Bad Deeds for 1-16-2012

 

The Republican Party’s History With Martin Luther King, Jr. Day – Today, we celebrate the life of a truly great man, who — armed only with his bravery and powerful words — brought Jim Crow to its knees. It’s also important to remember that the political heirs of those who created and enforced Jim Crow for a century — Southern conservatives — who are now running the Republican Party. And that’s why it’s easy to understand why the fiercest opposition to making MLK Day a national holiday was the Republican Party and Conservatives.

The last Republican candidate for president opposed it.
“Mr. Conservative” (Barry Goldwater) voted against the holiday.
Ron Paul voted against the bill that created the holiday — twice.
77 of the 90 nay votes in final bill in the House were cast by Republicans.
18 of the 22 nay votes in the final bill in the Senate were cast by Republicans.
And the Greatest American in the History of America, Ronald “States’ Rights” Reagan, only reluctantly signed the bill into law because it arrived on his desk with veto-proof majorities. Before he signed it, he said, “Congress seemed bent on making it a national holiday.”

That doesn’t sound like an endorsement.

 

Bank Attempting to Foreclose on Church Hit By Tornado in Dr. Martin Luther King’s Old Neighborhood – BB&T bank is attempting to foreclose on one of the oldest churches in Dr. Martin Luther King’s old Atlanta neighborhood. The Higher Ground Empowerment Center church was forced to take out a loan when a tornado devastated the property in 2008. BB&T bank has repeatedly ignored and refused requests to modify the church’s loan. All this while the bank benefited from a $3.1 billion bailout from the American people. Sign the petition to help stop this foreclosure and demand a fair loan modification for the historic church.

 

Supreme Court Hands Down More Decisions Favoring Wealthy Businesses Over the Rights of Everyday Americans – The Supreme Court has handed down more rulings that continue the pro-corporate pattern long established by Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative majority. From AT&T to Wal-Mart, the Court has consistently favored the interests of wealthy businesses over the rights of everyday Americans.

Alliance for Justice’s recent report, How the Corporate Court Bends the Law to Favor the 1% (.pdf download), shows how the Court has not only strained to reach its pro-corporate decisions, but has actively sought out cases that can expand corporate power:

 

Supreme Court Finds No Federal Remedy for Constitutional Violations by Private Prison Contractors – Already unable to sue the private companies that operate many prisons, prisoners under the Court’s new ruling cannot sue employees of those corporations in federal court for misconduct. The Supreme Court issued its decision on Jan 10th in Minneci v. Pollard (.pdf download), holding that employees of a private corporation operating a federal prison may not be held liable under federal law for committing constitutional violations. In so doing, the Court has left the 16% of the federal prison population that resides in privately-run facilities without a federal remedy when their jailers violate their constitutional rights.

Richard Lee Pollard was incarcerated in a federal prison in Taft, California. The prison was operated under contract by a private company, Wackenhut Corrections Corp. (now part of the Geo Group). In April 2007, Pollard tripped over a cart that had been left in the hallway, fell, and broke both of his elbows. Prison employees forced him to use his broken arms in painful ways, refused to provide the splints recommended by his doctors, and made him engage in prison tasks before his injuries had healed. The Supreme court says, tough luck, there’s nothing you can do about it.

 

Supreme Court Rules Once Again That Big Business May Force Arbitration – The Court decided that a “right to sue” doesn’t actually mean “a right to sue in court.” The Supreme Court issued its decision in CompuCredit v. Greenwood (.pdf download), ruling once again that corporations may force individual consumers to arbitrate their claims, thereby restricting consumers’ access to the courts.

Plaintiff consumers filed a class action lawsuit against CompuCredit and other credit providers after signing up for a credit card that was advertised to consumers with low or weak credit scores as helping to “rebuild your credit, “rebuild poor credit,” and “improve your credit rating.” Although the credit providers’ promotional materials stated that consumers would immediately receive $300 in available credit, consumers were charged $257 in fees in the first year, plus the interest that would accrue if the fees were not immediately paid. The consumers sued the companies for their deceitful tactics under the Credit Repair Organization Act (“CROA”) and California’s Unfair Competition Law. CompuCredit moved to dissolve the class action and force each plaintiff to settle his or her own complaint in binding arbitration.

Although Congress specifically required companies like CompuCredit to inform their customers: “You have a right to sue a credit repair organization that violates the Credit Repair Organization Act,” the Court held that the arbitration clause in CompuCredit’s take-it-or-leave-it contracts with consumers are enforceable, thereby preventing consumers from filing a class action lawsuit in court.

Regards,

Jim