September 2009

  • September 16, 2009

    On September 9, 2009, the Supreme Court re-heard oral argument in Citizens United v. FEC. Brenda Wright, of Demos, The narrow question originally presented by the case was whether an on-demand video showing of an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary during the 2008 election could be regulated as a political advertisement under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) because the sponsor -- a conservative non-profit group called Citizens United -- wanted to use for-profit corporate funds to help pay for the airing. That narrow question has been virtually obliterated by the Court's order at the end of last Term inviting briefing on whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC should be overruled. " summarized the issues in the case as follows: 

    The narrow question originally presented by the case was whether an on-demand video showing of an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary during the 2008 election could be regulated as a political advertisement under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) because the sponsor -- a conservative non-profit group called Citizens United -- wanted to use for-profit corporate funds to help pay for the airing. That narrow question has been virtually obliterated by the Court's order at the end of last Term inviting briefing on whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC should be overruled.  

    "Corporations have free speech, but they can't speak like you and me," Stephen Colbert explains in the video below, implicitly arguing in favor of reversing Austin and McConnell.  "They don't have mouths or hands. Instead, ... they must speak in the only way they can: through billions and billions of dollars."

    The Colbert Report Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
    The Word - Let Freedom Ka-Ching
    www.colbertnation.com
    Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests
  • September 16, 2009
    A seemingly never-ending campaign to scuttle equality and civil rights advancements for minorities is propelled increasingly on a state-level, writes Colorado Law Professor Melissa Hart in an article published in the new edition of Advance: The Journal of the ACS Issue Groups.

    Equality and the reach of civil rights laws, writes Hart, have been the focus of constitutional law jurisprudence as well as Supreme Court nomination battles. In regards to affirmative action policy, the high court Hart maintains has "taken a relatively measured middle-ground, limiting the permissible scope of affirmative action significantly, but retaining a core that acknowledges the need to remedy discrimination and the value of diversity."

    In her Advance article, "The State-by-State Assault on Equal Opportunity," Hart explores, in part, "A small group of well-funded opponents of equal opportunity, frustrated with the Court's continued rejection of their radical vision of formal equality, has been steadily attempting to shift the debate into the political arena." For example, Hart noted that voters in a growing number of states have approved ballot measures aimed at making affirmative action policy illegal. Each ballot initiative, she writes, "prohibits ‘preferential treatment' on the basis of race or gender in public education, employment or contracting. The term preferential treatment is not defined in the proposed initiatives, but the identical language has been interpreted to prohibit any consideration of race or gender in the covered areas. In states where there initiatives pass, it has become effectively irrelevant what the Supreme Court says about affirmative action."

  • September 16, 2009
    BookTalk
    9.14.09 Book Talk - graphicConstitution.jpg
    The United States Constitution
    A Graphic Adaptation
    By: 
    Jonathan Hennessey, writer & Aaron McConnell, graphic artist

    Constitution Day is Thursday, September 17, and ACSblog is celebrating with an original five-part series examining the provisions of the Constitution relevant to federal legislation enacting health care reform. "We the Patients: Health Care Reform and the Constitution" is by writer Jonathan Hennessey and graphic artist Aaron McConnell, authors of The United States Constitution: A Graphic Adaptation. Each day this week, Hennessey and McConnell are releasing another exclusive installment in the series on ACSblog. Read part 1 here and part 2 here, or enjoy the whole series as it is published here.

    Click on the image below to zoom in on the third of five contributions.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    [Update: Part 4 of this series is now available here.] 

    [Update II: The fifth and final installment is now up here.]

  • September 15, 2009
    A Justice Department Office of the Inspector General Report finds that too many federal prison officials continue to be responsible for sexually abusing prisoners. The Washington Post opines today that the report, released this month, "documents a litany of problems that still plague the nation's federal prisons."

    The Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the newspaper's editorial notes, operates more than a hundred prisons housing more than 170,000 prisoners and that allegations of sexual abuse lodged against federal prison staff has "more than doubled from 2001 to 2008."

    The Inspector General's report finds that while the BOP has implemented procedure for handling allegations of staff sexual abuse, improvements are needed. Allegations of staff sexual abuse have "increased at a faster rate than either the growth in the prison population or the number of BOP staff."

    The Post's editorial maintains that the BOP "still needs to articulate a zero-tolerance for sexual abuse and better train personnel to prevent, detect and report sexual crimes. Prisoners need information on how to report abuse. The agency should review policies in some prisons that automatically isolate or transfer a prisoner who has reported abuse. Although done with the intention of protecting a prisoner from further abuse, such actions are often perceived as punishment and have the effect of discouraging disclosure."

    Recently, in an ACS Issue Brief, "Improving Prison Oversight to Address Sexual Violence in Detention," authors Melissa Rothstein, east coast program director for Just Detention International (JDI), and Lovisa Stannow, executive director of JDI, offer a number of recommendations for how to prevent sexual abuse in prisons akin to those in the DOJ IG's report. Chief among these recommendations are improving response time to allegations of abuse and monitoring of abuses. Their issue brief is available here.

  • September 15, 2009
    Practical Advice
    Public interest lawyers, law students and law professors should be alert to ACS ResearchLink. ACS ResearchLink, now in its third year, is an innovative on-line resource for the legal community. The project leverages previously untapped resources to generate and shares new ideas about important legal issues, while engaging the next generation of lawyers in addressing vital law and policy issues. In a nutshell, the program works by having public interest practitioners submit legal research topics for law students to write on under faculty supervision for academic credit. The topic authors receive copies of the resulting articles and the best papers are published in the searchable ACS ResearchLink e-library. Law students using ACS ResearchLink are also encouraged to have their works published in printed journals. ResearchLink papers have been published in journals including the California Law Review, the Oklahoma Law Review and the San Francisco Law Review.