Ketanji Brown Jackson, a liberal appeals court judge, was confirmed to the supreme court on Thursday, overcoming a rancorous Senate approval process and earning bipartisan approval to become the first Black woman to serve as a justice on the high court in its more than 200-year history.
After weeks of private meetings and days of public testimony, marked by intense sparring over judicial philosophy and personal reflections on race in America, Jackson earned narrow – but notable – bipartisan support to become the 116th justice of the supreme court. The vote was 53 to 47, with all Democrats in favor. They were joined by three moderate Republicans, senators Mitt Romney of Utah, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, who defied deep opposition within their party to support Joe Biden’s nominee. Their support was a welcome result for the White House, which had been intent on securing a bipartisan confirmation.
Read more at:
Ketanji Brown Jackson makes history as first Black woman confirmed to US supreme court | Ketanji Brown Jackson | The Guardian
Showing posts with label US Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US Supreme Court. Show all posts
4/7/22
9/24/21
The U.S. Supreme Court: Now a Roman Catholic Institution? - by Terri Langston
Silent assent is insidious – and cowardly. In civilized societies, the rule of law ensures that cogent rules, based in law, apply equally to every member of society.
The rule of law protects us from each other, too; that is, from the worst behaviors toward fellow human beings that humans can be given to.
As Aristotle wrote: “It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens.”
Read more at: The U.S. Supreme Court: Now a Roman Catholic Institution? - The Globalist
The rule of law protects us from each other, too; that is, from the worst behaviors toward fellow human beings that humans can be given to.
As Aristotle wrote: “It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens.”
Read more at: The U.S. Supreme Court: Now a Roman Catholic Institution? - The Globalist
6/10/17
USA: President Trump, a court critic, may visit Supreme Court for Justice Gorsuch investiture
President Trump has called Chief Justice John Roberts an "absolute disaster." Of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, he's said, "her mind is shot." Federal courts in general are "slow and political."
Trump has been so tough on the judicial branch of government that even the man he nominated to the Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, has called such attacks "disheartening."
On Thursday, all that may have to be put aside if Trump pays a visit to the Supreme Court for Gorsuch's official investiture ceremony — a meaningless but star-studded ritual in which the justices hold a special sitting of the court to welcome their newest member.
The ceremony comes on the same day as the justices' regularly scheduled weekly conference, when they discuss potential new cases. The most important one pending is the Justice Department's petition to jump-start Trump's temporary travel ban on six predominantly Muslim countries, a case the court is likely to hear this summer or fall.
Read more: President Trump, a court critic, may visit Supreme Court for Justice Gorsuch investiture
Trump has been so tough on the judicial branch of government that even the man he nominated to the Supreme Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch, has called such attacks "disheartening."
On Thursday, all that may have to be put aside if Trump pays a visit to the Supreme Court for Gorsuch's official investiture ceremony — a meaningless but star-studded ritual in which the justices hold a special sitting of the court to welcome their newest member.
The ceremony comes on the same day as the justices' regularly scheduled weekly conference, when they discuss potential new cases. The most important one pending is the Justice Department's petition to jump-start Trump's temporary travel ban on six predominantly Muslim countries, a case the court is likely to hear this summer or fall.
Read more: President Trump, a court critic, may visit Supreme Court for Justice Gorsuch investiture
7/24/14
Corporeate Power in America: The SEC should shine a light on dark political donations from corporations - by Liz Kennedy and Sean McElwee
Nate ate Silver has already dubbed the 2014 election as "the least important in years." But this year's midterms are still breaking records for at least one thing: secret political spending.
A historically unprecedented amount of dark money has already been spent to influence the outcome of the elections. As of July 15, more than $34 million in dark money had been spent on the 2014 election cycle.
That is more than 15 times the $2+ million in dark money spent at this point in the 2010 midterms, and three times the $11 million in dark money spent at this point in the 2012 elections.
Dark money means political spending where the identity of the underlying source of the funds is not public.
The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010 allowed new political spending from corporations, and subsequent decisions removed limits on so-called "independent" spending. Now, sophisticated political players who want to exercise power without accountability are channeling their political spending through 501(c)(4) "social welfare" groups that aren't required to disclose their funders.
The price we pay for this failure of transparency is a loss of information for voters, and a lack of accountability for both the spenders and beneficiaries of dark money.
Since most outside spending comes in a flurry in the last month of the election, we can expect these numbers to keep on rising. In 2012, 60 percent of dark money was spent on or after October 1. If these trends hold, dark money totals this year will certainly break the 2010 midterm record and may even surpass the over $300 million in secret spending in the 2012 elections.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate Rules and Administration Committee held a hearing to promote transparency in election spending. They're considering legislation that would require all outside political spending groups to disclose their significant donors (the DISCLOSE Act), and a bill that would require candidates, parties, and PACs that are already covered by federal disclosure laws to disclose their major donors more rapidly and electronically (the Real Time Transparency Act).
As Senator Angus King (I-Maine) explained in the hearing, just knowing that "Americans for Greener Grass" paid for an ad isn't really disclosure, because it doesn't tell you anything about the agenda of whoever is providing the financial support for the group.
The Supreme Court was wrong when it assumed that the new corporate political spending the justices allowed in Citizens United
would be disclosed to the public and to a corporate donor's
shareholders, since there are no legal requirements that corporations
disclose all of their political spending.
Congress attempted to respond to the Citizens United decision and create a comprehensive disclosure system in 2010, when the DISCLOSE Act was approved by majorities in both chambers of Congress, but then failed by one vote to overcome a party-line filibuster in the Senate. Some critics argued at the time that the bill unfairly regulated corporations while requiring less disclosure from unions. As we explain in our new Demos paper, this is far from the truth. Corporations and unions face very different rules and requirements for their political spending. Labor unions must publicly disclose all of their political spending to the Department of Labor. But in the wake of Citizens United, there are many avenues through which corporations can spend money in politics while hiding their financial support for particular candidates or causes.
Both unions and corporations must disclose to the FEC any direct political spending made to finance independent expenditures and electioneering communications, but the similarities end there. Unions are required to report the money they spend not just in federal elections, but also for state and local office. Corporations are not subject to these same requirements, except in a few states that have strengthened their disclosure laws.
Unions are required to report get-out-the-vote campaigns, voter education campaigns, fundraising, and any politically related litigation expenses. Corporations are not. Unions are required to disclose all donations to 501(c)(4) groups on their Schedule 17 form. Corporations are not.
Why does this matter? Corporate donors spend big: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $69,506,784 on elections in 2010 and 2012, without identifying the source of those funds, and was the biggest outside spender in the 2010 elections. And according to the research of Martin Gilens, the Chamber of Commerce and other corporate donors lobby against the expressed preferences of most Americans.
Read more: The SEC should shine a light on dark political donations from corporations - The Week
A historically unprecedented amount of dark money has already been spent to influence the outcome of the elections. As of July 15, more than $34 million in dark money had been spent on the 2014 election cycle.
That is more than 15 times the $2+ million in dark money spent at this point in the 2010 midterms, and three times the $11 million in dark money spent at this point in the 2012 elections.
Dark money means political spending where the identity of the underlying source of the funds is not public.
The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010 allowed new political spending from corporations, and subsequent decisions removed limits on so-called "independent" spending. Now, sophisticated political players who want to exercise power without accountability are channeling their political spending through 501(c)(4) "social welfare" groups that aren't required to disclose their funders.
The price we pay for this failure of transparency is a loss of information for voters, and a lack of accountability for both the spenders and beneficiaries of dark money.
Since most outside spending comes in a flurry in the last month of the election, we can expect these numbers to keep on rising. In 2012, 60 percent of dark money was spent on or after October 1. If these trends hold, dark money totals this year will certainly break the 2010 midterm record and may even surpass the over $300 million in secret spending in the 2012 elections.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate Rules and Administration Committee held a hearing to promote transparency in election spending. They're considering legislation that would require all outside political spending groups to disclose their significant donors (the DISCLOSE Act), and a bill that would require candidates, parties, and PACs that are already covered by federal disclosure laws to disclose their major donors more rapidly and electronically (the Real Time Transparency Act).
As Senator Angus King (I-Maine) explained in the hearing, just knowing that "Americans for Greener Grass" paid for an ad isn't really disclosure, because it doesn't tell you anything about the agenda of whoever is providing the financial support for the group.
Congress attempted to respond to the Citizens United decision and create a comprehensive disclosure system in 2010, when the DISCLOSE Act was approved by majorities in both chambers of Congress, but then failed by one vote to overcome a party-line filibuster in the Senate. Some critics argued at the time that the bill unfairly regulated corporations while requiring less disclosure from unions. As we explain in our new Demos paper, this is far from the truth. Corporations and unions face very different rules and requirements for their political spending. Labor unions must publicly disclose all of their political spending to the Department of Labor. But in the wake of Citizens United, there are many avenues through which corporations can spend money in politics while hiding their financial support for particular candidates or causes.
Both unions and corporations must disclose to the FEC any direct political spending made to finance independent expenditures and electioneering communications, but the similarities end there. Unions are required to report the money they spend not just in federal elections, but also for state and local office. Corporations are not subject to these same requirements, except in a few states that have strengthened their disclosure laws.
Unions are required to report get-out-the-vote campaigns, voter education campaigns, fundraising, and any politically related litigation expenses. Corporations are not. Unions are required to disclose all donations to 501(c)(4) groups on their Schedule 17 form. Corporations are not.
Why does this matter? Corporate donors spend big: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce spent $69,506,784 on elections in 2010 and 2012, without identifying the source of those funds, and was the biggest outside spender in the 2010 elections. And according to the research of Martin Gilens, the Chamber of Commerce and other corporate donors lobby against the expressed preferences of most Americans.
Read more: The SEC should shine a light on dark political donations from corporations - The Week
7/6/14
Right Wing Majority In US Supreme Court taking the US on dangerous course - Dems should have filibustered the radical Alito - by Heather Digby Parton
One of the biggest “tells” in our modern political life is the extent
to which the mere mention that Justice Samuel Alito will deliver the
majority opinion in a Supreme Court case strikes terror into the hearts
of anyone who isn’t to the right of, well … Samuel Alito.
Sure, an opinion written by Clarence Thomas is sure to be ultra-conservative, but there are enough examples of his idiosyncratic approach that there’s always the possibility that he’s gone off the reservation.
And yes, Scalia writing a majority opinion is almost always bad news, but every once in a while he comes in on the libertarian side of the dial so there’s always a sliver of hope. Chief Justice Roberts can cobble together an opinion with a little bit to like and hate for both sides from time to time.
All of them are staunch conservatives whom liberals have no reason to be happy to see delivering a majority opinion. But for unadulterated partisanship dressed up as scholarship there are none with as perfect a record as Justice Alito.
He’s purely partisan, without deviation. And he’s also very, very smart, confidently delivering the now predictable one-two punch whereby the conservative majority only partly strikes down long-standing precedent while signaling to the conservative legal community exactly what they’ll need in future cases to blow the whole thing to smithereens.
This excellent Alito profile by Ian Millheiser at Think Progress featured this dramatic conclusion showing just how formidable a right-wing judicial assassin he really is:
Sure, an opinion written by Clarence Thomas is sure to be ultra-conservative, but there are enough examples of his idiosyncratic approach that there’s always the possibility that he’s gone off the reservation.
And yes, Scalia writing a majority opinion is almost always bad news, but every once in a while he comes in on the libertarian side of the dial so there’s always a sliver of hope. Chief Justice Roberts can cobble together an opinion with a little bit to like and hate for both sides from time to time.
All of them are staunch conservatives whom liberals have no reason to be happy to see delivering a majority opinion. But for unadulterated partisanship dressed up as scholarship there are none with as perfect a record as Justice Alito.
He’s purely partisan, without deviation. And he’s also very, very smart, confidently delivering the now predictable one-two punch whereby the conservative majority only partly strikes down long-standing precedent while signaling to the conservative legal community exactly what they’ll need in future cases to blow the whole thing to smithereens.
This excellent Alito profile by Ian Millheiser at Think Progress featured this dramatic conclusion showing just how formidable a right-wing judicial assassin he really is:
In 2005, When President George W. Bush announced Alito’s nomination to the Supreme Court, he praised his nominee as someone who “understands that judges are to interpret the laws, not to impose their preferences or priorities on the people.” Less than a decade later, Alito rewrote American religious liberty law, and he did so despite an explicit statement by Congress indicating that Hobby Lobby should have come down the other way. Along the road to Hobby Lobby, Alito made the workplace a harsher, meaner place for women. He inspired talking points for Ted Cruz. And he has an unblemished record as the most committed partisan on the Court.Read more: Alito could have been stopped: Why Dems should have filibustered the radical - Salon.com
5/6/14
Christianity: Freedom for Religion, Not From It
The U.S. Supreme Court once again affirmed that the so-called “wall of
separation” that exists between church and state is not quite the
edifice that liberals would like it to be. In Town of Greece v. Galloway,
the court ruled today that a village in upstate New York did not
violate the First Amendment in allowing members of clergy to begin town
board meetings with prayers, some of which were explicitly sectarian
(and usually Christian) rather than ecumenical. The narrow vote along
the usual 5-4 conservative/liberal lines is bound to incite many on the
left to express fears about the court trying to turn the U.S. into a
“Christian nation.”
But in upholding the rights of Greece, N.Y. to have meetings begin with a religious invocation, the court has done no such thing. Rather, it has simply affirmed a long American tradition of beginning public meetings with prayer. Even more to the point, by refusing to be drawn into the question of regulating the content of such prayers, the court has preserved religious liberty rather than constricting it. The decision also provides a timely reminder that for all the talk about separation walls, the main point of the First Amendment is to preserve freedom of religion, not freedom from any mention or contact with faith.
In recent decades, the “separationist” position on church/state interaction has grown more, rather than less, aggressive. In its 1962 Engel v. Vitale decision that banned public school prayers, the court rightly ruled that school districts had no business imposing what were often sectarian prayers on children. Given that students were not free agents who could accept or reject these prayers with impunity, it was clear that the practice could easily be considered an “establishment” of a state religion that is prohibited by the First Amendment.
But purely ceremonial affairs such as invocations before legislative proceedings cannot be reasonably interpreted in the same light. Since, as Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in the majority opinion, such prayers go back to the First Congress and have been repeatedly upheld since then, any attempt to overturn these precedents was unwarranted.
Read more: Freedom for Religion, Not From It « Commentary Magazine
But in upholding the rights of Greece, N.Y. to have meetings begin with a religious invocation, the court has done no such thing. Rather, it has simply affirmed a long American tradition of beginning public meetings with prayer. Even more to the point, by refusing to be drawn into the question of regulating the content of such prayers, the court has preserved religious liberty rather than constricting it. The decision also provides a timely reminder that for all the talk about separation walls, the main point of the First Amendment is to preserve freedom of religion, not freedom from any mention or contact with faith.
In recent decades, the “separationist” position on church/state interaction has grown more, rather than less, aggressive. In its 1962 Engel v. Vitale decision that banned public school prayers, the court rightly ruled that school districts had no business imposing what were often sectarian prayers on children. Given that students were not free agents who could accept or reject these prayers with impunity, it was clear that the practice could easily be considered an “establishment” of a state religion that is prohibited by the First Amendment.
But purely ceremonial affairs such as invocations before legislative proceedings cannot be reasonably interpreted in the same light. Since, as Justice Anthony Kennedy noted in the majority opinion, such prayers go back to the First Congress and have been repeatedly upheld since then, any attempt to overturn these precedents was unwarranted.
Read more: Freedom for Religion, Not From It « Commentary Magazine
4/3/14
Democracy: "The Kleptocracy gets green light" - US Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Political Donation Cap - by Adam Liptak
The
US Supreme Court on Wednesday continued its abolition of limits on
election spending, striking down a decades-old cap on the total amount
any individual can contribute to federal candidates in a two-year
election cycle.
The ruling, issued near the start of a campaign season, will very likely increase the role money plays in American politics.
The 5-to-4 decision, with the court’s more conservative members in the majority, echoed Citizens United, the 2010 decision that struck down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions.
Wednesday’s
decision seemed to alter campaign finance law in subtle but important
ways, notably by limiting how the government can justify laws said to
restrict the exercise of First Amendment rights in the form of campaign
contributions.
The court’s 88-page decision reflected sharply different visions of the
meaning of the First Amendment and the role of government in regulating
elections, with the majority deeply skeptical of government efforts to
control participation in politics, and the minority saying that such
oversight was needed to ensure a functioning democracy.
In
a dissent from the bench, Justice Stephen G. Breyer called the majority
opinion a disturbing development that raised the overall contribution
ceiling to “the number infinity.” “If the court in Citizens United opened a door,” he said, “today’s decision may well open a floodgate.”
Such
oral dissents are rare, and they signal deep disagreements. But Chief
Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer noted from the bench that the other
side’s arguments were well presented.
Note EU-Digest: Philly.com writes the following about the about theUS Supreme Court ruling under the heading "The Supremes put the exclamation point on "kleptocracy!" - "Consider this: It's been reported that the billionaire Koch Brothers spent close to $400 million on their conservative network for the 2012 election - and that was long before the McCutcheon ruling came down. That's because previous court rulings -- most famously the Citizens United case in 2010 -- have long meant that any laws attempting to stop billionaires (both conservative and liberal billionaires, for what it's worth) from buying elections were already a lost cause. The Roberts court has held that -- even in a time with record levels of income inequality -- money is just a form of free speech. It's just that a handful of very privileged people are able to speak through a megaphone as big as the Ritz". Yes indeed, the Kleptocracy has been given the green light
and that was long before the McCutcheon ruling came down. That's because previous court rulings -- most famously the Citizens United case in 2010
-- have long meant that any laws attempting to stop billionaires (both
conservative and liberal billionaires, for what it's worth) from buying
elections were already a lost cause. The Roberts court has held that --
even in a time with record levels of income inequality -- money is just a
form of free speech. It's just that a handful of very privileged people
are able to speak through a megaphone as big as the Ritz.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Our-new-plutocratic-overlords-tack-on-another-run.html#Cwuc5GKSV7gWyiGo.99
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Our-new-plutocratic-overlords-tack-on-another-run.html#Cwuc5GKSV7gWyiGo.99
Consider this: It's been reported that the billionaire Koch Brothers spent close to $400 million
on their conservative network for the 2012 election -- and that was
long before the McCutcheon ruling came down. That's because previous
court rulings -- most famously the Citizens United case in 2010
-- have long meant that any laws attempting to stop billionaires (both
conservative and liberal billionaires, for what it's worth) from buying
elections were already a lost cause. The Roberts court has held that --
even in a time with record levels of income inequality -- money is just a
form of free speech. It's just that a handful of very privileged people
are able to speak through a megaphone as big as the Ritz.
Read more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Our-new-plutocratic-overlords-tack-on-another-run.html#Cwuc5GKSV7gWyiGo.99
Read more: Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Political Donation Cap - NYTimes.comRead more at http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Our-new-plutocratic-overlords-tack-on-another-run.html#Cwuc5GKSV7gWyiGo.99
12/16/13
NSA Spying Program: Federal Judge Rules Against N.S.A. Phone Data Program - b y Charlie Savage
In a 68-page ruling, Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia called the program’s technology “almost Orwellian” and suggested that James Madison, the author of the Constitution, would be “aghast” to learn that the government was encroaching on liberty in such a way.
“I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary’ invasion than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every single citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval,” Judge Leon wrote. “Surely, such a program infringes on ‘that degree of privacy’ that the founders enshrined in the Fourth Amendment.”
Judge Leon stayed his injunction “in light of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues,” allowing the government time to appeal it, a matter that he said could take some six months.
Vanee Vines, a spokeswoman for the N.S.A., had no immediate comment on the ruling by Judge Leon, a 2002 appointee of President George W. Bush.
The ruling is the first successful legal challenge brought against the program since it was revealed in June after leaks by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden. It was brought by several plaintiffs led by Larry Klayman, a conservative public-interest lawyer. The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a similar lawsuit in the Southern District of New York.
Read more: NSA Spying Program: Federal Judge Rules Against N.S.A. Phone Data Program - b y Charlie Savage
2/21/13
USA - People Power: California Poised To Become Largest Electorate To Vote On Constitutional Amendment
California voters are poised to become the largest electorate to decide whether to support a constitutional amendment that would overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling.
California Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) introduced a bill, AB 644, Wednesday to put a measure on the state's 2014 ballot urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which lifted restrictions on political spending by corporations and labor unions. Independent spending in federal elections has exploded since the ruling.
"It's one thing for a legislator to say he wants this," Wieckowski said. "It's another thing for Congress to have direct instruction from the voters. There comes a tipping point where people are upset with billionaires having a disproportionate impact on our electoral system."
The measure is backed by campaign finance watchdog Common Cause. The group's growing effort includes ballot questions that allow voters in cities and states to weigh in on Citizens United.
“Giving the voters of the most populous state, the world’s ninth-largest economy, the chance to declare that Citizens United should be reversed would be historic and the momentum this reform movement needs to sweep the nation," said Phillip Ung, policy advocate for Common Cause. "As goes California, so goes the nation.”
Read more: Citizens United: California Poised To Become Largest Electorate To Vote On Constitutional Amendment
California Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) introduced a bill, AB 644, Wednesday to put a measure on the state's 2014 ballot urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which lifted restrictions on political spending by corporations and labor unions. Independent spending in federal elections has exploded since the ruling.
"It's one thing for a legislator to say he wants this," Wieckowski said. "It's another thing for Congress to have direct instruction from the voters. There comes a tipping point where people are upset with billionaires having a disproportionate impact on our electoral system."
The measure is backed by campaign finance watchdog Common Cause. The group's growing effort includes ballot questions that allow voters in cities and states to weigh in on Citizens United.
“Giving the voters of the most populous state, the world’s ninth-largest economy, the chance to declare that Citizens United should be reversed would be historic and the momentum this reform movement needs to sweep the nation," said Phillip Ung, policy advocate for Common Cause. "As goes California, so goes the nation.”
Read more: Citizens United: California Poised To Become Largest Electorate To Vote On Constitutional Amendment
6/29/12
US Supreme Court issues historic ruling ensuring millions of Americans will get affordable health care
The Supreme Court issued a historic ruling: They upheld the Affordable Care Act and ensured that millions of American families will have access to health care and protection from the worst abuses of the insurance industry.
Lots of people have questions about the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court's decision, and their health care coverage. For additional useful information -- including President Obama's remarks after the announcement click here .
EU-Digest
EU-Digest
1/27/12
Europe warns US on political financing
(AP) A top European anti-corruption body wants the U.S. to increase transparency of political funding through outside groups that donate millions to support candidates, warning that they could be used to skirt long-established disclosure rules.The Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption — known as Greco and which counts the U.S. as a member — warns "soft money" political financing vehicles appear to be increasing in America.
Donors may give to the non-profits — which don't have to disclose their donors and can be feeders of funds into super PACs, independent groups that can raise unlimited amounts of money. The report did not mention super PACs by name, but it did focus on the 501(c) organizations.
The report made three recommendations to U.S. authorities, and Greco said it "invites" the U.S. to respond to those recommendations by the end of June 2013.
One recommended that U.S. authorities continue their push toward electronic filing of public disclosure of financial reports in Senate elections. Another urged a study of the effects of tie votes — or "deadlocks" — at the six-member Federal Election Commission.
One Creco official said that authors were concerned about the potential fallout from super PACs, which were born out of a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that stripped away prior restrictions on some election spending.
Greco is the anti-corruption unit of the 47-country Council of Europe, which is based in the eastern city of Strasbourg and aims to promote human rights and democratic principles.
EU-Digest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)