4
3
1
A synopsis of Franken's remarks in a recent speech to progressive legal scholars:
I don't think you need to be a lawyer to recognize that the Roberts Court has, consistently and intentionally, protected and promoted the interests of the powerful over those of individual Americans.
And you certainly don't need to be a lawyer to understand what that means for the working people who are losing their rights, one 5-4 decision at a time.
Tonight, I'd like to talk about how we got to this sad moment in American legal history -- because it didn't happen by accident.
Conservative activists -- led by the Federalist Society -- have waged a remarkably successful battle to re-shape our legal discourse, and thus our legal system.
TheRoberts Court has overturned two principles I believe are deeply ingrained in our Constitution, in our legal tradition, and in our American values.
First: Judicial restraint.
As I have noted repeatedly -- and in an increasingly exasperated tone of voice -- over the last few years, Justice Thomas has voted to overturn federal laws more often than Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer combined.
They haven't just been activists in their decisions, but also in their process.
In both Citizens United and Gross, the Court answered questions it wasn't asked, reaching beyond the scope of what they accepted for appeal to overturn federal laws the conservative wing didn't like.
What conservative legal activists are really interested in is this question: What individual rights are so basic and so important that they should be protected above a corporation's right to profit?
And their preferred answer is: None of them. Zero.
The Roberts Court has systematically dismantled the legal protections that help ordinary people find justice when wronged by the economically powerful.
In the Stoneridge decision, it stripped shareholders of their ability to get their money back from the firms that helped defraud them.
In the Conkright decision, it gave employers more leeway to deny workers their pension benefits.
1 | 2
