This Far-Right Supreme Court Is Reason Enough to Vote Obama

[marmar]

from truthdig:



This Far-Right Supreme Court Is Reason Enough to Vote Obama

Posted on Oct 3, 2012
By Bill Blum


We can take away two lessons from the first high-profile oral argument of the Supreme Court’s new term, which began Monday. Lesson No. 1 is that the court is already a hard-right institution. Lesson No. 2 is that the re-election of President Barack Obama is more crucial than ever if the court’s movement to the right is to be slowed or possibly reversed.

The argument—in the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Shell Petroleum—involves an international human rights complaint brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) of 1789 against the giant oil conglomerate by 12 Nigerian nationals, all of whom have received political asylum in the United States and at least one of whom is now a U.S. citizen. The plaintiffs contend that Shell assisted and was complicit in the torture and killing of members of the Ogoni tribe in the Niger Delta carried out by the military dictatorship of Gen. Sani Abacha in the early to mid-1990s.

By its terms, the ATS authorizes federal courts to hear civil actions by aliens for torts “committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” Although the statute was largely dormant for 200 years, a string of lower-court precedents issued since the 1980s breathed new life into it, sparking a small but important wave of human rights litigation targeting abuses stretching from Paraguay to New Guinea, from Liberia to Mexico. It made sense, therefore, that when the Kiobel plaintiffs were unable to find any semblance of justice in Nigerian courts, they joined the trend, filing suit in 2002 in New York.

Eventually, Kiobel made its way to the Supreme Court for oral argument in February to test the narrow question of whether the ATS could be applied to corporations. But as happened in the infamous Citizens United case—which commenced with a narrow focus before expanding exponentially to rewrite the law of campaign finance—the justices ordered Kiobel to be re-argued Oct. 1 to address the larger issue of whether the ATS can ever apply to acts committed on foreign soil, especially those involving foreign corporations and foreign sovereigns. ..................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/this_far-right_supreme_court_is_reason_enough_to_vote_obama_20121003/

[still_one]

1. no question about it /nt

[seabeyond]

2. i like obama. and there is a lot he and congress need to accomplish. SC alone gets vote for obama.

it is that simple for me.

i want more. i want win in house and 60 in senate so they can accomplish what needs to be done.

BUT... SC is a vote for obama

[Pab Sungenis]

3. The problem with this argument is

that Obama has continued to move the Court rightward with his choices, and when given a chance to replace Ginsburg and Breyer will eliminate the only two liberals left on the Court.

The Supreme Court is not a winning argument. Focus on stuff we can win with.

[marmar]

4. You focus on whatever you like. No, Kagan and Sotomayor aren't liberals.....

........ but I can only imagine what Romney will appoint to the Court.

[Pab Sungenis]

5. Either way

the Court is lost to us for decades. The question now is whether it marches to the right or runs there.

And the more we keep arguing about who Romney will put on the Court, the more we discourage liberals who are angry about who Obama has appointed. We need issues that are going to keep our base, not further alienate it.