PFAW Questions for ALL Supreme Court nominees--add yours

[yurbud]

They had a lot more than this (20), so I just put the first couple that I think are least likely to be covered, relating to corporate power and rights. Our senators seem to be forgetting the big picture of what the Bush regime is all about. The religous right is window dressing for the rubes. The war and torture is a symptom. The disease is withering the state so the corporation can stand uncontested as the institution of this century.

I would add to this list therefore Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad.

The Greens have this analysis on their website:

The case itself was not about corporate personhood, although many before it had been, and the Court had ruled that corporations were not persons under the 14th Amendment. Santa Clara, like many railroad cases, was about taxes. Before the Court delivered its decision, the following statement is attributed to Chief Justice Waite:

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.

The statement appeared in the header of the case in the published version, and the Court made its ruling on other grounds. How this statement appeared in the header of the case is a matter of some mystery and competing theories, but because it was later cited as precedent, corporate personhood became the accepted legal doctrine of the land.

http://www.greens.org/s-r/35/35-19.html

I would ask the nominee whether granting corporations personhood has led to an unhealthy consolidation of power in the hands of the few, and if a headnote added after the fact should be used as precedent with such far-reaching power.

EXCERPTS:


Property Rights vis-à-vis Individual Rights

What is your view of property rights vis-à-vis individual rights? Were the post-Lochner cases correctly decided?
(Justice Thomas answered similar questions.)

In the Lochner era of the early 20th century, the Supreme Court struck down laws regulating minimum wages, working hours and conditions, worker protections, and improper business practices, all in the name of protecting private property or freedom of contract. Since 1937, the Supreme Court has abandoned this radical view that elevates property rights to the same level as individual rights - and has thus allowed Congress to pass laws protecting the environment, promoting affordable housing, preventing discrimination, and accomplishing other important objectives. More recently, right-wing advocates and judges like Bush nominee Judge Janice Rogers Brown have tried to revive the radical Lochner-era property rights theory. Accordingly, answers to questions on this topic will be critical in the upcoming hearings.
Incorporation Doctrine


In what ways (if any) do corporations' free speech rights differ from the free speech rights of individuals?
(Justice Breyer answered a similar question.)

Under decades of Supreme Court jurisprudence, commercial speech is entitled to less protection than noncommercial speech. If the Supreme Court were to expand protection of commercial speech, as Justice Thomas has advocated, many health and safety regulations and consumer protection laws could be in jeopardy.


Civil Liberties

• Was the Baker v. Carr “one-person-one-vote” case correctly decided?
  
  
• Was Miranda v. Arizona, the case requiring police to notify suspects of their right to counsel and their right to remain silent before interrogating them, correctly decided?
  
  
• Was Skinner v. Oklahoma, the case in which the court overturned an Oklahoma law requiring forced sterilization of certain felons, correctly decided?
  
  
• What is your view of Korematsu v. U.S., the case in which the court upheld the detention of Japanese-Americans during World War II?
  
  
• Was Gideon v. Wainwright, the case that established the right of an indigent defendant to a court-appointed attorney, correctly decided?
  
  
• Was the Dred Scott v. Sandford case upholding slavery correctly decided?
  
  
• Was New York Times v. Sullivan, the case in which the court held that statements about public officials were not libelous unless made with actual malice, correctly decided?
  

These questions have been asked at several confirmation hearings, and have been answered variously by Justices Souter, Thomas, Kennedy, and Breyer, and nominee Bork.

http://www.savethecourt.org/site/c.mwK0JbNTJrF/b.983525/k.53BA/20_Questions_for_a_Nominee.htm