The New York Times

  • August 13, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    The Editorial Board of The New York Times explores the racial history that underlies the Ferguson, Mo. protests and the death of Michael Brown.  Peniel E. Joseph of The Root provides additional perspective in looking at the echoes of the Watts Rebellion in the protests.

    Brian Beutler of the New Republic writes that the claims of Halbig “Truthers” do not stand up to close scrutiny.

    The Washington Post’s Bonnie Berkowitz, Lazaro Gamio, Dan Keating, and Richard Johnson provide a breakdown of those put to death since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976.

    The Editorial Board of the Los Angeles Times argues against religious exemptions to the executive order prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  

    The Equal Justice Initiative reports on a new study that finds “people were more supportive of harsh criminal justice policies the more African Americans they believed were in prison.”

  • April 3, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Even before the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in two cases dealing with government discrimination of gay couples who want to get married, a growing chorus of legal scholars and others urged the high court to move slowly. Because, according to these folks, if the justices declare that lesbians and gay men have a constitutionally protected right to wed, a backlash against the marriage equality movement could be unleashed.

    And proof for such a backlash centers on the high court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade opinion, which found that the right of privacy includes the right of women to make their own decisions on abortion. According to proponents of moving slowly on marriage equality, Roe sparked a backlash against growing support of abortion and now we have state after state trying to trample the fundamental right. Therefore the backlash proponents argue that the justices should learn from Roe and avoid handing down a ruling that would end government discrimination against gay couples seeking to wed. This backlash story has been fueled in part by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who while defending the Roe decision, said the Court moved to fast.

    But as an editorial in The New York Times notes, the backlash proponents are basing their argument on a “false reading of politics before and after Roe v. Wade ….” The editorial cites the work of ACS Board Members Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel, both teach at Yale Law School, documenting the fact that the fevered opposition to reproductive rights was forming long before the high court handed down Roe.

    In a 2010 interview with ACSblog, highlighting their Before Roe v. Wade book, Greenhouse and Siegel said the documentation they collected for the book showed “that, contrary to the commonly expressed view that it was the Supreme Court and its decision that unleashed a ‘backlash’ against abortion reform, a vigorous counter-movement was forming well before Roe. In the late 1960s, as public support for liberalization surged, the Catholic Church helped organized an anti-abortion movement to oppose liberalization in every state legislature and court considering abortion laws. Strategists for President Nixon’s 1972 re-election then decided to denounce ‘permissive’ abortion laws to attract Catholics from their longtime affiliation with the Democratic Party and court the support of a ‘silent majority.’”

     

  • March 11, 2013

    by E. Sebastian Arduengo

    The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or FINRA recently found that Charles Schwab, violated FINRA consumer protection rules by including provisions in customer agreements where customers waived their right to assert claims through the class action mechanism. The punishment for trying to structure a customer agreement that effectively allows Schwab to cheat their customers without fear of repercussion? A slap on the wrist.

    FINRA's weak action was a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in AT&T v. Concepcion. The Court held that arbitration agreements that waived a party’s ability to bring a class action must be enforced, even if they were in “take it or leave it” contracts of adhesion, where the consumer had no choice but to agree if they wanted cell phone service. At the time, The New York Times noted “the decision … appeared to provide businesses with a way to avoid class-action lawsuits in court. All they need do … is use standard-form contracts that require two things: that disputes be raised only through the informal mechanism of arbitration and that claims be brought one by one.”  

    This brings us back to the FINRA decision, which is a perfect application of the litigation strategy outlined by The Times, and shows why Concepcion was such a terrific decision for corporate America (not so much for the rest of us). In direct response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Concepcion , Schwab put new waiver provisions in their 2011 customer agreements, which covered close to seven million customers. The waivers that they put into the 2011 customer agreements were worded such that any customer claim against Schwab had to be arbitrated “solely on an individual, case-by-case basis.”

  • January 24, 2013

    by Jeremy Leaming

    The momentum for serious reform to the filibuster picked up steam last year after Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) expressed great frustration over Republicans abuse of the legislative tool. Reid had faced nearly 400 filibusters since leading the Senate and admitted he was slow to embrace filibuster reform. Reid claimed he was finally ready to support serious reform proposals championed by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).

    But it now appears Reid is ready to suffer ongoing Republican obstructionism in the Senate. TPM’s Sahil Kapur reports that Reid is nearing a deal with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-K.Y.) “to enact minor changes to the filibuster.”

    The deal, Kapur reports would make “very modest changes,” such as permitting the “majority to bypass a filibuster on the motion to proceed to debate – if a group of senators on each side agree or if there’s a guarantee that both sides will bet to offer amendments ….”

    According to Kapur, however, the only “meaningful upside” of the agreement centers on nominations – apparently part of the deal would include “an expedited process for some nominations ….”

    The filibuster has been used to scuttle dozens of judicial nominations, which have helped lead to a high vacancy rate on the federal bench. The filibuster, however, has also been used to shut down consideration of an array of progressive measures, such as ones addressing pay inequity, immigration reform and climate change.

    In a Jan. 21 editorial, The New York Times raised concerns that on the cusp “an opportunity to end much of this delay and abuse, Democrats are instead considering only a few half-measures.” The Times highlighted reform proposals advanced by Merkley and Udall, which would require senators to take action to mount and sustain a filibuster. It would require senators bent on slowing consideration of legislation or nominations to actually announce their reason for doing so, and then continue explaining those reasons. As the newspaper noted the proposal would kill the “current practice of routinely requiring a 60-vote majority for a bill through a silent objection ….”

  • October 17, 2012

    by Jeremy Leaming

    Senate Republicans have made a mess of the judicial nominations process, ensuring that the road from nomination to confirmation during President Obama’s first term is incredibly long, arduous and unnecessarily divisive. A likely reason for the judicial nominations debacle centers on Republicans' desire to keep the federal bench tilted as far rightward as possible. So they obstruct judicial selections, keep as many seats open as possible in hopes their Party captures the Senate and White House in November.

    But as The New York Times noted in an Oct. 17 editorial at some point very soon the political nonsense needs to stop. It’s obvious. But take a look at JudicialNominations.org, where you’ll see that the federal court system has nearly 80 vacancies, with more than 30 of those vacancies deemed “emergency vacancies” by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts of the federal bench. So as the editorial notes, access to justice continues to be a tougher endeavor since courts are not running efficiently. As The Times puts it:

    The holdups have cost Americans dearly — in justice delayed (it now generally takes two years to get a federal civil trial) and justice denied. It is time to adopt a more efficient, less political approach to district court confirmations. The courts must be brought to full strength so they can meet the demands for justice. The next president and the new Senate should make reforming the confirmation process a paramount priority.

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has been a leading character in the effort to scuttle the president’s judicial selections, largely for political reasons. Early in the Obama administration, McConnell (pictured) told a gathering at the Heritage Foundation that his Party’s “top political priority” was to deny Obama a second term. If McConnell’s Party can swing that feat, they’ll have plenty of seats to fill and the ability to keep the federal bench tilted rightward.