EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Supreme Court Says NO to the People - Again
At a dinner party, an ever-so-proper aristocrat who had been at the British evacuation of Dunkirk sixty years ago, remained tightlipped despite intense questioning from the other guests about what he had seen there.
Finally, he shuddered at the memory and exclaimed, "The noise, my dear, and the people!"
An apocryphal story, perhaps, but the highfalutin' Supreme Court of the United States has the same attitude toward America -- this would be such a great country if it wasn't for all the noise and all those people.
Bad enough that last week the court narrowly redefined Miranda rights in such a way that seems to say that if one of those aforementioned people is arrested and remains silent about their right to remain silent, anything you do say, if you say something, can and will be held against you. An interpretation as worthy of Lewis Carroll as it is George Orwell.
But of course such reasoning is not surprising from a court that ruled earlier this year that corporations are people, too -- really BIG people -- whether you're a major banking entity bilking the little guy for billions or a petrochemical giant obscenely filling the Gulf of Mexico with crude, like Rabelais' Gargantua, relieving himself from the towers of Notre Dame and drowning the city of Paris.
The Supreme Court's infamous Citizens United ruling cited free speech as its reason, giving corporate America the right to pour unlimited money into political and issues campaigns, lavishing cash on whichever candidates run fastest to do their bidding. This week, the Supremes went even further, proving once again that when it comes to American politics and government, money talks, and it does so with the biggest, loudest megaphone dollars can buy.
On Tuesday, the court issued an unsigned, emergency order halting an essential part of Arizona's model campaign finance system. It grants matching funds to candidates who accept public financing limits but find themselves running against wealthy candidates whose pockets are so deep, money is no object.
As The New York Times reported, the stay "will probably remain in effect through both the primary in August and the general election in November. The court instructed the candidates challenging the matching fund law to file a prompt appeal. If the court agrees to hear the case, as is likely, it is unlikely to be argued and decided before the November election." But by then, of course, the damage will be done.
In the long run, the ruling could have an impact on similar finance campaign laws in other states, including Connecticut and Maine, but it immediately impacts 133 candidates running for state office in Arizona, including incumbent Governor Jan Brewer, whose recent signing of the state's notorious illegal immigration bill has made her the favorite for the GOP gubernatorial nomination.
But she is a publicly funded candidate who was due to receive more than $2.1 million under the current Arizona system. Without the matching funds, according to the state's Clean Elections Institute, "That amount will drop by 66 percent to $707,447." One of her opponents, businessman Buz Mills, already has spent $2.3 million, much of it his own money. Not surprisingly, he hailed the Supreme Court's order as "a tremendous victory for Arizona taxpayers and the First Amendment."
The New York Times quoted Richard Hasen, a professor at Los Angeles' Loyola Law School: "The developments in Arizona show just what a tough litigation environment it is right now for those in the lower courts seeking to defend reasonable campaign finance regulations. Without matching funds provisions, public financing programs are unlikely to attract substantial participation from serious candidates, who fear being vastly outmatched by self-financed opponents or major independent spending campaigns."
The ruling came down the same day that California voters rejected Proposition 15, which would have experimented with a publicly financed campaign system similar to Arizona's -- starting with the next two elections for California's secretary of state.
Ironically, that defeat and the Supreme Court's action in Arizona occurred on a primary election day that saw Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina emerge victorious as California's Republican Party candidates for governor and senator respectively. Each of them spent millions and millions of their own money to win.
Whitman says she's ready to spend $150 million of her eBay fortune to defeat Democratic candidate Jerry Brown. No matter who comes out on top, that kind of cash will generate a lot of smoke. Ordinary people may once again be outshouted by monied interests that wield their financial power like an authoritarian, plutocratic cudgel.
We need a constitutional amendment rejecting the anti-democratic course this Supreme Court has chosen. An amendment that establishes an equitable, public campaign financing system that levels the playing field for anyone who wants to run for office, no matter what their income or bankrolling connections. And we need it now.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
69 Comments so far
Show AllThe Supreme Court Says NO to the People - Again
by Michael Winship
===
Well, while legislature and executive branches are elected
(assuming no manipulation) in an honest election by the people,
the judicial branch is not elected by the people through an
honest election, but appointed by the president by "design".
In other words, the "design" intrinsically has a flaw in it.
Also, what is "lobbied" really means? Isn't it bribery.
No surprise.
The entire idea of 'judicial review' as its practiced in the United States is inherently flawed. The only time that it was applied in a way that actually benefitted the people even somewhat was a 20-30 year window in the 20th century, and otherwise there have been a lot more Korematsus, Citizens United, Dred Scotts, and Plessy v. Fergusons than there have been Browns v. Board of Education.
SC justices shouldn't have lifetime terms.
They shouldn't be appointed by the president.
They shouldn't decide elections.
It should be possible to override on a vote any judgment they make by Congress.
The people should have a way of making legislation themselves on a national level through an initiative process.
"It should be possible to override on a vote any judgment they make by Congress."
Had such been the case in the fifties then Brown vs. Kansas Board of Education would have been so overturned.
q
Yes, I have to concede that's probably true. But at the same time, there was already so much momentum going for desegregation that at best, it would've delayed it until the time of Kennedy and Johnson, when Johnson did have the votes for the Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, if elected officials had been responsible for coming right out and preserving state-sanctioned bigotry that way, it would've placed the responsibility both for its preservation and its elimination on elected officials, who would have been blamed for its horrors. In comparison, what happened was that by the court acting in this way (although it was the right decision), it helped set up a pattern of getting liberals dependent on the idea that the court could help them (which is basically ahistorical) in the context of a system which basically could work, while conservatives in comparison got to campaign on the fake populist point that the Supreme Court overrode the popular will (when what it actually did was take some initial steps towards breaking up tyrannical bigotry).
All that said, it doesn't really change the larger tendencies of the institution itself; that most of the time, it has been an aid to reactionaries and conservatives, and a hindrance to everyone who has ever tried to do anything positive for most people in this country.
If you want to ask yourself whether the existence and authority of the Supreme Court is justified in its current form, ask yourself whether you think that it has any inclination to make good decisions as you've seen it since 1999 (since that's pretty much what it's going to look like for at least the next 20 years).
The answer should be fairly easy to arrive at from this examination.
Has everybody forgotten the fact that not only do presidents appoint SCOTUS justices, but SCOTUS justices appoint presidents as well? Just take a short trip back into time. Remember the 2000 presidential appointement of Bu$h 43 by the Scotus, and then the justices that resulted from that appointment?
Carly Fiorina
Ex head of Hewlett-Packard.
When she finally left, people were singing
"Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead"
in the halls of HP at Corvallis, Oregon.
Welcome back witch. I'm sure you will do more damage in your new political position than you could at HP.
The witch may be dead, but the country seems awash in flying monkeys.
It's true.
"Fiorina failed to deliver as the head of a large tech company by failing to slash costs and boost revenues again which California needs desperately. As CEO of HP she decided to merge with Compaq which was a disasterous move for the HP brand. She also threw away HP’s best talented engineers and made HP less competitive in the market.
Fiorina was fired due to her incompetence as she created more enemies for the firm while her suppliers and employees absolutely hated her proving that women screw up just as well as men do and voting for a female candidate is a plan that just does not work in politics.
Fiorina was handed a golden parachute to the tune of 21 million dollars just to get rid of her was cheaper than keeping her on as CEO at HP. The staff all sang “Ding Dong the Witch is dead…” when she left."
http://www.politicolnews.com/open-mic-with-carlie-fiorina/
And don't forget her behavior:
Wasn't she the wire-tapping bitch? Convicted, as I recall of some lesser charge for eavesdropping on everyone in the office.
A real Nixon in drag.
California is so screwed.....
And don't forget her behavior:
Wasn't she the wire-tapping bitch? Convicted, as I recall of some lesser charge for eavesdropping on everyone in the office.
A real Nixon in drag.
California is so screwed.....
If the Supremes made an illegal rush to judgement in appointing Bush would that not make all the appointments made by Bush illegal?
When this country has such ADD that it just goes on its merry way when crimes are comitted, in our name, with impunity we get the result that we're experiencing every day.
The current CIC is further enabling this illegal behavior by not bringing to justice the perpatrators of the former administration. The crime syndicate formerly known as the US government is not looking out for the common mans interests.
Why do we vote on things important to us when 9 people (5) can overturn the will of the people? This is not justice.
Impeach Roberts and Alito as a first step toward renewal of the founders vision.
For starters, how about just one state with a campaign finance law announcing that they will not implement the unconstitutional Supreme Court dictates.
EXCELLENT comments.
This is why we must become an abolition movement.
We need to ABOLISH THE CORPORATION and ABOLISH NUCLEAR WEAPONS and ABOLISH WAR.
If we fail to do so, we will annihilate ourselves.
For those of you who think the corporation is still a good, as some corporations do good--build solar panels for instance--
I remind you that our ancestors heard the same argument regarding slaveholders. Some of them were good.
Yet the corporation socializes debt and privatizes profit.
This equals the bankruptcy of the nation, which is the democratic path toward equal justice under the law.
I remind people that the anti-slavery abolitionists were viewed as unrealistic utopians when they began their campaign, and yet, slavery was abolished within a generation of that campaign's undertaking.
Bring America Back !!!!.....!!!...Wow, and are you also a finalist for the Miss America Pageant ?? 'cuz you just answered the question they always ask !
Hey Knoller,
Here's a guy who wants to abolish corporations, whose heart is totally in the right place, and you have to flame him. Look yourself in the mirror and ask, "Am I being useful? Am I furthering my own cause?"
His heart is definitely in the right place but when someone says that "we need to abolish war", it becomes difficult to take anything else they say seriously. Maybe we should abolish mean thoughts why were at it. And anger and jealousy. How about stealing and jaywalking? Speeding? Farting in public? I mean if all we have to do is decide we want it abolished, we may as well choose Shangri-la.
I thought this site was called common dreams, not common bullshit. My bad, I guess I won't try to dream the dream of a world without war with others on this site. It just turns out to be a private club of circle jerkers. Adieu, ancien regime.By the way, modern war is systemic, like slavery, and neither results from emotions. Only idiots equate fistfights with wars.
I wonder how this will effect our Green Party in AZ. We have Green candidates running for political office. I am proud to say that we Greens have a man who is running for the US Senate. I am so happy that the Green Party in AZ is growing and we are getting more active in politics. Greens all over the country are running for office and are making our voices heard. The Green Party is the real Progressive party. Even though the odds are against us, I have always sided with the underdog and love it when the underdog wins.
I was thinking last night and decided that switching from Democrat to the Green Party was the best thing for me. Yes, the Democrats are one of the two mainstream parties, but the Green party has the best platform on the environment. Since I don’t belong to either the Democratic or Republican party I am more free to speak out because I don’t have a horse in that race. As a Green, I can think out of the box and stand firm for what it is I believe. I feel like I am part of a team and even though we have a long way to go until we see a Senator in Congress with a G after his name; I see the progress Greens make every election and feel in my heart that we will continue to grow as more and more Progressives decide they want to vote for someone instead of voting for the lesser of two evils and only getting evil.
For years I have been speaking out for real election campaign reform, open debates that include all candidates regardless of party, and media must provide equal air time to all candidates as a public service. Each candidate is given the same amount of money. We must reverse the supreme court decision or we will never have an equal playing field. We will have candidates and office holders afraid to do the right thing to reign in the corporations, because they know large corporations will pour money into the campaign of the people running against them, so the candidate or office holder will do what they are told, so as to keep their job. It is not getting any better, but is getting worst. I know Greens want real election campaign reform, but I don’t think either the Democrats or Republicans do. They may say they do, but they won’t make the changes that are needed to fix the problem because for years they have been taking money from the large corporations and they would never go against the hand that is feeding them. So once again large corporations win and We The People loose.
This is a much more serious ruling than Citizens United. Whereas Citizens United rules against restrictions on political spending by a corporation or union, this stay suggests the Court will rule against any attempt to promote speech by a poorer opponent of a big spender to try to balance the field. It does not promote anyone's speech, but instead, essentially restricts it for poorer groups/people. It reveals the apparent intent of the Court truly to be the establishment of a plutocratic oligarchy with restrictions on all the rest of us. That's the opposite of "free speech", and is unacceptable, to put it *very* mildly.
"the...intent of the Court [is]... the establishment of a plutocratic oligarchy"
But, according to the conservatives on the Court, this is what the signers of the Constitution meant all along. The democracy we've had for the intervening 200 years has been an anomaly. (/sarcasm)
And they are right on that count.
Part of the problem with the left is they imagine the founders to be in concert with Tom Paine. But the founders were more Hamilton than Paine.
They disliked democracy, and feared the mob.
Their ideal republic was like Plato's, refined men ruling uber alles.
They loved Rome, and knew not Athens.
"Their ideal republic was like Plato's, refined men ruling uber alles."
Plato was clear though that his "philosophy kings" would live a communist lifestyle. When I say communist, I mean COMMUNIST, not just an economic and social communism. He went as far as saying that wives should be shared and raising kids should be done collectively by the communities of the philosophy kings. He said that the rich should not make more than about 3 times what the poor make and he was also clear that the worse possible situation would be if a business person ran the government. He said that business people should do business and the philosophers should rule.
I don't agree with that Leninist, vanguard party ruling over people, but he made the argument with many qualifiers that the right wing would obviously disagree with.
"They disliked democracy, and feared the mob."
Yep. I hate bowing to the "founding fathers" just as I hate the people who lick Marx's boots. They were intelligent people, but they weren't freaking gods. They, like Marx, got some things right, and got some things wrong. A logical person thinks for themselves what is right or wrong about what they said, to treat it as the word of god is irrational and dangerous.
I do like Jefferson's comment though about progress. Maybe someone can find the actual wording. He said, roughly, that we shouldn't expect future societies to have the same laws that we have today any more than we would expect a grown man to wear the same clothes he did as a child. As society progresses we should expect the laws the progress with society.
In other words, we shouldn't fear progress and change, we should welcome it and change the laws governing us when we change and progress, learn from our mistakes and try to policies out. Makes sense.
I know that Plato speaks of the division of wealth desparagingly. But the city of which he speaks is a version of Athens, so citizens is a relative term.
I am describing a republic closer to the yeoman farmer ideal than the Old World aristocracy--and yet a landed aristocracy nonetheless where slaves replaced serfs.
The other point ill made by me is that the philosopher king had executive powers that dwarfed (let us say) Queen Elizabeth II, but not President Obama. For the philosopher king, like the President, enjoys extraordinary powers unknown to those who do not practice tyranny.
Five right wing Supreme Court Justices bend this country hard right and there is nothing we can do about it. We can't pass laws to countermand them because our legislative process is so bound up that it is not capable of action thanks to Senate rules. We can't get a constitutional amendment because the constitution makes it very hard or impossible to change it by amendment. And a constitutional but unpopular measure like packing the court will not be expertized by our executive branch. Who thinks this bound up system of contradictions is good government? Did I just say something treasonous? I take it all back, I love this country and think its system of governance is almost perfect and probably divinely inspired. Please don't shoot me.
****Tammons, next knock on your door will be, yep you guessed it, the King's
personal secret police===also known as the FBI>. Have fun on the waterboard !
Bring America Back !!!!
****It's just me, but how can Winship fail to mention this as the basic same Court which ruled against a Vote Re:Count of chads in South Florida, which swept their man "W" Bush into the White House ????
****Same Court ruling against 'habeus corpus' rights when tested against the Neocon Patriot Acts and amendments.
Thats right, extraordinary renditions and torture !
****Same Court failing to take up our Privacy 5th Amendment rights when NSA, most major Telecon Companies, and the King George W Bush Administration felonious, treasonous violations of wiretapping laws of American citizens on a massive scale !!!!
****I have come to believe the basic deficiency in our forefathers vision was and is the "Lifetime Terms" for our Supreme Court Justices==allowing one President or one Party to flood the Court with it's party benefactors for many, many years. I would like to suggest a strict and defined
change to a 'Three Year Term Limit' for any and all Justices to serve us. Three years does not coincide with a Presidential Term or a Congressional or Senate Term, and is plenty of time for any Justice to serve the law of the land and rule for we the people it serves !!!
****Originally, I thought the Presidential appointment, advise and consent of Congress was the deficiency, but on consideraton===a strict Three Year Term Limit would do the trick !! Just say yes !!! Just do it !!
Good insights TK,
Indeed over 140 Anti-Federalists objected and many refused to sign the constitution for exactly the reasons you just stated. (Some later did sign after the promise of a Bill of Rights was conceded by James Madison; the "Father" of the Constitution.) The Bill of Rights is not optional! It is the glue of the nation, which without there would have never been a United States.
In 1787, the Anti-Federalists (the first two-party system in America) saw this whole disaster coming. Luther Martin from Maryland protested loudly that having a Senate man vote for his own salary, not get it from the state he's representing, and not be recallable for any reason for SIX years was crazy. Under the previous Articles of Confederation the Federal Congressman was on a short leash, was paid by his state, could be canned for any reason, and only served ONE YEAR. (Source: "The Complete Anti-Federalist" by Professor Herbert J. Storing, Chicago Press 1981, sec. 2.4.42)
"Thus Sir, for six years the senators are rendered totally and absolutely independent of their States, of whom they ought to be the representatives, without any bond or tie between them: During that time they may join in measures ruinous and destructive to their States, even such as should totally annihilate their State governments, and their States cannot recall them, nor exercise any conroul over them....." - Luther Martin, Representative of Maryland 1789, dissenter who refused to sign the Constitution.
It's time to completely reform US Government because it simply doesn't work anymore. It's intent was SELF-GOVERNMENT. It now has morphed into Corporate Communism.
Do we even need a Supreme Court? Many of the Founding Fathers didn't think so. Jefferson opposed this huge legal empire that sprouted up under John Marshal, but lost this fight. Later he tried to get rid of crooked judges and discovered too late what a useless and clumsy instrument Impeachment is. George Mason, the author of the Bill of Rights said in 1787:
"The Judiciary of the United States is so constructed and extended, as to absorb and destroy the Judiciarys of the several states; thereby rendering Law as tedious, intricate and expensive, and Justice as unattainable,by a great part of the Community, as in England, and enabling the Rich to oppress and ruin the Poor."
John Marshal, the first Justice of the USSC, wrote that any law passed which violates the Constitution is invalid on it's face.
So I submit that 90 percent of the laws passed by the corporate congress are in fact UnConstitutional and we should ignore them. Free-Speech Zones are Unconstitutional. Federal pot-smoking arrests are UnConstitutional. Gun bans are UnConstitutional. Putting the hit out on the press as is happening with the founder of Wikileaks is UnConstitutional. The founder Julian Assange did not leak the video or the diplomatic cables.
This government has turned into a bunch of Chicago Mobsters. President Al Capone cannot just order taxpayers and voters assassinated on just his say so! What a thug is Obomber! There's no power granted to him by the Constitution to wage war on his own citizens!
Jefferson knew this well in his efforts to get rid of the Notorious Alien and Sedition Acts:
"It was also consistent with his view in 1798, when he and Madison had worked together to draft the Kentucky and Virginia Acts, the one significant act of his vice presidency. There Jefferson had gone considerably further than Madison in recognizing the right of a state to nullify a federal law within it's own borders, even describing federal intrusion in state matters as interference by a foreign government. In October 1801 he had also let it be known that he supported a proposal being circulated in Virginia by John Taylor and Edmund Pendleton that called for a one-term presidency with reduced executive power, shorter terms for senators, federal judges removable by a vote of Congress and constitutional limits on the borrowing power of the federal government.- "American Sphinx, The Character of Thomas Jefferson", by historian Joseph J. Ellis, paperback p. 212
So we need to shut down the country via National Boycott and National Strike, petition the government with these demands:
1. One-year service for all Federal office holders. One term only.
2. Limits on the borrowing power of the fed gov.
3. CEO and BOD death penalty for fouling people's health, in either government or business.
4. Pardons and Paroles no longer a gift by departing presidents. (causes corruption and Presidential treason)
5. Corporate Personhood repealed
6. Senators and Reps recallable and fireable by the public at any time by a vote of no-confidence.
TJ
!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We need a heck of a lot more than a constitutional amendment responding to the court's ruling against public financing of elections. such an amendment would be tantamount to giving an aspirin to someone with terminal liver cancer.
" We need a constitutional amendment rejecting the anti-democratic course this Supreme Court has chosen. An amendment that establishes an equitable, public campaign financing system that levels the playing field for anyone who wants to run for office, no matter what their income or bankrolling connections. And we need it now. "
We need for our trusted public servants who have sworn to protect the constitution, to do their jobs, THEM IMPEACH ALL, for violating thier oaths, we cant throw them in jail , but we can fire them.
Well, when CU was decided, anyone who knew anything about how our system works knew that campaign finance reform through legislation was officially dead. ONLY way to overturn that within the system is to pass a constitutional amendment, itself now harder then ever before (and it was always very har dto do), and to pass one with the very people whose power you want to curb being able to spend without limit in opposition to such an amendment.
I'm telling you guys, this system is now broekn beyond electoral repair, and as always, the SC has been leading the charge to the abolition of popular rule.
If just one Congressperson introduces a measure of Supreme impeachment, at least the world will know. And maybe a few others will sign on. Alan Grayson, where are you now?
What case is before the court about Arizona's law? There is no mention that the stay was issued as part of a case challenging Arizona's law.
If there is no case, the order is not valid. The court cannot simply, on its own, start choosing things it sees to be unconstitutional and then start issuing orders. The court has no power whatsoever if there is no case before it from which a stay might issue. The court has power, granted explicitly by the Constitution, but only when there is a case or controversy properly before it. No case or controversy, no enforceable orders or opinions.
If Arizona pretends that the court has the power to simply interfere with the application of their laws absent any case that challenges those laws, then we will start on a really scary path, one where there are no constitutional bounds on the power of the court to issue orders on their own initiative.
If there is no underlying case or controversy that gives the court the power to issue a stay, Arizona should ignore the order. Otherwise, we have loosed a truly rogue court on ourselves, with no limitations on it whatsoever to strike down laws at its whim.
If there is no case from which this stay can properly issue, Congress should seriously consider impeachment proceedings against Roberts at the very least, as he is the chief justice. He is not only ignoring stare decisis, as in Citizen's United (which is also arguably an advisory opinion as the issue they decided was not even before them, though there was a case on related issues), but overturning constraints on the power of the federal judiciary that have been in place since the supreme court first applied the case or controversy requirement in the late 1700's. He lied to Congress, and is not a jurist who abides by law that has constrained the court for more than 250 years.
This cannot and must not become an accepted and thus permanent feature of our judicial landscape. The Constitution requires a case or controversy to be properly before a federal court for that court to exercise its judicial power. When the supreme court, our final arbiter of the Constitution, acts as if it is no longer bound by the Constitution or 250 years of precedent, we have a genuine crisis on our hands, and "rule of law" becomes nothing more than empty words.
Of course, if there is a case before the court on this issue, they have the power and none of the above applies. I have heard no mention that there is such a case before the court.
More info at
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/opinion/09wed1.html?hp
Thanks. I've read four articles about this stay, and not one, except the one you referenced, says anything about the underlying case.
This order is covered with some background detail at:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/election-subsidies-blocked/
Essentially, the article reports: "the Arizona candidate financing system had been struck down by a federal District judge in Arizona, but that ruling has been on hold during an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court. The Ninth Circuit on May 21 upheld the system. But, in Tuesday’s order, the Supreme Court barred the Circuit Court from putting its ruling into effect (by staying the mandate), and ordered the Circuit Court to lift a February order that had blocked the District Court decision against the subsidies."
The merits of the case seem to boil down to ruling that public funds for campaigns must be limited while private funds must NOT be limited. Lest the rabble believe they have anything to say about anything.
This should ensure private ownership of government under the principle that the U.S. is a free-market republic where the Law shall be for sale to the highest bidder.
Recall the old adage: "You want fair play, go to a brothel - you want to get screwed, go to court."
One can argue cases and precedents all day, truth is the supreme court is just another supporting institution favoring the the oligarchs and plutocrats against the people. They have all of them media,judicial,finance,one philosopy 2 party system(bought and paid for)by money interests. Tell me how we change that?
The Supreme Corporate Court is the perfect federal government branch of last resort for the Corporate-Militarist States of America and its Global Empire.
The rights and lives of ordinary people are worth much, much less than those of the ruling class and their earth-pillaging corporations ("corporate persons" since 1886), protected by the Empire's "voluntary" cannon fodder forced into the servitude of the military by the ruling class refusal to create jobs.
"We need a constitutional amendment rejecting the anti-democratic course this Supreme Court has chosen."
That is fucking stupid. Constitutional amendments can't be done. We need good presidents who will nominate good justices.
Hello,,,, THats why they call it the SUPREME COURT,, they are what their name implies.
We have 9 supreme human beings that are rewriting constitutional law , my favorite is warrant less surveillance plus immunity.
So the 4th amendment which requires probable cause for a signed warrant from a judge, which our founding father thought it to be extremely important in protecting citizens from the abuses of run away government and corrupt law enforcement.
Until we stop all warrant surveillance, we are no longer America, and I dont know what the supreme court is going to do when the stasi start telling them how to rule on all major cases.
But , their is nothing Supreme about our supreme court, they are not protecting Americans by protecting the constitution.
That said,one has to wonder why??? What is going on in our country.
May I go off topic a second
The Dream Act....
If you are for the immigrants...say NO to this
If you are against America's Imperial wars
Say no to this
I have followed this "Dream Act" for
four years now....what it is , is a dream for
the MIC, since volunteerism is down for their wars
the Dream Act provides for Mexican Immigrants certain
status (not citizenship) in return for service in
the military....that is what this Dream Act is about,
getting more bodies for their wars.
Congress could have addressed this problem after Bush v Gore, it's called impeachment!
You've got that right!!!!!
The point for California is that Meg Whitman will then continue spending her own money to run the state and solve all our problems. Rich people save the world, or at least California!
However, rich people will only save other rich people. It is almost too expensive to put all the poor people in jail. Education is simply out of the question. Maybe they can be used for oil booms in the gulf coast.
Drones overhead, duck and cover!
.
Soylent Green. World hunger... solved!
The constitution never intended nine unelected people to dictate policy on myriad issues, but rather provide a stop gap while congress implemented the people's wishes.
Another reason we need an electronic, people's congress.
http://TakingCongress.net
I often wish that people would read more history than that written by the PNAC and its minions.
When Hitler was slowly gaining power, the German People thought that their courts would rein him in. He was more-or-less considered a bad joke at the time. His brown-shirted thugs, the SA, went about breaking up rallies by competing parties or candidates, trashing polling places and intimidating the election boards. (Florida 1999 ring a bell?)
The Nazis were finally elected as a minority party in the Reichstag. The people thought that between the Reichstag and the legal system, Hitler would be contained. When he was appointed Reich Chancellor, the SA and the budding SS were in place and ready to move in in strength. One of Hitler's first acts was to dismiss all of their Equivalent of the Supreme Court and replace them with fervent Nazis. They threw out several hundred years worth of legal precedents, replacing it with the philosophy that whatever the Fuhrer wanted or dictated was law.
Hitler had assured the Junkers that if he came to power, he would do nothing to interfere with their power or profits. For this, they backed him with all their power and wealth. He told the Wehrmacht that they would be able to rebuild the military into the most powerful military force in the world. They supported him absolutely.
The SS burned the Reichstag building and blamed a communist. Within hours, the Enabling acts were introduced and voted into law by the rubber-stamp Reichstag, which removed the civil rights and liberties of the German People (for their own good and protection, of course). From there on, it was all down hill.
One of Hitler's dictums was that, to fully control a country, you must first control its courts. Then, anything you do is legal and anything the opposition does is illegal.
Now, reread the above, substituting American Corporate power for Junkers, Military for Wehrmacht, 911 for the Reichstag fire, the creation of Homeland Security for the SA and SS, the misnamed Patriot Act for the Enabling act. Add in the constant invasions and occupations of smaller countries who were a "threat" to der Vaterland, and contained land and mineral wealth that Hitler and the Junkers craved.
Consider the years of appeasement that allowed Hitler to consolidate his power as the rest of the world disapproved, but their politicians allowed to happen.
Just draw the parallels. We are recreating on a vastly larger scale, what the world lost a generation of its young men fighting from 1939 to 1945. How many millions must die or be dispossessed as we move from war to war, with our Constitutional guarantees and the Bill of Rights illegally removed by the Patriot Act and its subsequent derivations.
Our "Supreme Court" has let We the People know that we do not count. It does the will of our Junkers, the corporations, and our Wehrmacht, the MICC.(Military Industrial Congressional Complex)
Obama is no Hitler. He has proved himself over and over to be just a tool of the ruling Oligarchy, but he is a pretty good, though disposable, tool and will no doubt do their bidding until he is replaced in 2012. At the rate we are disintegrating, we may find ourselves in the position of living in a Theocracy under a "President" like Sarah Palin.
If I'm the only person who sees these parallels then maybe I'm all wet, but I think some of our wealthy controllers have looked at Hitler's playbook and just decided that what it lacked was the technical proficiency we now have. Remember, many of these people, or their fathers, supported Nazism here in the US, and made great profit during WW-II supplying both sides as they do now in any conflict.
Please, think about it. Read some history written before the rise of the PNAC. I really don't know if there is anything we can do anymore, but I do hope we try. Otherwise, we shall wind up as a nation consisting of a small, but incalculably wealthy and powerful, group of rulers and two or three hundred million serfs and wage slaves doing their bidding for a bit of food or some poor shelter from the elements for their families. We seem to be well on the way.
I agree with you about Obama, but who says Hitler has to be one person. Our Hitler will be the group behind the puppet Obama. I still believe Bush was more of a dupe than Obama. Obama is a collaborator. I keep remembering those Bible quotes that Rumsfeld used to keep Bush engaged in the "holy war" on Iraq. Bush had a twisted belief system that could be manipulated. Obama appears, on the other hand, to be pure ambition, as Clinton was, but he's colder, more calculated and far more ruthless. He barely hides his contempt for his "subjects" anymore. When I hear him talk now this is what I see. Playing the race card was a brilliant move. Think of how many people came out and voted for Obama because he was black. Criticize anything Obama does and you're a racist. It seems like such a small thing, but it is what enables Obama to be able to be as bad or worse than Bush day after day (see the Rolling Stone article on the Gulf disaster on this site).