Will The Media Acknowledge U.S. Chamber's Sweep Of Supreme Court's Decisions?

 LARA SCHWARTZ/Media Matters For America:

In less than one week, the Supreme Court has issued four decisions immunizing corporate defendants from liability for their wrongdoings and closing the courthouse door to individuals seeking redress. The Court handed victories to the pro-corporate U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has an unprecedented success rate before the Roberts Court and which filed amicus briefs in all of the cases.

As The Wall Street Journal reported before the Court issued three pro-corporate decisions on June 24:

While business litigants often found themselves on the winning side of cases under the tenure of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, they have made advances since Chief Justice John Roberts took the helm in 2005.

On June 20, the Court ruled in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant that class action waiver provisions would be enforced even if doing so would make it impossible for small businesses to protect their rights under federal law.  In spite of the fact that the decision could have a serious impact on individuals' ability to hold corporations accountable for wrongdoing, media coverage was scant.

On June 24, the Supreme Court handed down three more decisions that roll back individual rights to redress for corporate wrongdoing.

In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito in Vance v. Ball State University the Court gave made it more difficult for an employee to hold an employer liable for workplace harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  As Justice Alito explained:

Under Title VII, an employer's liability for such harassment may depend on the status of the harasser. If the harassing employee is the victim's co-worker, the employer is liable only if it was negligent in controlling working conditions. In cases in which the harasser is a "super- visor," however, different rules apply.

The majority opinion in Vance defined "supervisor" narrowly, leaving Vance, an African-American woman who sued her employer for creating a racially hostile work environment, without redress.

In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg wrote:

Exhibiting remarkable resistance to the thrust of our prior decisions, workplace realities, and the EEOC's Guidance, the Court embraces a position that relieves scores of employers of responsibility for the behavior of the supervisors they employ.

The Court struck another blow to enforcing civil rights laws with its decision in University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar.  In an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court limited employees' ability to prevail in cases alleging retaliation under Title VII. 

In her dissenting opinion in Nassar, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg drew attention to the Court's results-oriented decision-making in favor of employers: 

In this endeavor, the Court is guided neither by precedent, nor by the aimsof legislators who formulated and amended Title VII. In-deed, the Court appears driven by a zeal to reduce the number of retaliation claims filed against employers.

 Justice Ginsburg also delivered a statement about Vance and Nassar from the bench:

Both decisions dilute the strength of Title VII in ways Congress could not have intended. . . . Today, the ball again lies in Congress' court to correct this Court's wayward interpretations of Title VII.

Finally, the Court ruled against a woman who was severely injured by a generic drug and sued the manufacturer.  In Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, the Court ruled that federal law related to pharmaceuticals preempts a plaintiff's right to sue the drug company under state law.  The plaintiff, Karen Bartlett, had suffered severe injuries after she took a generic pain drug.

As Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) noted one week before the Court handed down its decision in Am Ex:

Data on the Supreme Court in recent years shows a heavy pro-corporate tilt.

[...]

Follow this pro-business trend to its logical conclusion, and sooner or later you'll end up with a Supreme Court that functions as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Chamber of Commerce.

These decisions continue the Roberts Court's track record of pro-corporate decisions.  The question is, will the media cover this trend or allow the decisions to go unnoticed?

STUDY: In Supreme Court’s Past 65 Years, George W. Bush’s Two Appointees Most Likely To Side With Business Interests

By Nicole Flatow/Think Progress

In recent years, several reports and studies have observed the evident skew in favor of business of the U.S. Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Thus far, this term has proved to be no exception, with a 6-1 win rate by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. And last month, three professors who are prominent in the conservative law and economics movement published what may be the most rigorous study yet on business success before the high court. After analyzing the some 2,000 decisions between 1946 and 2011 under various rubrics for what constitutes a business win before the court, the study confirmed previous conclusions that the Roberts court is significantly more pro-business than its predecessors. What’s more, they found that the most pro-business justices of all since 1965 are George W. Bush’s two appointees to the court: Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito:

As illustrated above, the study also found that five of the top ten justices most favorable to business are currently serving — and they make up the court’s conservative block. It is unsurprising, then, that this court is not only siding with business more, but that it is granting more cases in which lower courts decided against business and overturning those decisions in favor of business interests. The professors explain:

Whether measured by decisions or Justices’ votes, a plunge in warmth toward business during the 1960s (the heyday of the Warren Court) was quickly reversed; and the Roberts Court is much friendlier to business than either the Burger or Rehnquist Courts, which preceded it, were. The Court is taking more cases in which the business litigant lost in the lower court and reversing more of these—giving rise to the paradox that a decision in which certiorari is granted when the lower court decision was anti-business is more likely to be reversed than one in which the lower court decision was pro-business. The Roberts Court also has affirmed more cases in which business is the respondent than its predecessor Courts did.

As a New York Times report on the study notes, prominent among these pro-business decisions are landmark rulings that include the Citizens United decision, a string of decisions eroding the mechanisms for holding corporations accountable as a class, and this term’s Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, which shredded accountability for human rights abuses abroad, including those by corporations with some U.S. presence.

“Right to Work” Supporter Billionaire Dick DeVos Has Long History of Abusing Workers’ Rights

From The Michigan Democratic Party:

DeVos Is Behind-the-Scenes Puppeteer in RTW Effort

LANSING – With so-called “right to work” legislation awaiting final approval by Lansing Republicans and Gov. Rick Snyder, the Michigan Democratic Party today begins a series revealing the prime movers behind this unprecedented attack on Michigan workers and middle-class families.

Press reports have placed responsibility for the lame-duck push on this legislation — which Snyder had termed “divisive” during his campaign, but now plans to sign — on Dick DeVos, the failed 2006 GOP candidate for governor. According to MIRS news service, “[T]he former Republican gubernatorial candidate has called individual Republican senators and pushed them for a ‘yes’ vote on Right to Work…. DeVos and former Republican Party Chair Ron Weiser [are] making phone calls to Republican senators to assure them that if they faced a recall threat for supporting RTW, they would help to bankroll an anti-recall threat.” (December 4, 2012)

The record at DeVos family company Amway is a litany of unfair and illegal practices that have harmed workers. Amway classifies its sales employees as “independent contractors,” which allows it to ignore minimum wage, workers’ compensation and unemployment compensation laws, among many other basic worker rights. In 1998, Amway was sued by a terminated employee that was denied leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. In 2000, DeVos laid off more than a thousand workers worldwide in a corporate “restructuring.”

DeVos’ company routinely outsources jobs to low-wage countries. The company’s main manufacturing plant outside the U.S. is located in China. In 2009, the company laid off nearly 100 Michigan white-collar workers and moved their jobs to Costa Rica. The next year, they laid off another 100 production workers from a Michigan warehouse. (Grand Rapids Press, November 1, 2010; Grand Rapid Press, April 30, 2010; Grand Rapid Press, October 16, 2009)

“With DeVos’ record of attacking workers’ rights in Michigan and throughout the world, it is no surprise to see him as the puppeteer pulling the strings on another anti-worker attack,” said Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer. “His involvement tells the people of Michigan all they need to know — the ‘right to work’ push isn’t about protecting workers’ rights, it’s about destroying them.”

MDP Releases New Video: “The Insurance Company Court”

From the Michigan Democratic Party

Video Shows How Markman and Zahra Have Ruled for Auto Insurance Companies 100% of the Time

LANSING – The Michigan Democratic Party today released a new 30-second video, “The Insurance Company Court.” The video shows how victims, patients, and medical providers can’t get a fair hearing at the Michigan Supreme Court.

In 24 cases involving claims of patients and their medical providers, Michigan Supreme Court Justices Stephen Markman and Brian Zahra ruled in favor of auto insurance companies every single time.

“Markman and Zahra are nothing more than puppets for the big insurance companies,” MDP Chair Mark Brewer said. “They’ve ruled for auto insurance companies 100% of the time. Victims, patients, and medical providers won’t be treated fairly on the Court until Markman and Zahra are replaced.”

“We need Justices who will follow the law and not rule every time for the special interests who fund their campaigns,” added Brewer. “The numbers don’t lie. Markman and Zahra take insurance company money and then continue to deliver favorable rulings to the insurance companies. That’s not justice. That’s not fairness. It’s time for a change this November.”

You can watch the new video by visiting the link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7tDhklfVy0

New MDP Video: MSC Justices Markman and Zahra: Protecting Insurance Companies Over Families

From Michigan Democratic Party

Justices Cast Deciding Votes to Deny Insurance Benefits to Victim of Hit and Run

LANSING – The Michigan Democratic Party has released a new video demonstrating how Michigan Supreme Court Justices Stephen Markman and Brian Zahra are puppets of special interests.

Last week, Markman and Zahra, along with the Court’s other GOP Justices, ruled to deny insurance benefits to the family of a hit and run victim. William DeFrain was hit by a car while walking in Florida in May on 2008. Six months later, after immense suffering, he died of his injuries. State Farm Insurance denied a claim by DeFrain’s mother, the policyholder, because it was filed after the 30-day deadline. The Michigan Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favor of DeFrain’s family, but the Michigan Supreme Court overturned that decision.

“The current Court is nothing more than a rubber stamp for special interests like insurance companies,” MDP Chair Mark Brewer said. “This latest case proves that victims and their families can’t get a fair shot in this Court. Markman, Zahra, and their Republican colleagues have ruled in favor of special interests over 80% of the time. We need a change on the Court. It’s time to start protect Michigan families and victims – instead of protecting insurance companies and other special interests.”

You can watch the new video by clicking on the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhGaZFF7dE&feature=youtu.be

HOW BANKS BOUGHT THE TEA PARTY: Cash Transforms Populist Insurgents To Reliable Vote For Financial Industry

By Josh Israel and Adam Peck/Think Progress


The 15 freshmen Republican representatives in the House Tea Party Caucus each ran in 2010 on a populist anti-Wall Street message, highlighting their opposition to bank bailouts like the 2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and criticizing Washington for enabling the banking sector as it became “Too Big to Fail.” After winning, all fifteen received significant PAC contributions from the banking industry — and have become a reliable vote and mouthpiece for the financial industry, a ThinkProgress analysis of campaign contributions, voting records and public statements reveals.

Rather than campaigning on a typical pro-business platform, the Tea Party freshmen tapped into public resentment of big banks and bailouts. For example, then-candidate Sandy Adams (R-FL) said on her campaign website that she “opposes government bailouts” and “would have voted against TARP and the auto bailout.” Jeff Landry (R-LA) said bailouts of private businesses had “corrupted our free market system by rewarding the irresponsible and penalizing the responsible,” blasting “bank bailouts, which led to taxpayer money directly or indirectly going into multi-million dollar bonuses.”

But in Congress, the Tea Party has towed the line for big banks. Eleven of the 15 have become co-sponsors of H.R. 3461, a top priority for the ABA. According to Americans for Financial Reform, the legislation would “tilt the playing field further in the direction of excessive deference to industry interests and tie the hands of regulators attempting to protect the public interest.” The bill would make it harder for bank examiners to do their job, giving regulatory responsibilities to an industry that’s already shown it can’t police itself.

Here is what happened:

The lone Tea Party freshman member of the Financial Services Committee, Rep. Stephen Fincher (R-TN), has consistently voted with the industry and the Republican majority forweaker regulation of the sector.

And of the 15, all but McKinley and Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) voted for the GOP’s 2013 budget proposal, which included the repeal of a key component of the financial sector regulation.

Their rhetoric has also become extremely friendly to the financial industry. Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) famously yelled at a constituent: “Don’t blame banks, and don’t blame the marketplace for the mess we’re in right now! I am tired of hearing that crap! This pisses me off!” Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) bashed financial regulations as “part of a pattern of government interference in the private sector.” Rep. Blake Fahrenthold (R-TX) warned “excessive regulations will hurt our financial institutions.” Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) said that by regulating banking and financial institutions, “what they’re doing is getting into our lives. And many of us are trying to find a way to get them to pull back.” And several of the freshmen criticized Dodd-Frank’s regulations for limiting credit availability for small businesses.

Romney Defends ‘Wall Street’ And ‘Insurance Company Executives’ From Obama’s Criticism

By Alex Seitz-Wald/Think Progress

Appearing on PBS last night with Charlie Rose, GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney suggested President Obama is risking the very prosperity of the country and the middle class when he criticizes Wall Street and insurance executives:

ROMNEY: He has been the most divisive president I’ve ever seen. He has attacked one American after another, one group after another. He creates these straw men and says that Republicans believe this terrible thing, and aren’t they awful. He went after insurance company executives, Wall Street, all these bad people he finds out there. Look, Americans are not going to be a powerful and vibrant economic engine with a powerful middle class if we attack one another.

Romney doesn’t seem to be concerned with whether there’s any merit to Obama’s criticisms or not; he objects to the mere fact that the president would criticize anyone. For instance, Romney’s defense ignores the fact that Wall Street helped cause the financial crisis and ensuring recession. Obama’s main “attack” on Wall Street was the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, which has hardly hurt the industry.

Of course, Romney himself made hundreds-of-million of dollars in a Wall Street-like investment company. Asked about that company, Bain Capital, later in the interview, Romney said that attacking Bain for laying off thousands of workers is almost tantamount to an attack on capitalism itself:

ROSE: Did you sometimes destroy jobs [at Bain]?

ROMNEY: I’m sure the administration will use every weapon they can think of, some will be accurate, some inaccurate. [But] if they attack the free-enterprise system and capitalism, I think they’ll find themselves on the short end of that argument. I am proud of the fact in the years when I was at the firm that I helped found, Bain capital, every investment we made was designed to grow the enterprise and make it more successfull.

Watch it:

The comments likely won’t help Romney beat the rap off being “Mr. 1 percent.”

ALEC Deems Kids Eating Rat Poison An ‘Acceptable Risk

By Marie Diamond and Scott Keyes/Think Progress

As ThinkProgress has been reporting for some time, the corporate front group American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been colluding with the billionaire Koch brothers to privatize government and eliminate environmental regulations that interfere with profits.

GOP legislators in many states have given ALEC free reign to write anti-health care reform and anti-environment legislation. Now, ALEC is fighting to kill Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules limiting the sale of rat poisons that pose a serious health threat to children and the ecosystem.

A top representative for the ultra-conservative group said kids eating rat poison is an “acceptable risk” that does not justify government intervention:

“There are certain levels of acceptable risk in society,” says Todd M. Wynn, director of the ALEC Energy, Environment, and Agriculture Task Force, in an interview about the EPA rules with the Heartland Institute’s Heartlander website. “And parents play an important role by weighing the potential risks and benefits of using a product.”

“Unfortunately, EPA expands its reach into the American economy more and more each and every year,” Wynn said. “This year it will be d-Con, but next year another useful product will be burdened by additional regulations or banned outright from the market.” [...]

Aaron Colangelo, an attorney for the NRDC…told the Center for Media and Democracy that “there is not an undue economic burden associated with reformulating these products,” pointing out that the rest of the industry had complied with the new rules without adverse economic impact. Additionally, he said, “the health care costs for treating these kids certainly outweigh the economic costs of reformulation.”

Wynn’s startling admission illustrates the extent to which ALEC is willing to sacrifice the health of Americans to advance their radical agenda. For decades, at least 12,000-15,000 children a yearhave become ill after accidentally touching or ingesting rat poison that’s spread in pellet form. Poisoned children experience internal bleeding, bloody urine, bleeding gums, and blood coming from their ears. Poor and minority children are disproportionately affected.

Exposure often occurs in settings outside parents’ control, and giving companies the option of voluntary adopting changes has done nothing to help. After thirteen years of studies, hearings, reports and legal battles, “the EPA announced in 2008 rodenticide manufacturers would havethree years to adopt limits on the sale of the products.”

For years, ALEC has successfully killed these kind of regulations on environmental toxins and pollutants on behalf of corporations. At their annual conference in New Orleans this year, ALECdistributed a pamphlet titled “The Many Benefits Of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment,” complete with pictures depicting happy wildlife and a healthy environment. Companies like Koch Industries, BP, WalMart, and others join forces to fund this little-known organization that works behind the scenes to fight the dirty battles that no corporation would want to be publicly associated with.

GOP Presidential Candidate Roemer: Romney Represents The 1 Percent And Gingrich Is Their Lobbyist

By Zaid Jilani/Think Progress

GOP presidential primary candidate and former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer has distinguished himself from the rest of the field by allying himself with the 99 Percent, visiting Occupy Wall Street and Occupy D.C., and running on a platform of attacking Big Money and special interest influence in politics.

This afternoon, during an appearance on MSNBC, Roemer took both the media and his opponents in the race to task. Roemer told MSNBC that he has yet to hear a single question from debate moderators about where the leading candidates are getting their money from. He also concluded that former Massachussetts Gov. Mitt Romney represents the 1 Percent and that Newt Gingrich is their lobbyist:

ROEMER: [Addressing MSNBC anchor] I have yet to hear a question from you political experts during the debate about where did you get your money?

(crosstalk)

ROEMER: I know, I didn’t mean to pick on you for it, I’m sorry. But I am passionate about this. Look, there is a difference between the one percent who rule the country and the ninety-nine who suffer their mistakes. I believe that Mitt Romney represents the one percent and I believe that Newt Gingrich is the lobbyist for the one percent.

Watch it:

The New Hampshire Union Leader editorial board agrees that Romney represents the 1 Percent, as publisher Joe McQuaid said his paper refused to endorse the former Massachusetts governor for this reason. Although he never registered as a lobbyist, Gingrich has had a long career as an influence peddler since leaving office, working for the ethanol industry, oil industry, health interests, and Information Technology companies, for starters.

MDP Releases New Video: Michigan Supreme Court Not On Your Side

From Michigan Democratic Party:

LANSING – The Republican Michigan Supreme Court isn’t on your side. Time and again the Court has ruled in favor of special interests like insurance companies, drug companies, and big banks over victims. The Michigan Democratic Party today released a new video citing cases in which the Court consistently ruled for these special interests.

“This is one of the most partisan special interest-controlled Courts in the country,” Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer said. “Just last week the Court favored corporations and the wealthy over seniors on tax issues and big banks over homeowners on foreclosures.”

“Four Republican Justices consistently rule in favor of big banks, insurance companies, oil companies, drug companies, polluters, and big corporations and their wealthy CEOs over victims and taxpayers,” added Brewer. “The Court rules for the special interests who fund the campaigns of the GOP Justices.”

“The people must take back the Court in 2012,” said Brewer. “We need to send the Court a message and tell these Justices, ‘we won’t stand for injustice.’ We’re confident once voters learn the truth about this Court, they will hold it accountable for these decisions and others at the polls next year.”

To watch the video, please click on the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmRHCrR8avY

Glenn Beck Tries To Vilify Wall Street Protests, Fails To Disclose His Coordination With Bank Lobbyists And Oil Barons

By Lee Fang/Think Progress

Since Fox News kicked Glenn Beck to the curb a few months ago, the largely forgotten radio blowhard has tried to shore up his radio listenership with a steady stream of authoritarian rhetoric. Increasingly, he is spending more and more time smearing the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations as a “shameless display ofmoral depravity.”

As Beck plays defense for billionaires and big banks, he conceals quite a bit to his listeners. Beck in fact works hand in hand with the same corporate lobbyists and plutocrats responsible for corrupting our political system:

– Glenn Beck Secretly Met With Koch Brothers And Right-Wing Corporate Executives In An Election Planning Event In 2010: In June 2010, Glenn Beck was the guest of honor at a major fundraising retreat convened by the billionaires Charles and David Koch. The meeting, which included hedge fund managers Cliff Asness, Steve Schwarzman, and Ken Griffin, as well as executives from Bank of America, JLM Investment, Allied Capital Corp, Amway, Bechtel, and other leading firms. The twice annual secret Koch gatherings discuss efforts to finance Tea Party front groups, like Americans for Prosperity. At the last such gathering, partipants discussed how Americans for Prosperity has been “designed” to elect Republican candidates.

– Glenn Beck Officially Partners With FreedomWorks, A Group Run By Lobbyist Dick Armey: In May 2010, Beck announced an official partnership with thelobbyist-run group FreedomWorks. Beck would help recruit for the organization, and in exchange the organization sponsored his show. In touting the priorities of FreedomWorks, Beck never disclosed that the group has a long history of generating fake support for Wall Street privatization schemes. Over the years, FreedomWorks has promoted the interests of the same Wall Street firms paying Armey as a lobbyist. As ThinkProgress has documented, FreedomWorks takes money from corporations and pushes policies that directly benefit their big business donors.

– Glenn Beck Partners With The Lobbying Association For AIG, JP Morgan, Chevron, Goldman Sachs, Dow Chemical: Beck has quietly developed a relationship with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the largest big businesslobby in the world that counts top firms like Goldman Sachs and Chevron asmembers. The Chamber pushed for the bank bailouts, demanded corporate tax cuts, successfully stopped Congress from acting on climate change, saidtaxpayers should pay for BP’s oil spill, and nearly killed both financial reformand health reform. Nevertheless, Beck has appeared as a speaker for Chamber fundraisers, welcomed Chamber lobbyists on his show, and pledged support for the Chamber’s crony capitalist agenda.

Beck, who owns a $27 million media company, a fancy Manhattan apartment with his own faceadorning the walls, and his own personalized Mercedes Benz, still cultivates an image of being a regular American guy. That’s why, unlike Rush Limbaugh, who is proud of his association with so-called country club Republicans, Beck never discloses or fully explains his relationship with lobbyists and people like the Koch brothers.

Beck’s smears against the 99 Percent Movement benefit the 1 Percent: rich media pundits like himself and his billionaire backers.