The first set of signed opinions for the 2009 Term appear uncontroversial, including Justice Sotomayor's first. "Held: Disclosure orders adverse to the attorney-client privilege do not qualify for immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine." The law is technical but the facts of the underlining case are notable:
When respondent Norman Carpenter informed the human resources department of his employer, petitioner Mohawk Industries, Inc., that the company employed undocumented immigrants, he was unaware that Mohawk stood accused in a pending class action—the Williams case—of conspiring to drive down its legal employees’ wages by knowingly hiring undocumented workers.
She did use "his or her" at one point, which is my preference. Meanwhile, an independent report provides further information on ACORN:
ACORN employees caught in those undercover videos advising a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute on how to break the law acted unprofessionally and inappropriately, but did nothing illegal, an independent report has found.
The report, by former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott Harshbarger,* recommends nine steps for ACORN to take in order to regain public trust in the wake of the scandal, including that it return to its "core competency - community organizing and citizen engagement empowerment, with related services."
The last section is particularly telling about giving context to the situation. Overall, though this is not a complete account, it provides a better picture of the nuances of the situation than much of the news coverage Jack Shafer (Slate) et. al. thought should be "cheered." It also notes that in a fashion such coverage has a good side in that ACORN does have problems, including lax oversight. The problem is when lack of balance, including Democrats selectively turning against a group that helped them in the past, skewers such an important check on groups that on balance add to the public good.
Other organizations -- including those that receive much more government funding and have deeper problems with the law -- also would benefit from scrutiny, preferably some done in a more professional and less biased fashion.
---
* Some will disdainfully note that ACORN paid for the report; in this fashion, they will argue that a former attorney general violated his ethical responsibilities to provide a neutral and competent account and cannot be trusted. OTOH, some of these people will trust an advocacy group who selectively (and possibly illegally) "reported" on the matter more. Or, media coverage that has been shown to be slanted and misleading.