Tracking the latest developments in the fight for a fair America
Another day, another scandal at the big banks.
Since the financial crisis, banks like Barclays and UBS have been caught manipulating interest rates; J.P. Morgan has reluctantly handed over billions for its association with Bernie Madoff, illegal hiring practices, and lax oversight of its own traders among its other misdeeds; while Goldman Sachs has been fined billions for selling toxic subprime mortgages to investors. This past week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) fined Wells Fargo $185 million for creating fake accounts and assigning them to unwitting customers. While this outrage shows the need for tighter regulation, it also exposes the urgent need to end the anti-consumer practice of forced arbitration in financial service agreements. If consumers cannot access the courts, scandals will be harder to uncover and victims will find it nearly impossible to achieve justice. Read more
The stakes could hardly be higher. Not just one, or two, but even four Supreme Court seats could be filled by the next president in his or her first term. These future appointments will be transformative, on a scale rarely seen before. For many of us, they will determine what our Constitution means for the rest of our lives.
That’s why it’s urgent that when the presidential candidates meet for their first debate on Sept. 26, they be asked to clearly define their views on appointing Supreme Court justices. With one vacancy on on the Court, long overdue to be filled, and three more justices who will be in their 80’s in the next president’s first term, the Supreme Court is inescapably one of the most important issues in the 2016 election. Read more
Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution says that there shall be “one Supreme Court.” Chief Justice John Marshall, in his landmark opinion in Marbury v. Madison, established that the Supreme Court would be the final arbiter of what the law is in the United States.
But don’t tell that to judges in Texas. Read more
As the Republican Senate has brought judicial confirmations to a standstill, refusing even to hold a hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, and confirming lower court judges at a historically slow rate, the most obvious explanation for all the obstruction has been politics: Republicans would rather spite President Obama and preserve judicial vacancies for a Republican president than ensure a fully-functioning judiciary. But for Thom Tillis, the Republican Senator from North Carolina and member of the Judiciary Committee, the problem appears to be (for better or worse) an alarming amount of misinformation, whether it be the importance of filling judicial vacancies, how bad the vacancy crisis has become under GOP leadership, or the Senate’s basic constitutional duty to confirm judges.
On Wednesday, just before the Senate left for a seven-week vacation, Tillis objected to voting on slate of uncontroversial judicial nominees because, in his words, confirming judges has “nothing to do with doing our jobs.” That startling claim would certainly surprise the Constitution’s drafters, who wrote that the Senate must provide “advice and consent” on judicial nominations, and Democratic members were no less shocked. “I’m not sure what version of the Constitution you’re reading that doesn’t say confirming judges is part of your job in the United States Senate,” Senator Elizabeth Warren said. Senator Mazie Hirono added, “Of course confirming judges is part of the Senate’s job. In fact, only the Senate can do that.” Read more
Around this time last year, Supreme Court commentators were heralding what appeared to be the beginnings of a new liberal era on the Court. Among the supposed signs were decisions that saved the Affordable Care Act (once again) from a manufactured Republican challenge, and another that legalized same-sex marriage across the country. In response, we helped to curate an entire issue of The Nation magazine refuting that generalization.
Flash forward to this past week and reading the headlines was déjà vu. “[F]or the second year in a row,” David Savage of the L.A. Times proclaimed, “the court tilted to the left in its major decisions.” At The New York Times, a graphic displayed several conservative justices—including Justice Alito!—drifting to the ideological left. Another Times article observed that, “for the second term in a row,” the Roberts Court “delivered liberal decisions at a rate not seen since the famously liberal court led by Chief Justice Earl Warren.” Read more