Elizabeth Warren warns: Corporations are taking over the courts with GOP’s help

[Playinghardball]

The same corporate interests who have taken over control of Congress are now gaining control of U.S. courts, warned Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

Warren told a gathering Sunday at the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California that too many federal judges have been drawn in recent years from the ranks of corporate lawyers and federal prosecutors.

“For the courts to be a level playing field it’s critical that the judges presiding over these playing fields have the kind of knowledge and experience that helps them understand the full range of the issues they will confront,” Warren said. “They need to be the best and brightest practitioners of law in this country, drawn from every corner of the profession.”

“But if that’s the goal, we are in real trouble,” she continued. “Look closely at the composition of the federal bench today, and you’ll see a striking lack of professional diversity among the lawyers who currently serve as federal judges.”

She said President Barack Obama had nominated just 11 judges with a background in working with indigent clients, but she said his nominees had not been diverse enough.

“(Even after the filibuster rules change) nearly ¾ of president’s nominees have been lawyers who have had significant corporate law practice in the private sector, spending years representing those whose voices are already plenty loud and already heard in government,” Warren said.

“Our courts cannot provide a level playing field without judges who know what it’s like to represent a family about to lose a home because someone sold them a mortgage that was designed to explode,” she said, “or represented a teenager accused of a crime because he was walking down the wrong street on the wrong night or represented an employee tossed out of a job for saying that employees should unionize or represented a customer that got ripped off by a big company and can’t afford the cost or a court fight.”

More and see the video at: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/elizabeth-warren-warns-corporations-are-taking-over-the-courts-with-gops-help/

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

1. Taking..... nt

[polichick]

2. k&r for truthtelling!

[Fred Sanders]

3. Appointment of judges is a prize for elected Preidents that the GOP and their media would also deny.

[badtoworse]

4. Pro-Bono work. A technical term meaning Ramen Noodles for dinner.

I doubt there are that many attorneys with the qualifications she described that are qualified to be judges.

[ArcticFox]

13. Why?

That attitude is why the people have so little influence over their lives. There are plenty of good lawyers representing indigent and other "little people." There is nothing about corporate law that specially qualifies a person to be a judge.

[badtoworse]

19. How many cases involving the indigent present a federal issue?

How many lawyers that do a lot of the cases she described have experience in the federal courts?

[belzabubba333]

5. oh but i need something to vote for - there's nothing to vote for

im gonna sit on my couch and not vote cause there's nothing to vote for says a bunch of .....

[Bandit]

31. We will see if they are worth voting for. There is a month left for them to appoint

as many judges as possible, without the threat of a fillibuster. I will bet you a dollar to a donut that not a single judge gets appointed.. If that turns out to be the case does your argument still hold up..There are still more than sixty vacancies and Republicans can't stop the Democrats but........

[belzabubba333]

33. why should dems pols do antything for democrats who wont get off their asses and vote

[Bandit]

34. They should not be Governing for Democrats but for America

There are sixty four vacancies on the federal Court that need to be filled. It isn't Democrats that need them filled it is America. Your argument sounds very shallow.

[rhett o rick]

6. Someone with these concerns is what we need for our next president. HRC does not have these

concerns. A vote for HRC is a vote for the 1%. Who's side are you on?

[stonecutter357]

7. .

[rhett o rick]

8. Is that the best you can do?

[stonecutter357]

9. will you be voting for the democratic nominee for president?

[cascadiance]

10. Who's your pick for one of the four college playoff teams this year?

That's the same kind of question you are just posing. Just as meaningless to what matters in our lives if who we nominate only cares about winning and not to work for us while in office.

[ArcticFox]

16. I won't vote for Hillary

I'm fed up with most of these "democrats." They've so ineffectual, so passive, that I can only conclude they have no intention of making my life, our that of anyone who works for a living, one iota better.

[florida08]

20. Neither will I

I am suppose to vote for anyone they put up regardless how much they lean right? Don't think so

[NorthCarolina]

23. ^^THIS^^

My thoughts exactly.

[rhett o rick]

25. Do you support Goldman-Sachs over the people of this country?

[stonecutter357]

30. .

[rhett o rick]

35. You really don't have anything to add to the discussion do you?

And the attempts at being rude with the emoticon is childish.

[stonecutter357]

41. some on here should be ashamed of themselves.

[rhett o rick]

42. I agree. Why are you here? nm

[stonecutter357]

43. because i am a democrat

And you.

[rhett o rick]

44. That isn't a reason. I am here to discuss political issues. It's looking like you

are here with a different agenda.

[Enthusiast]

17. You are 100% correct.

Pay no attention to the ROTFL guy.

[rhett o rick]

26. All he's got is a rude emoticon. nm

[florida08]

18. I absolutely agree

People are sick sick sick of corporate shills. This is why they think dems are the same as republicans

http://www.examiner.com/article/both-parties-are-definitely-not-the-same-dispelling-the-myth

[Spazito]

29. Okay, say Elizabeth Warren runs and is elected as President...

then what? If Democratic voters don't show up to vote for Democrats in House and Senate races, President Warren will be limited to vetos, Executive Orders or making deals with the opposition, the republicans.

What do you think President Warren will do when Congress, both the House and the Senate, are controlled by repubs, what do you think she could accomplish?

[rhett o rick]

36. My hope is if we get someone like Sen Warren to run and speak out, other

Democratic politicians might join in. And if we have someone that tells it like it is, maybe people will actually listen. What was the Democratic party's message in this last election? "We aren't as bad as Republicans, honest."

[Spazito]

37. Do you expect a sea change in the quality of Democratic candidates for the...

2016 election if Elizabeth Warren runs to become the Democratic candidate for President? If so, would not the work to find those candidates have already started given the amount of money needed, thanks to Citizens United, the need to garner name recognition, etc? If the work remains undone and the 2016 Democratic candidates remain 'undesirable' to those who sat out this last midterm, would those non-voters hold their nose and vote for those Senate and House candidates as well as voting for Elizabeth Warren should she be the chosen Presidential candidate for the Democrats? Would the non-voters come out to vote for Elizabeth Warren and, because of what they might perceive as 'third-way', DINOs, etc., leave their ballot blank when it comes to casting a vote for them?

[rhett o rick]

38. You have a lot of questions. Do you have opinions? nm

[Spazito]

39. Yes, yes I do...

Electing the most progressive President one could envision will do nothing if that progressive President's party doesn't control at least the Senate or the House, preferably both but the House looks to be a slimmer chance than the Senate, providing those who are going to vote for that progressive President also vote in enough Democrats to gain back control.

Given the above, if those who didn't show up this month to vote in the midterms show up and only vote for the progressive Presidential candidate and refuse to hold their noses to vote for Senate and House candidates that don't meet the criteria those who chose not to vote this month put forward then electing Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders to the position of President puts them in the position having only three options to work with; vetos (which can be overturned with a 2/3rds vote by Congress), Executive Orders which are both severely limited Constitutionally and temporary as the next President can promptly rescind or make deals with the opposition. None of these options, I am sure those options would not be welcomed by just about anyone.

Bottom line, sometimes one has to hold their nose and vote for the less desirable candidates in order to gain in the big picture context.

I have now given you my opinion, I hope you now feel more comfortable and can offer your responses to the questions I posited in the previous post.

[rhett o rick]

40. Thank you. I agree that a progressive president isn't enough but it's a great start.

Electing H. Clinton-Sachs would be suicide for the 99%. I hope a progressive president would get the ball rolling.

[blkmusclmachine]

11. Well..Reid and Obama just pre-capitulated 2015-2016 to the GOP today, just like the 1% wants them to

And now, on to make the DEM brand absolutely toxic for the next election...

[Zorra]

12. K&R

[glinda]

14. ya think?

[Dustlawyer]

15. A little late and incomplete! How about all of the elected judges? Do you know how much campaign

contributions they get from all of the corporate and insurance defense firms? It dwarfs any money the Trial Bar can spend. The deck has been stacked for years. Yes, Obama appoints corporate defense attorneys to the Federal Bench and has for the last 6 years!
Having practiced for 25 years, I hate to say, but there is very little Justice taking place in America's courthouses!
What about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce starting courthouse newspapers and putting them outside of the jury assembly rooms for free? They make every plaintiff case seem like either a fraudulent or frivolous case. They have 5 or 6 of these papers so far, such as the South East Texas Record or the Louisiana Record. Check them out online and look at the editorial/opinion sections. The Chamber secretly owns them.

[heaven05]

21. my question is

why can't we stop it, we being those democrats in national leadership position. We down here on the ground can't even get out and vote. Nothing new about sen. warrens warning, wtf do we do about it?

[heaven05]

22. by the responses here

there is a terrible 'drift' going on. Our party is seen as ineffectual at the least and out and out bought off by they corporations. What are we down here on the ground to do to get out of these political doldrums/quagmire?

[Initech]

24. If corporations get control of the courts, America is done as a country.

We will officially have descended into totalitarian fascism at that point. It will be the point of no return, they will have won. We can't let that happen.

[kelliekat44]

32. What do you mean by "if?" Check out the facts and how judges are appointed all over.

This is why state and local elections are so damn important!

[riversedge]

27. Money took over the SC in Wisconsin

[Thinkingabout]

28. Does anyone here familiar with how judges names are submitted to be nominated?

For those who "did not have anything to vote for", one of the consequences of elections is having Congressional members submitting names of judges to the president to be nominated. With the major of Congress Republican guess whose names are going to be submitted, Republicans. Don't like Republicans controlling courts, vote the Republicans out of office. Now this is something which is on going. Frankly I am surprised Warren did not point out this fact.