The best Supreme Court that money can buy ... Republican appointees perform like "plutocratic hacks" ... Electoral spending and voting laws ... Latest torture news ... Drone killings prompt civil cases for wrongful deaths ... Bush lawyer urges repeal of "Hague Invasion Act" ... Roger Fitch reports from Washington
US Supremes - sponsored (from 2010)
THE Supreme Court has completed its 2011 term.
The biggest decision was announced the last day, when Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was upheld.
Originally a Republican plan, the ACA - now detested by Republicans - was upheld (in NFIB v Sebelius) when Chief Justice John Roberts joined the "liberals" and wrote the majority opinion supporting the Act.
It seems the CJ switched sides at the last moment, and according to one source, Roberts wrote both opinions -the majority as well as parts of the dissent written before he changed sides.
Law prof David Cole tells why Roberts crossed the floor.
One observer said it showed Justice Anthony Kennedy had finally thrown in his lot with the radicals on the right - Scalia, Thomas and Alito.
Harper's Scott Horton could only lament the latest example of America's politicized judiciary.
The LA Times examined the CJ's changed approach this term.
In a wide-ranging TV interview, Justice Scalia denied there had been a falling out over the Chief Justice's departure from script.
In the view of Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Roberts has finally made the court his own; for Balkinblog, it marks the start of a new generational cycle.
In its decision, the court did allow states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion without penalty to their present participation, and some states may take this action.
The more anarchic Republican governors are threatening to refuse the money and leave their citizens uninsured.
Not to be outdone, the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives voted - for the 33rd time - to repeal the ACA, an action that inspired one Washington Post columnist to call it "the worst Congress ever".
Having failed in repeal, Republicans are now plotting novel court challenges.
* * *
IN the same week as the ACA decision, the Supreme Court struck down almost all of Arizona's odious anti-immigrant laws, but left standing the "show-me-your-papers" provision.
Justice Antonin Scalia indulged himself freely in political comments in the Arizona case, leading to heavy criticism and even a suggestion he should resign.
The Supreme Court has become so conservative this term that some claim it represents only "the 1%". Jim Hightower bluntly calls the Republican appointees, "plutocratic hacks".
It's also a lazy court. Final statistics for the 2011 term are out and they reveal that the court made only 65 merits decisions - the lowest in 20 years. Even so, there were "sleepers" among them.
Here's a brief review of the 2011 term.
One of the most notorious cases, decided in the last days of the term, was the Montana case (see previous post) in which the court's Republican bloc freed corporations' political donations from all state regulation.
For former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean it's just further proof the Republicans are willing to buy political power at any price - and any cost to American democracy.
After Citizens United, Democrats can only propose disclosure requirements for corporate campaign cash.
Even those efforts are blocked, specially when the armed-and-dangerous National Rifle Association threatens political death for any senator who supports them.
Nimble corporations can always avoid disclosure by laundering their campaign contributions through non-profits.
As for elections themselves, Australians - compelled to vote - must be amazed by the trouble American states take to stop citizens voting.
There's a new poll tax, the photo ID card, that Republicans hope will prevent millions - mostly the poor and minorities, who favour Democrats - from voting.
Texas challenged a ruling that its voter identification law violates the federal Voting Rights Act in a special three judge DC court, and any appeal goes directly to the Supremes.
* * *
Torture - classified
GUANTÁNAMO'S anomalous military commissions are back in the news, with motions hearings. The media wants access to the commission of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, which the government wants closed .
The government successfully claimed Mr Nashiri himself couldn't attend the hearings. They're likely to concern torture, and everything about that, including the defendant's own statements, is classified and, needless to say, he lacks a security clearance.
It may be classified, but Nashiri's torture is no secret, having been verified by the CIA Inspector General. Currently, the European Court of Human Rights is waiting for Poland to produce documents showing the basis on which Mr Nashiri has been granted "injured person" status in the Polish investigation of his claims of mistreatment in a secret CIA prison in that country.
* * *
PRESIDENT Obama's love affair with killer drones is the subject of an extended new Esquire piece, The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama.
The article is timely: the families of three American citizens assassinated on Obama's orders are suing in DC for wrongful death. The suit is against officials such as the defence secretary and CIA director - it seems a sitting president is immune from such civil suits.
One of the plaintiffs, Nasser Awlaki, sued in 2010 to prevent his son Anwar's imminent assassination, but the DC district court found he lacked standing to bring the case. Anwar himself had standing, but he would have been killed if he'd come out of hiding to contest his (extrajudicial) death warrant.
This time, Nasser senior has no problem with standing: he represents an estate. Is something wrong here? Joanne Mariner thinks so.
A few academics, eg, Lawfare's Robert Chesney, accept the claim there's a war in Yemen, justifying the suspension of human rights law and substitution of the law of armed conflict.
Even so, can it be said these assassinated Americans - a fiery preacher, a magazine editor and a 16 year old boy -were directly participating in hostilities?
Absent DPH, why wouldn't such killings violate the federal foreign murder statute?
Andy Worthington has more on the shocking killing of Anwar Awlaki's teenage son, two weeks later and hundreds of miles away from the spot where the two adults were killed.
* * *
AT least there was one encouraging development for world peace in June. John Bellinger, Bush State Department legal adviser, says it's time to repeal the US Congressional jest popularly known as the "Hague Invasion Act".
That's the Act where the US claims the right to attack any country that cooperates with the International Criminal Court by e.g. handing over to the ICC those Americans charged with war crimes.