge for two years when Bush nominated him for the Supreme Court, Alito has authored 361 opinions during his 15-year tenure on the federal court bench. Whereas Roberts is photogenic, with a winning smile, Alito is stiff and awkward before the cameras. Most significantly, whereas Roberts replaced Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who had a similar judicial philosophy, Alito would take the place of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote 77 percent of the time.

If confirmed, Alito would tip the high court's delicate balance radically to the right. Nearly always favoring the government, corporations and universities, Alito has ruled against individual rights in 84 percent of his dissents.

In a 196-page report released last week, the Alliance for Justice (AFJ) determined that in split decisions - the "difficult cases" - "the reasoning Judge Alito employs and the results he reaches are not balanced. Rather," the report found, "they track the staunchly conservative political and legal views he expressed in his 1985 application to be Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel in President Reagan's Justice Department."

Alito's 1985 application stresses his commitment to federalism (states' rights), his view that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," and his disagreement with the criminal procedure, reapportionment (one-man, one-vote), and Establishment Clause (church-state separation) decisions of the Warren Court.

The members of the Senate Judiciary Committee drew clear lines in yesterday's session. Although abortion was a significant concern for three senators from each party, the limitation on executive power was a much more prominent theme during the opening statements.

Six Democratic senators, as well as committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), expressed alarm at the recent revelation that Bush has been secretly spying on Americans since 2002. Five Democrats made reference to O'Connor's opinion for the Court in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: "We have long since made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."

Alito's record reveals that he "has been extraordinarily deferential to the exercise of government power, especially executive branch power, except in cases involving alleged infringements on religious expression," according to the AFJ. His "judicial record strongly suggests that he will ... interpret the Constitution as giving the president greater authority to evade Congressional statutes and constitutional limitations whenever deemed essential to national security."

Indeed, in a memorandum he wrote as a lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department, Alito argued that the attorney general should receive absolute immunity from lawsuits when he illegally wiretaps Americans. The Supreme Court rejected Alito's view in a 1985 decision.

Alito also advocated that the president make a "signing statement" indicating what he thinks the law means when he signs a bill. Even though the Constitution grants the lawmaking power only to Congress, and thus courts look to congressional intent to interpret statutes, Alito hoped that the president could divert the courts' focus away from congressional intent in favor of what he called "the President's intent."

George W. Bush has issued at least 108 such "signing statements," according to the Washington Post. Most recently, Bush qualified his concurrence with the McCain amendment that outlaws torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, implying that he would be free to torture if he felt it was necessary for national security.

In 2000, Alito told a Federalist Society meeting that he was a strong proponent of the "unitary executive," which means that all federal executive power resides in the president. This theory would reject discretionary executive power of independent agencies Congress has created since the New Deal, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Federal Reserve Board.

Alito argued in other memoranda that the Federal Bureau of Investigation should have broad latitude to investigate federal employees, and that an American Bar Association opinion prohibiting lawyers from secretly taping conversations should not prevent IRS lawyers from secretly taping as part of a federal criminal investigation.

Although the senators only touched on Alito's alarming civil rights record in yesterday's session, one would hope they would fully inquire into this area during the questioning.

In split decisions on claims involving violations of the civil rights of women, racial minorities, seniors and the disabled, Alito almost uniformly ruled against the claimants.

As America mourns the deaths of the 12 miners in West Virginia, we are reminded of the importance of mine safety regulations. Yet Alito disagreed with the Department of Labor and would not have applied mine safety rules to an area of a defunct Pennsylvania mine from which the company was still extracting materials to process into energy.

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) has raised the issue of Alito's credibility. Although he promised the Senate Judiciary Committee in his 1990 confirmation hearing for the Court of Appeals that he would recuse himself from cases involving Vanguard companies, in which he had substantial financial investments, Alito subsequently proceeded to sit on a Vanguard case. And on his 1985 job application, Alito boasted of his membership in the ultraconservative Concerned Alumni of Princeton, which opposed co-education and affirmative action. Yet he now denies any memory of being in that group.

In his opening statement, Alito told the senators, "A judge can't have any agenda. A judge can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case."

Yet Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) advised Alito, "We need to know that presidents and paupers will receive equal justice in your courtroom. If the records showed that an umpire repeatedly called 95 percent of pitches strikes when one team's players were up and repeatedly called 95 percent of pitches balls when the other team's players were up, one would naturally ask whether the umpire was being impartial and fair." Schumer observed, "The president is not a king, free to take any action he chooses without limitation by law. The court is not a legislature, free to substitute its own judgment for that of elected bodies. And the people are not subjects, powerless to control their own most intimate decisions."

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said, "It's important to know whether [Alito] would serve with judicial independence or as a surrogate for the president nominating him." Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) declared, "We need judges on the bench who will ensure that the judicial branch of government is the independent check on executive power that the Constitution requires and that the American people expect. And in these days of corruption investigations and indictments in Washington, we also need judges who are beyond ethical reproach."

We will see during the questioning whether the senators will indeed hold Samuel Alito's feet to the fire, and demand that he forthrightly state his beliefs on the critical issues. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) correctly noted that Alito's nomination is a "pivotal" one in the history of this country.

Read on >>

Harriet Miers: Bush's Pit Bull

Bush has nominated his Texas crony as a stealth appointment to the Supreme Court. Although the Senate will be hard-pressed to discover Harriet Miers's positions on the critical issues, she does have a long record of loyalty to Bush, whom she calls "the most brilliant man I ever met." Bush undoubtedly knows where she stands - and it doesn't appear to be on the side of civil liberties.

Miers represented a string of large corporations, including Walt Disney Co., Microsoft, Ford, Chrysler, Honda, Citibank and the Bank of America. Like John Roberts, Harriet Miers has no history of protecting the rights of women, minorities, the poor, the disabled or the environment.

Some far-right Christian organizations appear disappointed that Bush didn't tap an ideological judge like Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, J. Michael Luttig, or Michael W. McConnell. Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio calls Miers's nomination "a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia."

Miers has never been a judge, so there is no concrete evidence of her judicial philosophy. But when Rush Limbaugh sought reassurance from Dick Cheney that Miers's judicial philosophy parallels that of Scalia or Thomas, Cheney responded, "I'm confident that she has a conservative judicial philosophy that you'd be comfortable with ... And the President has great confidence in her judicial philosophy."

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and one of the most radical evangelical conservatives, sanctioned the Miers nomination after a well-placed call from Karl Rove. "Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about," Dobson said.

Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court testified to Miers's bona fides as an evangelical Christian. He guarantees that Miers personally opposed abortion and attended "pro-life" events with him.

Bush is asking his right-wing religious backers to take it on faith that Miers will fulfill their agenda of further Christianizing America. There are clues that would confirm that faith. When Bush named Miers as White House Counsel to replace newly minted Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Bush used the fundamentalist buzz word "grace" to describe Miers. She works with Exodus Ministries, which is dedicated to fulfilling released prisoners' "need for intimate knowledge of the saving grace of Jesus Christ." Its website proclaims that "Exodus is a place where ex-offenders learn how faith in Christ is the first step from captivity to freedom."

After the American Bar Association voted to take a pro-choice position, Miers led the charge to have that vote reconsidered by the ABA membership. While we can expect her to tell the Senate Judiciary Committee that she was only concerned with the proper role for the ABA, Miers's enthusiasm for undoing the ABA's pro-choice stance belies such an excuse.

Harriet Miers was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas Bar Association. Yet she opposed a plan that would guarantee the election of a racial or ethnic minority bar president every sixth year.

Senate Majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee is delighted with the Miers nomination. He called her "another outstanding nominee," describing her selection as "a nomination we are excited about, we are pleased with." Frist says "she is a woman who understands judicial restraint."

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada is equally ebullient. Evidently relieved that Bush didn't nominate the dreaded Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown, Reid declared, "I'm very happy we have someone like her."

Harriet Miers is likely to be as circumspect about her views as was John Roberts about his. Indeed, it was Miers who refused to share Roberts' memos from his tenure in the Solicitor General's office with the Senate. Miers will not share her records from her service in the Bush administration either.

Like Roberts, Miers has been a Republican party loyalist. She is being rewarded for her 12-year service to Bush, who plucked her from his inner circle of confidantes. In 1996, Bush called the loyal Miers, who helped Bush hide his National Guard record, "a pit bull in size 6 shoes." Hardly a fitting replacement for the open-minded Sandra Day O'Connor.

When Bush nominated Miers, he proclaimed, "She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the causes of justice." On the contrary, it appears that Miers has devoted her life to the interests of big corporations and George W. Bush.

The senators and the American people will be left to guess at how Miers feels about the issues that affect our lives.

Harriet Miers is not an intellectual giant like John Roberts. The enigmatic Miers must persuade the senators that she is committed to equality under the law. Harriet Miers has a high burden to carry to convince the Senate that she is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land.

Read on >>

No on Roberts

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings have ended and the jig is up. Although Roberts characterized his judicial role as merely an "umpire," he consistently played hide the ball about his views during the questioning. Nevertheless, Roberts' disingenuousness came through in spite of his evasions. And the senators have enough information about Roberts' record to know he would move the Court dramatically to the right, eviscerating the hard-earned gains of the civil rights movement.

In a well-orchestrated performance, Roberts refused to divulge his real opinions about abortion, end of life decisions, the constitutionality of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1968 Fair Housing Act, and the power of Congress to pass statutes that protect people or legislation to stop a war.

Roberts painted his refusals to answer as necessary to maintain judicial ethics, repeatedly responding that these issues might come before the high court.

Roberts' ethical veneer cracked, however, when Russ Feingold (D-Wis) challenged him about a very recent conflict of interest Roberts displayed with his decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. At the same time Bush & Co. was interviewing Roberts for the Supreme Court, he voted to give Bush unfettered power to use military commissions that violate due process to try suspected terrorists, and to deny them access to US courts to challenge violations of the Geneva Conventions.

Roberts demonstrated an encyclopedic - indeed, photographic - memory for the details of every case the Supreme Court had decided and every memo he had ever written. But when Feingold asked Roberts about the dates of his interviews for the Court, and whether they overlapped with the dates of his decision in Hamdan, suddenly Roberts stuttered, stammered and couldn't remember.

Roberts also misled the senators in his statements about how he would measure laws that discriminate on the basis of gender. The Supreme Court has held that the Equal Protection Clause requires that racial classifications must be judged with strict scrutiny, gender classifications should be examined with intermediate scrutiny, and classifications based on factors other than race or gender will be upheld if there is a reasonable basis to support them. Some heightened level of scrutiny is necessary only if the classifications discriminate based on race or gender.

Roberts told the committee that he had always supported a heightened level of scrutiny for gender classifications. But in a draft article he wrote in the early 1980s when working for Attorney General William French Smith, Roberts decried any heightened scrutiny for classifications that discriminate on the basis of gender. Roberts lied about his record on sex discrimination.

When challenged about his prior statement that there is a "so-called 'right to privacy'" in the Constitution, Roberts declared that privacy is indeed protected by the Constitution. He cited the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion and prohibition on establishment of a religion, and the Third Amendment's prohibition on quartering soldiers in private homes. Roberts also said that liberty is protected in the Constitution, and he agreed with Griswold v. Connecticut, which struck down a state statute that prohibited the sale of contraception. But Roberts stopped short of admitting that liberty encompasses a woman's right to abortion. We are left with the statement in Roberts' brief that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled.

The Democratic senators on the committee were concerned about whether Roberts would overturn Congressional statutes that protect minorities, women, gays, the poor, the disabled, and the environment. Roberts deflected Illinois Senator Richard Durbin's question about whether Justice Roberts would protect the little guy by saying: "If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy's going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution."

What Roberts continually hid from the senators, however, was an explanation of how he interprets the Constitution, which does not contain the words "the little guy" or "the big guy." While denying he is an "ideologue," Roberts used his extraordinary intellect to dodge every question that would have uncovered his true ideological agenda.

But that agenda comes into focus when one examines his record as a lawyer in the Reagan and Bush I administrations, and as a corporate lawyer. Roberts argued repeatedly against the rights of the little guy.

On the final day of the hearings, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga) testified against the Roberts confirmation. Lewis, one of the giants of the civil rights movement, was beaten, arrested and jailed more than 40 times for peaceful, nonviolent demonstrations against legalized segregation in the South.

Lewis said, "I fear that if Judge Roberts is confirmed to be Chief Justice of the United States, the Supreme Court would no longer hear the people's cries for justice. I feel that the leadership of the court would promote politics over the protection of individual rights and liberties. If the federal courts had abandoned us in the civil rights movement, in the name of judicial restraint, we might still be struggling with the burden of legal segregation in America today."

Governor Howard Dean has taken a strong stand against the confirmation of Roberts. "The consistent mark of Roberts' career is a lack of commitment to making the Constitution's promise of equal protection a reality for all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable in our society," Dean wrote in an op-ed last week.

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee should follow Dean's lead. They must vote against the confirmation of John Roberts for Chief Justice of the United States.

Read on >>

John Roberts: Umpire or Ideologue?

Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them ...
I come before the committee with no agenda. I have no platform.
-- John Roberts' opening statement, Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, September 12, 2005

The opening statements of the 18 senators who will first vote on John Roberts' nomination for Chief Justice of the United States set the stage for the confirmation battle. The 10 Republicans and 8 Democrats previewed their expectations of the interrogation of Roberts, which begins today.

Whereas the Democrats favor widespread questioning to get to know the man who could shape the law of the land for the next generation, Republicans seek to limit the examination to only that necessary to achieve confirmation. Democrats are concerned about whether Roberts would strike down acts of Congress that protect civil rights and liberties, and whether he would give blind deference to executive power; Republicans are gunning for reversal of Roe v. Wade, and for destruction of the wall that separates church from state.

Roberts ended his opening statement by saying, "I look forward to your questions." The way Roberts decides to answer - or not answer - questions probing his judicial philosophy will determine whether he would come to the Court as an impartial umpire, or a right-wing ideologue.

Republican senators on the committee repeatedly invoked "the Ginsburg precedent," saying that during her confirmation hearing, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg refrained from answering questions about her judicial philosophy. But when asked a specific question about a constitutional right to privacy, Ginsburg answered:

There is a constitutional right to privacy composed of at least two distinguishable parts. One is the privacy expressed most vividly in the Fourth Amendment: The Government shall not break into my home or my office without a warrant, based on probable cause; the Government shall leave me alone. The other is the notion of personal autonomy. The Government shall not make my decisions for me. I shall make, as an individual, uncontrolled by my Government, basic decisions that affect my life's course. Yes, I think that what has been placed under the label "privacy" is a constitutional right that has those two elements: the right to be let alone and the right to make basic decisions about one's life's course.

Ginsburg could not have more clearly stated that she believes the Constitution contains a right to privacy. But during his confirmation hearing for the Court of Appeals, John Roberts refused to say whether he thinks there is a constitutional right to privacy. If he refuses once again to answer this hot-button question, it is safe to assume he subscribes to his earlier characterization of the "so-called 'right to privacy'" and the statement in the brief he co-authored in Rust v. Sullivan: "The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

There are two striking differences between the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Ginsburg and Roberts. First, when Bill Clinton tapped her for the high court, Ginsburg had a much more extensive record of public writings than Roberts. Second, hers was a consensus nomination. Clinton had cleared it with Senate Republican leaders in advance. Bush did not consult Democrats before nominating Roberts.

Most of Roberts' public writings date back to his tenure in the Reagan administration. The White House refuses to supply the committee with memos he wrote while serving as principal deputy solicitor general in the Bush I administration. The memos would provide the senators with more current information about his views. Decrying the Bush administration's refusal to grant access to Roberts' full record, Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) said, "We can only wonder what they don't want us to know." Russ Feingold (D-Wis) added, "I also must say candidly, the refusal gives rise to a reasonable inference that the administration has something to hide here."

Extremist right-wing organizations such as Operation Rescue and the Family Research Council, which have anti-abortion and anti-gay agendas, celebrate Roberts' nomination. Yet conservative Republican senators such as John Kyl (R-Ariz) say that ideology should not play a role in Roberts' confirmation: "It would be a tragic development if ideology became an increasingly important consideration in the future. To make ideology an issue in the confirmation process is to suggest that the legal process is and should be a political one."

Other Republicans are more forthcoming. For Lindsey Graham (R-SC), "the central issue before the Senate is whether or not the Senate will allow President Bush to fulfill his campaign promise to appoint a well-qualified, strict constructionist to the Supreme Court and, in this case, to appoint a chief justice to the Supreme Court in the mold of Justice Rehnquist."

"This is a confirmation proceeding, however, not a coronation," observed Feingold. Speaking of memos Roberts wrote during the Reagan administration, Feingold said, "In memo after memo, his writings were highly ideological and sometimes dismissive of the views of others." This does not bode well for a chief justice who must consider the opinions of his colleagues and attempt to achieve consensus on the Court.

Several Democratic senators were concerned about Roberts' evident willingness to strike down Congressional statutes. "When we discuss the Constitution's commerce clause or spending power," said Patrick Leahy (D-Vt), "we're asking about congressional authority to pass laws to ensure clean air and water and children's and seniors' health, and safe, good drugs, safe workplaces, even wetland protection, levees that should protect our communities from natural disasters."

Republicans frequently decry what they call "activist judges." Richard Durbin (D-Ill) spoke about Frank Johnson, a federal district judge from Alabama and a life-long Republican. "Fifty years ago," said Durbin, "following the arrest of Rosa Parks, Judge Johnson ruled that African-Americans of Montgomery, Alabama, were acting within their constitutional rights when they organized a boycott of the buses and that Martin Luther King Jr. and others could march from Selma to Montgomery."

The Ku Klux Klan branded Johnson the most hated man in America; wooden crosses were burned on his lawn. "Judge Frank Johnson," Durbin noted, "was denounced as a judicial activist and threatened with impeachment. He had the courage to expand freedom in America. Judge Roberts, I hope that you agree America must never return to those days of discrimination and limitations on our freedom."

Durbin also warned of the dangers of government sponsorship of religion. He quoted Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's opinion in the recent Ten Commandments case: "At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumptions of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate. Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?"

Diane Feinstein (D-Cal), the only woman on the committee, told Roberts, "It would be very difficult ... for me to vote to confirm someone whom I knew would overturn Roe v. Wade, because I remember ... what it was like when abortion was illegal in America ... As a college student at Stanford, I watched the passing of the plate to collect money so a young woman could go to Tijuana for a back-alley abortion. I knew a woman who killed herself because she was pregnant."

Several senators referred to Roberts' stellar academic and professional qualifications. Yet, in the words of Russ Feingold: "We must evaluate not only his qualifications, but also his ability to keep an open mind, his sensitivity to the concerns of all Americans and their right to equal protection under the laws; not only his intellectual capacity, but his judgment and wisdom; not only his achievements, but his fairness and his courage to stand up to the other branches of government when they infringe on the rights and liberties of our citizens."

Charles Schumer (D-NY) declared that the American people "need to know above all that, if you take the stewardship of the high court, you will not steer it so far out of the mainstream that it founders in the shallow waters of extremist ideology."

Explaining why it is critical that Roberts fully answer questions about his judicial philosophy and legal ideology, Schumer said, "As far as your own views go, however, we only have scratched the surface. In a sense, we have seen maybe 10 percent of you - just the visible tip of the iceberg, not the 90 percent that is still submerged. And we all know that it is the ice beneath the surface that can sink the ship."

Will John Roberts be forthcoming about his views on the issues of concern to Americans, such as civil rights, women's rights, privacy, religious liberty, executive power, and environmental rights? Or will he play hide the ball and deprive us of critical information with which to judge the man who will judge the issues that affect us all?

Quoting Senator Paul Simon at the Ginsburg confirmation hearing, Durbin cautioned Roberts: "You face a much harsher judge than this committee. That's the judgment of history. And that judgment is likely to revolve around one question: Did you restrict freedom or did you expand it?"

Read on >>

John Roberts: Uncompassionate Conservative

George W. Bush has nominated John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States. Bush lauded Roberts for his "goodwill and decency toward others." Yet Roberts' record reveals a callous disregard for the rights of people very much like the tens of thousands who have died and been rendered homeless by Katrina.

The outpouring of compassion by people all over this country - and indeed, the world - in the wake of Hurricane Katrina stands in stark contrast to Bush's actions both before and after the tragedy. In spite of warnings about the weak levees in New Orleans, Bush cut the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for levee construction by 44 percent. By sending the National Guard to fight in his trumped-up war on Iraq, Bush deprived the people of New Orleans of critical assistance immediately after the hurricane struck. The day after what may be the worst disaster ever to hit the United States, Bush refused to interrupt his golf game to exercise badly needed leadership.

Most of the tragic images flashing across our television screens are of African Americans. They are suffering indescribable hardship as a result of an administration that failed to protect them from the predicted hurricane, and then failed to timely render aid that would have saved thousands of lives.

John Roberts' career has established his credentials as an uncompassionate conservative. He has worked consistently to deny access to the courts to individuals who have suffered harm like those in New Orleans. He has long been an enemy of civil rights - for the poor, for minorities, for women, for the disabled, for workers, and for a clean and safe environment.

Roberts tried to cut back the federal law that allows people to sue the government when they have been deprived of their federal rights. When he worked at the Solicitor General's office in the George Bush I administration, Roberts wrote an amicus brief in which he argued that the state of Virginia should not reimburse hospitals for Medicaid claims at reasonable rates. Roberts said the Medicaid Act did not create any enforceable rights. Roberts would likely deny relief to people in New Orleans who seek to recover medical costs from a government that failed to protect them.

Roberts viewed legislation to fortify the Fair Housing Act as "government intrusion."

Roberts condemned a Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas law that allowed schools to deny admission to the children of undocumented workers.

Roberts fought for a narrow interpretation of the Voting Rights Act that would have made it much harder for minorities to get elected to public office. He mischaracterized the Act as requiring "a quota system for electoral politics." Robert's characterization of the Voting Rights Act borders on racism.

Roberts contended that Congress could pass a law to prevent all federal courts from ordering busing to achieve school desegregation, a position much more extreme than that adopted by the Reagan administration. Roberts would likely have agreed with his boss William Rehnquist, who argued to his boss Justice Robert Jackson that the racist Plessy v. Ferguson's separate but equal doctrine should be maintained.

Roberts took the position that affirmative action programs are bound to fail because they require recruiting "inadequately prepared candidates," another unfounded and racist stance.

Roberts has referred to the "so-called 'right to privacy'" in the Constitution; he argued that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled. Roberts' position would consign poor women who could not afford to travel to a state that does allow abortion to coat hangers in back alleys. Roberts would likely vote to uphold state laws that made the sale of contraceptives illegal, which the Court struck down in Griswold v. Connecticut.

Roberts worked to keep women who have suffered gender discrimination out of court. He argued for a narrow interpretation of Title IX that would effectively eviscerate its protections altogether. Roberts wrote an amicus brief in which he argued that a student who was sexually molested by her high school teacher was not entitled to compensatory damages under Title IX. Fortunately, the Supreme Court held otherwise, saying that the girl would have "no remedy at all" if it had adopted Roberts' position.

Roberts ridiculed the gender pay equity theory of equal pay for comparable work as a "radical redistributive concept." He mocked female Republican members of Congress who supported comparable worth, writing, "Their slogan might as well be 'from each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.'"

Roberts supported a dramatic weakening of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. He maintained that a deaf student who got by in school by lip-reading and using a hearing aid was not entitled under the Act to receive the services of a sign-language interpreter in the classroom.

Roberts defended Toyota for firing a woman with carpal tunnel syndrome.

Roberts argued on behalf of the National Mining Association that West Virginia citizens could not prevent mining companies from extracting coal by blasting the tops off of mountains and depositing the debris in nearby valleys and streams.

Throughout his career, John Roberts has acted without "goodwill and decency toward others." His positions have demonstrated a mean spirit that flies in the face of what we like to think America stands for. The 50-year-old Roberts would have the opportunity to shape the nation's highest court for the next two or three decades. A Roberts Court would threaten the rights of all but the rich and powerful. It is time for the Democrats to utter the "f" word: Filibuster.

Read on >>

The Roberts Court?

Consider this: John Roberts's nomination for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court is confirmed by the Senate. Chief Justice William Rehnquist steps down. Then, Bush elevates Roberts to Chief.

This scenario would avoid the nasty fight that would surely ensue if Bush elevated his model Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - or chose another rabid right-winger - to be Chief Justice. The Democrats lined up to pose with the smiling Roberts during his expertly choreographed visit to the Senate last week - not a word about a filibuster if Roberts refuses to explain his record as apologist for the Reagan and Bush I administrations and the big corporations he represented. And judging from the giddy reaction of Operation Rescue and the Family Research Council to Roberts's nomination for Associate Justice, Bush's conservative base would be thrilled.

Rehnquist was a radical, far out of the mainstream of the rest of the Court, when Ronald Reagan made him Chief. When he clerked for Justice Robert Jackson, Rehnquist had written a memo called, "A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases," in which he advised Justice Jackson to affirm Plessy v. Ferguson's "separate but equal" doctrine in future segregation cases, including Brown v. Board of Education. The memo stated, "I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by my 'liberal' colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed." Rehnquist concluded that the Court should uphold segregation and refuse to protect "special claims" simply "because its members individually are 'liberals' and dislike segregation." Plessy was later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education.

A former Rehnquist law clerk, Roberts is Rehnquist Lite - but less controversial than Rehnquist was when he became Chief. While not directly attacking Brown, Roberts, as Associate Counsel to President Reagan, argued in favor of right-wing legislation that would have prohibited judges from ordering busing to desegregate schools. Why? Because, said Roberts, busing "promotes segregation rather than remedying it, by precipitating white flight."

Hale fellow, well met, Roberts is smooth. Since junior high, he has assiduously groomed himself to be on the Supreme Court. In a footnote in his 1994 law review article, Roberts wrote, "In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as Deputy Solicitor General for a portion of the 1992-93 term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States." Roberts, who knew that someday he might have to explain those views to a Senate Judiciary Committee, set out to distance himself from them.

After Roberts's nomination last week, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today and the Associated Press identified Roberts as a member of the right-wing Federalist Society. But after the White House called the news organizations and informed them that Roberts said he "has no recollection" of ever being a member of the Federalist Society, they printed retractions. Lo and behold, the Washington Post reported today that John G. Roberts Jr. is listed as a member of the steering committee of the Federalist Society in its Lawyers' Division Leadership Directory, 1997-1998.

This could blow up in Bush's face. With Watergate, it was the cover-up that became the blockbuster. The same thing could happen with "Federalistgate" (and "Plamegate," for that matter).

But what if Roberts is confirmed? What would a Roberts Court look like? Roberts, who wrote a brief saying there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution, would work to overturn Roe v. Wade. But even more alarming, Roberts, who spent the lion's share of his government service in the executive branch, would extend the scope of presidential authority in an unprecedented manner.

George W. Bush has pushed the envelope of executive power to a new level - by invading a sovereign country that posed no threat to America, based on his illegal "pre-emptive war" doctrine; by declaring that, as Commander-in-Chief, he has the power to suspend the Geneva Conventions; by planning to covertly influence the "democratic" Iraqi elections; by threatening to veto any bill Congress passes that would encroach on his presidential power; by snooping through the sites we visit on the Internet and the books we read; and by shielding Karl Rove from criminal prosecution (don't be surprised if something untoward happens to the independent prosecutor investigating Rove).

Four days before Bush tapped him for the Supreme Court, Roberts, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, granted the President unchecked authority to create kangaroo courts to try suspected terrorists, even though the Constitution gives only Congress the right to establish courts.

In the never-ending war on terrorism, Roberts would likely defer to the President to torture, assassinate, or imprison for life anyone the executive dubbed a "terrorist." He would likely defer to the President by upholding the noxious provisions of the Patriot Act that threaten our civil liberties but make us no safer. And Roberts, always the company man, would likely defer to the President whenever the executive takes a position that favors corporations at the expense of workers and the environment.

The justice Roberts would replace, Sandra Day O'Connor, wrote in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld last year, "A state of war is not a blank check for the President." Judging from his decision in Hamdan, Roberts might well write the executive that blank check.

Our constitutional system is grounded in the symmetry of three co-equal branches of government, each with separate and distinct powers. The 50-year-old Roberts would have the opportunity to shape the Court for decades. By moving the judicial branch to bypass Congress and defer to the executive, Chief Justice John Roberts could preside over a Court that will destroy the separation of powers as we know it.

Read on >>

Mr. Roberts' Neighborhood

Who leaked the name of John G. Roberts before Bush's official prime time revelation Tuesday night? My guess: Karl Rove. He had the most to gain from an early announcement. Rove knows the mainstream media has a very short attention span. What better way to deflect our attention away from Rove's crime in leaking the identity of a CIA operative than to leak a potentially contentious nomination for the High Court?

What we'll never know is whether, absent Rove's scandal, Bush would've nominated someone else. Other candidates would probably have drawn a virulent response from Democrats, who have taken a cautious but muted stance toward Roberts's nomination. Many talk of his scant paper trail; they call him a "stealth candidate." But Roberts's record is clear.

As a lawyer for the Reagan and Bush I administrations, and later for his corporate clients, Roberts displayed a consistent commitment to conservative doctrine. In both abortion cases he handled, he maintained a legal attack on reproductive rights. In one case, Roberts argued that Operation Rescue's routine - sometimes violent - blocking of clinics where abortions were performed constituted protected free speech.

In Rust v. Sullivan, Roberts co-authored a brief in support of regulations prohibiting family planning programs that received federal aid from providing any abortion counseling. In that brief, he wrote: "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled ... The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."

During his Senate confirmation hearing for appointment to the Court of Appeals in 2003, Roberts changed his tune - apparently. When asked about his views on abortion, Roberts assured the senators, "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." But his personal views wouldn't keep Roberts from unsettling Roe as the law of the land, consistent with his statement in Sullivan that there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution. Roberts would likely vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if presented with the opportunity as a Supreme Court justice.

Roberts has had other opportunities to demonstrate his partisanship. As a judge, he ruled against requiring Dick Cheney's energy task force to release its records to the public. He opposed protections in the Endangered Species Act. Displaying a clear conflict of interest, Roberts ruled against environmentalists seeking increased government regulation over copper smelters that emit toxic lead and arsenic pollutants; many of those smelters were owned by members of the National Mining Association. Just four years before, Roberts had filed a brief against citizens opposed to the coal industry's destructive mountaintop removal, on behalf of the same National Mining Association.

Last Friday, Roberts voted to support Bush's military commissions to try suspected terrorists, finding that the protections of the Geneva Conventions do not apply to anyone the administration believes is a member of al Qaeda. Bush established those commissions to deny the accused due process protections that are well-established in US and international law. Although he would probably recuse himself from this case if it reached the Supreme Court, Roberts is likely to walk in lockstep with the Bush administration in its "war on terror" and concomitant war on civil liberties in the years to come.

Roberts also showed his true colors when he argued for the expansion of religion in public schools, against a woman with carpal tunnel syndrome who was fired by Toyota, against federal affirmative action programs, and against a congressional effort to enable minorities to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

But Roberts is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. He was a member of "Lawyers for Bush-Cheney" and served as a legal advisor to Jeb Bush during the recount in the 2000 presidential campaign. He has donated to the political campaigns of several Republican candidates, including one senator on the Judiciary Committee that will vote on Roberts's nomination. He has spent most of his career as a corporate lawyer, and he comes to the Court with a partisan agenda.

At the end of the Supreme Court's 2000 term, Roberts told a reporter for the Baltimore Sun, "The conventional wisdom is that this is a conservative court. We have to take that more skeptically. On the three issues the public was most interested in - school prayer, abortion and Miranda rights - the conservatives lost on all." Sounds like wistful thinking.

It is incumbent upon the senators on the Judiciary Committee, and in the full Senate, to demand all pertinent records on Roberts from the Republican administrations in which he served. Senators must thoroughly interrogate Roberts about his views that could affect his lawmaking as a member of our highest court. They should ask him, for example, whether the Constitution has a right to privacy, and whether a woman's reproductive freedom is entitled to constitutional protection.

Roberts is not brash and outspoken. But he may well be the iron fist in the velvet glove. Having spent his entire professional career as a hired gun for the right-wing, Roberts is unlikely to betray his social and political constituency.

Those who think Roberts is a moderate who will generate little controversy need only notice the reactions of Bush's conservative religious backers. "The president is a man of his word," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a right-wing Christian organization. "He promised to nominate someone along the lines of a Scalia or a Thomas, and that is exactly what he has done." Operation Rescue President Troy Newman agrees. "We pray that Roberts will be swiftly confirmed," he announced.

It's payback time, and Bush has delivered.

And by the way, Bush is a president who insists he is firmly committed to diversity. There have been 109 justices on the Supreme Court. Roberts will be the 105th white male. He will replace the first woman ever to sit on the High Court. That leaves only one.

Read on >>

Litigating the Election

Without much fanfare, a number of lawyers are busy mounting court challenges to the election. Lawsuits have been filed and other actions are being taken in Ohio and Florida, the two key electoral states. Members of Congress have demanded a General Accountability Office investigation of the election. The largest Freedom of Information Act request in the nation's history has been launched, and other efforts are in the works.

Is there substance to these challenges? On Thursday, the University of California's Berkeley Quantitative Methods Research Team released a statistical study - the sole method available to monitor the accuracy of e-voting - reporting irregularities associated with electronic voting machines may have awarded 130,000-260,000 or more excess votes to Bush in Florida. The three counties where the voting anomalies were most prevalent were also the most heavily Democratic: Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, respectively. The official tally in Florida shows Bush with 380,978 more votes than Kerry.

Recount, Lawsuits, Hearings in Ohio

Green Party candidate David Cobb and Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik have sought a recount of the votes in Ohio. A demand for a recount can only be filed by a presidential candidate who was on the ballot or a certified write-in candidate. Alleged improprieties in Ohio include mis-marked and discarded ballots, problems with electronic voting machines, and the targeted disenfranchisement of African-American voters. Although a recount doesn't typically begin until after the vote has been certified (December 6), Cobb and Badnarik have asked for the recount to proceed forthwith for fear there won't be sufficient time to complete the recount in time for the December 13 date on which the Ohio presidential electors will meet.

Bush now leads Kerry by about 136,000 votes in Ohio. A battle is looming over nearly 155,000 provisional ballots, which might decide who really won the election. The Ohio Democratic Party has joined a lawsuit by elector Audrey J. Schering, which asks U.S. District Judge Michael H. Watson to order Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell to impose uniform standards for counting provisional ballots on all 88 counties. The lawsuit cites the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Bush v. Gore, which "held that the failure to provide specific standards for counting of ballots that are sufficient to assure a uniform count statewide violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution." Attorney Donald J. McTigue, who filed the suit, told me that although many of the provisional ballots are being counted, his client is concerned about those that are not being counted. Blackwell has provided only limited instruction about which provisional ballots to count. But many doubts remain about how different election boards determine whether someone is a registered voter. Some may type the name in on a computer; others may look for typographical errors; still others may look at the hard copy. McTigue worries that there is no way of knowing what each board is doing. Do they go back to the purged files? Were they properly purged?

Of the 11 counties that had completed checking provisional ballots by Wednesday, 81 percent have been ruled valid. McTigue expects the counting of provisional ballots to last at least two more weeks.

On Election Day, Sarah White filed a class action against Blackwell and the Board of Elections of Lucas County, claiming they violated the Help America Vote Act, passed in the wake of the 2000 election debacle, that gives voters in federal elections a right to cast provisional ballots. White claimed that although she requested an absentee ballot one month before the election, she never received one. Blackwell ruled that persons who had requested, but not received their absentee ballots, would not be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. U.S. District Judge David A. Katz, however, ordered that "the Board of Elections of Lucas County shall immediately advise all precincts to issue provisional ballots to those voters who appear at the voting place and assert their eligibility to vote, including that the voter is a registered voter in the precinct in which he or she desires to vote, and that the voter is eligible to vote in an election for Federal office."

Last week, the Ohio Election Protection Coalition held public hearings in Columbus. Extensive sworn and written testimony of Ohio voters, precinct judges, poll workers, legal observers, and party challengers revealed a widespread and concerted effort by Blackwell to deny primarily African-American and young voters the right to cast their ballots within a reasonable time. Precincts were deprived of adequate numbers of voting machines, so voters waited in lines from 2-7 hours, even though 68 electronic voting machines remained in storage and were never used on Election Day. Blackwell, who oversaw the election in Ohio, also served as co-chair of the Ohio Bush-Cheney reelection campaign. Lawyers for the Ohio Election Protection Coalition plan to use the testimony from the Columbus hearings to challenge the results of Ohio's presidential vote in the state Supreme Court next week.

Lawsuits in Florida

On Election Day, the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida and Florida Legal Services sued Miami-Dade County and Broward County election officials in U.S. District Court for denying voters sufficient time to mail in absentee ballots. The Broward County Supervisor of Elections sent 13,300 absentee ballots to voters late. Plaintiffs Fay Friedman, Adam Meyer, and Daniel Benhaim claimed the two counties violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments because they did not receive their absentee ballots until Election Day, and it was therefore impossible to comply with state law requiring persons who are out-of-state but present in the U.S. to submit absentee ballots by 7 P.M. on Election Day. Under Florida state law, a separate rule gives more time to absentee voters outside the U.S., who may postmark their ballots by November 2 as long as the ballot arrives within 10 days after the election. JoNel Newman, a Florida Legal Services attorney, says, "The rules governing absentee ballots should apply equally to every voter, whether they are temporarily in other parts of the country or overseas." On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Alan Gold denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to include the late ballots in the final vote tally; however, the lawsuit remains alive for trial on a request to apply the late counting rule used for foreign absentees to domestic ballots.

Opponents of slot machines at South Florida pari-mutuels filed a lawsuit seeking an official recount of about 78,000 absentee ballots cast in Broward County on Amendment 4. About 94 percent of the new votes on the amendment were "yes" and only 6 percent were "no," a "statistical anomaly." No hearing has yet been scheduled on the case.

Recount in New Hampshire

Pursuant to a request by Ralph Nader, votes in some New Hampshire towns are being recounted. An analysis showed wide differences in voting trends between the 2000 and 2004 elections; about three quarters of precincts with severe changes used Diebold optical scanning machines. Last week, Diebold agreed to pay $2.6 million to settle a lawsuit with the state of California. Diebold officials misled state leaders about the security and certification of its products to get payments from the state, according to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. Diebold is headed by Republican CEO Wally O'Dell. Last year, O'Dell wrote to Ohio Republican donors, saying he was "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President next year."

Lawsuits Challenge Mayoral Results in San Diego

Election results in San Diego's mayoral race remain in doubt. The unofficial tally shows Mayor Dick Murphy the victor. But write-in votes for Donna Frye have been excluded because voters did not darken the oval on the left of the line where they wrote in Frye's name. A lawsuit seeks to force the county registrar of voters to count the excluded write-in votes, which many believe will tip the results in her favor. Two other lawsuits are attempting to have Frye's candidacy ruled illegal and force a runoff between Murphy and Supervisor Ron Roberts. Frye ran on a platform critical of Murphy's financial leadership and the culture of secrecy at City Hall.

Congressmen Request GAO Investigation

Three members of Congress - John Conyers, Jr., Jerrold Nadler, and Robert Wexler - wrote to the Government Accountability Office on November 5, requesting an immediate investigation of the efficacy of voting machines and new technologies used in the 2004 election, how election officials responded to difficulties they encountered, and what we can do in the future to improve our election systems and administration. The Congressmen cited an electronic voting system in Columbus, Ohio, that gave Bush 4,000 extra votes; an electronic tally of a South Florida gambling ballot initiative that failed to record thousands of votes; a North Carolina county that lost more than 4,500 votes due to a mistaken belief by officials that a computer that stored ballots could hold more data than it did; a substantial drop off in Democratic votes in proportion to voter registration in counties utilizing optical scan machines that was apparently not present in counties using other mechanisms; and numerous reports from Youngstown, Ohio, as well as Palm Beach, Broward and Dade counties in Florida, that voters who attempted to cast a vote for John Kerry on electronic voting machines saw their votes instead recorded as votes for Bush.

Freedom of Information Act Requests

Blackboxvoting.org, a nonpartisan, nonprofit consumer protection group for elections, has filed the largest Freedom of Information Act request in history. It seeks the internal computer logs (which are public records ) from voting machines from every county that used electronic voting machines. The organization has initiated fraud investigations in selected counties. It needs lawyers to enforce public records laws, as well as computer security professionals and citizen volunteers.

Open Records Act Motions

Cindy Cohn, Legal Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco, told me that independent testing of voting machines could shed light on why so many people who tried to vote for Kerry saw their votes registered for Bush. Her organization is moving under the Open Records Act, which allows people to see government records, to gather information, including the impoundment of voting machines, in some counties in Florida, Ohio, New Mexico and Pennsylvania that had serious problems with the machines. Local counsel are needed to help with this effort. Cohn can be contacted at cindy@eff.org.

Results Not Final Until January

Although John Kerry conceded that George W. Bush won the election, a candidate's concession is not legally binding. Electors will be certified on December 7, which gives a presumption of legitimacy to the vote; but electors actually vote on December 13. These votes are not opened by Congress until January 6, so there is still time to challenge the results in key states such as Ohio and Florida. A challenge requires a written objection from one House member and one senator. If that objection is recorded, both Houses separate again and they vote by majority vote as to whether to accept the slate of electoral votes from that state.

Bush is claiming he has a mandate, planning to spend his "political capital." Curiously, virtually all of the so-called "anomalies" in the voting results favor Bush. The electors have not yet voted; the election results are not yet final. In the words of Yogi Berra, "It's not over until it's over."

Read on >>