home / subscribe / donate / tower / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events
![]() |
|
Get the Answer Only in CounterPunch's Print Edition US's top radical economist, Prof.Robert Pollin, gives CounterPunch newsletter subscribers exclusive briefing on the global casino and the dollar's future. Is neoliberalism still calling the shots? Is US now under Chinese rule? Move over, Kansas! Maybe Tom Frank got it wrong. Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz asks, What's the matter with Oklahoma? How did one state go from pro-worker to proto-fascist in a generation? It'll take a mutiny: Alexander Cockburn on how Cindy Sheehan and a radical movement can end the war. Get the answers you're looking for in the latest subscriber-only edition of CounterPunch ... CounterPunch Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember, we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition of CounterPunch. Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter, which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! or write CounterPunch, PO BOX 228, Petrolia, CA 95558 |
|
September 14, 2005 Gary
Leupp Ralph
Nader
September 13, 2005 Uri
Avnery Werther JG Marlene
Martin Joshua
Frank Ron
Jacobs Dave
Lindorff Ben
Tripp Dave
Zirin Billy
Sothern Website
of the Day
September 12, 2005 Bill
Glahn Jason
Leopold Bill
Simpich Mike
Whitney Justin
Felux Rep.
Cynthia McKinney Carol
Norris Robert
Jensen Gideon
Levy Paul
Craig Roberts Website
of the Day
September 9 / 11, 2005 William
A. Cook Saul
Landau Lance
Selfa Col.
Dan Smith Elaine
Cassel Ron
Jacobs Elisa
Salasin Christopher
Brauchli Evelyn
Pringle Tom
Crumpacker Dave
Lindorff Robert
Jensen Gary
Bass Dr.
Susan Block Steven
Sherman Col.
Douglas A. Macgregor Barghouti
/ Grima Jeff
Berg Fred
Gardner Charles
Sullivan Dan
Vojir Website
of the Weekend
John
Chuckman Dan
La Botz Carol
Norris David
Krieger Irma
Thomas Roger
Morris September 7, 2005 Roxanne
Dunbar-Ortiz Werther Chris
Floyd Jason
Leopold Michael
Donnelly Niranjan
Ramakrishnan Linda
Milazzo / John Stern Gary
Leupp Pierre
Tristam Kevin
Zeese Charmaine
Neville
September 6, 2005 Keeanga-Yamahtta
Taylor Dan
La Botz Larry
Bradshaw / Lorrie Beth Slonsky Chuck
D. Debbie
Dupre / Bill Quigley Omar
Wariach Mike
Whitney Carol
Norris Norman
Solomon Michael
Neumann
Paul
Craig Roberts David
Vest John
Blair Fidel
Castro Mike
Whitney Alan
Farago Doug
Giebel Mark
Chmiel Carol
Wolman, MD Norman
Solomon Eli
Stephens Peter
Linebaugh
September 3 / 4, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Paul
Craig Roberts Gary
Leupp Dave
Lindorff Dan
La Botz Jonathan
M. Feldman Landau
/ Hassen Tim
Wise Mitchel
Cohen Dave
Zirin Mike
Ferner Rep.
Cynthia McKinney Jason
Leopold Justin
Felux Monica
Benderman Ben
Tripp Jordan
Flaherty Bill
Pahnelas Seth
Sandronsky Mark
Donham Fred
Gardner Joshua
Frank Jackie
Corr Poets'
Basement
September 2, 2005 Evan
Jones David
Stocker Dave
Lindorff Norman
Solomon Mike
Whitney Eli
Stephens Ron
Jacobs Christopher
Brauchli Harvey
Wasserman CounterPunch
Wire Glen
Ford
September 1, 2005 Dr.
Greg Henderson, MD Paul
Craig Roberts Mike
Whitney Lee
Sustar Dave
Lindorff Lynn
Gonzalez Chris
Floyd
Cockburn
/ St. Clair John Walsh Bernstein /
Mishel Alan Farago Norman
Solomon Bryan
Newbury Jason
Leopold Website
of the Day
August 30, 2005 Gary
Leupp Joshua
Frank Evelyn
Pringle Urariano
Mota Ron
Jacobs CP
News Service Roger
Morris
August 29, 2005 Seth
Sandronsky Norman
Solomon Charles
Sullivan Paul
Craig Roberts Website
of the Day
Alexander
Cockburn Ricardo
Alarcon Diane
Christian M.
Shahid Alam Laith
al-Saud Diane
Farsetta Saul
Landau Tom
Barry Nicholas
Rowe George
E. Bisharat Dave
Lindorff Fred
Gardner John
Francis Lee Evan
Jones Ali
Khan Poets'
Basement August 26, 2005 Lee
Sustar Ramzy
Baroud Christopher
Brauchli Peter
Harley John
Snider Kathleen
Christison
August 25, 2005 Paul
Craig Roberts Cockburn
/ St. Clair J.L.
Chestnut, Jr. Chhandasi
Pandya Richard
Ward Norman
Solomon Joshua
Frank Seth
Sandronsky Lucinda
Marshall VIPS Ralph
Nader
August 24, 2005 Stan
Goff Rachard
Itani Elisa
Salasin Ron
Jacobs John
Chuckman Leibowitz
/ Heller Douglas
Valentine Thomas
Nagy Alexander
Cockburn Website
of the Day
August 23, 2005 Rev.
Graylan Scott Hagler Karen
Kilroy Stew
Albert Joshua
Frank Dave
Zirin Julia
Olmstead CounterPunch
Wire Jason
Leopold Diane
Christian
August 22, 2005 Sonia
Nettnin Mike
Whitney Kevin
Zeese Norman
Solomon Christopher
Brauchli Jeff
Bale Greg
Moses
August 20 / 21, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Saul
Landau Kevin
Zeese Greg
Moses Ray
McGovern Fred
Gardner Martin
Smith Benjamin
Granby Frankie
Lake Joshua
Frank Ron
Jacobs Tom
Crumpacker Mike
Ferner James
Petras Col.
Dan Smith Dr.
Teresa Whitehurst Ben
Tripp Poets'
Basement
August 19, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Neve
Gordon Gary
Leupp William
S. Lind Vijay
Prashad Dave
Lindorff Pat
Williams John
Pilger Elaine
Cassel
August 18, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Greg
Moses Ramzy
Baroud Joshua
Frank Monica
Benderman Paul
Craig Roberts
August 17, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Robert
Jensen Carl
G. Estabrook Mike
Whitney Niranjan
Ramakrishnan Norman
Solomon Dave
Zirin Jennifer
Loewenstein CounterPunch
August 16, 2005 Greg
Moses Thomas
Larson Diana
Barahona Dave
Lindorff Rep.
Cynthia McKinney Elisa
Salasin David
Krieger Alexander
Cockburn Website
of the Day
August 15, 2005 Greg
Moses Paul
Craig Roberts Mike
Whitney Robert
Jensen CounterPunch
Wire Norman
Solomon Kathleen
Christison
August 13 / 14, 2005 Cockburn
/ St. Clair William
Blum Gary
Leupp Jack
Z. Bratich Brian
Cloughley Ron
Jacobs John
Farley Dave
Lindorff Tim
Wise J.L.
Chestnut, Jr. John
Gershman Felice
Pace Fred
Gardner David
Krieger Roxanne
Dunbar-Ortiz Ben
Tripp Poets'
Basement
August 12, 2005 Christopher
Brauchli Greg
Moses Ramzy
Baroud Norman
Solomon Chris
Genovali Chris
Floyd Tariq
Ali
August 11, 2005 Saul
Landau Dave
Lindorff Ralph
Nader Talli
Nauman Gary
Leupp Sharon
Smith Paul
Craig Roberts
August 10, 2005 Tim
Wise Ron
Jacobs Joshua
Frank Cynthia
McKinney Rick
Wilhelm Stan
Goff
August 9, 2005 Mike
Ferner Monica
Benderman Mike
Marqusee Rep.
Cynthia McKinney Paul
Craig Roberts
August 6-8, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Jason
Leopold Ray
McGovern David
Krieger Sharon
K. Weiner / Robert Jensen Fred
Gardner
August 5, 2005 Bill
Christison Paul
Craig Roberts Alexander
Cockburn
August 4, 2005 Tom
Barry Lila
Rajiva Greg
Moses Alexander
Cockburn August 3, 2005
August 3, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Paul
Craig Roberts William
A. Cook Dave
Zirin Dave
Lindorff José
Pertierra
August 2, 2005 Ramzi
Kysia William
A. Cook Paul
Craig Roberts Mike
Whitney Ron
Jacobs Norman
Madarsz Tim
Wise
August 1, 2005 Virginia
Rodino Diana
Barahona Joshua
Frank Mike
Whitney Norm
Dixon Norman
Solomon James
Petras
July 30 / 31, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn JoAnn
Wypijewski Sheldon
Rampton Jack
Z. Bratich Greg
Moses Jordan
Green Patrick
Cockburn Brian
Cloughley Justin
Taylor Saul
Landau John
Walsh Joshua
Frank Ron
Jacobs Fred
Gardner John
Chuckman Liaquat
Ali Khan Remi
Kanazi Naveen
Jaganathan Richard
Heinberg Max
Watts Ben
Tripp Poets'
Basement
July 29, 2005 Cockburn
/ St. Clair P.
Sainath Niranjan
Ramakrishnan Dave
Lindorff J.L.
Chestnut, Jr. Pat
Williams Norman
Solomon Sen.
Russ Feingold
July 28, 2005 Paul
Craig Roberts William
S. Lind Gilad
Atzmon Joshua
Frank Lila
Rajiva Amina
Mire Website
of the Day
July 27, 2005 Roger
Morris Gary
Leupp Paul
Craig Roberts Jackie
Corr Mike
Whitney Dave
Zirin Christopher
Bradley Norman
Solomon Website
of the Day
July 26, 2005 Suren
Pillay JoAnn
Wypijewski Patrick
Cockburn David
Anderson Joshua
Frank Lenni
Brenner David
Swanson
July 25, 2005 Paul
Craig Roberts M.
Shahid Alam Uri
Avnery Stan
Cox Norman
Solomon Ramzy
Baroud Mickey
Z. Website
of the Day
July 23 / 24, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Tariq
Ali Robert
Fisk Dave
Lindorff Ricardo
Alarcón Col.
Dan Smith Brian
Cloughley Kevin
Zeese Bill
Quigley Fred
Gardner Rep.
Ron Paul Joshua
Frank Shivali
Tukdeo Gilad
Atzmon James
Petras Ben
Tripp Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend
July 22, 2005 Heather
Gray David
Domke Lance
Selfa JoAnn
Wypijewski
July 21, 2005 Rose
Ann DeMoro William
Blum J.L.
Chestnut, Jr. Christopher
Brauchli Joshua
Frank Brian
Concannon, Jr. Patrick
Cockburn Website
of the Day
July 20, 2005 Cockburn
/ St. Clair Roxanne
Dunbar-Ortiz Ray
McGovern Chris
Floyd Uri
Avnery Dave
Lindorff Norman
Solomon Bill
Quigley
July 19, 2005 Tariq
Ali John
Ross Davey
D. Greg
Weiher Brian
McKinlay Norman
Solomon Dave
Lindorff Bill
Christison Joshua
Frank
July 18, 2005 Joshua
Frank M.
Shahid Alam Jude
Wanniski Ron
Jacobs Mike
Whitney William
MacDougall Seth
Sandronsky Richard
Lichtman Paul
Craig Roberts Website
of the Weekend
July 15 / 17, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Jeffrey
St. Clair Paul
Craig Roberts Harry
Browne Uri
Davis, Ilan Pappe and Tamar Yaron Andrew
Rubin Patrick
Cockburn J.L.
Chestnut, Jr. Fred
Gardner Christopher
Brauchli Chris
Floyd Ben
Tripp Col.
Dan Smith Jason
Leopold Jack
Random Norman
Solomon George
Ochenski Website
of the Weekend
July 14, 2005 Jeffrey
St. Clair Subcomandante
Marcos Dave
Lindorff Joshua
Frank Jude
Wanniski Dave
Zirin Kevin
Zeese Robert
Jensen Reza
Fiyouzat Carol
Norris Website
of the Day
July 13, 2005 Brian
Cloughley George
Galloway Carlos
Fierro Sarah
Knopp Norman
Solomon Mickey
Z. Jim
Minick Pat
Williams Andrew
N. Rubin Website
of the Day
July 12, 2005 Laith
al-Saud Kara
N. Tina William
A. Cook Jack
Bratich Amina
Mire Dick
J. Reavis Kevin
Zeese Paul
Craig Roberts Website
of the Day
July 9 / 11, 2005 Alexander
Cockburn Uri
Avnery Sheldon
Rampton Bill
Christison Robert
Fisk Stephen
Winspear Saul
Landau Behrooz
Ghamari Karl
Beitel Brian
Concannon, Jr. Fred
Gardner John
Whitlow Niranjan
Ramakrishnan Lila
Rajiva Laura
Carlsen Jackie
Corr Dave
Lindorff N.
D. Jayaprakash Seth
Sandronsky Norman
Madarasz Ben
Tripp Poets'
Basement Website
of the Weekend
July 8, 2005 Paul
Craig Roberts Tariq
Ali Monica
Benderman Rick
Jahnkow Christopher
Brauchli Kim
Peterson Joshua
Frank Norman
Solomon Website
of the Day
July 7, 2005 Cockburn
/ St. Clair John
Walsh Mike
Marqusee Gilad
Atzmon Nicole
Colson Jack
Random Norman
Solomon Len
Colodny Cockburn
/ St. Clair
Subscribe Online
|
September 14, 2005 Jefferson's Litmus TestQuestioning Judge RobertsBy RALPH NADER I n 1994 I testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the nomination of Stephen G. Breyer by President Clinton to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In that testimony I called attention to the importance of balance in the way our laws handle the challenges of corporate power in America. I said:
Today it is more important than ever for all Supreme Court Justices and, in particular, the Chief Justice1 of the Supreme Court to have the inclination and wisdom to realize that our democracy is being eroded by many kinds of widely reported systemic corporate excesses. Giant multinational corporations have no allegiance to any country or community, and the devastation and other injustices they visit upon communities throughout the United States and around the globe have outpaced the countervailing restraints that should be the hallmark of government by, for and of the people. Unfortunately, the structure and scope of these hearings are not likely to devote a sufficient priority to the corporate issues of our times. In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote: "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Imagine his reaction to the corporate abuses of Enron Corp, HealthSouth Corp., Tyco, WorldCom or Adelphia Communications Corp to name only a few, along with the drug, tobacco, banking, insurance, chemical and other toxic industries. The corporate crime and greed of today tower over the abuses of the "moneyed corporations" of Jefferson's day. The economic power of giant corporations is augmented by a flood of Political Action Committee (PAC) money and other donations that shape the quality and quantity of debate in our country and consequently drive our society to imperatives that are increasingly more corporate than civic. You will hear about Judge Roberts from several perspectives, but it is safe to assume that questions and testimony about Judge Roberts' views on corporate power and the rule of law will be inadequate given the broad and profound impact giant corporations have on our democracy. An important procedural and substantive corollary is the important role our civil justice system plays in expanding the frontiers of justice and in giving individuals the ability to hold "wrongdoers" accountable in a court of law. "If we are to keep our democracy, there must be one commandment: Thou shalt not ration justice," said the famous jurist, Learned Hand. Unfortunately, powerholders, corporations and other institutions which are supposed to be held accountable by the civil justice system, are striving to weaken, limit and override the province of juries and judges. Some companies, led by insurers, have used expensive and focused media to promote the view that civil juries are too costly and too unpredictable. This narrow and short-sighted perspective is contrary to the long-standing tenets of our democracy and in particular the Seventh Amendment to our Constitution. The civil jury system of the United States embraces a fundamental precept of tested justice: ordinary citizens applying their minds and values can and do reach decisions on the facts in cases that often involve powerful wrongdoers. This form of direct citizen participation in the administration of justice was deemed indispensable by this nation's founders and was considered non-negotiable by the leaders of the American revolution against King George III. But the civil jury is more than a process toward bringing a grievance to resolution. The civil jury is a pillar of our democracy necessary for the protection of individuals against tyranny, repression and mayhem of many kinds and for the deterrence of such injustices in the future. Our civil jury institution is a voice for and by the citizenry in setting standards for a just society. Jury findings incorporated in appellate court decisions contribute to one of the few authoritative reservoirs of advancing standards of responsibility between the powerful and the powerless -- whether between companies and consumers, workers, shareholders and community or between officialdom and taxpayers or citizens in general. Knowing the evolution of the common law and the civil jury provides compelling and ennobling evidence of this progression of justice. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, " The founders of our Nation considered the right of trial by jury in civil cases an important bulwark against tyranny and corruption, a safeguard too precious to be left to the whim of the sovereign, or, it might be added, to that of the judiciary."2 As the hearing unfolds, I suggest that the members of the Judiciary Committee devote some time to areas beyond those that are traditionally the focus of witnesses and questioning by Committee members and ask fundamental questions about the views of Judge Roberts, a former corporate lawyer at Hogan & Hartson, regarding corporate power and the civil justice system. In the spirit of expanding the criteria by which the Committee and the public can measure Judge Robert's judicial and civic philosophy, I offer the following questions for you to pose to the nominee. Some of the questions are narrowly focused and some are broad-gauged. But, in their totality they constitute the broad kind of "litmus test" that should be applied in selecting and confirming all judges. In short, does the nominee, having met the threshold requirements of competency, believe that the rule of law should be used to broaden and deepen, procedurally and substantively, our democracy even if it means the rights of the giant corporation or powerful interests must be circumscribed to protect the rights of the individual citizen and of our communities rural or urban, large or small? In pursing its own line of questions, the Committee should not let its exploration of the nominee's views be artificially restricted. Judicial nominees have given two reasons for refusing to answer questions, but these reasons are contradictory. First, they say, if they publicly express their views, it will compromise them if the issue comes before the Court. Second, they say, judges do not decide legal issues in a vacuum: they only decide a concrete dispute in a specific adversarial context. Accordingly, some nominees claim it's silly or inappropriate, for example, to say whether they believe the Constitution protects the right to abortion, because Justices don't decide cases by asking such abstract questions. They face a particular statute, challenged by a particular party directly affected in a particular way, and the resolution of that dispute will turn on all those particulars. This second response has a degree of merit -- and undercuts the first reason for refusing to answer most questions. Precisely because neither nominees nor the public can know in what context issues will reach the Court (if at all), it is not problematic for nominees to discuss their views. They should not say how they would decide an actual pending case, but, short of that, it is fine for them to discuss issues because that in no way commits them to taking sides in any actual dispute -- such disputes are invariably context-specific. For example, a nominee may be asked about the doctrine that treats a corporation as a "person" entitled to various constitutional rights. His or her thoughts on this issue will not tell us what he or she will do if such an issue is raised in a case before the Court. The latter may depend on the nature of the corporation (non-profit? media? multi-national?), the nature of the claimed right, and much more. Moreover, even if the nominee testifies that he or she disapproves the doctrine, as a Justice the nominee may hold that the question is settled law. Or if a nominee says that he or she agrees with the doctrine, a new circumstance -- or a party making a new argument -- may lead the nominee to hold otherwise. Nothing a nominee says guarantees that he or she will decide any case any particular way. Nothing that is said has to be fixed in stone. Judges do give opinionated public speeches, do they not? It may be wondered whether, in light of the above, any purpose is served by asking the nominee his views. The answer is yes. It's no secret that nothing a nominee says binds the nominee once he or she receives an office with life tenure. Nominees can't and shouldn't be bound. But especially with a nominee who has a limited public record, the hearings provide some basis for gauging the nature and quality of his ideas, about his philosophy of due process for example. At any rate they have that potential -- if Senators do their job and do not accept a nominee's self-serving refusal to answer questions. At the outset, it would behoove the Committee to establish the parameters the nominee will use in fashioning responses to your questions by asking:
Once this baseline has been established, the following questions should shed light on nominee's approach to some major issues of our day. 1. Lloyd Cutler, speaking
as a prominent corporate attorney, once said: "There is
one point I want to make clear: we believe in the arguments that
we make." Do you believe the arguments you have made on
behalf of your corporate clients? 13. Do you believe Congress
should federalize and pre-empt state products liability common
law in any or all sectors? 16. Do you believe the use of the government contractor defense should be limited in nonmilitary procurement? If so, how? 17. Some people say the Ninth Amendment can play no substantive role in protecting rights, that it's merely a statement of principle or reminder of limited government. Do you agree? 18. A number of legal scholars argue that the 11th Amendment has been interpreted by the Court to shield states from liability for wrongdoing in a way that blatantly contravenes the original intention of the Amendment. Are you familiar with that scholarship and do you find it persuasive? 19. In what circumstances, if any, is it appropriate for a contractual arbitration clause to contract away substantive contract law, tort, or statutory rights? For instance, can an arbitration clause require arbitration of a worker's Title VII rights and at the same time limit the worker's compensatory damages to $200,000? Can that same clause require the loser to pay the winner's attorney's fees? Can that clause require that the parties to arbitration bear their own attorney's fees? 20. Describe the presumption against preemption of state law. Does it apply in some or all instances where federal law is said to preempt state law? 21. Is the presumption against preemption of state law (by federal law) similar to the plain statement rule that demands that Congress speak with unmistakable clarity if it wishes to override the states' sovereign immunity? If the presumption against preemption is not similar to the plain statement rule, explain how it is different? 22. How is the presumption against preemption applied in cases where federal regulatory law (regulating, for instance, drugs, boats, pesticides, motor vehicles, and the like) is said to preempt state tort law that provides monetary remedies to compensate for injuries caused by a product that the federal government regulates? 23. Do you believe Congress should pre-empt the state-law-based medical malpractice system? 24. What are your views on the "American rule" as opposed to the English rule under which the losing party in litigation generally pays the winner's costs, including attorney's fees? 25. What has been your reaction or views on Congressional funding levels for federally funded legal services programs over the last two decades? Should government be responsible for funding representation for poor people in civil litigation where important property or liberty interests are at stake? Or should that be mainly or entirely a private function? 26. Some scholars and judges believe that "Originalism" is the only principled method of constitutional interpretation. Do you agree? 27. Do you believe that a declaration of war by Congress is Constitutionally required for the United States to engage in war? 28. Does a Congressional delegation of the war-making discretion to the President in the form of a war resolution meet the test of of Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution? 29. What level of equal protection scrutiny was applied in Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98 (2000)? 30. What is the precedential effect of Bush v. Gore? In other words, what kinds of equal protection claims does Bush v. Gore control or apply to? After Bush v. Gore, may a political entity (city, county, state) holding an election use more than one type of voting methodology (paper ballots, standard machines, punch cards, etc.) knowing that the error rates (whether through undercounts or otherwise) are different from one methodology to another? 31. Is there a need to amend our open government laws to make the President subject to them in whole or in part? Would such amendments be constitutional? 32. Do you believe arguments before the Supreme Court should be televised in the way C-SPAN televises Congressional deliberations? 33. In your view, is the Freedom of Information Act functioning properly at this time? If not, what are the major problems facing the Act? 34. In Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 532 U. S. 598 (2001) case, the Court rejected the argument that a party that has failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court-ordered consent decree, but has nonetheless achieved the desired result because the lawsuit brought about a voluntary change (the catalyst theory) in the defendant's conduct is entitled to attorney's fees. Does the rejection of the catalyst theory of fee recovery in the Supreme Court's Buckhannon decision apply across-the-board to federal fee-shifting statutes? If not, to what kinds of fee-shifting statutes is it likely to apply and to what kinds is its application more doubtful? 35. Brian Wolfman, Director of the Public Citizen Litigation Group notes, "The Bush administration says that Buckhannon applies to [Freedom of Information Act] FOIA cases, even though Congress stated explicitly, when it enacted FOIA, that fees should be available when FOIA cases settle. The Bush Justice Department has consistently argued to expand Buckhannon to every pro-consumer and civil rights statute in every conceivable situation." What approach (or approaches) to statutory construction of Congressional enactment was evident in the Supreme Court's Buckhannon decision? How would you describe the reliance on (or lack of reliance on) legislative history in the majority's reasoning in that case? Do you believe the Bush Justice Department is applying the Buckhannon decision correctly? 36. From both a legal (constitutional) and practical perspective, what is your view of the trend in the federal judiciary toward releasing more of its opinions in "unpublished" form, i.e., where the relevant court accords no precedential effect to the decision for other cases? 37. Should federal judges attend seminars which are funded by private corporations (or by foundations that are funded by such corporations) that have matters of interest to the corporations before the courts? 38. Do you believe a government attorney, in a subordinate position, should be forced (under penalty of discharge) to work on a case or argue a position that he or she believes is illegal, unconstitutional or unethical? Or should government lawyers have a "right of conscience" like other professionals? 39. What kinds of participation in civic life may federal judges continue to be involved in once they assume their judicial positions? 40. How many hours or what
percent of their work time do you think partners in major firms
should devote to pro bono work each year? 42. How many hours on average did you bill per year as an associate? 43. What was the nature of your pro bono work and approximately how much time per year did you devote to pro bono work? 44. Corporate attorneys and legal scholars have written books and articles decrying unethical or fraudulent billing practices in large corporate law firms. An article in the Summer 2001 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics titled Gunderson Effect and Billable Mania: Trends in Overbilling and the Effect of New Wages states that unethical billing practices are "a pervasive problem in law firms across the country" do you agree? 45. Did you ever observe unethical billing practices when you were in private practice? 46. If so, what was the nature
of and who were the protagonists of such practices? This article is adapted from Ralph Nader's written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 1 The Chief Justice decides who will write the Court opinion (when he is in the majority), assigns Associate Justices to the federal Circuits, oversees the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts, presides over presidential impeachments and submits to Congress an annual report of the proceedings of the Judicial Conference and its recommendations for legislation. 2 Parklane Hosiery Co. V. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979).
ALEXANDER COCKBURN, JEFFREY ST CLAIR, BECKY GRANT AND THE INSTITUTE FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF JOURNALISTIC CLARITY, COUNTERPUNCH We published an article entitled "A Saudiless Arabia" by Wayne Madsen dated October 22, 2002 (the "Article"), on the website of the Institute for the Advancement of Journalistic Clarity, CounterPunch, www.counterpunch.org (the "Website"). Although it was not our intention, counsel for Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi has advised us the Article suggests, or could be read as suggesting, that Mr Al Amoudi has funded, supported, or is in some way associated with, the terrorist activities of Osama bin Laden and the Al Qaeda terrorist network. We do not have any evidence connecting Mr Al Amoudi with terrorism. As a result of an exchange of communications with Mr Al Amoudi's lawyers, we have removed the Article from the Website. We are pleased to clarify the position. August 17, 2005
|
from CounterPunch Books! The Case Against Israel By Michael Neumann ![]() Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Greed and Profiteering in the War on Terror by Jeffrey St. Clair ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
![]()
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |