The Rot of SCOTUS

Citizen's United And Other Betrayals


■

he Five justices of the Supreme Court Of The United States, responsible for the Citizen's United decision, deserve nothing less than to be excoriated by all Americans and in the most strenuous terms.  Going back to the year 2000, the court has brought untold suffering on the American people through their appalling, unprecedented, indeed, unlicensed by the US Constitution, action of interfering with a national election to appoint a losing candidate to the office of the Presidency. No matter that the Court's was meddling in ways which were actually unconstitutional, nor that their favored candidate was grossly corrupt and demonstrably unsuited to the task. No matter that the other candidate had, in fact, won; and with many more than the required number of votes. To be sure, there was outcry from the predictable sources:  Lewis Lapham and others in Harper's Magazine, to their credit, heaped much deserved scorn on SCOTUS. But generally, the American people, acted stunned. At least I would hope that the deer in the headlights phenomena was because they were totally shocked.  (But I rather suspect that most people, democrats, liberals and middle of the road swing-voters,  actually were experiencing apathy mixed with depression born of a sense of helplessness:

"Oh my goodness!  If the Supreme Court says this is the way we ought to do this, then who am I to say no?"

The corporate media tried to pretend that it was not jubilant.

The neo-conservatives and the Evangelical Christians all but danced in the streets.

That was the year, 2000 AD. And it was just a preview of the abysmal times this nation was headed for in the new millennium. Perhaps everyone was too worried about the Y2K computer issue to respond with the anger appropriate to a free people who value their democratic system.

Then only nine years later, The Robert's "Gang of Five" led the Court to, once again, grossly and egregiously overstep their conservative bias, in full knowledge of the assured and overwhelming detriment of the American people and the democratic elective system which the people hold dear.  So foul a decision, violates the very fabric of the noble vision of the roots of this nation.  Impeachment of the Robert's "Gang", would assuredly become a partisan battlefield, with opposition fueled by corporate dollars; and is, therefore, not a viable option.

Lacking this option, I call upon the Congress to redress this treasonous miscarriage of justice, and pass a new Constitutional amendment which will once and for all invalidate the superior financial power of the Corporation as well as the politically motivated wealthy person. The Supreme Court Justices seem not to know there is a difference between a person and a corporation. So let me remind them: A person is a living, breathing, entity; nurtured by parents who are legally joined in marriage, currently defined by law as between one man and one woman, though that may change soon, and educated; of the age and capability to live and love according to his or her own lights; to render judgments, based on the best education possible, regarding its own welfare and that of others; whereas a corporation is a legal construct, created and licensed by the state for one purpose: to maximize profits.

A solid case has been made in a documentary, entitled appropriately, The Corporation, that Corporations do fit, if one were to consider them as persons, the medical definition of clinical insanity. Certainly they fit the clinical definition of sociopaths.  So let us go with the SCOTUS' Citizen's United decision, rotten as it is, and say that a corporation is a person. What the decision is saying is that insane persons have the same rights as sane and responsible citizens.


 Let's think about the ramifications of that for a minute: Three of the five offending justices are Bush appointees. This SCOTUS Five, who represent the "court of the last resort", the court created by the founders and provided for in the Constitution, to be the refuge of the ordinary citizen against the special interests of hegemonic wealth, have so violated their sworn duty in an act so vile, that it is difficult to imagine suitable retribution other than rendering all of their decisions henceforth to be invalid, and let us always seek to attach shame and scorn to their names.◊