Politics McDermott Taking it to the Supremes
posted by on July 6 at 13:33 PM
Seattle Congressman Jim McDermott is taking his long-running legal battle, which I wrote about here, all the way to the United States Supreme Court.
From his office:
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) announced today that he will petition the U.S. Supreme Court (called a petition for certiorari) to review his First Amendment case.McDermott’s decision comes after a split decision recently by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Boehner v. McDermott. Hearing the case en banc, the nine judge court voted 5-4 in favor of First Amendment protections in one aspect of the case, but voted 5-4 against Rep. McDermott’s First Amendment protections.
“With all due respect to the Court of Appeals, the constitutional issues involved here are much too important to be confused by a split decision,” McDermott said. “The protections afforded all Americans by the First Amendment have been placed on a very slippery slope by this decision. By taking away my First Amendment protections, the decision endangers freedom of speech and the press across America,” McDermott added.
I wish the man luck, but it's going to be an uphill battle with this right-wing court.
They'll probably accept the case because they're excited about getting a good square shot at the First Amendment.
he's going to lose. the fix is in.
Sadly, Exelizabeth has it exactly right. None of us, least of all McDermott, should expect a decision from this court that upholds civil liberties over right wing privilege. I'd be willing to bet that we already know the results of the case. 5-4 against McDermott. Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy in the majority.
The double irony in all of this is that the court, which will doubtlessly side against McD for using an unapproved wiretap, just UPHELD the NSA's rights to use wireless wiretapping. Better not look for justice from this court.
In other Supreme Court news:
Supreme Court Renames Self, Resegregates
There was a party atmosphere at the end of the Supreme Court's session yesterday. A jubilant rightwing majority, represented by Justice Alito, made three dramatic announcements concerning the future makeup and direction of the court:
A. Effective immediately the Supreme Court will be renamed the Supremacist Court of the United States. The vote to rename was 5-4.
B. The first obligation of the Supremacist Court declared Justice Alito was resegregation. A colorblind Court should never elevate jurists to its bench simply by reason of their color. Since Justice Thomas had undeniably been nominated by George Bush Sr. because of his race: A. to fill the seat vacated by Thurgood Marshall and B. to dare the Democrats to reject him after their rejection of Robert Bork, he should be removed forthwith from the bench.
Justice Thomas fully concurred citing 'extensive and incontrovertible evidence' that the Framers' 'original intent' had been an all-white all-male Court. "The idea that a black man can sit on this bench purely by virtue of his race is beyond outrageous - it is laughable. Imagine the Framers' condoning such an absurdity..."
In reply Justice Alito thanked Justice Thomas for his 'extraordinary sacrifice for true conservatism' pointing out that the new 'original intent' precedent which required removing him, would also require removing Justice Ginsburg. Over her heated objections the Court then voted 5-4 to remove Justice Ginsburg from the Court. When order was restored, the court proceeded to vote 5-3 to remove Justice Thomas, with Justice Thomas voting for his own removal.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-hendra/supreme-court-renames-sel_b_54477.html
I'm, uh, going to go out on a limb here and say the ruling will be 5-4 against McDermott. In fact, more generally, give me any case and I'll guess the result will be 5-4 against anything that is good and decent. And usually I'll be correct.
What a huge betrayal of all his fundraising base. He does nothing but plead for money supposedly to combat the VRWC attacks, then assured another loss he plods on, solely on his own accord spending even more money on this long-ago lost quest to be proven right.
Jim, you're a darling to us all, but you're painfully a loser when it comes to this case. please give it up!
No sure thing these days, but there are still 5 votes on the court for the position equivalent to McDermott's in the Bartnicki case. (Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens, Kennedy)
Any and all and more could potentially take offense at the DC Circuit's torturous twisting of the last SCOTUS decision ... plus, they'll be P.O.'d to see this thing again ... not to mention the interbranch issues raised by the Circuit's peculiar employment of the House Ethics Cmte letter.
It'll be a hell of a fight, no question about it.
Calvin @ 6:
Jim's raising money to pay for the damages that he'll be forced to pay Boehner if the Supreme Court rules against him -- in addition to paying his legal bills. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't know why you would.
calvin seems misinformed ... on everything.
It's an important fight. Jim has won some rounds (including 6-3 last time at SCOTUS), lost others (never by more than a one-vote margin). His prospects are excellent. And the fundraising base has been champing at the bit to hear this declaration.
I'd put a hundred down that he loses 5-4, if I had a hundred to bet. It's what gamblers call "a lock."
-
Hey Eli - thanks so much for reposting the link to your 2006 article. I missed it that time round and, probably like most people, didn't know anything about the case. Please continue to fill us in as things unfold!
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).