Maverick Roberts Court Disregards Constitution in Favor of Corporations

For years, even to this very day, righties of all persuasions have repeated the tired old refrain that liberal judges have destroyed this country through their activism. These "activist judges", suspected of basing their decisions on personal or political considerations rather than existing law, were distained for ruling on such basic human rights as Brown v. Board of Education (desegregation of schools); the protection of a woman's privacy in Roe v. Wade (abortion rights), to the admissibility of statements in criminal court in Miranda v. Arizona ("Miranda rights"). Not surprisingly, conservatives haven't objected to this year's Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. I suppose activism doesn't apply, in their opinions, when supreme court justices grant undeserving constitutional rights to organizations (i.e. corporations) and when that activism furthers and promotes their causes and agendas.   

Read the following excellent piece by Matthew Rothschild, published in Friday's Progressive on the 223rd anniversary of the adoption of our constitution by the originating Federal Convention in 1787. After reading, you'll know exactly what judicial activism is, and how it has irreparably harmed our already shrinking democracy in this nation. Granted, big money in politics already subverted our democratic processes before this year, but that will seem like pennies-in-a-bucket when the steamroller of millions of corporate dollars start inundating the media with attack ads and influence peddling -- all designed to adversely influence your opinion to support their views and their candidates. 

Feingold Slams Supreme Court over "Citizens United," Implies Roberts and Alito Lied Under Oath  by Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive, 9/17/2010

Sen. Russ Feingold recently slammed the Supreme Court and strongly implied that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito lied, under oath, to the Senate during their confirmation hearings.

In a speech on Sept. 10, Feingold, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, denounced the “Citizens United” decision that the Court handed down earlier this year.

Feingold called it “a lawless decision.”

That decision allows corporations to give unlimited contributions in favor of, or in opposition to, a candidate so long as those contributions aren’t coordinated with a candidate’s campaign. It treats corporations the same way it treats individuals. (See http://www.progressive.org/mrapril10.html.)

But, said Feingold, “they are not the same as us. They do not have the same rights as all of us. And that decision is wrong on the law, and wrong for America, and an enormous danger for the political process.”

Without naming any names, Feingold said that George W. Bush’s Supreme Court nominees “came before the Judiciary Committee and promised me, under oath, that they would follow precedent, that they would be neutral umpires calling balls and strikes. Well, of course, they did the opposite.”

He was clearly referring to Chief Justice Roberts, who famously said at his confirmation hearing on September 12, 2005: “I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”  Read the rest by clicking here.

Please also watch the video I've embedded below. In it, Senator Franken speaks of other Roberts Court activist decisions that have had adverse affects for normal, real, blood-running-through-their veins natural persons. Watch and listen, then tell me whether this is what our founding fathers had in mind. I'd like to think you agree that these two cases that Senator Franken discusses are totally against the precepts of the United States Constitution. I sure do.

 

Media Control & 9/11

I just viewed an excellent film this morning at The Mills River Progressive concerning the 9/11 attack, specifically a film that's not available in this country due to the, apparently, objectionable material. I wasn't even aware of this film's existence, so I sat down with a cup of coffee, one of my loving cats on my lap, and watched it. It's called 9/11 - The Falling Man, and it focuses on one particular man...one specific photograph...that created such anger, consternation, and outrage in this country that it's been essentially banned and censored. While watching, I was, and still am, awestruck by how such a simple act...an image of an act...one where a choice was made, could create such deep and profound emotions. It seems Americans...people in general, I suppose, cannot deal with the reality of life-and-death decisions. It's almost as though it's "okay" that those people burned or suffocated to death, because nobody was forced to see it, but with the falling man, it was openly exposed with no walls to separate the truth and unbelievable suffering that occurred.

In the same way, I feel, most Americans refuse to acknowledge the truth about their own corporate-run government; that in the best case scenario it covered-up the reasons, the motivations, and even the perpetrators behind this horrible act of murder. It's easier to cling to simple and easy explanations. The real truth is too incomprehensible and frightening. Even when the facts are in plain view, they still refuse to acknowledge their existence. Such is the world we live in, one where we're manipulated through corporate media to believe a certain "approved" viewpoint; softened and manipulated, and too often skewed to present only the accepted and sanitized version. 

Here's a very interesting video of a speech given by Paul Jay, a senior editor with Real News Network, immediately after the 2008 presidential election. In his "free media lecture" he discusses the founding of the Real News Network (TRNN) and the reasons it came into being. He discusses a few areas of prime importance, but starts with what justified the beginning of TRNN. In this country, for-profit journalism, during good economic times, is compromised journalism. Ratings remain the primary goal; sponsorship drives the next headline, and revenue is the all-important factor in any and all decisions regarding content and in-depth study. During any crisis, real or imagined, journalistic motivations turn politically imperative and versed. Mr. Jay presents his case and touched upon these realities in the segment dealing with 9/11. Watch and tell me what you think. Be forewarned, it's somewhat lengthy, so you might also want to pour your libation of choice beforehand. 

 

Buy an Office? Legal. Sell an Office? Go to Prison.

Donna Smith presents some compelling questions in her article, Two-Faced Corporate Personhood: Elected and Convicted, as to why it's a criminal offense -- a felony -- to sell a political office, yet it's perfectly okay, as sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States, to buy one. Read the link here and let me know what you think. 

Also, here's an episode of The Colbert Report dealing with the question of corporate personhood. Although almost a year old, it's as fresh and timely as if it were filmed yesterday. Enjoy Stephen Colbert and The Word...

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Let Freedom Ka-Ching
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Free Speech -- Ain't It Great?!

It's really starting to rear its ugly head, folks. Beyond Target's recent $150,000 political donation to a business group backing a conservative Republican for Minnesota governor, News Corp., parent company of Fox News, provided $1 million to defeat Democratic governors in November. There's something about the smell of money when it comes in contact with our democratic political process, isn't there? It stinks!

Last January's Supreme Court decision, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, that corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress is just starting to take hold. This is certainly the tip of the iceberg. As the president indicated soon after that "Dred-ful" decision, "It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans." It seems the unintended consequences of this anonymous "527" organization, purposely created to torpedo Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential primaries, will leave an even more devastating aftermath than its founders anticipated.

Anyway, watch and enjoy Jon Stewart's humorous rendition of "money channeling"...

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
News Corp. Gives Money to Republicans
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

There Are Still Prophets

Joe Bageant knows a lot about America's problems. He also understands America's working class because he's a member. Well, he probably doesn't do too much work, anymore, usually associated with working class folks, but he sure did at one time. He's a writer now. A really good one. I read his latest book, Deer Hunting with Jesus - Dispatches from America's Class War, and it was one of the most influential pieces of truth I've read in a long time. Mr. Bageant's insight, coupled with a biting humor that's unquestionably right-on, left me wanting more. I read his blog regularly and am a loyal disciple, for he is a prophet of our time -- truly. I look forward to reading his next book, due out this fall. The following is his latest article. If you've never seen things through the hologram as he describes them, maybe you haven't been paying attention. Maybe it's time. 

from joebageant.com 
Understanding America's Class System

by Joe Bageant

How about them political elites, huh? Five million bucks for Chelsea Clinton's wedding, 15K just to rent the air-conditioned shitters -- huge chrome and glass babies with hot water and everything. No gas masks and waxy little squares of toilet paper for those guys.

Yes, it looks big time from the cheap seats. But the truth is that when we are looking at the political elite, we are looking at the dancing monkey, not the organ grinder who calls the tune. Washington's political class is about as upwardly removed from ordinary citizens as the ruling class is from the political class. For instance, they do not work for a living in the normal sense of a job, but rather obtain their income from abstractions such as investment and law, neither of which ever gave anybody a hernia or carpal tunnel. By comparison, the ruling class does not work at all.

Moneywise, Washington's political class is richer than the working class by the same orders of magnitude as the ruling class is richer than the political class. This gives the political class something to aim for. To that end, they have adopted the ruling elite's behaviors, tastes and lifestyles, with an eye on becoming members. Moreover, it is a molting process that begins with the right university and connections, and culminates in flying off to Washington with the rest of your generation's most privileged and ambitious young moths. (Read the rest by clicking here.)