There are 2 words I never again want to see associated with any Supreme Court decision. Those 2 words are "judicial activism." The reason being that yesterday the Roberts Court reached the apex of "judicial activism" in a travesty of justice known as Citizens United v. FEC. January 21, 2010 became, to borrow a phrase from FDR, a date which will live in infamy, aka The Day Democracy Died. A date marked by the sound of champagne corks popping in corporate board rooms all across this country, because the Supreme Court made it perfectly legal for the political process of the United States of America to be sold to the highest bidder.
To reach this decision wasn't easy. The majority had to ignore and turn on its head over 100 years of legal precedent, all because of, as Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent, "its disagreement with their results." The majority also went out of its way to expand the case far beyond the original parameters. Why? Short answer--because they wanted to.
One example. Justice Kennedy, who wrote in the majority opinion, "that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt," ruled just last year that a CEO of a corporation who contributed $3 million to the campaign of a judge running for a position on the West Virginia high court before which the case was heard resulted in "a constitutionally intolerable probability of actual bias." What changed since then? Nothing but Justice Kennedy's mind.
Here are just a couple of possible scenarios that could come from yesterday's Supreme Court ruling which unleashed a flood of corporate dollars on future political campaigns:
"Consider Exxon-Mobil. In 2008, its political action committee (PAC) raised about $1 million from its employees and offices. Its profits that year -- which it was legally barred from pouring into politics -- were $45 billion. It was illegal for Exxon to spend that money on elections; now with this decision, it will be legal. Exxon or any other firm could spend Bloomberg-level sums in any congressional district in the country against, say, any congressman who supports climate change legislation, or health care, etc."
"If we take only the profit of the 100 largest corporations alone, those corporations would need less than 1 percent of their $605 billion in profit to make political expenditures that would double all current political spending by all of the parties and federal candidates."
"Under today's decision, insurance companies, banks, drug companies, energy companies and the like will be free to each spend $5 million, $10 million or more of corporate funds to elect or defeat a federal candidate -- and with that power, influence the candidate on issues of economic importance to the companies."
Justice Stevens closed his dissent with this:
"While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."
Put another way, does any rational, reasonable person (and I exclude Justice Kennedy and his four partners in crime from that number) actually believe that what our political process needs is MORE money?
To reach this decision wasn't easy. The majority had to ignore and turn on its head over 100 years of legal precedent, all because of, as Justice Stevens wrote in his dissent, "its disagreement with their results." The majority also went out of its way to expand the case far beyond the original parameters. Why? Short answer--because they wanted to.
One example. Justice Kennedy, who wrote in the majority opinion, "that speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt," ruled just last year that a CEO of a corporation who contributed $3 million to the campaign of a judge running for a position on the West Virginia high court before which the case was heard resulted in "a constitutionally intolerable probability of actual bias." What changed since then? Nothing but Justice Kennedy's mind.
Here are just a couple of possible scenarios that could come from yesterday's Supreme Court ruling which unleashed a flood of corporate dollars on future political campaigns:
"Consider Exxon-Mobil. In 2008, its political action committee (PAC) raised about $1 million from its employees and offices. Its profits that year -- which it was legally barred from pouring into politics -- were $45 billion. It was illegal for Exxon to spend that money on elections; now with this decision, it will be legal. Exxon or any other firm could spend Bloomberg-level sums in any congressional district in the country against, say, any congressman who supports climate change legislation, or health care, etc."
"If we take only the profit of the 100 largest corporations alone, those corporations would need less than 1 percent of their $605 billion in profit to make political expenditures that would double all current political spending by all of the parties and federal candidates."
"Under today's decision, insurance companies, banks, drug companies, energy companies and the like will be free to each spend $5 million, $10 million or more of corporate funds to elect or defeat a federal candidate -- and with that power, influence the candidate on issues of economic importance to the companies."
Justice Stevens closed his dissent with this:
"While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."
Put another way, does any rational, reasonable person (and I exclude Justice Kennedy and his four partners in crime from that number) actually believe that what our political process needs is MORE money?
We are in the mist of a bloodless coup d'etat...
WAKE F UP!!
All I keep hearing resonate in my head is "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
yeah, most of them already are...with no hope of ever reaping any benefit from them. Much like the initial incarnation of the social security system.
One of the more comical aspects of the anti-immigration argument is that illegals are all cons stealing social security numbers to gain employment, all the while not paying social security taxes...it just doesn't work that way.
With all due respect. I disagree on what is... and what is not.... sustainable.
This is what I find.... as not sustainable.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/top-defense-contractors-s_n_431542.html
Read the figures and find out how many millions were spent by defense contractors..to get the billions in contracts for the war in Afghanistan.
Keep in mind we are paying some of these billions to mercenaries...who are fighting this war.
In the area of "something has to give" .... I would suggest that if we don't have the U.S. Military troops necessary for the fight.... we don't need to be in the war.
But... I do, however, agree with the suggestion that we give all those who are "undocumented" a social security number (of their own) and require them to pay the same taxes all the rest of us pay.
Artemus,
I agree with you, the system is unsustainable. Until, a paradigm shift in political and economic philosophy occurs we will be living this reality.
I wouldn't dare make the following comment anywhere but in this company and I dare say it's not a popular sentiment even here.
The only readily accessible stopgap solution that presents itself is...hold your breath...citizenship for the illegal population in the country (or at least immigration reform). Pared down to its bare minimum, they represent 'fresh meat' and our only hope for continued, albeit temporary viability.
But (as Reagan used to say) defense spending doesn't count against the deficit. Didn't you peace loving libruls know that?
Nope, seniors haven't been thrown under the bus. We - since I have hit the big 6-0 - have to face reality just like everyone else. Fact is, our democratic processes just aren't up to having to deal with economic reality right now. The commission discussed in the Mother Jones article - one supported by Democrats and Republicans alike - takes most of the politics out of the picture, which appears to be the only way to actually get something done these days.
Let's face it (and this is a liberal Democrat speaking here) Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable. Cuts will be made, under either a Democratic or Republican administration.
Money does not grow on trees and we are obviously unwilling to tax ourselves to pay for the government we say we want. Something has to give, somewhere.
Week's not over.
As a recipient of Social Security, I found this to be interesting..... and sickening....
With friends like these..... who needs the Republicans to screw up your life?
H/t to Mother Jones.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/obama-puts-social-security-chopping-block
Add "Seniors" to the list of those "Thrown Under the Bus."
"War....Good God Y'all --- What's it Good For???"
(Apparently.... draining the national treasury.
At the expense of social programs for Americans.)
You're right, Carolsb. It was a question posed only for discussion purposes. We all know the answer.
The appropriate phrase is "too dumb to know how stupid they are". And I have told Kathleen that more than once. I even typed slowly to make it easier for her.
As this week draws to its inestimable close, those of you that consider me a colleague would be well advised to visit kissmybigbluebutt.com for a laugh or two. Afterwards, today only, check out Sparkle's blog "This Week in Review" if for no other reason than to see how "her" week went.
That being said, we need to remember we still live in one of the top 20 industrialized nations on the planet. The fact that we rank #18 in education just might explain why we are where are at this point in time despite the fine country our forefathers left us.
I guess the big question is, where do we go from here? I see the president is talking big about today's decision by the Supremes. We know he can "talk the talk". I suppose we will see over the course of the next six months whether Obama can "walk the walk".
I have a redbird (aka Northern cardinal) that stops by my window every spring and fall in his migration from Wisconsin where he summers to Mexico where he winters. He's usually here, daily at my window for about 12-14 days during his seasonal commute. For the first time in 4 years, he is outside my window, right now, in January rather in March. Apparently he thinks we will have an early spring. With toay's weather you'd be hard pressed to argue that point. Go out tomorrow and sunday and enjoy the weekend. Next week HAS GOT to be better.
Stay thirsty my friends.
The republicans invariably consider anything that "their side" did to be correct. The Roberts Court IS their side, ergo, MUST be right. Let's watch and see, shall we.
Artemus, I think you answered your own question with the last line of your post.
Where is the right wing anger now about "activist judges"? The five Republican members of the Supreme Court just re-wrote the constitution to serve the interests of big corporations and, in turn, the GOP.
There is just no logical way to justify this decision. Overturning a hundred years of case law and precedent is hardly a "conservative" or "strict constructionist" approach. This is one of the most radical decisions, un-democratic as a matter of fact, that the Court has ever handed down.
My question is, will the right wing populists, people like Sparkie and Black Shards, have the intellectual ability to figure out who the bad guys are? I mean, blaming liberals for all of their ills is what those two do. Now, the court has upended the law in favor of powerful corporations, to hell with the average voter. Will Sparkie, et al be able to figure out who the villain is, or will they continue to twist things into their own peculiar reality so as to be able to blame liberals?
If you find Mr. Peabody, reserve a seat for me.
And Bobo, spot on!
I think we (as a a country) MUST have broken a mirror. If we didn;t have bad luck we'd have no luck at all. 8 years worth of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, near-total financial collapse, trillion$$ and trillion$$ in debt. Everybody on the planet hates us. (When I travel overseas I tell peple I'm from Canada) And a TOTALLY DYSFUNCTIONAL central government.
The ONLY good thing that has happend THIS whole millenium is the "Curse of the Bambino" expired on the Boston Red Sox. Maybe we did not have a total social apocolypse at Y2K but IT'S BEEN A BAD DECADE. God, if we could only find Mr. Peabody and Sherman, jump in the "Wayback Machine" and return to the 60's.
We've been too polite.
Spittle doesn't fly from our lips when we try to talk to our non-representin' reps.
Stunned by what we perceive as unbelievable ignorance, way too ignorant to even have to counter, we remain silent.
We don't show up in Washington to rage in front of the various public buildings.
And anyhow, life as serfs has been just a little too comfortable as our universal employers gradually nibbled away our political lives.
Today has been decades in the making.
I spent the better part of yesterday spitting nails over this and today I just feel like we have lost our democracy to the highest bidder.
I agree with Carguy - how did we get here?
With this Court, I would say no.
Shall we begin the process of amending the Constitution to prohibit the corrupting influence of this corporate money? Do we even have any chance?
Been a BAD week!!!!!!!
How did we get HERE?
I think everyone needs to look up the word 'PLUTOCRACY'... It is what we live in. We haven't lived in a Democracy for a longtime.
Well, the GOP activist judges have just sold Americans down the river.
I hope Texas Sparkle enjoys the future when foreign corporations decide who will be our future political candidates. I hope she enjoys what she and her ilk have brought about.
WTF is wrong with those 5 justices? Are they all just totally freaking insane? Or have they all been bought and paid for?
I am baffled by their abysmal ignorance. As I told Justice Kennedy in my letter.
I snuck a peak at the infamous one's blog (TS) there was a poster over there decrying the left-wing activist judges trying to rewrite the constitution. The joy of pointing out right wing ignorance has lost much of its luster.
Something I learned on the elementary school playground remains true to this day. Those with the loudest mouths win.