New Page -- 15 November 2010
Update -- 20 July 2011 (scroll down to end of essay)
A related essay on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) -- entitled The (9) Supremes and written some ten years ago -- was "inspired" in part by the irrational and wholly political nature of the High Court’s ruling in late 2000, when the five Republican devotees of the Court ruled in accordance with their party allegiance and allowed the Republican Party’s nominee, George W. Bush, to become President of the United States (POTUS).
Okay, back to the more serious aspect of this essay... assuming of course that it might, perhaps, be far better to laugh at the whole miserable affair.
As was pointed out, roughly ten years ago (following yet another national election melee), the idiocy of the alleged logic used by the Supreme Court decision in appointing George Bush as POTUS was reflected in part by the fact that had the Supreme Court taken the legally obvious position and ruled that Florida’s election set-up was wholly inequitable (unequal protection under the law) -- then the electoral votes of Florida would have had to have been considered as invalid and therefore neither party would have received enough electoral votes to win the election. In that case, the Republican controlled House of Representatives (at the time) would have promptly elected George Bush as the President... despite any dissenting popular vote, sense of justice... but at least in accordance with the U. S. Constitution. The Congressional action would still have been unabashedly political (as was the Supreme Court's decision), but at least it would have been constitutionally legal... something the average citizen might have expected from the High Court.
Of course... and here’s the rub on the Republican’s derriere... it would have been the Democratic Party's control of the Senate that would have selected the Vice President... and clearly, that would not have been Dick Cheney. Equally obvious is the fact that such a mixed ticket at the top of government would have been enormously more entertaining to watch... and as a notable fringe benefit, would have kept Dick Cheney out of government... which in turn would have been of enormous benefit to the Republic... not to mention any of those poor friends of his that he might have shot while hunting in his traditional drunken state. Sigh.
Okay... now, it must be admitted that such politically inspired nonsense on the part of SCOTUS could be viewed as simply an honest disagreement (however slight) on what one thinks is best for the United States. In other words, just because a court ruling somehow conflicts with one’s strongly held beliefs in what is best for the good old USA... this does not necessarily imply that the ruling is ipso facto evil or fundamentally wrong. When one considers, for example, Al Gore’s sudden conversion to Global Warmingism (by someone who, incidentally, had done absolutely nothing about the warming trend while serving as Vice President)... or John Kerry’s blatant betrayal of his constituents in rushing to concede to his fraternity brother, George, in 2004... one could also easily make a reasonable (sounding) argument that the Supreme Court’s decision was not... wholly... evil... just evil enough, perhaps, to make everyone slightly sick.
In the intervening years since 2000, there have been many decisions by the Supreme Court -- most of which were 5-4, and along strict party lines -- that served as a basis for updating The (9) Supremes web page and pointing out, over and over again, just how ludicrous the US Supreme Court has become... or sad to say... continues to be. Some of these court rulings did result in updates, but the reality is that there were far too many to react to them all. Sort of overkill... in every possible meaning of the word.
And yet... such counter arguments may still be only a difference of opinion. While one can make arguments that what is being done in such rulings is detrimental to the United States of America and its citizens... things have not risen to the point where there is clear evidence of... well... let’s say... treason on the part of a majority of the Justices of the Court of Final Appeal. We have not reached the point where things are so blatantly in violation of the Constitution of the United States and the oaths taken by the justices of the Supreme Court to uphold and defend the Constitution... that we would be able to depart from the it's-only-a-difference-of-opinion venue of legal jurisprudence.
That is... until a ruling in 2010 changed it all.
Again, it was a blatant political act on the part of the 5-4 majority of the Justices. Only in this case, the rulings by the five member Republican majority had, in this case, turned to what one must by any rational determination of the word, consider to be treason.
On the one hand, the ruling allowed the Republicans an enormous advantage in political elections by virtue of granting them access to unlimited (and secret) sources of campaign funds. There can be no doubt that SCOTUS' five man (sans female) ruling was done purely in order to give their fellow Republicans an advantage in elections. And while it sounds like the 'same old, same old' in terms of politically chicanery, this one was different.
In point of fact, the five members of the Supremes had committed sometime that had all the attributes of treason... while the minority four could only write extensive dissenting opinions.
The case that was so detrimental to any vague idea of democracy in the United States (now the former) Republic was the “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205” ruling.
According to the New York Times: “Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.” Not just political spending on issues, but on individual and fully paid for candidates.
Of course, the New York Times would phrase it that way... theirs is a liberal newspaper. Meanwhile the jubilant Republicans, basking in the glow of their stacking of the Supreme Court with its Neanderthal five member majority, were now be in the position of unlimited spending in the 2010 mid-term elections. Their backers (aka political hackers) would herald it as a momentous reaffirmation of free speech. (Of course, their backers, such as FOX news, had never been particularly enamored about free speech by just anyone... certainly not anyone other than themselves.)
Backing up The New York Times was the now-retired Methuselah of the Court.
Justice Stevens is also a liberal... i.e., someone who uses logic and reason to formulate their views.
But then again... obviously... corporations are not human beings and cannot speak, much less claim the right of free speech. Human members of a corporation (if one actually believes that many CEOs are actually human), those alleged members of the human race can in fact speak freely... that's okay. But not at the expense of the other members of the corporation (i.e., where even the smallest shareholder has a right to claim foul at such corporate expenses for purposes at odds with the shareholder's own political views).
One thing that was immediately evident at the time of SCOTUS' decision was that the ruling allowed corporations and groups to spend without limits in election campaigns. This was bad enough... and again, to be fair... but still just a matter of political/legalistic opinion.
What was not so straight forward was the fact that such unlimited spending could be done via the non-profit route... as in the case of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce going Republican in a massive, fanatical way.
Furthermore, and far more importantly, this unlimited spending could be done without ever divulging the sources (reputable and otherwise) of this flood of money. Accordingly, the fundamental investigative truth of "follow the money" was now being circumvented... much to the detriment of everyone. In point of fact:
Also in the New York Times article linked above were the comments:
It is this giving access... not to mention, selling a vote... that becomes the real Achilles Heal in the Five Supremes Majority trashing of the US Constitution. It is also the link whereby these same five members have initiated the process of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
But of course, the SCOTUS ruling prevents any law enforcement agency (even if it's so inclined to investigate) from being able to determine if the USCofC is breaking the law or not.
An equivalent act would be allowing banks to choose not to provide any records of the bank's depositor’s money, and thereby allow the banks to steal wholesale. This is, admittedly, not terribly different from the recent activities of the banksters... but at least, in the more open situation, the depositors know when they’ve been robbed and by whom. They may have limited recourse... such as recognizing that trusting known thieves with one’s money can be rectified in part by not trusting them again... but at least that's something. There is, of course, always the traditional remedy: “Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me.”
But still.. doesn't the charge of Treason sound just a bit much here? I mean this is the Supreme Court we’re talking about... the last and fundamental bastion of legal jurisprudence in the United States of America... if not a beacon of legal processes for the rest of the world. Can a majority of such an august body (as opposed to a December body) really be charged with treason?
Well, maybe not “charged” as such. But accused, certainly. It's called Free Speech, which is now being threatened with some serious laryngitis, with its human powers now being transferred to, by definition, non-human corporations, groups, enemies foreign and domestic, as well as FOX news.
And of course following such accusations, perhaps even impeached.
But before we leap into this particular fray, it might be worth noting the definition of treason, i.e.:
And, for completeness:
Now... if someone -- posing as a friend but in reality a foreign spy -- was told how they could sneak into the White House and kill the President... would that constitute treason? Of course! Or better yet, if a patriot was told how to sneak into the chambers of the US Supreme Court and kill a couple of justices... would that be treason? Technically, yes. Killing is not really allowed under any circumstances... unless of course, someone in authority declares war (civil, holy, and/or otherwise), declares any and everyone else a ‘terrorist’, declares martial law (along with the anarchy associated thereby), and/or declares by Executive Order the suspension of civil rights (and indirectly the civil right of continuing to breathe). In fact, the latter could just about suspend any rights.
One problem, of course, is who would preside over the Impeachment...? Which Judge?
Retired Justice, John Paul Stevens comes to mind... but then he might have to recuse himself by virtue of the fact of his having been involved in the Citizens United debacle in the first place -- and of course, in the process of have written a 90 page dissent. I.e., his established views are already a matter of record, and he has already accused the 5-man majority of a serious error. Besides, he's a liberal... and every conservative knows that liberals can never, under any circumstances, whatsoever, be trusted... any more than any conservative can ever, under any circumstances... well... you get the idea.
Accordingly, one might be left with whatever authority derives from precedence. In 1804, for example, Justice Samuel Chase was impeached and tried by the Senate, with Vice President Aaron Burr presiding.
Ah... the Vice President resides in the impeachment trial of SCOTUS members. Cool.
But even then, something of a precedence was set:
Treason, however, might have some legs of its own.
Not that it's going to happen... the ruling elite does not pee in its own chili. Not these days, certainly.
Unless, of course, the ruling elite is seriously challenged by... oh, say... A Third (political) Party. Ah yes... what then?
The Composition of the Court
As a final aside... and as a last chance to get in a few more digs at the Gang of Five... we might note some of the possible characteristics and identifying marks of those members of SCOTUS -- those special “dunces” who voted 5-4 in favor of the “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling. Their names are:
BTW II, we should perhaps note that there are currently six Catholics and three Jews on the Court. In other words, there are no Protestants, secularists, or intelligentsia . Note in the referenced source, it should be updated to note that Souter and Stevens (one a Episcopalian and the other a Protestant) have since been replaced by Sotomayor and Kagen (Catholicism and Conservative Judaism devotees). This means the current Supreme Court represents, in terms of religions, 26% of the US population. Three of the members represent 1.5%. Due to the fact that there seems to be afoot the threat of a new Crusades , obviously with very strong religious overtones, it's clear that SCOTUS is unlikely to place any obstacles in the paths of religious fanatics embroiling the world in wholesale slaughter.
BTW III, speaking of the wholesale lack of representation on the High Court in favor of the citizenry of the United States, there are also the alma matters of the law schools from which our illustrious Justices derive. As of late 2010, we have, from:
Sounds like a bit of a Closed Shop to me... possibly even an American Aristocracy, overlords who are loath to permit any deviation from a rule of the elite over the masses.
The Nature of Law likes to think in terms of providing Remedy and Recourse to those under its sway. In this case, one can see that impeachment has a great deal of appeal... pardon the pun. If only the Senate (the jury of peers for Scotus members... i.e., other members of the Aristocracy) was even remotely inclined to rule on the evidence (and forget the politics). One might even suppose that the Senate would have to recuse itself in such a ruling... but that of course won’t happen... unless perhaps a Third Party takes control of Congress.
Then there is just the possibility that the Republic (the USA) might actually be saved.
Update -- 20 July 2011
But then again... probably not. Consider some of the recent travesties of Justice:
From the Goldwater Institute (a clue as to the radical conservatism of the reporter):
“The Supreme Court: Business’s best friend?”, The Week, July 15, 2011, page 15
While claiming to be in favor of Free Speech, SCOTUS is, in fact, not protecting free speech, it’s protecting paid speech... and the ability of corporations and wealthy individuals to influence politics. In fact...
Curiously, in the same issue of The Week (page 6), there is a bit about Rupert Murdock and his global media empire, the latter which has been accused of telephone hacking of politicians, celebrities, and royals in England... (just in order to get a story? OR possibly for purposes of... blackmail?) This is the same Rupert, by the way, whose media influence was responsible for the ascendancy of the last three Prime Ministers of England (starting with Tony Blair). Accordingly, the English PM in recent decades has been pretty well following the lead of RM. Money talks; not to mention that Dem Wid De Gold Makes De Rules.
Now... while one might think that the first bit herein is actually good news for the little guy, the opposite is quite true. It still takes a lot of money to bring a suit against the Feds... but in cases where the Rich have been offended by laws supporting the little guy, this SCOTUS decision is going to allow for a LOT of new lawsuits... demanding such things as a repeal of Health Care legislation, the repeal of the right of any black person to be elected president, and the repeal of the right of women to demand anything. SCOTUS has been very consistent at least of supporting the Aristocracy... for the betterment of the rich and powerful.
 The Week, “Obama’s foreign-cash allegation,” 10/22/10, page 6.
 Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, 1991.
 For example, see http://www.adherents.com/adh_sc.html
 The Trends Journal, Autumn 2010, Vol. XVIII, No. 24, page 15, and "Crusades 2000", The Trends Journal, Fall 1993, pages 1 and 6.
Or forward to:
2003© Copyright Dan Sewell Ward, All Rights Reserved [Feedback]