CAC's Tom Donnelly joined the Rev. Al Sharpton on his show "Keepin' it Real" to discuss America's Second Founding and the celebration of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to our Constitution.
You are here
The administration’s action was unquestionably lawful, but the families that should be benefitting from the president’s action are still waiting for answers from the nation’s legal system. It’s time for the Fifth Circuit to rule. These families may not get the answers they want from that court, but they should get it from the nation’s highest court.
With perfect timing, Jeffery Rosen of the National Constitutional Center and Tom Donnelly of the Constitutional Accountability Center are announcing a Second Founding Initiative that will undertake a five-year discussion to commemorate the 150th anniversaries of the key moments of those crucial years.
“I think what’s at stake is whether the Supreme Court will give corporations a powerful tool to defeat class action lawsuits, and defeat them in the context where they’re most important,” commented David Gans of the Constitutional Accountability Center.
Brianne Gorod, an appellate lawyer with the Constitutional Accountability Center in Washington D.C., said she predicts the court to rule against Florida because the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of juries. "This idea that a simple majority is sufficient to recommend the state's harshest sanction is really at odds with that," said Gorod, who worked on a brief in support of Hurst.
"They didn't adopt all of his reasoning but reached sort of a similar result to what Kavanaugh had suggested in his dissent from rehearing below," said Tom Donnelly of the Constitutional Accountability Center. "At the time, I thought there's this weird way in these environmental cases where Kavanaugh serves as almost an auxiliary solicitor general, where he can -- for the conservative justices on the court -- signal these cases might be of interest to them," he said.
As we mark the end of Roberts’ first decade and look ahead to the start of his second, one thing seems clear: there will always remain some cases in which it will be easy to predict the chief justice’s vote, but there will also be some in which no one should count him out. That combination of rulings is unlikely to win Roberts many friends with partisans on either side of the aisle. But that’s probably fine with this chief justice. And it’s certainly good for the Supreme Court.
Judith Schaeffer, acting president of the Constitutional Accountability Center noted that live audio of arguments are broadcast into the court’s lawyers’ lounge. “There’s no legitimate reason for the court not to share that with the public,” she added. “It doesn’t require new technology or cameras—just somebody with authority to turn that switch on. For the court to take a step like this instead of dealing with the real issue is mindboggling to me.”
As Chief Justice John Roberts celebrates ten years at the helm of our Nation’s High Court, there’s little question that the Roberts Court’s five-to-four ruling in Citizens United v.
In summary, the center's conclusion is: Over the course of his tenure on the court, Roberts has sought to move the law sharply to the right, always on the lookout for cases he can use as vehicles to make clear that the law should be colorblind and to cut back on civil rights laws designed to redress our nation's long history of racial discrimination.
Several groups have aligned with the Legislature in the state Supreme Court, including Free Speech for the People, a leading campaign finance reform group; the Center for State and Local Government Law; and the Washington, D.C.-based Constitutional Accountability Center.
David Gans, a lawyer with the left-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center, said the Roberts court is still a conservative one with a history of right-leaning decisions. The justices’ series of rulings siding with liberals, he said, may have had more to do with the overreach of conservative activists, who were making strident claims before the court that a majority of the justices felt compelled to reject.