Obama Admininstration Changes Sides, Backs Shell in Supreme Court Case

[woo me with science]

Please read the entire article. This is extremely disturbing.


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/25-0

Obama Admininstration Backs Shell in Supreme Court Case
by Puck Lo

The Obama administration is backing Shell Oil after abruptly changing sides in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that could make it even more difficult for survivors of human rights abuses overseas to sue multinational corporations in federal courts. The case will be heard on October 1.

Lawyers at EarthRights International, a Washington-based human rights law nonprofit, say they suspect that a new legal submission - which was signed only by the U.S. Justice Department - reflects tensions inside the government on how to deal with multinational corporations do business in the U.S. Significantly, neither the State nor the Commerce Department signed on to the brief, despite their key roles in the case.

"It was shocking," Jonathan Kaufman EarthRights legal policy coordinator commented to Reuters. "The brief was largely unexpected, based on what they had filed previously, and pretty breathtaking."

At issue is the Alien Torts Claim Act (ATCA) - an 18th century U.S. law originally designed to combat piracy on the high seas - that has been used during the last 30 years as a vehicle to bring international law violations cases to U.S. federal courts.

....

[spanone]

1. there's obviously differing opinions within the administration...

Significantly, neither the State nor the Commerce Department signed on to the brief, despite their key roles in the case.

[msanthrope]

2. No...that's the writer's utter ignorance of legal matters.

The DOJ amicus wouldn't be joined by parties.

When a case involves the United States, the DOJ is ordered by the court to brief on the issue, or The Question Presented. Often, as in this case, the merits of the claim are not addressed by the amicus, but the DOJ is giving an opinon on the applicable law.

[enough]

3. Can you explain, does this mean you don't think the headline is correct?

I'm not arguing, just needing some further explanation.