On The Docket: The Supreme Court

Sometimes I go through the news, combing through it, looking for out of the way stories, that have, or can have impact on politics. I found two on friday that I thought would be of some interest.

Justice for sale. That is the implication in the story of one West Virginia justice Brent Benjamin, and the curious tale of his involvement in a case that involved his biggest campaign contributor, Donald Blankenship.

The name of the case is Caperton V. Massey Coal.

It seems that Mister Blankenship, CEO of Massey Energy Co. had a case in W.V. court that went against him, in the form of a judgement against him for $50,000,000. Hugh Caperton, President of Harman Mining, the litigant, claimed that Massey, with Blankenship at it’s head, had pushed Harman out of business by committing fraud in the form of buying the sole buyer of Harman’s coal and then sharply reducing the amount of coal purchased, and plunging them into bankruptcy. The lower court agreed, and Massey, as is their right, appealed. This is where the impropriety took place. Justice Benjamin sits on the Appeals court, and twice was the swing vote in this case and ruled in favor.

If he had not taken any campaign funds from Mister Blankenship, this would not be an issue. But Justice Benjamin had recieved $500,000 in direct campaign contributions, and the head of Massey had also donated almost $2,500,000 to a section 527 organization that helped get Justice Benjamin get elected to his seat.

The man should have recused himself. Even if there is a whiff of possible impropriety, most justices recuse themselves and bow out, so as not to look like they are judging a case that they have a vested interest in. So they don’t look like they have been bought. Justice Benjamin thought otherwise.

The question before the court, which accepted the case Friday, is whether by not recusing himself, Justice Benjamin violated the Due Process of the 14th amendment rights of Hugh Caperton and Harman Mining.

In 1934, in the case Snyder V. Mass, the Supreme court ruled that it is a Violation of Due Process…:

If a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental

We can’t have even the thought that our judges can be bought, owned, and rule for people who have given them money in any way shape or form, allowed. The Principles of justice require that we have justices of conscience behind the bench. It cannot, regardless of what any justice thinks, have the taint of impropriety that judging a case for someone who has given money to them. At all.

My guess is that the Justices will rule in favor of Caperton and will send the message loud and clear that Justice for America is NOT for sale, and even the appearance of that concept should not enter the minds of anyone entering what should be impartial proceedings.

One other case of interest before the court is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

This is a case where a Movie, “Hillary: The Movie” was to be shown around the country as Hillary Clinton was campaigning for The Democratic Nomination for President of The United States. As I remember it, it was shown in some places, but since it was political speech and it was in the middle of the campaign cycle and did not show who funded it, it was barred from being televised. The F.E.C. said that the group could not broadcast the film without breaking campaign funding laws. The McCain Feingold act forbids corporate-funded broadcast ads that attack a candidate within a month of a primary or general election and requires full disclosure of those who fund ads. The movie in it’s original form had no disclosure of who funded it. I am not sure if that changed in any subsequent showings. And like I said, this was to run while Sen. Clinton was campaigning. A clear breach of McCain Feingold, but….

Citizens United claims that limitations on core political speech rights is unconstitutional. They may have a claim here, and it is no small matter. Free speech is one of the bedrocks of the constitution, and limitations on it are not welcome. But the free speech angle here is a somewhat deceptive one. It was a blatantly biased political film, against one candidate who was at the time on the stump, and it was to be shown at home, and video on demand and such as well as in theatres, clearly running afoul of McCain-Feingold.

The Only way i see a complete victory for Citizens United in this case is if they use as precedent a case that came before the court last year that found:

Limitations on corporate and labor union funding of broadcast ads mentioning a candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election are unconstitutional as applied to ads susceptible of a reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.

The question then becomes whether “Hillary:The Movie” a 90 minute Anti Hillary Clinton campaign ad can be reasonably be seen as “other than as an appeal to vote” against her. It looks to me like it clearly an appeal to vote against her: Take a look for yourself.

Tell me what you think, America! How do you feel about the Courts? Can they be bought? Are they there for the highest bidder? Can free speech include attacks from nameless faceless individuals on the campaign trail, or should we know where they are coming from? Was Citizens United’s Right to Free speech curbed here? Drop me a Line and Let me Know!

Uncle Mikey

Subscribe to this blog's RSS feed

Today I am going to look at 3 men, one a Lobbyist, one that lobbyist’s business partner, and the other a former lobbyist working in the McCain Campaign, and their baggage.

First Up: Harry Sargent/Mustafa Abu Naba’a. The McCain campaign last week had to return $50,000 in contributions from donors due to the fact that the donations were in fact collected by a foreign national, Mr. Mustafa Abu Naba’a, a man who is a citizen of both Jordan and the Dominican Republic. This is seen as potentially conflicting with election laws, because it is illegal for foreign nationals to give to American political campaigns. Not to mention that the money came from donors who do not even back Senator McCain.

Mister Abu Naba’a owns a 1/3 share of Mister Sargent’s company, which supplies oil to the U.S. military in Iraq, and has contracts that could be worth up $1,400,000,000 with the U.S. military.

That’s a nice piece of change.

Also of some interest here was the amount given and the people who wrote the checks that Mister Naba’a allegedly picked up for Mister Sargent for the McCain campaign. The amount given? The most allowable to give, by law. $2,300 per person. It is HIGHLY unlikely that an Auto Mechanic, a Taco Bell Manager, and a couple that at one time ran a liquor store would have that kind of money to give to a political campaign. This, ladies and gentlemen, is not exactly the people you would normally imagine giving this much, and I severely doubt that any of these people actually have that kind of money to give to a political campaign. I know auto mechanics. They don’t make enough money to actually be able to give that kind of money to a political campaign. The guy doing your brakes doesn’t make enough to give like that. Trust me on this one.

And if Taco bell pays that much, I’m leaving the copy center of the Law Firm I work at and going to taco bell to chase my dream of wealth and success. Oh wait. They don’t…pay.. that much…. Hmmmm… Neither does working a Liquor store. That job is more likely to get you on TV as a shooting victim than any real prosperity.

But Wait there’s More!

Mister Sargent is also being looked at by Rep. Henry Waxman, the chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, for overcharging the military for the fuel he sold them. And the contract that he signed with the Military is interesting, insofar as it was not the lowest bid for the supplying of oil used by the American military in Iraq.

Another Bundler of joy is a man named Randy Scheunemann. He is former President of the committee for the liberation of iraq, of which John McCain was a member, which was widely seen as a PR organization for the Iraq war push back in 2002. He was also closely linked to the Project for the New American Century, A Neo-conservative think tank, which is stated as an important shaper of American Foreign policy. Other Members of this Think tank Included Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz.

He was also an Advisor to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq. He is now foreign policy aide to John McCain.

This man, Scheunemann, has been linked to Ahmed Chalabi, The First Iraqi Oil Minister, who has given state secrets to Iran and has been accused of fraud involving Iraqi currency as well as grand theft of both national and private assets in Iraq.

Scheunemann has also been linked to, and in fact worked for, Stephen Payne, the disgraced former lobbyist who offered access to Senior administration officials in exchange for large amounts of cash for the George W. Bush Public Library.

And Until March of this year, Mister Scheunemann had been a lobbyist for the nation of Georgia, who were recently attacked and mauled by the Russian bear. Could this be the reason for John McCain’s rush to take the Georgian’s side in the recent Georgia-Russian conflict?

This is very fertile ground for analysis. There are TONS more Lobbyists, and not just McCain’s men who I can skewer. Are there any shady dealings going on anywhere that you would like to be brought to light? Anyone out there you think needs to get the third degree? Drop me a Line and Let me know!

Uncle Mikey

The Republicans Have decided to take a stab at using an Independent arm of the RNC to talk up the differences between the two candidates on energy policy over the next few days in a series of commercials in several swing states, those being Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, starting On Sunday. A stroke of Genius not using the Party itself to finance said Commercials. By using an “Independent arm” of the RNC, they avoid using up precious resources. The RNC is only allowed to spend $19,100,000 in coordination with the McCain campaign, so this saves them money they will need later on down the road. Of some Interest to me is the Following Tidbit, gotten from a Washington post Blog:

The advertising program will be run by Brad Todd, a partner in an Alexandria, Va.-based firm called On Message, Inc. Todd had previously worked with ad-maker Alex Castellanos, a veteran political operative who ran the advertising for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

Am I the only one who sees this as a testing of the waters for two Ideas at once? First One, a targeted Marketing campaign hitting specific Issues in smaller venues outside of either the RNC or McCain’s control, thereby avoiding any responsibility for them, while at the same time seeing what the Former Romney people running these ads can do for the McCain camp, perhaps as a possible ramp up to an announcement about a running mate if all goes well? McCain-Romney in 2k8, anyone?

Perhaps, we’ll see. This Romney thing is a sideshow….except….

The Money machine that Romney brings with him. The Business acumen that Romney brings with him. The knowledge of economics that Romney brings. That’s a lot that Romney brings to the table, that McCain needs.

Like I said, we’ll see.

In Other News, there has been another Staff shakeup at McCain Headquarters. This time Karl Rove Protege Steve Schmidt is taking over day to day operations for the McCain campaign, with former day to day Op. Manager Rick Davis Having his duties diminished. For the Campaign’s part, they say this is just a “Ramping up” effort.

Schmidt will, among other things, appoint a national political director to oversee and coordinate the work of McCain’s regional directors, who have had up to now some autonomy of movement. Schmidt managed the successful Re-election Campaign for Governor of One Arnold Schwarzenegger. He has also worked with Karl Rove, and was the Chief Strategist behind the Supreme court nominations of Both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He was also the Spokesman for and Counselor to Vice-President Dick Cheney.

For a man that wants to distance himself from President Bush and the current administration, it’s awful funny for Sen. McCain to have someone that entrenched in the current administration head up his day to day campaign operations. And affiliated with Karl Rove as well.

Well, Rove DID orchestrate the Bush Presidency, why not use that. Bush won twice, It’s had success in the past, It can succeed again, right?

Right?

What follows here is an advertisement from the McCain Campaign, from last week:

Are there any news Items you want more information on? Any subjects you want discussed here? Drop me a Line and Let me know.

Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right. John McCain

There seems to be something of a Brouhaha over Public Funding recently. Today we’ll be looking at it’s impact on the Presidential race.

In a move that surprised no one, at least no one here, Barack Obama has decided to not accept Public Funding, the first candidate to do so since the system’s creation in 1976. The Move is one that some are painting as a hypocritical move, seeing as he had stated in the past that he would in fact adhere to the strict spending limits that Public financing would bring to the table for him. From a report on usa today’s website :

Democrat Barack Obama’s decision to bypass taxpayer money for his presidential campaign endangers the public-financing system, Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, a Democrat and Obama supporter, said Sunday.

“In terms of undermining the public financing idea for everyone, it doesn’t help,” Biden said on NBC’s Meet the Press. “It’s going to be harder to make the case” for taxpayer funding.

Right after that Sen. Biden did make the Concession that Senator Obama had already transformed the concept of public financing with his Internet campaign that has by and large reduced the role of special Interests, a point later echoed By Tom Daschle on Fox News Sunday.

Now, did he go back on his word to use the system? Yes he did. But the argument I raise is a 2 word Argument.

“So what?”

I understand the wish for non hypocritical behavior on the part of Presidential Candidates, but I have to tell you, I have not once in my life, at any time, ever seen a politician not use every possible advantage he can to gain the upper hand in an election. That is the name of the game. Obama can use all his skills as an orator to create an argument for why he is doing things the way he’s doing things. His arguments are unconvincing…

…And entirely Unnecessary.

He can speak of opponents who are masters of gaming the system. He can speak of a system that is broken. But truth of the matter is that it is simply more logical for him to fore-go the use of the system and keep on raking in the bucks from the grassroots campaign that has currently netted him something of the order of just over a quarter of a billion dollars in total campaign contributions. Why the hell would he give that up? A MAJOR Financial advantage is not something you give up on.

Anywhere. Ever. Any argument to the Contrary is stupid. Unless…..

….You happen to belong to his opposition, and have to date gotten $173,000,000 less that your opponent in total campaign contributions. THEN you bang the drum and speak of Hypocrisy. This is a quote from Jill Hazelbaker, Sen. McCain’s Comm. Director Via CNN:

“The true test of a candidate for president is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people,” said Jill Hazelbaker, McCain’s communications director. “Barack Obama has failed that test, and his reversal of his promise to participate in the public finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics.”

Needless to say that Senator McCain will be using public Financing. Mister McCain will Benefit from the use of it, to the tune of an extra $85,000,000 dollars infused into his campaign. Which will help him a great deal, and it is only right to use every resource available to you. But if that’s the case, why call someone a hypocrite for doing exactly that? Yes Senator Obama went back on his word, but he is simply using every resource available to him, Just like Sen. McCain. Nothing wrong with that, right?

Right? Do you think there is? Tell me what you think!

To Conclude, a video for you, from Keith Olbermann on countdown from Friday, watch and enjoy: