Today marks the one-year anniversary of one of the most notorious and unpopular Supreme Court decisions of recent years. Citizens United v. FEC overturned long-standing precedent and policy, unleashing a torrent of corporate money into American elections that threatens to further distort a political process that is already disproportionately beholden to the interests of powerful corporations.
But the decision in Citizens United to favor corporate interests and enhance their power came as no surprise to anyone paying attention to the increasingly transparent agenda of Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative majority of this Court.
Alliance for Justice has been tracking this trend for some time, documenting the aggressive tactics of the Court's conservatives to reshape the law, including, as was the case in Citizens United, the deliberate reframing of the legal issues argued by the parties in order to achieve a predetermined result.
From Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., where the Supreme Court overturned a jury's finding that Goodyear had systematically paid Lilly Ledbetter less than her male co-workers, to Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, which, after 20 years of litigation, had the effect of reducing a jury's punitive damages award by 90 percent for tens of thousands of victims of the Exxon Valdez oil spill, the Corporate Court has displayed a clear pattern of overreach and ideological bias. This trend of favoring big-business litigants is being put to the test again this term in a series of cases related to corporate prerogatives, many of which have broad implications for American life.
On March 29, the Court will hear Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, an enormous employment sex discrimination case, the outcome of which will affect hundreds of thousands of female employees of the retail giant, but will also determine the relative degree of power big business and everyday Americans have within our judicial system.
The Wal-Mart case began as a lawsuit by a former "greeter" named Betty Dukes who felt the company consistently paid her and other female employees less than men, funneled them into lower paying jobs, and denied them the same access to promotions. Ms. Dukes and the other women who eventually joined her lawsuit argue that the class suing Wal-Mart should consist of all the female employees who have long faced ingrained, systematic discrimination throughout the 3,400-store chain, a number that could range between 500,000 and 1.5 million individuals. That would make this the biggest--and potentially most expensive--discrimination case in history.
The company has asked the Supreme Court to throw the case out based on its belief that the class is too big, that there are too many different kinds of people affected, and that each act of alleged bias is a separate issue and can't be lumped together with others. Ominously, the Roberts court asked that the parties to the lawsuit be prepared to argue about whether the class itself is properly constituted. This court has often expanded the issues being argued beyond those a particular case calls for, almost always with the goal of advancing a conservative philosophy and protecting corporate interests.
The fight in the court isn't over the discrimination claim itself, it's over who can sue Wal-Mart, or any corporation, and how they must do it. The use of class-actions as a means to combat broad-scale discriminatory behavior hangs in the balance.
Significantly, this case has a great deal in common with the recently argued arbitration case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which was about the ability of groups of victims--in that case, exploited consumers--to band together to combat corporate abuse. Both the AT&T Mobility and Wal-Mart Stores disputes are rooted in the same question: Must the battle against corporate malfeasance be waged either individually or in small groups, where the corporation has the obvious advantage, or can everyday Americans employ the power of numbers (and pooled resources) to fight back on more level ground in the courts?
A third case to watch is American Electric Power Co., Inc. v. Connecticut, which will help determine whether federal law allows states and private parties to sue utility companies to force them to cap global warming emissions. It's a case that pits a group of utilities that together are the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses in the United States against eight states, the City of New York, and three private land trusts, which have banded together to argue that emissions constitute a public nuisance and must be controlled. If the Supreme Court sides with the polluters, it will significantly hamper the ability of citizens to hold corporations responsible for their contributions to global warming.
Although these cases, and several others on this term's docket, deal with different areas of the law, they really at their core are about the same thing: legal and economic power and who has it.
By the time these three cases are decided later this year we'll know better whether the unmistakable trend toward consolidating power in the hands of big corporations, and limiting access to legal remedies for everyday Americans, will continue. Given the transparent eagerness with which the conservative bloc of the Court took these cases, we fear the Corporate Court is still open for business.
* * *
Click here for detailed and continually updated information on the Corporate Court and the key cases being heard this term. For a PDF summary of pending cases, click here.
Follow Nan Aron on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NanAron
My thoughts are that most of us on these blogs have gumption to shake our little fists and post scathing comments against sorts like Citizens United and the threats to our political process, but few find the one hour of time to shift our arses out of our barcoloungers and actually do something about it.
If Americans understood the power they possessed...especially when organized...they would simply swoon.
You are so right. My husband and I have been concerned about this issue for many years and have some thoughts on solutions here:
http://clm102502.newsvine.com/_news/2011/01/22/5899914-campaign-finance-reform
A key area that my husband looks at is the fact that the people in office have no incentive to change the current system of financing campaigns.
Common Cause: Citizens United Should Be Overturned Because Scalia and Thomas Attended a Koch Seminar - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
"Common Cause marks the one-year anniversary of Citizens United by asking Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas should have recused themselves from the case. Why? "It appears both justices have participated in political strategy sessions," says Common Cause, "perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision." Common Cause is referring to invitation-only seminars on free-market, small-government ideas sponsored by Koch Industries. A description of the 2010 Koch seminar in Aspen, the theme of which was "Understanding and Addressing Threats to American Free Enterprise and Prosperity," bragged that "past meetings have featured such notable leaders as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."
It seems unlikely that attending such a conference had a decisive effect on the two justices' First Amendment views—especially since the effect would have had to be retroactive, given their longstanding skepticism of campaign finance regulations that interfere with freedom of speech. But never mind that, says Common Cause: Citizens United involved political speech by corporations. Koch Industries is a corporation, and many of the attendees at its seminars work for corporations. Therefore the decision is invalid..."
btw those "invite only seminars" are fundraisers, and the topics discussed were fundamental to cases appearing before the court
Letter to the Department of Justice re: Conflicts of Interest in the Citizens United case - Common Cause
"...Therefore, Common Cause hereby formally requests that the Justice Department promptly investigate whether Justices Thomas and Scalia should have recused themselves from the Citizens United case under 28 U.S.C. § 455. If the Department finds sufficient grounds for disqualification of either Justice, we request that the Solicitor General file a Rule 60(b) motion with the full Supreme Court seeking to vacate the judgment..."
As a former corporate guy myself (deepest apologies), perhaps the right idea here is to turn the absurdity of Citizen's United on its ear...If the court holds that corporations are equivalent to people then it should follow that people are equivalent to corporations, yes?
1.Corporations report sales, subtract direct costs (gross margin), then subtract indirect costs (SG&A Selling, General, and Admin expenses), and the result is what taxes are computed against.
When I compute MY taxes, my sales line (the amount I earned for my labor) and pretax lines are the same. The CitizensUnited ruling should enable me to subtract out my direct and indirect expenses of supplying my labor just like corporations do.
2.My car is necessary to get to work. The cost of gas, oil, and maintenance should be deductable as a direct cost of my doing business like a corporation.
3.I have clothes for work I wear nowhere else. This is a direct cost of my job and should be deductable.
4.Education is required to get and keep my job and should be deducted from my revenue(salary) line before taxes are computed.
5.My house is a capital asset (not operating expense). I should be able to depreciate a portion of the price every year against my income so I can replace my capital asset like a corporation.
6.Similarly, my car is a capital asset and depreciation should be deductable each year also.
7.I havn't gotten to the indirect expenses of kids...
The failure of the disclose act in congress does not bode well for this country or future elections.
Today is the 2 year anniversary of when obama said he'd close Gitmo within a year.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Could-the-Supreme-Court-s-by-Thom-Hartmann-Har-110120-990.html
It stinks that a guy that says his job is to call balls and strikes, decides to go to bat in the game:
http://articles.cnn.com/2005-09-12/politics/roberts.statement_1_judicial-role-judges-judicial-oath?_s=PM:POLITICS
I do hope the DOJ is successful at recusing Scalia and Thomas, rolling back Citizen's United and finding out what Ginny Thomas did at those junkets. I am hopeful that Alito's fundraising activities would also be curtailed
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/10/sam-alito-republican-fundraiser/
and perhaps someone should tell Roberts to reinstall the Code of Judicial Ethics, so that Thomas can't decide the presidency when his wife is working for the guy, an so that Scalia can't hand his hunting buddy Chaney a court victory the week after hunting with him and so that Alito, Scalia nd Thomas can't go fundraising with these guys. If these guys are not ethically challenged, then I don't know who is!
http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773617&ct=9039331
Letter to the Department of Justice re: Conflicts of Interest in the Citizens United case - Common Cause
I've already signed the letter to Mr. Holder.
Citizens should have a right to know who is backing which candidates, - and who that candidate may be finacially beholded by. The Court's Citizens United ruling undermines democracy and made the founding fathers roll over in their graves.