Friday, July 22, 2011

Ralph Nader – The Corporate Supreme Court

Ralph Nader has been a cassandra for decades across a host of social and economic issues.  And history is now proving he was right on so many issues.  Yet the two party system has attempted to paint him as a radical or a buffoon with views out of the mainstream to marginalize his reasoned dissent and search for truth.   But that’s what power does.  It doesn’t matter if it is Nazi power, Stalin’s communist power, power elements in our society or any other type of bureaucratic orthodoxy.  Power’s intent is driven by a disturbed mind.  And the behavior of a disturbed mind is and always will be consistent.  Power is never brilliant but it is easily predictable.

Our entire system of government has been corrupted by money and power.  That includes the courts.  I question the voracity of any argument for the lifetime appointment of any judge.  It’s the same dynamic of not  having term limits in politics.  How’s that working out for you?  I also question the political appointment of any official or judge when politics is so corrupted by money and special interests.   Those appointments first and foremost are influenced by those paying the most money to politicians.  Even if it is a minor nudge or a mildly subconscious taint.   Mind you, we can surely conclude it is seldom a minor nudge or mildly subconscious.  

Corporate Personhood, one of the greatest crimes against humanity and a substantially large contributor to the destruction of the rule of law and democracy, is something we incessantly rail against.  As I wrote years ago, there is substantial evidence to believe Corporate Personhood has its roots in the bribery and corruption of the Supreme Court.   As we have noted before, political bribes in Washington were legal for the first eighty or so years of our country’s existence.  Congressmen actually used to solicit special interests for bribes.  I’ve seen some of the historical correspondences and maybe I should rephrase that – it not solicitation but actually extortion.

Then the United States passed political bribery legislation that exempted judges.   So, power and money no longer had a method to legally bribe politicians.  Well, what better way to subvert that process than what was announced soon after political bribery legislation became the rule of law – that is, the Supreme Court decision that rules corporations were people.  This court decision would then allow corporations to legally bribe Congress thus subverting the rule of law outlawing bribery.  Whatever the driving factor being the decision of corporate personhood, it most assuredly was not a random court decision.

There is no rule to say that there should be any set amount of judges on the Supreme Court or that the appointment should be lifetime.   Under current law we could have 50 judges or one from every state.  We could have a judge of every race comprising over 1% of the U.S. population or require judges of both genders to ensure the views of democracy for all Americans are represented on the courts…  because judgements are supposedly reasoned opinions that are to reflect society’s views on democracy.  In other words, views just like court decisions on a vast majority of issues are fluid opinions that change with the views of society.  Decisions are simply opinions of the flawed human mind and never based on perfect truth.  In other words, judges are at best fallible and at worst are political ideologues with substantial flaws in reasoned thinking.  We could also have a President who decided to stack the Supreme Court with new justices beyond the current number in order to fix the matter of corruption and overturn Corporate Personhood.  I don’t really care what the process is as long as it is virtuous and reflects all of society, including those who are constantly being beaten down by the corporate state.

While I’m at it, another concern I have mentioned before as it pertains to the Supreme Court is the concept of judicial review.  The court has granted itself the exclusive authority to determine what is or isn’t constitutional in this country.   That is not a right granted by the Constitution of the United States.  It is a right granted to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court over time.   It is a dubious granted right I completely disagree with but there is also tremendous political inertia behind it.  The Congress and the President of the United States have it within their constitutional authority to legally subvert that self-interested authority not granted under constitutional law.  In other words, if the Congress or the President were not under the duress of the same money corruption as that which upholds the concept of Corporate Personhood in the courts, they could mount a constitutional review (most obvious would be a congressional review)  to upend Corporate Personhood and the Supreme Court’s extremely flawed if not corrupt decision.   A decision that I know at least one Supreme Court justice disagrees with as noted by the corporate shills at the Wall Street Journal.  Ever wonder why Republicans tried to discredit Sotomayor as a justice nominee? 

Most people have no idea this legal ability exists.  But, I can assure you beyond any doubts, it does exist across any issue of constitutionality. 

The court system is just as broken as the political system.  That is, because politicians under the influence of untold corporate money controls the process of stacking the judiciary, often with corporate friendly ideologues aka toadies.

We need someone to mount a constitutional review of Corporate Personhood or stack the courts with judges who will overturn it. 

Title link here.

posted by TimingLogic at 8:42 AM