AFJ President Nan Aron was among the guests discussing the Supreme Court on MSNBC's All In with Chris Hayes last night. If you missed it on air, you can see it here:
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
AFJ will be a big presence at Netroots Nation
Netroots Nation brings together progressive organizations, bloggers, and activists to learn from one another and to discuss the challenges that lie ahead. Alliance for Justice has been a proud supporter of Netroots Nation since 2007, and we think it's a great way to help activists and bloggers understand how important our courts are as they work for change in their communities. Once again, Alliance for Justice is going to have a major presence at Netroots.Even if you're not planning to attend the conference, you can still watch a live stream of our Supreme Court panel on Thursday, June 20 at 9 a.m. PT, 12 noon ET. Just click here and scroll down to "Player for Room 210BF." We plan to live-tweet the panel, follow us @AFJustice and join the discussion at #rightsinthebalance.
Just as the Court is likely to issue its most controversial decisions, AFJ president Nan Aron will moderate Rights in the Balance: The Supreme Court and Social Justice. The panel will also feature Rick Jacobs, chair and founder of Courage Campagin, Pam Karlan, professor of public interest law and co-director of the Supreme Court litigation clinic at Stanford Law School, and Tom Saenz, president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
If you're planning to attend the conference, here's more of what we have in store for you this week:
--On Thursday, June 20 at 10:30 a.m., AFJ's Bolder Advocacy attorney Daren Garshelis, along with ColorOfChange.org's Kim Lehmkuhl and the California Immigrant Policy Center's Jon Rodney, will train activists on Influencing Public Policy in the Digital Age: Legal Rules and Regulations for Social Media.
Daren will also be available to answer questions about nonprofit advocacy at our exhibit booth.
Finally, on Friday, June 21 at 1:45 p.m., we will screen an excerpt from Unequal Justice: the Relentless Rise of the 1% Court as part of the screening series Fight Club! A Showcase of the Very Latest in Davids vs. Goliaths. AFJ Executive Vice President Marissa Brown will be there to answer questions.
And be sure to stop by our exhibit booth and say hello!
Monday, June 17, 2013
AFJ Responds to Supreme Court decision in Arizona "motor voter" case
Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron released the following statement today in response to the Supreme Court decision in Arizona et. al. v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, et. al.:
We are pleased that the majority recognizes the will of Congress in providing a simple and efficient means of registering to vote that removes barriers for Americans across the country in reaching the polls. The majority wisely prohibited Arizona from imposing new burdens on the right to vote that are inconsistent with clear federal law.
Key aspects of this case are discussed, with excerpts from the oral arguments here.
Alliance for Justice is a national association of over 100 organizations, representing a broad array of groups committed to progressive values and the creation of an equitable, just, and free society. Through our justice programs, we lead the progressive community in the fight for a fair judiciary, and through our advocacy programs, we help nonprofits and foundations to realize their advocacy potential.
We are pleased that the majority recognizes the will of Congress in providing a simple and efficient means of registering to vote that removes barriers for Americans across the country in reaching the polls. The majority wisely prohibited Arizona from imposing new burdens on the right to vote that are inconsistent with clear federal law.
Key aspects of this case are discussed, with excerpts from the oral arguments here.
Alliance for Justice is a national association of over 100 organizations, representing a broad array of groups committed to progressive values and the creation of an equitable, just, and free society. Through our justice programs, we lead the progressive community in the fight for a fair judiciary, and through our advocacy programs, we help nonprofits and foundations to realize their advocacy potential.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
“Pattern of misconduct" demands full investigation of Fifth Circuit Judge Edith Jones
A series of “inflammatory and racially charged remarks” and other misconduct demand a full investigation into Judge Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Alliance for Justice said Wednesday.
Judge Jones has engaged in “a pattern of misconduct that calls into question her ability to uphold the rule of law with impartiality, fairness, and integrity,” according to AFJ President Nan Aron.
Aron’s conclusion is part of a five-page letter sent Thursday to Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
AFJ wrote the letter in support of a complaint against Jones filed by more than a dozen civil rights groups, attorneys and legal scholars. The complaint has been transferred to the Judicial Council of the D.C. Circuit for review.
The complaint cites a series of statements about race, capital punishment, the intellectually disabled and the people of Mexico made by Jones in a speech earlier this year to a chapter of the Federalist Society.
But, as the letter notes, those remarks are “part of a long pattern of prejudicial statements and actions by Judge Jones on issues that can and do come before her on the court,” statements
and actions that violate the Code of Conduct for federal judges. Among those statements and actions:
Given this history, and many other examples, Aron says in the letter, “We were dismayed, but sadly not surprised” by Jones’s most recent remarks, which included assertions that:
“Alliance for Justice asks for a full investigation into Judge Jones’ misconduct and violations of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges,” the letter states.
UPDATE, JUNE 14: Watch the news conference by the New Orleans NAACP and other organizations concerning Judge Jones.
 |
| Judge Edith Jones during a trip to Iraq |
Aron’s conclusion is part of a five-page letter sent Thursday to Chief Judge Merrick B. Garland of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
AFJ wrote the letter in support of a complaint against Jones filed by more than a dozen civil rights groups, attorneys and legal scholars. The complaint has been transferred to the Judicial Council of the D.C. Circuit for review.
The complaint cites a series of statements about race, capital punishment, the intellectually disabled and the people of Mexico made by Jones in a speech earlier this year to a chapter of the Federalist Society.
But, as the letter notes, those remarks are “part of a long pattern of prejudicial statements and actions by Judge Jones on issues that can and do come before her on the court,” statements
and actions that violate the Code of Conduct for federal judges. Among those statements and actions:
- Reportedly complaining that a last-minute motion to stop an execution forced her to miss a birthday party.
- Excoriating a lawyer for seeking to delay an execution – even though the Supreme Court had just taken a case that could have a crucial impact on whether his client should be executed.
- Repeatedly demonstrating hostility to employment discrimination suits, once telling law students that alleged victims should “take a better second job instead of bringing suit.”
- Questioning the wisdom of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Telling a fellow judge, in open court, to “shut up.”
- Suggesting time and again that religious doctrine takes precedence over the law.
Given this history, and many other examples, Aron says in the letter, “We were dismayed, but sadly not surprised” by Jones’s most recent remarks, which included assertions that:
- The United States system of justice provides a positive service to capital-case defendants by imposing a death sentence, because the defendants are likely to make peace with God only in the moment before imminent execution.
- Certain “racial groups like African Americans and Hispanics are predisposed to crime,” are “‘prone’ to commit acts of violence,” and get involved in more violent and “heinous” crimes than people of other ethnicities.
- Claims of racism, arbitrariness, and even of innocence are simply “red herrings” used by opponents of capital punishment.
- Capital defendants who raise claims of “mental retardation” abuse the system.
- Mexican nationals would prefer to be on death row in the United States rather than in prison in Mexico.
“Alliance for Justice asks for a full investigation into Judge Jones’ misconduct and violations of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges,” the letter states.
UPDATE, JUNE 14: Watch the news conference by the New Orleans NAACP and other organizations concerning Judge Jones.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
At hearing for ATF nominee, more Republican obstruction
On Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a high-profile hearing on President Obama’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, B. Todd Jones. Jones is an exceptionally qualified nominee. He currently serves as both the acting director of ATF and as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota (a position for which he was unanimously approved by the Judiciary Committee in 2009).
Though ATF plays a critical law enforcement role, including involvement in investigating tragedies like the Sandy Hook school shootings, the Boston Marathon bombing, and the industrial explosion in West, Texas, the agency has not had a permanent director since 2006 – that’s when the law was changed to require Senate confirmation That sad reality may continue, as Republican questions at the hearing suggest that they may continue to obstruct executive nominees as a way to prevent agencies they don’t like from functioning.
Many Republican questions raised tangential concerns about Jones’s record. For instance, the Committee’s ranking member, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)—yes, the very same senator who wants to get rid of three judicial seats on the second most important court in the country, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals—pressed Jones to answer for a botched ATF operation, Fast and Furious. But Jones actually was brought in to clean up after the fact.
Moreover, just before the hearing ended, there was a telling exchange between Grassley and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Sen. Grassley requested that the hearing record remain open for longer than the normal one week period, based on the expectation that there were “a lot of things that could come up.” Senator Klobuchar agreed to keep it open for two weeks. Sensing dissatisfaction in Grassley’s reaction, she asked, “What would you like?” Senator Grassley responded, “Until we get done with this whole [thing].” While the senators’ quick negotiation seemed to be good-spirited, it sounds like Sen. Grassley has no interest in quickly moving Jones’s nomination to the Senate floor. This stonewalling is particularly hypocritical in light of repeated Republican statements that we don’t need new gun laws, we just need to “enforce the laws on the books.”
Of course, Jones is just one of a slew of highly qualified Obama nominees that Republicans so farhave refused to confirm because they disapprove of the organization itself (see EPA Administrator nominee Gina McCarthy, CFPB director nominee Richard Cordray, Labor Secretary nominee Tom Perez, and three NLRB nominees. If Republicans continue to hold agencies hostage by unfairly blocking confirmations, the Senate majority should revisit reforming Senate rules.
 |
| B. Todd Jones |
Many Republican questions raised tangential concerns about Jones’s record. For instance, the Committee’s ranking member, Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa)—yes, the very same senator who wants to get rid of three judicial seats on the second most important court in the country, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals—pressed Jones to answer for a botched ATF operation, Fast and Furious. But Jones actually was brought in to clean up after the fact.
Moreover, just before the hearing ended, there was a telling exchange between Grassley and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.). Sen. Grassley requested that the hearing record remain open for longer than the normal one week period, based on the expectation that there were “a lot of things that could come up.” Senator Klobuchar agreed to keep it open for two weeks. Sensing dissatisfaction in Grassley’s reaction, she asked, “What would you like?” Senator Grassley responded, “Until we get done with this whole [thing].” While the senators’ quick negotiation seemed to be good-spirited, it sounds like Sen. Grassley has no interest in quickly moving Jones’s nomination to the Senate floor. This stonewalling is particularly hypocritical in light of repeated Republican statements that we don’t need new gun laws, we just need to “enforce the laws on the books.”
Of course, Jones is just one of a slew of highly qualified Obama nominees that Republicans so farhave refused to confirm because they disapprove of the organization itself (see EPA Administrator nominee Gina McCarthy, CFPB director nominee Richard Cordray, Labor Secretary nominee Tom Perez, and three NLRB nominees. If Republicans continue to hold agencies hostage by unfairly blocking confirmations, the Senate majority should revisit reforming Senate rules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)