Our Rights, Our Future

Introducing The Civil Rights 2.0 Video Contest!

What are you and your generation doing for civil rights? The National Campaign To Restore Civil Rights wants to hear from people ages 16 to 25. To enter our contest:

1. Upload a video up to two minutes in length to YouTube.
2. Tag it "civilrights2.0"
3. Fill out of our registration form.
4. That's it!

Entries will be judged by a panel of celebrity judges, including MTV News Correspondent, and former America’s Next Top Model contestant, Kim Stolz, and award-winning filmmaker Stanley Nelson.

At stake are a trip to New York City and other great prizes! For more information, visit our contest homepage.

U.N. Rapporteur Visits America To Investigates Claims Of Racism

A U.N. representative recently concluded a three-week, eight-city tour of the United State to investigate claims of racial discrimination. The U.S. is a signatory of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Disparity, an international treaty that protects citizens from all forms of racial discrimination. The Campaign recently testified before the U.N. and issued a shadow report highlighting our government’s failure to comply with its treaty obligations, and criticizing the continued rollback of civil rights.

The U.N. dispatched an emissary, Doudou Diène—who has one of the best civil service titles, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Race Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance—to check out our allegations.

Do Supreme Court Justices Lie During Their Confirmation Hearings?

Social scientists have shown that there is little correlation between the statements Justices give at their confirmation hearings and their rulings once confirmed to the bench. The findings are detailed in the article "An Empirical Analysis Of The Confirmation Hearings Of The Justices Of The Rehnquist Natural Court," which found that confirmation statements and actual rulings simply aren't related. Promises made to Senators evaporate once the Justices reach the bench.

The National Campaign To Restore Civil Rights To Speak In Madison About The Era of Civil Rights Rollbacks and the Presidential Election

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 29, 2008

CONTACT: The National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights: Tanene Allison (212) 244-4664

MADISON, WI - February 29 –
On Wednesday, March 5, 2008, Cristóbal Joshua Alex, Campaign Coordinator of the National Campaign To Restore Civil Rights (NCRCR) will speak at the University of Wisconsin Law School about the Rollback of the Civil Rights Era and the role of the Presidential selection process in fighting for civil rights.

The National Campaign To Restore Civil Rights Testifies In Geneva At UN Hearing On US Race Record

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 20, 2008

CONTACT: The National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights - Tanene Allison (212) 244-4664

The National Campaign To Restore Civil Rights Reports On U.S. Violations of an International Treaty: Decrease of Effective Remedies and Access to the Courts To Enforce Civil Rights Violations

NEW YORK, NY- February 20 –

Today, The National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights (NCRCR) testified in Geneva at the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), bringing attention to the U.S. government’s failure to comply with its treaty obligations requiring it to ensure the availability of effective remedies for civil rights violations. NCRCR joined other civil society groups, in criticizing the U.S. government’s rollback of civil rights in the courts and submitted a “shadow” report to the Committee, documenting treaty violations that the U.S. ignored in its own report to the UN.

Every Wrong Shall Have a Remedy

"During the first two centuries of this Nation's history much of our law was developed by judges in the common-law tradition. A basic principle animating our jurisprudence was enshrined in state constitution provisions guaranteeing, in substance, that 'every wrong shall have a remedy.' Fashioning appropriate remedies for the violation of rules of law designed to protect a class of citizens was the routine business of judges."

The above quotation is from Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his dissenting opinion in this past Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling on third party liability in securities fraud.  The quote sets up the historic premise of the American court system: to ensure compensation for those harmed by another's injustice.  That the court is moving away from valuing our ability to seek a remedy is the essence of the 'rollback' of our rights.

At face value, a securities fraud case may not seem to have much to do with civil rights -- but in reality this is just another piece of the puzzle of our slowly-dissolving freedoms.  First we were told we couldn't sue for discrimination unless we could prove it was intentional, or only if a complaint had been filed within an impossible period of time.  Then women's reproductive rights took a big hit in Gonzales v. Carhart.  Now, investors who relied on false information when making financial decisions have been denied the capacity to seek damages from those who helped inflate the price of stock they purchased, which then plummeted.  In a gradual and very subtle way, Americans are coming to understand that big business is the only big winner, and that our individual rights are being rendered meaningless by the day.

You know things have reached a critical point when reporting by Fox Business News has you cheering and waving your fists.  In their coverage of the StoneRidge decision, they illustrate the changing face of the courts and its affect upon the average American:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the court is conducting a continuing campaign to render investors' rights to sue "toothless."

A liberal Supreme Court in 1971 endorsed investor lawsuits under antifraud provisions of securities law at issue in the current lawsuit.

Fourteen years ago, a more conservative Supreme Court imposed limits on such lawsuits, prohibiting cases against third parties for aiding and abetting a company's misstatements.

Amen.  So, back to facts.  What happened here, exactly?  And why does this case matter?

For those of us who don't traffic in financial legalese, a cable company named Charter Communications found that their finances were less-than-robust, so they struck a deal with two of their suppliers, Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta, which made it appear that they had earned $17 million more in revenue then in actuality.  When their scam was revealed and their stock crashed, angry investors went after Charter and followed up with a suit against Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta.  Before its appeal to the Supreme Court, the latter suit was dismissed by a lower court, as a 1994 decision had protected third parties from such litigation -- but that decision rested on the assumption that the third party as issue was innocent of wrongdoing.

Supreme Court Justice Breyer recused himself from consideration of the case because he owns stock in Cisco, which currently owns Scientific-Atlanta. In the resulting 5-3 ruling, according to Reuters:

The Supreme Court upheld a lower court's dismissal of the lawsuit. Justice Anthony Kennedy concluded for the court majority that federal securities law does not reach the companies because Charter investors did not rely on their statements or representations.

Kennedy said Scientific Atlanta and Motorola "had no duty to disclose; and their deceptive acts were not communicated to the public."

The shareholders cannot show reliance on any of the third parties' actions "except in an indirect chain that we find too remote for liability," he wrote.

He went further to say that allowing shareholders to pursue third parties "would expose a new class of defendants to these risks." "Overseas firms with no other exposure to our securities laws could be deterred from doing business here," he said.

While Justice Kennedy appears to have our best interests in mind, he fails to acknowledge that a new class of defendants exists because a new class of multinational corporations is employing a new class of deceptive tactics to expand their bottom line at the expense of everything and everyone else.  Tuesday's ruling has not only been cause for numerous champagne toasts in corporate America, it has provoked much speculation over whether or not this decision will doom those waiting for fair compensation in the massive Enron debacle from a few years ago.  Their case is still pending Supreme Court consideration.

I hear my baffled twenty-something self asking what has happened to our integrity as a nation. When exactly did the notion of democracy as government by and for the people become lip service?  While these are certainly questions worth considering, our energy is much better spent figuring out how we can reclaim the rights we've lost and re-envision the just society that our founders sought to establish.

 

The Rise of the Federalist Society and the Erosion of Justice

Cross-posted from The Huffington Post

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the nation's most important employment law--prohibiting discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. In 1991 Congress extended Title VII's protections beyond private employees to include state employees as well.

But two weeks ago a federal appeals court issued a technical ruling in Alaska v. EEOC holding that Congress overstepped its constitutional authority in extending Title VII's landmark civil rights protections to state workers. The case strikes a blow to tens of thousands of workers. Yet it is only one ruling in a string of decisions that have closed the courthouse doors on civil rights cases.

What may come as a surprise to some readers is that the case comes from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal court that has been decried by the right-wing as "liberal". Those on the right think these judges wear pink robes, live on the "left" coast and cause most of the problems in our society. The "Ninth Circus", they say, is "out of touch" with the rest of the country. There have been enormous efforts to appoint right-wing judges to the Ninth, as well as attempts to split the circuit in order to isolate California and the few remaining moderate judges. The efforts to pack the courts with right-wing judges paid off: the three judge panel in Alaska v. EEOC was split 2-1 with the two Republican appointees in the majority.

Stacking the federal courts with right-wing ideologues is drastically undermining the laws as we know them. Recall last term's decision in Ledbetter in which the 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court held that Ms. Ledbetter's Title VII suit was time barred because she didn't file her complaint within 180 days of the decision to pay her less than her male counterparts. Never mind that Ms. Ledbetter had no way of knowing that she was being discriminated against until she received an anonymous note after years of receiving lesser pay.

So, who is leading the charge in pushing right-wing appointments? A close look at recent appointments shows that the Federalist Society is at the center of these efforts. According to People for the American Way, "since its inception, the Federalist Society has played a key role in advancing the right-wing agenda. As an ideological proving ground for ultra-conservative activists, lawyers, and scholars, the Federalist Society has long served as a valuable professional network for those on the Right..." And what a network it is.

The Federalist Society

About a quarter of Bush's early judicial appointments were recommended by the Washington headquarters of the Society. In 2005, 15 of the 41 federal appeals court judges who were confirmed by the Senate identified themselves as members of the Society. Half of the Justice Department lawyers hired for the Civil Rights division were members of the Society. Other notable Federalist Society appointments include John Ashcroft, Gale Norton, Ted Olson, Michael Chertoff, and Justices Scalia, Roberts and Thomas.

In fact, the court-stacking has been so successful that last Friday the Society threw a great big fancy party celebrating their 25 years of triumph. Speakers included President Bush along with Society members Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas. As usual, the Society members complained bitterly about "activist" judges over their fois gras.

President Bush blasted the Senate over his "stalled" nominations to the federal courts and urged members of the Senate to capitulate. Never mind that 12 of 14 federal appellate courts are already dominated by judges appointed by him, his father and President Reagan. In fact, according to our partner the Alliance for Justice, 7 of 14 federal appellate courts are two-thirds or more Republican appointed. And these judges have an agenda.

The scariest part of the celebration came when Rudy Giuliani promised the Society even more "conservative" judges.

I'm going to give you 200 reasons why the next election is really important. It's the 200 federal judges that the next president of the United States will likely appoint over the four years in the White House.

According to Giuliani, his picks would be like Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts, the four most "conservative" justices. (I put conservative in quotes because these judges are anything but "conservative.") Giuliani's picks would oppose "racial quotas", thrust the 10 Commandments into public spaces, and require the words "Under God" be used in the Pledge of Allegiance. Not to mention overturn Roe v. Wade (forget about the fact that this man wears a dress). The not-so-diverse crowd at the Society celebration broke out in golf-claps that lasted minutes. Giuliani then gave a few of the Society members the secret handshake and took off to the next event.

When Will the Madness Stop?

So, with 426 days left in Bush's presidency, what's next for judicial appointments? One might think that not a lot can happen. After all, won't the Senate stop the courts from shifting even further to the right?

Not so. Progressives should be prepared to face a last push for right-wing nominees. Leslie Southwick's recent nomination is a case in point. Southwick's nomination was widely opposed by civil rights groups for his abysmal record on the rights of workers, people of color and the LGBT community, among others. But thanks to Republican Senator Dianne Feinstein (ignore the misleading "D" in her title), Southwick now has a lifetime appointment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

We can expect several more right-wing nominees. For example, President Bush recently nominated Steve A. Matthews for a Fourth Circuit seat. Mathews is a former state chapter president of the Federalist Society and, until he was nominated, served on the board of directors for the Landmark Legal Foundation, known for nominating Rush Limbaugh for a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. There are several others who fit the mold and we should pay close attention.

As a result of ideological appointments, the federal benches have shifted dangerously to the right. The courts are increasingly unavailable for the average person to enforce rights, like the state workers who now lack the protection of Title VII. The National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights is working with our partners to reverse this rollback and reclaim our courts.

Liveblogging from "Why We Can't Wait: Reversing the Retreat on Civil Rights"

The conference we've organized in cooperation with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the North Carolina Central University School of Law is in full swing, as this morning's opening session kicked off with a introductions by NCCU Law School Dean Raymond Pierce and LCCR President Wade Henderson.  The welcome session was geared towards showing that civil rights affect people's lives every day, and that the rollback of our civil rights has left many Americans unable to protect themselves against unlawful discrimination.  Two panelists told their stories: Lilly Ledbetter, of this year's Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Supreme Court case on employment discrimination, and Reverend Lois Dejean of the Gert Town Revival Initiative, Inc. in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Ledbetter spoke of the ordeal she went through after realizing that she was paid significantly less than the other male managers at the Goodyear tire manufacturing plant where she had worked for twenty years. Filing a lawsuit in 1998, Ledbetter was originally awarded $3 million in damages, but was then told that the cap for such damages was set at $300,000 - all before her case advanced to the Supreme Court this spring.  In a tight 5-4 ruling, the court said that Ledbetter was not eligible for any damages because she had not filed a complaint within the mandated time period from each unfairly low raise she had received.  As Goodyear walked away scot-free, Ledbetter has sworn to use her voice to advance the cause of civil rights in America, even recently giving testimony to a House committee that formulated new civil rights legislation that has is up for consideration in the Senate. While she cannot change the result of her own case, she can talk about those aspects of discrimination that we would not ordinarily think of as related to our rights. For example, the discrimination that Ledbetter faced changed not only the salary she used to support her family, but also directly affected the pension and retirement account that she will depend on in years to come.  She also spoke about the media attention she's gotten after the ruling, about how the mainstream television news stations requested that she bake a cake or serve tea and coffee while they were videotaping her in a questionable attempt to better define her gender role, a role she described by declaring proudly, "no man ever had to do my job for me."

Reverend Dejean spoke about the area in which she lives in New Orleans, neighborhood known as Gert Town, known before Hurricane Katrina as one of the most devastated neighborhoods in the country. After the hurricane, only 10% of previous residents have returned home, and those that have a constantly struggling for environmental justice, the drive to make their community safe and liveable. Dejean's neighborhood is overrun by toxic waste that floated in from a nearby plant, and she's been largely unable to get the EPA or other organizations to do any testing, even on playgrounds, let alone obtain the funding needed for revitalization.  Furthermore, she's watched that as the neighborhood is rebuilding, it is doing so in a way that guarantees the gentrification that will make the area inaccesible to former residents, by demanding minimum incomes and credit ratings.  Having traveled to areas rebuilt after tsunami damage, Dejean has come to wonder why the US government is so investing in funding revitalization abroad while it won't do it at home. Her experiences and efforts, including presentations to the United Nations, have helped ensure that issues of environmental justice are firmly tied in will civil and even human rights.

More later about the afternoon sessions!

Colbert Announces: What Does It Mean for the Courts?

Cristóbal Joshua Alex has a thought-provoking new piece up on The Huffington Post, copied here in order to spread awareness about this striking new development in the 2008 election.

Last night, National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights' staffers were on the set of The Colbert Report when Stephen Colbert officially announced that he would run for President of the United States of America. While the Campaign cannot officially endorse any person in the already crowded race, we can offer observations about how the next president, and Colbert in particular, may impact the courts, and our democracy.

Our research has thus far yielded very little on Colbert's view of the courts and civil rights. But he has expressed clear disdain for the U.S. Supreme Court. Colbert claimed on the Daily Show that he "has taken the decision to abolish the Supreme Court and since [he] is God there is nothing you can do to stop me!" Why he would abolish the Court is one of the questions we'd like to ask him.

Colbert was also quick to attack the Court for its decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, striking down the military tribunals for Guantanamo Bay detainees as violative of U.S. and international law. Colbert stated that it was "gutless" for SCOTUS to hand down this decision and then ditch town.

Some also question Colbert's close relationship with Justice Scalia. At last year's White House press briefing, Colbert stated:

Justice Scalia is here. Welcome, sir. May I be the first to say, you look fantastic. How are you? [After each sentence, Colbert made a hand gesture, an allusion to Scalia's recent use of an obscene Sicilian hand gesture in speaking to a reporter about Scalia's critics. Scalia is seen laughing hysterically.] Just talking some Sicilian with my paisan.

The question on our minds is what kind of judges would Colbert appoint? Would he appoint judges in the mold of Scalia and Alito? And what about his attorney general? Would Colbert appoint Bill O'Reilly for that position to improve morale? These are important questions Colbert and his close advisors -- rumored to include Karl Rove, Pat Robinson and Beelzebub -- need to address.

There are also concerns about Colbert's openness, and whether his administration would be more transparent than others. Colbert raised red flags when he was banned from Wikipedia. Those concerns only grew following his recent New York Times column in which he wrote, "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream is driving a bulldozer into The New York Times while drinking crude oil out of Keith Olbermann's skull." Colbert seems to share that dream, as do many others on the extreme-right.

We hope that Colbert will explain his vision for the Court and our civil rights soon. But if his past comments and associations are indicative, we can expect him to attempt to dissolve the Court. And the Congress. And the media (starting with the Times).

If so, Colbert would essentially be offering more of the same right-wing ideology, which could hurt his chances in the early primary states of Nevada and South Carolina. Perhaps recognizing his vulnerability among voters of color and elderly voters, Colbert announced that he will run as both a Republican, and a Democrat. Whether this sudden about-face is successful is a question the voters will soon answer.

Campaign on The Huffington Post: Justice Kennedy Speaks on the Eve of the 2007 Term

Last Wednesday, Justice Anthony Kennedy spoke at the Economics Club of New York. Justice Kennedy's speech and responses to questioning offered a unique insight into the most crucial member of the Court. He discussed California's three-strike laws--the federal version of which is being challenged before the Court tomorrow--punitive damage awards, criminal sentencing, and several other controversial topics.

The Campaign has a recap of Justice Kennedy's speech on The Huffington Post.  We invite you to read it and post your comments.