Stephanie Mencimer

Stephanie Mencimer

Reporter

Stephanie works in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. A Utah native and graduate of a crappy public university not worth mentioning, she has spent several years hanging out with angry white people who occasionally don tricorne hats and come to lunch meetings heavily armed.

Full Bio | Get my RSS |

Stephanie covers legal affairs and domestic policy in Mother Jones' Washington bureau. She is the author of Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue. A contributing editor of the Washington Monthly, a former investigative reporter at the Washington Post, and a senior writer at the Washington City Paper, she was nominated for a National Magazine Award in 2004 for a Washington Monthly article about myths surrounding the medical malpractice system. In 2000, she won the Harry Chapin Media award for reporting on poverty and hunger, and her 2010 story in Mother Jones of the collapse of the welfare system in Georgia and elsewhere won a Casey Medal for Meritorious Journalism.

Liberals Fight Gun Control To Win Abortion Rights

| Tue Feb. 24, 2009 1:13 PM EST
Last year, liberals in DC were furious with the US Supreme Court for striking down the city's strict gun-control law. In DC v Heller, the high court found that individuals have the right to bear arms, and not just within the 2nd Amendment's famous "well-armedregulated militia." Since then, gun-rights groups have used that decision to challenge gun-control statutes all across the country. Strangely enough, the National Rifle Association is getting some help in at least one of those case from liberal Yale law profs and other activists normally on the other side of such fights. Why?

Legal Times' Tony Mauro explains that the liberal lawyers see progressive benefits to the cases. Doug Kendall, founder of the Constitutional Accountability Center, tells Mauro that if successful, the lawsuits "would have a "lift-all-boats" effect, strengthening free speech, and possibly even abortion and gay rights, at the same time that it bolsters the right to bear arms." Of course, gun control groups aren't so happy about the new-found alliance. The legal director of the Brady Center to End Gun Violence tells Mauro, "It's unfortunate that they would choose to participate in a gun case to grind that particular ax." Still, given that most people think gun control laws don't work, maybe trading useless gun control measures for stronger legal protections for the rights of women, minorities and gays is actually a pretty inspired idea.

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Supreme Court May Hear Mercury In Tuna Case

| Wed Feb. 18, 2009 2:02 PM EST
Last fall, we published a story about a woman named Deborah Fellner who had sued Chicken of the Sea alleging that she had gotten mercury poisoning from eating the company's canned albacore tuna. Tuna companies have known at least since the 1970s that canned tuna can contain high levels of mercury, which can cause neurological problems that resemble Parkinson's disease and other ailments. (Fellner's hair fell out, among other things.) Yet a New Jersey federal court initially threw out her case thanks to help from the Bush FDA. At the request of the tuna industry in another lawsuit, the FDA had claimed that such lawsuits were "preempted" by federal law because it was already doing such a good job of regulating tuna.  A judge agreed, and using that decision, Chicken of the Sea claimed that Fellner's lawsuit was likewise trumped by federal regulators, largely because they had posting a warning about eating mercury in fish on the FDA website. It was a pretty flimsy argument, and eventually, an appeals court reversed in favor of Fellner. Her lawsuit has been proceeding ever since. And now it looks like it might go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Diaper Dave" Vitter Says Obama Adopts Judicial Standards of a "Dictatorship"

| Thu Feb. 12, 2009 6:11 PM EST
Republican Louisiana Sen. David Vitter made a trip to DC's Chinatown on Thursday to nibble on kung pao chicken and rally the conservative troops. Addressing the DC lawyers chapter of the conservative legal group, the Federalist Society, Vitter got right down to red meat. After quoting comments from President Obama suggesting that he'd like his judicial nominees to be able to empathize with the downtrodden, Vitter declared that demanding empathy in a judge was something you'd expect in a "dictatorship." How empathy equates with repressive rule, Vitter didn't really explain, except to say that it had little to do with ensuring checks and balances on an imperial government. (Vitter also claimed--and it was hard to tell if he was joking or not--that he routinely walks from the Senate to the House of Representatives to use the apparently more populist House water fountains, instead of imbibing the stuff the Senate is drinking these days.)

But Vitter didn't really come to Tony Cheng's to discuss judges or the Constitution. His talk, entitled "Defending Conservative Principles in the Senate," was mostly a complaint about the economic stimulus bill that his Senate colleagues were poised to pass without his vote or the votes of most Republicans. According to Vitter, his party was having a come-to-Jesus moment over the stimulus package, which had provided the minority party an opportunity to rediscover its mantra of smaller government and lower taxes.
Wed Jul. 9, 2014 12:44 PM EDT
Wed Apr. 30, 2014 12:07 PM EDT
Tue Dec. 3, 2013 7:55 AM EST
Tue Sep. 17, 2013 1:32 PM EDT
Fri Feb. 13, 2015 5:26 PM EST
Tue Sep. 9, 2014 6:30 AM EDT | Updated Tue Dec. 16, 2014 10:10 AM EDT