Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Corporate Supreme Court
Five Supreme Court Justices--Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy are entrenching, in a whirlwind of judicial dictates, judicial legislating and sheer ideological judgments, a mega-corporate supremacy over the rights and remedies of individuals. The artificial entity called "the corporation" has no mention in our Constitution whose preamble starts with "We the People," not "We the Corporation."
Taken together the decisions are brazenly over-riding sensible precedents, tearing apart the state common law of torts and blocking class actions, shoving aside jury verdicts, limiting people's "standing to sue", pre-empting state jurisdictions--anything that serves to centralize power and hand it over to the corporate conquistadores.
Here are some examples. (For more see thecorporatecourt.com). Remember the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound twenty two years ago? It destroyed marine life and the livelihoods of many landowners, fishermen and native Alaskans. Its toxic effects continue to this day.
Well, after years of litigation by Alaskan fishermen, the Supreme Court took the case to review a $5 billion award the trial court had assessed in punitive damages. A 5 to 3 decision lowered the sum to $507.5 million which is less than what Exxon made in interest by delaying the case for twenty years. Moreover, the drunken Exxon captain's oil tanker calamity raised the price of gasoline at the pump for awhile. Exxon actually made a profit despite its discharge of 50 million gallons.
The unelected, life-tenured corporate court was just getting started and every year they tighten the noose of corporatism around the American people.
In Bush v. Gore (5-4 decision), the Court picked the more corporate president of the United States in 2000, leaving constitutional scholars thunderstruck at this breathtaking seizure of the electoral process, stopping the Florida Supreme Court's ongoing state-wide recount. The five Republican Justices behaved as political hacks conducting a judicial coup d'etat.
But then what do you expect from justices like Thomas and Scalia who participate in a Koch brothers' political retreat or engage in extrajudicial activities that shake the public confidence in the highest court of the land.
Last year came the Citizens United v. FEC case where the Republican majority went out of its way to decide a question that the parties to the appeal never asked. In a predatory "frolic and detour," the 5 justices declared that corporations (including foreign companies) no longer have to obey the prohibitory federal law and their own court's precedents.
Corporations like Pfizer, Aetna, Chevron, GM, Citigroup, Monsanto can spend unlimited funds (without asking their shareholders) in independent expenditures to oppose or support candidates for public office from a local city council election to federal Congressional and Presidential elections.
Once again our judicial dictatorship has spoken for corporate privilege and power overriding the rights of individual voters.
Eighty percent of the American people, reported a Washington Post poll, reject the Court's view that a business corporation is entitled to the same free speech rights as citizens.
Chances are very high that in cases between workers and companies, consumers and companies, communities and corporations, tax payers and military contractors--big business wins.
Inanimate corporations created by state government charters have risen as Frankensteins to control the people through one judicial activist decision after another. It was the Supreme Court in 1886 that started treating a corporation as a "person" for purposes of the equal protection right in the fourteenth amendment. Actually the scribe manufactured that conclusion in the headnotes even though the Court's opinion did not go that far. But then it was off to the races. These inanimate giants, astride the globe, have privileges and immunities that "We the People" can only dream about, yet they have equal constitutional rights with us (except for the right against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment) and more limited privacy rights.)
What is behind these five corporate Justices' decisions is a commercial philosophy that big business knows best for you and your children. These Justices intend to drive this political jurisprudence to further extremes, so long as they are in command, to twist our founders clear writings that the Constitution was for the supremacy of human beings.
To see how extreme the five corporate justices are, consider the strong contrary view of one of their conservative heroes, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a case where a plurality of justices threw out a California regulation requiring an insert in utility bills inviting residential ratepayers to band together to advance their interests against Pacific Gas and Electric. The prevailing justices said--get this--that it violated the electric company monopoly's first amendment right to remain silent and not respond to the insert's message.
Conservative Justice Rehnquist's dissent contained these words--so totally rejected by the present-day usurpers: "Extension of the individual freedom of conscience decisions to business corporations strains the rationale of those cases beyond the breaking point. To ascribe to such artificial entities an "intellect" or "mind" for freedom of conscience purposes is to confuse metaphor with reality."
It was left to another conservative jurist, the late Justice Byron White, dissenting in the corporatist decision First Nat'l Bank v. Bellotti (1978) to recognize the essential principle.
Corporations, Justice White wrote, are "in a position to control vast amounts of economic power which may, if not regulated, dominate not only the economy but also the very heart of our democracy, the electoral process." The state, he continued, has a compelling interest in "preventing institutions which have been permitted to amass wealth as a result of special advantages extended by the State for certain economic purposes from using that wealth to acquire an unfair advantage in the political process... The state need not permit its own creation to consume it." (emphasis added)
Never have I urged impeachment of Supreme Court justices. I do so now, for the sake of ending the Supreme Court's corporate-judicial dictatorship that is not accountable under our system of checks and balance in any other way.
117 Comments so far
Show AllWay too little (a 28th amendment defining that only natural persons are de jure persons is needed), way too late (Alito, Roberts, Scalia, & Thomas are going to bedevil American life for many years to come).
Which begs the question: "For what good reason are we saddled with these Political appointees for LIFE"????
I believe the original intent of "for life" appts. was so that the Supremes would have no electioneering to do, which would, ostensibly, allow them to be non-partisan, away from all that "dirty" politicking. Of course, the whole thing has been subverted by the fact that the nominating process has become very partisan, and the Repubs have been way more successful at getting the Dems to go their way (hence, Alito and Roberts). George W.'s greatest achievement (besides bringing our nation to its knees financially), was these 2 SC appts. He fairly ensured a long term future of right-wing, pro-corporate decisions, which the Dems should have foreseen. The fact that they "caved" is just another in a long line of Dem capitulations. Read Chris Hedges, "Death of the Liberal Class."
Ralph Nader is a tool of the democrats. He is participating in the Kabuki that there is a difference between dems and repubs. He thinks the republican appointees are the worst. We now know Nader is a sell-out. OK, I said all this BS so perhaps some of the truly blind CDers will think (just a little, at least). I won't hold my breath...
The hell he is. He has been driving the message for decades that there is no difference between the parties and they are just tools for the elites. Instead of falsely slamming him, you should look at the fights he has won that made a difference in our lives. He has fought his whole life trying to make things safer for all of us do some research before you start saying this BS. Keep holding your breath. Hold.....
And just because a thug appointed them, the dems voted for them.
What has he sold out on? Will wait for your reply. Unless you are still holding your breath.
I believe GregR's point is the fact that at the time of his retirement in 2010,, Justice John Paul Stevens (appointed by Republican President Gerald Ford in 1975) was the least corporate justice of the group, including justices appointed by Democrats Carter, Clinton and Obama (also including Stevens' replacement, Elena Kagan, who Obama appointed).
Although the Republican appointees may be the MOST corporate, the Democrat appointees are far from populist.
Obama even told the world during Kagan's confirmation that "the Warren and Burger Courts of the 60s and 70s were too activist"
No, not my point.
Sometimes I think I make myself clear, when perhaps I do not. My 5th sentence was, "OK, I said all this BS..." In other words, to be perfectly clear, my first 4 sentences were pure bullshit.
Lol, I got it.
It's stunning that reading comprehension doesn't seem to be taught in schools anymore.
Very clever gregr. Testing the CDer's knee reflexes. Testing our BS antennas. Cool, but not a very good way to make friends.
Nader's amnesty stand has me wondering. You know the immigrants in such large numbers ruin or unions and take our jobs. They cost a lot too. Yet he does not mention that. Check it out on fairus.org.
Concern yourself not, troll.
Mr. Ralph Nader is saying what needs to be said here and you are A MORON for what you just wrote IMHO....
Unless of course, you are truly sincere in being the devils advocate for our enrichment....
This does seem out of step for you, as I have found good sense in many of your posts...
The Supreme Court needs to change its name to the Supreme Kangaroo Court!
I agree about renaming it. How about renaming the Supreme Court of The United States, (SCOTUS), to the Supreme Court, Republican Owned, Those Unjust Morons.
(You figure out the acronym yourself...)
I understand your anger but the kangaroo does not deserve it.
Apart from a very few, the vast majority of them hide behind a uniform, a wig, a hammer & the picture of a scale on the wall.
In Australia one the few ok judges was framed & jailed for three years, for lying about (((A SPEEDING FINE))) with no major repercussions to anyone & yet a man by the name of john howard walks freely unquestioned, writing selling his pathetic & criminal biography, naturally without mentioning that his gang leader trained, financed, armed saddam & engineered wars all over the place, used him as a can opener, lied & wrote THE SCRIPT ABOUT THE INFAMOUS INVASION, ASSAULT & RAPE OF A PEOPLE.
The kangaroo takes care of its babies with its special little pocket. I think we the people can safely guess what's in the pocket of the @@@holes, it ain't the people. His buddy blair is visiting him in two weeks the butchers family gathering, They're kind of nervous a bit. they don't like people marching in the streets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
ONE DAY THE WE'LL HAVE TO REWRITE THOSE AUTO-BIOGRAPHIES PROPERLY.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No terror no torture just truth
I prefer "The Obscene Court."
And this is not a Dem-Rep issue. The US has a one-party system with two right wings, as Helen Caldicott put it.
Until we take money out of government, we'll have the best government money can buy. I'm not holding my breath on that one.
I thought Gore Vidal said that about two right wings.
Thank you, Ralph, for your excellent work. Corporate Personhood is THE PROBLEM underlying most of the world's corruption and self-destruction.
It appears that there are only a handful of ways to abolish Corporate Personhood
1 A Constitutional Amendment (e.g., "A Corporation is not a Person . . . .")
2 A Constitutional Convention
3 A Supreme Ct decision reversing the precedent of the Santa Clara case
4 Impeaching the sitting activist Justices.
Since the first 3 options are unlikely to occur (passage of an Amendment, while the most elegant solution, has too many obstacles (e.g., the ratification process)), Ralph's proposal of IMPEACHMENT of at least Scalia ("Nino") and Clarence ("The Other Tom") Thomas makes the most sense. Their public association with the Koch brothers is a clear conflict of interest and enough cause for impeachment.
IMPEACH Nino & The Other Tom!!!
We need number 2---a Constitutional Convention. One of the posters says we are not up to such a task---but we are!! We need to rewrite the Constitution and install direct democracy. It is an error to elect someone to speak for us (a representative) when they DON'T REPRESENT US!! The people want the wars to end, the rich to pay more taxes, Medicare for all, corporations are not people, don't give trillions to the banksters and Congress won't even discus these matters.
Even if we don't write a new Constitution we must enforce Article one that states very clearly the the money and the value of it must be controlled by Congress. The Federal Reserve is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. This 1913 law MUST BE REPEALED.
@wantrealdemocracy-
I like your ideas and words...If we only had A "Free Press" in this country, there might be some possibilities here...
Impeaching The Other Tom Thomas and Nino would still leave us with Citizens United and its predecessors. Option 4 will also require REPLACING the bastards with progressive Justices who will abolish CP and, thereby, implement Option 3. That would require the President to nominate them and Congress to approve, which brings us back to the problem of government already being owned by Corporations. As other posters have noted, Kagan is highly suspect as well.
The good news is that impeachment of The Other Tom is already in motion.
A picture speaks a thousand words – LOVE the photo with the corporate logos on the robes. It should be required.
Agreed! Great photo!
Politicians and judges should be required to dress like race-car drivers so that we know who their "sponsors" are.
Where can I get a larger copy of this image?
The Supreme Court would have to rewrite a hundred years of legal doctrine to change the status of corporations under our constitution. The problem is beyond the authority of the courts to solve. Only the people, acting responsibly to rewrite the Constitution, can do that, and we're defintely not up to the task. As Franklin is supposed to have a said, when asked to describe the government he'd helped create, "A republic, if you can keep it."
"Only the people, acting responsibly to rewrite the Constitution, can do that, ."
https://votep2.us/login.php
How bout A Constitutional Convention brought about by A popular petition/refferrendum for starters...
Something needs to be done and done SOON...Every Fucking Angle of this debacle we face has A built in "Catch-22....
I would hope for any solution other than A violent, crazy Revolution...That would be INSANE!!!!
"Google" Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad to see where a U.S. Supreme Court scam brought Corporate Personhood to life.
Yea, if my memory serves me well it was A court recorder's slight of hand, confused and mistaken words that gave the idea wings....
Nader is probably inclined to be diplomatic on the subject, but I wouldn't put too much faith in time-serving careerist Elena Kagan as "part of the solution".
If Kagan's track record is any indication, she will be more pro-corporate than any of the other justices appointed by Democrats (and who haven't retired).
Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Is it a coincidence that they are all Catholics? I was raised Catholic and imprinted into my consciousness from birth was the absolute necessity to subordinate oneself to the dictates of the Catholic hierarchy. Power is centralized within the Papacy and orders and teachings flow down from the Pope through the hierarchy of Cardinals, Bishops and Priests.
The lowly parishioners were not taught to question, or to think for themselves, or challenge the authority of the Papal teachings, in fact to do so was blasphemy and sinful. Essentially it was, "shut up, pray, do as we say".
The current State/Corporate System is not much different. Is it any wonder that these five support a political and economic system that mirrors their Catholicism?
I'm just speculating. It may just be a coincidence.
The Catholic church I was raised in is unrecognizable to me. I was taught about helping the poor, the children ect. I was taught about a loving Christ. I do not see any of these things now that I am an adult. All I see now is a bunch of power hungry rich men turning their backs on His teachings.
The Church could wipe out poverty all over the globe but insteads sits on an ungodly amount of wealth. Look at all the gold shiney things the church and it's henchmen have. Jesus said to love each other, turn your cheek, help the poor. Instead we got the crusades and inqusition. I swear if Christ came today, they would kill him again.
I don!t think it is so much a coincidence, just more of the same as you stated. Do as wevsay and shut up.
I follow no organized religion. Christ himself said let no man come between you and God. Organized religions just give people an excuse not to think for themselves.
Add the latest Lady Justice Madame Sotomyer and that makes (5) catholics on the bench? That is a deliberate action, the question is, by whom? You have cited a tragic fault line in a body with judicial control in the most diverse country in the world. Nobody with a voice raised the issue during her nomination process. The concentration of ideology is breathtaking.
Actually Sotomyer makes six Catholics total, out of nine. Catholics represent a little less than 25% of the US population. What's going on?
"The lowly parishioners were not taught to question, or to think for themselves". Yeah Q I had a problem with that in my senior year at a Catholic high school in the 60's. I was accused of being a heretic and since I wouldn't back down I was given an F in religion and my parents were notified. My parents were not happy but I assured them the F could not go on my transcript and I wasn't going to change my mind. Today the only sibling who is still Catholic is the one who managed to avoid going to a Catholic high school. Warning never expose a child to enough religion that their going to have to question it if they have a brain. Being a heretic now defines me and makes me proud.
I like "We the Corporation." At least it's honest.
http://www.corporateamericanflag.com/
Corporate American Flag
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the corporate states of America.
And to the conglomeration,for which it stands, one nation, under many CEOs,
always divisible, with liberty and privileges for some." -- unknown
In the beginning, corporate charters were granted to serve the public, not the other way around...
http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/history_corporations_us.html
Back to basics.
He threw the money changers from the temple - we let them back in.
Now they own it.
Who was right?
Ralph, thanks for endorsing a best alternative:
http://ni4d.us/en/endorsements
***
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
***
There is a deep and abiding lie that seperates the people and the government of this country. The origin of the lie rests in the framing of the constitution and the political solution derived on the question of slavery. The structure of the government is not designed to fullfill the promise of the government. There is a chasm between promise and practice. The current Supreme Court fulfills the thinking of those who did not make humanity 'their central concern" in the debate on slavery. The current court holds to the logical framework of that decision. Politically, humanity cannot be defined as "chattel' as was the case in slavery, so the court elevates "chattel" by giving Corporations "human" privileges. The Tea Party draws its energy from this logic, fueled by race and support, active and passive from the Supreme Court. The fragile concept of Democracy exists in this chasm between promise and practice. Now there is no pretending, the chasm is closing with each Supreme Court Decision. Humanity loses its place as "the central concern" in the decision and execution of law.
How does such a movement begin, impeaching the Supreme Court?
not just the SCourt but most of the House & Senate should be impeached. when was the last time they represented the people or upheld our constitutional rights?? the law is on our side: no member is allowed to create a law that undermines the constitution:
"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid."
—James Madison, Federalist No. 78, June 1788
if only we could file a class action suit in defense of truth, justice & the constitution...if only we could file a class action suit...
I'm with Kathryn. Tell us how. What do we do? We need to get started, the sooner the better. And something else I heard recently: Congress, being the officially elected representatives of the People has ultimate jurisdiction over the Supreme Court. Congress can therefore do something about this... Congress could have done something about the Bush usurpation of the Presidency. Congress could have done something about the Citizens United decision. Go to your Congressional Representatives. Call them. Bombard them... every chance you have. Let them know what you think, what you expect and tell them re the Supreme Court to begin by cashiering Justice Thomas. We should have known back in the early 1990s what he was all about!
The members of the Supreme Court could be impeached the same way the President, or members of the lower courts can be impeached. The House of Representatives holds hearings of the House Judicial Committee, votes sends it to the full House for voting on articles of impeachment, just like they did with President Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon and Andrew Johnson. The Senate holds the actual Impeachment Trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, presiding over the the full Senate Proceedings. Now how likely is this scenario really going to happen with a Republican controlled House of Representatives? And do you think Chief Justice Roberts is going to be unbiased in overseeing such an impeachment of one of his Republican, right wing, reactionary, regressive and repressive colleagues as dumb and unqualified as he and his corrupt behavior is? I don't think so. It's a pipe dream. And even though Justice Thomas should resign or be impeached and forcably removed from the bench, indicted, convicted and thrown in jail for falsifying financial disclosure forms on income to the US Supreme Court, filing false 1040 IRS income tax returns for 10 years, accepting gifts and favors from the Federalist Society, the Koch Brothers, NASCAR and directly benefiting from the decision on the Citizens United Case. Clarence Thomas would never resign even if such a proceeding ever did come about. He has no integrity or respect for the US Supreme Court and no scruples. It would be his confirmation hearing all over again, with Anita Hill as another "high tech lynching",, playing the race card. He should never been appointed to the court. The fox is guarding the hen house. The "golden rule prevails", "them that has the gold write the rules.". "A typical case of American blind justice."
You'd never guess from reading this that Nader shares the blame for Alito and Roberts, having helped bring Shrub to power in 2000. "Liberals" in this country seem to be mostly brain dead. You want to do something about the Supreme Court, start working now for Obama's reelection. Odds are in the next six years he'll get one or two appointments.
But instead you clowns will sit in your little corners playing "The ideal is the enemy of the good" while the Fascists, not subject to such silliness, will slowly tighten the noose.
This old lie again. Seriously, blaming Nader for Bush is ridiculous, and everyone should know that by now.
First, there's the fact that Gore won Florida: http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html
Second, to make such a statement belies an underlying belief that my vote "belongs" to the Republicans or Democrats. It's a notion based on the most conservative of notions: that the status quo is the way to go. Of course, my vote belongs only to me, and I can do with it as I please, including choosing not to cast it at all.
Third, perhaps the election was so close in Florida because 200,000 DEMOCRATS voted for Bush. But, according to your conservative viewpoint about voting, those are legitimate votes, whereas the 97488 votes for Nader (not all from Democrats, of course) are not legitimate, so Nader "cost" Gore the election, not the Democrats who voted for the Republican. http://www.cagreens.org/alameda/city/0803myth/myth.html
Fourth, you might recall the vile Supreme Court decision (http://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason) that essentially disenfranchised the entire Florida electorate.
Fifth, speaking of disenfranchisment, you might recall that the fix was in from the start and Katherine Harris purposefully kept likely Gore voters away from the polls.
And finallly, sixth, the Edison-Mitofsky report, which wouldn't even consider election fraud, had to twist itself into pretzels in order to figure out why the exit polls, showing that Gore had won, were wrong. Of course, we know now that they weren't wrong, and probably weren't wrong in 2004, either. And that leads us nicely back to the first point.
Blaming Nader for Bush is a sure way to ensure no one will take anything you ever say seriously. You'd be wise to reconsider your opinion by allowing facts in.
You failed to mention the 20,000 "Possible Felons", half of which were Black, "Voter Caging" lists that fraudulently denied voting rights for these folks, that Bush's Governor/Brother cooked the books with....