SCOTUS backs corporations this time over veterans, liberal dissent calls for congressional action

[usregimechange]

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, and ALITO, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BREYER and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Good non-technical summary:

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed corporate whistleblowers a setback with a 5-3 ruling that they cannot bring lawsuits on the basis of information they get from a Freedom of Information Act request.

The court reversed a federal appeals court ruling that was in favor of a former Schindler Elevator Corp. employee, Daniel Kirk, who sued the company under the federal False Claims Act.

Kirk alleged that Schindler submitted hundreds of false claims about veterans it employed to the Department of Labor for payment under its federal contracts and that the company did not comply with proper reporting requirements.

Kirk based his charges on information his wife obtained through FOIA requests.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2011/05/16/198725.htm

The conservative bloc makes the typical false accusation that those who disagree with them in their boundless efforts to protect corporate personhood are not following the letter of the law. Ginsburg responds:

I would affirm the Second Circuit’s judgment as faithful to the text, context, purpose, and history of the FCA’s public disclosure bar. The Court finds no “textual basis” for the Second Circuit’s interpretation of the statutory language... But the Court of Appeals’ opinion considered text as well as context. (and then she quotes the lower court doing so).

In rather strong language, which Breyer and Sotomayor signed their names to, Justice Ginsburg calls for congress to act:

After today’s decision, which severely limitswhistleblowers’ ability to substantiate their allegationsbefore commencing suit, that question is worthy of Congress’ attention.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-188.pdf

[Overseas]

1. K&R!

[Drale]

2. Its time for a freak out

We need someone to freak out and flip tables, through shit across the room and scream. I'm so tired of sitting back and taking it.

[usregimechange]

3. +1,000,000

[usregimechange]

4. This again underscores the need to keep the WH

[madrchsod]

5. the congress?......

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[usregimechange]

6. Maybe the next one...

[usregimechange]

7. Where's the outrage?

[Bake]

8. It would be nice if Justice Kagan could actually sit on some of these cases.

Maybe appointing a Solicitor General to the Court wasn't such a hot idea.

Bake

[usregimechange]

9. It is a bad idea for the 1st year or two, but she plans to be there for decades

[Bake]

10. And that's why they're trying to cram all these cases through early

Before Justice Kagan can hear any of them.

No shock there.

Bake