What if big corporations didn’t have to worry about making safe products because they knew they couldn’t be taken to court even if their products caused serious harm? These are the stakes in Wyeth v. Levine, which was argued in front of the Supreme Court on November 3rd, and is one of the most important consumer rights cases to come along in years.
|By: Alliance For Justice Tuesday November 18, 2008 12:00 pm|
|By: Christy Hardin Smith Monday October 6, 2008 9:29 am|
Today is the first day of the October term in the SCOTUS. AFJ previews the term. SCOTUSblog details three cases argued today, and will be posting oral argument links when available. They have also detailed cases coming up this week, including background thereon.
ACLU has some information on cases of concern this term….
|By: Marty Lederman Monday September 15, 2008 12:00 pm|
It’s a pleasure to be participating in this “First Monday” chat at Firedoglake. There are certainly a great number of things to discuss regarding the Bush Administration’s detention, torture and surveillance policies, as well as the U.S. Attorney scandal and, more generally, the Administration’s radical view of Executive prerogatives. The granular details of the story are becoming a bit clearer all the time, especially with the publication of superlative accounts such as Philippe Sands’s Torture Team, Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side, and, tomorrow, Bart Gellman’s long-awaited book Angler, on the central role played by Vice President Cheney and his staff.
|By: Vince Warren Monday August 4, 2008 11:58 am|
Two weeks ago, Attorney General Michael Mukasey tried to tempt Congress into blocking justice for the men in Guantanamo yet again. Enough already. The Supreme Court has chastised Congress on it’s several eleventh-hour attempts to deny the men access to federal courts by passing the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA) and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA). This June, the Court called “strike three” on these unlawful policies by upholding the detainees’ right to have access to federal courts for a third time – in Rasul v. Bush in 2004, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006, and Boumediene v. Bush in 2008. Congress should be a part of the solution this time by simply letting the courts do their job….
|By: Christy Hardin Smith Monday August 4, 2008 7:02 am|
We have First Monday – put together with the Alliance for Justice – at 3 pm ET/noon PT today. Specifically about some of the work the Center For Constitutional Rights, the ACLU and others have done…fighting indefinite detention, torture, rendition, all those things that the Bush Administration denounced in public while encouraging them vociferously behind their own hand-drawn veil of state secrets. Hope you can join us. From the very beginning, the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU have stood for the rule of law. Trying to stop the Bush Administration’s dismissal of long-held, long-fought-for human rights laws which the United States previously championed.
|By: Christy Hardin Smith Friday August 1, 2008 8:59 am|
On Monday, we will have the next installment of First Monday – a series of discussions on the rule of law, coordinated with the Alliance for Justice. This coming Monday, August 4th, at 3:00 pm ET/noon PT, our guest will be Vince Warren, Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and some folks from the ACLU — all of whom have been working diligently over the last few years for civil liberties for American citizens and those we detain and to restore the rule of law. So, mark your calendars — it’s going to be a great discussion….
|By: Dahlia Lithwick Monday July 7, 2008 12:00 pm|
First of all I want to thank Christy and the folks at Alliance for Justice for inviting me to participate in this terrific series. For all that the web often serves to fracture and polarize us, I am so happy to be involved in enterprises – like the First Monday series – that try to bring us together to talk…..How might we turn the Court into a voting issue on the left? How do we talk about future justices without being labeled elitist and out-of-touch? And what might we do to change confirmation hearings into a meaningful process for vetting judicial candidates.
|By: Seth Kilbourn Monday June 2, 2008 12:00 pm|
While we celebrate the landmark decision by the California Supreme Court allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry, those who oppose the Court’s powerful acknowledgment of the dignity of our love and relationships are determined to deny us the fundamental freedom, fairness and equality we have worked so hard to achieve. They have already submitted what appear to be enough signatures to place a constitutional amendment on the November ballot that would recognize only marriages between a man and a woman. The moment has arrived. The battle is on….
|By: Peter Edelman Monday May 5, 2008 12:00 pm|
This chat was billed by my friends at the Alliance for Justice as an analysis of Justice Scalia’s recent public commentary, along with some comments about the balance of the current Supreme Court. I’m more interested in the latter than I am in talking about Justice Scalia in particular, and I’m especially interested in a conversation about what we can do to avert further deterioration in the direction the Court
|By: Erwin Chemerinsky Monday April 7, 2008 10:30 am|
Why aren’t the presidential candidates speaking out against the egregious abuses of the Bush administration in fighting the war on terrorism? Last week, as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request by the American Civil Liberties Union, the infamous torture memo authored by John Yoo became public. But none of the candidates were heard to utter a word about it.