The Damp Judicial Loincloth

The leaking of Injustice Alito's draft of the majority opinion in the case of Dobbs v. Women's Health Org. has Chief Injustice John [Taney] Roberts scrutinizing the halls of justice for damp spots that might reveal who wet the judicial loin cloth. While doing so he is also expressing what passes for righteous indignation by calling the leak a “singular and egregious breach” of trust. I do not mean to make light of this breach of confidentiality because making such drafts public could discourage the candid deliberations the court needs in order to reach well reasoned decisions. In this instance, however, the draft opinion, which would strike down Roe v. Wade, is incredibly oppressive, dangerous, and anything but well reasoned. Many women are quite correctly saying that Alito's opinion is misogyny wrapped up in the dogma of an outmoded religiosity that regards women as nothing more than the intellectually inferior helpmates of men.

If a majority of the court adopts Alito's draft they will be ignoring fifty years of judicial precedent, not to uphold or protect the rights of individuals but to destroy some of those precious rights. In light of that, I consider leaking the draft of Alito's opinion to be analogous to leaking the Pentagon Papers. It is not that we did not know the government was lying to us during the Vietnam war, and it is not that we did not know the (mistakenly called) conservative justices were lying to us during their confirmation hearings. In both instances, however, the proof of the dishonesty revealed by the leaked documents is shocking, and the consequences of those lies are far more extensive and damaging than we feared. If you read Alito's rationalizations (reasoning would be a misnomer) you will see that any right not stated as such in the constitution is not considered a right by Alito, and he believes the government can violate and/or take those unstated rights away from you as it deems fitting and proper! Do not call this judicial activism! Judicial activism is a pejorative term conservatives use to describe the overturning of well established but unjust precedents. It would also be wrong to call this draft opinion conservative. Conservative means to preserve or resist change, and the intent of the majority of this court is harmfully radical change!

Strangely enough Alito is wittingly or unwittingly fulfilling the wish list Moscow Mitch stated when he, Mitch, packed and politicized the Supreme Court. I say strangely because although Moscow Mitch (forever the Machiavellian fascist) wants to deprive women of the freedom to make their own health care decisions and reproductive choices, he knows that actually depriving people of such popular rights so close to an election where they can make their displeasure known in a meaningful and consequential way is probably not a wise thing to do. All I can say about that is let your displeasure be known in a meaningful and consequential way; vote the sanctimonious fascists out of office. “Kill The Damn Elephant Before He Kills You!”

I might add here that if Chief Injustice Roberts is really concerned about the reputation of the Court, he will do something about the egregious violations of ethics so frequently committed by Injustice Thomas! I presume that Injustice Roberts can look for the source of the dreaded puddles at the same time.

We [On] The People

 Everywhere you look in this country democracy is in peril. First of all, we no longer have a legitimate supreme court. What we have is Moscow Mitch's politicized abomination. And the only way you can believe that Chief Injustice Roberts is an institutionalist is if you believe that voter suppression and corporate acquisitiveness are regulative pillars rather than shameful, historical practices. Far from protecting the right to vote, Roberts and the other right wing injustices are defending voter suppression with decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder and Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee. Those two decisions completely gutted the voting rights act of 1965, leaving the states free to suppress the vote of any race or group at will, and making Chief Injustice Roberts the Roger B. Taney of our times. Furthermore the opinion Roberts wrote in Citizens United makes it much easier for the wealthy and the corporations to secretly buy our politicians. This corporate, Jim Crow court has obviously changed “we the people” to “wee on the people! 

Okay, so our courts are now even more dangerous than useless. As Injustice Roberts said in Shelby County, it is up to congress to defend the right to vote, and to save our democracy [from the feckless, fascist fools kissing Trump's vertical smile]. It sounds reasonable, but don't hold your breath! It is great that the Democratic Party is a big tent, but moderate no longer means a liberal or conservative without a backbone. What moderate now means is a politician who represents rich corporate donors. If those moderates really represented the people of their districts instead of the big donors to their campaigns, they would support the disclosure act provisions in the For The People Act rather than opposing those provisions! I know, money is the mother's milk of politics, and all politicians want to win the next election. But there comes a time when what is right becomes more important than what is political! Our system depends on an informed electorate making wise decisions, and they cannot make informed decisions if they are being kept in the dark. Furthermore, fair elections, free of voter suppression are the heart and soul of any democracy! Democracy for the select few is not a democracy; it is an oligarchy! And if the oligarchy surrenders its power to someone like Trump, it is an autocracy!

More Equal Citizens

Some citizens are more equal than others. This complaint is not really about wealth, at least not on my part. I do not begrudge a person his or her wealth. Hillary Clinton can charge as much as the market will bear. Sage though she may be, what she has to say is not a vital service or commodity like food, shelter, energy, or health care. It causes no harm at all if people and institutions book another speaker because they are not willing to pay what Hillary demands. If Hillary were a white, male, Republican, Republicans would be praising her business acumen. Furthermore, they would tell the complaining students at UNLV to blame the person who agreed to Hillary’s fee rather than blaming Hillary. Knowing Republicans, they would also call those students freeloaders for wanting the things they say the college could pay for were it not for Hillary’s exorbitant speaking fee.

When I say some people are more equal than others what I am complaining about is the concentration of wealth and power the oligopoly is achieving by taking unfair advantage of the rest of us, thereby making it increasingly difficult for the average person to obtain vital services and commodities such as food, shelter, energy, and a quality education for their children. The oligopoly’s averous and lust for power knows no bounds. It is not just the wealth and resources of this country that are being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands; it is also the political and legal power. The Supreme Injustices of our highest court are aiding and abetting this unconscionable grab for economic, political, and legal power, and are depriving us of our influence over our government and our right to seek legal remedies for damages that may be caused by corporations. Steven Rosenfeld @ AtlerNet.org presents some of the recent decisions that show just how willing this court is to destroy our legal protections from corporate neglegence and corporate missdeeds.  Click here!  This is scary!

Judicial Sham[e]

I did not think it was possible for a court to be as political and partisan as the Rehnquist court was, but the Roberts’ court has demonstrated beyond all doubt that it is every bit as political and partisan and even less ethical. In fact it is considered an anomaly whenever the Roberts’ Court renders a reasonable, impartial decision on any issue that might have an impact on either of the major political parties. Some people have tried to explain the surprise decision upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act by saying that Chief Justice Roberts wants very much to avoid the perception that his court has been politicized. If that is true, than Mr. Roberts is unbelievably stupid. He has already demonstrated how politicized he is far too often. Now he has written the majority opinion in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, in which he tries to explain and justify the court’s decision to invalidate the most effective part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, thereby greatly reducing the protection against voter suppression.

Our country has changed,” Chief Injustice Roberts wrote. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

What? Did this dullard sleep through the GOP’s attempts at voter suppression during the elections of 2012? One would expect such clap trap from Injustices Thomas and Scalia, who are unethical enough to hear cases in which they have apparent conflicts of interest, but such an opinion coming from someone who claims to be concerned about the image of the court is downright bizarre. In this case his reasoning, if you can call it that, is a shameful sham! He simply ignores all of the evidence showing that states that fell under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act are still trying to suppress the vote of minorities. The consequences of this are all too apparent. Texas, which had been barred from implementing a draconian voter identification law to suppress the vote of blacks and latinos in 2012, gave us the best example of those consequences by promptly reinstating that law the moment the court rendered its decision.

This horrible decision in the case of Shelby County v. Holder is not an act of judicial activism as some have said. Judicial activism is a pejorative term reactionaries use to disparage the practice of righting wrongs by overturning well established but unjust precedents. Instead of being judicial activism this decision is an act of judicial re-activism. It is a return to a shameful past and a direct attack on the fifteenth amendment. Like Plessy v. Ferguson, Shelby County v. Holder shall have its place in judicial infamy, as will Citizens United and so many other truly terrible decisions rendered by this Supreme Court.

Saying that congress can redefine who falls under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is stating a near impossibility. Given the filibuster in the Senate and the fact that the Republicans control the House of Representatives you stand a better chance of catching a meteorite with a butterfly net. Let’s face it, the Republican Party has become the party of angry, often racist, old white men, and voter suppression is the desperate tactic of a minority party that has painted itself into a corner by selling a dark and paranoid prophesy to people who are already afraid of a democracy in which they no longer constitute the majority. Messrs Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy would have to be deaf, blind and stupid to be ignorant of those facts. Deaf, blind and stupid is the best thing we can conclude about those Injustices because the alternative conclusion is that they are putting the interests of a political party and a minority of our citizens ahead of the most fundamental right guaranteed by our constitution and by every democracy.

An Unethical Court

It is now being argued that Justices of the United States Supreme Court are not subject to the rules of ethics governing the behavior of judges. I liken that assertion to the argument that the Declaration of Independence is not a part of our body of law. The argument that this document, which sets forth the very principles on which our nation was founded, is not a part of our laws is absurd. Historians say that the first documented instance of someone quoting the Declaration as an authority was when Abraham Lincoln quoted it in his Gettysburg Address. In interpreting our laws, however, courts take into account the principles on which those laws are based, the intent of the law, and whether the law is equitable. There is little doubt that in framing the first ten amendments to our constitution our founding fathers had the principles stated in the Declaration of Independence firmly in mind. Unfortunately other parts of our constitution denied to many people the rights guaranteed by those amendments, and it took a civil war to cure that defect. Following that war several constitutional amendments and court cases extended citizenship to all people who are born in this country and established the primacy of federal law. Establishing the primacy of federal law meant that no state could deprive its citizens our groups of its citizens of the rights protected by our constitution. In doing this we made our written laws conform to the principles stated in our Declaration of Independence.

The assertion that Justices of the United States Supreme Court are not bound by the rules of ethics governing the behavior of all other judges defies all logic. The Supreme Court has enormous power. It can modify, change, and nullify laws. It therefore has the power to shape the fabric of the laws of this nation of laws. The guiding principal behind the rules of judicial ethics is to assure impartial hearings and fair and unbiased decisions. To say that the Justices of the highest court in the land are not bound by rules of ethics and can act unethically is ridiculous on its face. It violates the principle that no one is above the law, and it violates the intent of our entire body of laws. If those Justices are free to act unethically no one can be assured of a fair and impartial hearing, and no one can count on being afforded the protections guaranteed by our constitution!

The principles upon which our laws are based are the essence of our laws. Clearly it was not the intent of our founding fathers to establish a court that would undermine the integrity of our judiciary by acting unethically. The Supreme Court has tacitly acknowledged that its justices are not permitted to act unethically when it accepted the resignation of Justice Fortas who was pressured to resign because of his violation of the rules of ethics. The question, therefore, is not whether the Justices of the Supreme Court must follow the rules of ethics, but rather who has the authority to enforce those rules in regard to Supreme Court Justices. The only written law addressing the power to remove a Supreme Court Justice from the court is the power to impeach. A congressional committee or the Justice Department should therefore investigate Clarence Thomas to find the grounds for impeachment. The burden of proof to establish that he committed a high crime or misdemeanor is far more difficult than the burden of proof to establish that he behaved unethically, but the evidence of his corruption is mounting. There are also questions about whether a violation of judicial ethics constitutes judicial misconduct and whether judicial misconduct is a violation of criminal law. I will leave the answer to those questions to people who have the training and the time to research them, but I will say that Justices of the Supreme Court cannot be exempt from such laws. I am aware that many people will say that the precedent set by impeaching Thomas and removing him from the court could undermine the independence of the court. But the dangers of permitting Justice Thomas to remain on the court are far more dangerous than the precedent set by removing him. His refusal to recuse himself from hearing appeals when it is apparent that he has a conflict of interest is a judicial travesty. He must either resign or be removed. The integrity of our entire judicial system is on the line!

Politicians For Sale!

I have said before that we have the best government money can buy. It is surprisingly simple to thwart the will of the majority. You do not have to buy a majority of the legislators to do it. With the filibuster rule in the senate, all you have to buy is a large enough minority to defeat a cloture vote that would end the filibuster. Obviously, the drug companies, insurance industry, Wall Street and other special interests have more than enough money to do that. Their lobbyists prowl the halls of Congress and throw money around like confetti. The drug companies and insurance companies threatened, cajoled, and bought the defeat of the public insurance option. Other special interests took note of that, and they are poised to defeat any meaningful reforms that would keep them from indulging in the risky behavior that nearly put us into another great depression.

Not being content with the power the special interests already have, the right wing injustices of the United States Supreme Court have given money even more power to rule. In what is arguably the worst decision since Dred Scott, those injustices have decided that there are no restrictions on how much the special interests can spend on candidates or issues. In other words, the court has placed our politicians on the auction block. There is nothing to keep the special interests from buying the election of politicians who will do their bidding, thereby defeating the responsible politicians who actually want to represent their constituents. Make no mistake about it. This is not a conflict of ideas or philosophies. This is a direct threat to the concept of majority rule, and that concept is the very essence of any democracy. The Republican Party is in favor of the rule of money because the special interests are already supporting members of that party. All that this ruling means to Republicans is that they can raise their price and reap even greater benefits from their masters!

The only thing ordinary people have to combat this travesty is the disclosure rule. Every CEO of a company paying for an advertisement supporting or attacking a candidate or proposed legislation must be forced to appear in those ads, state his position with the special interest, and say that he approves of the ad being run. Furthermore, those executives must not be allowed to hide behind some supposedly non-profit organization. Any advertisements run by such an organization must feature verbal disclosures of its major contributors who must also appear in the ad to approve of the statements being made therein. We must make such advertisements as expensive, burdensome and transparent as possible! We cannot allow the real rulers of this country to hide in the shadows while purchasing the government they want. The citizens of this country must have the right to know who is buying whom, even if many of those citizens are not bright enough to figure out how that impacts them.