January 2010 Archives

We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections. John Adams, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1797

In 2000, without precedent, the Supreme Court stepped in, stopped the counting of votes, and decided who would be president of the United States. This was an outrageous overreach of their powers, and judicial activism at its worst. The American people were momentarily stunned but the anger and resistance to such a blatant infringement on the rights of the people began to surface and build across the country. Then came the shock of the 9/11 attacks that immediately took precedence over everything else. Despite getting sidetracked by other events, this action by the Court radically affected the people's confidence in the fairness of the Supreme Court; a confidence that ten years later remains compromised.

Now, in 2010, the Supreme Court, with their decision in Citizens United vs FEC, has reversed decades of precedent in campaign finance laws and again undermined democracy by handing our free elections over to predatory corporations. As far back as 1902, and as recently as 2006, the Court had upheld the authority of Congress to limit corporate political expenditures. The convoluted reasoning and weak arguments offered to support their decision is more indicative of their political leanings than their claimed allegiance to the Constitution and the intentions of those who drafted it and its amendments.

The glaring dishonesty in Alito, Scalia, and Thomas' self proclaimed judicial philosophy as "originalists" is undeniable when you recall Thomas Jefferson's warning about "the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations" and John Adams' expressed belief that regardless of the fury and demands of the wealthy, a "more equal liberty than has prevailed in other parts of the earth" should be established in America." The duplicity of John Roberts is also clearly evident as this decision gives lie to his claim of being an incrementalist. Overturning 102 years of precedent does not in any way fit within the definition of incremental.

According to US Code: Title 18, 1001: ... whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully-- (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious,, or fraudulent statement or representation;, or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry

If the shoe fits... It is time to hold these people accountable for their testimony given during confirmation hearings. The misrepresentation of their judicial philosophies as demonstrated by their actual record of decisions is there for all to see if they just look. And the consistant alignment of the decisions with a political agenda is impossible to miss. It is particularly egregious when Justices of the highest court in the land are guilty of such deceitfulness. No court, especially the Supreme Court which is charged with clarification of the law, has the right to take free elections out of the hands of the people and place them in the hands of profit motivated entities that have no concern for anything except their bottom line. How can a court that defends making a profit as the sole purpose of a corporation, in the next breath, claim that same corporation is a person with the right of free speech?

And more to the point, when did money become speech? There is a common expression, "money talks." And when someone makes that comment it is commonly understood to be a reference to a situation where the use of financial resources is helping to pave the way for a desired action or ending to occur. At its heart, the use of this saying indicates that when other methods fail, offering cash to someone who is in a position to accomplish the desired end will ensure the desired outcome. This is how the corporations will exercise their right to free speech in our elections; they will purchase the branches of our government.

The Supreme Court is an important part of our government, intended to be free from political influence and therefore able to make crucial decisions about the law and how it is applied. When the Court repeatedly makes decisions that clearly reflect a political agenda, then the members of the Court should be subject to close scrutiny, investigation, and impeachment if that is what it takes to restore the Court to its proper position as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.