Even in the absence of what Justice Roberts narrowly defines as "quid pro quo corruption," a court that consistently decides all relevant cases on behalf of corporate interests - most recently McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission - undermines its own legitimacy as well as the Constitution....
In like manner, McCutcheon and Citizens United are not cases about campaign finance laws, nor are they, despite the artful smokescreen about free speech on the part of the court's majority, cases about free speech and whether money constitutes speech. They are cases about upholding the superior political privileges of rich interests in society as opposed to poorer ones.
We now have an algorithm to crack the Enigma Code of the Supreme Court. Once there are five members of the court who accept as self-evidently valid the 19th century concept of "freedom of contract," other issues become subsidiary. This framework explains hundreds of cases before the court and clarifies the seeming anomalies like ACA....
As Oliver Wendell Holmes stated in his dissenting opinion on the 1902 Lochner case, which established as virtual court theology the freedom of contract notion (without government restrictions), from which many subsequent pro-corporation decisions have flowed, the court's majority was basing its decision on economic ideology rather than constitutional interpretation. Roberts is wise enough to know that and is wise enough to conceal his hand with occasional strategic references to the free speech or free exercise clauses in the first amendment.Truthout | Op-Ed
Can't We Just Say the Roberts Court Is Corrupt?
Mike Lofgren
13 comments:
Yes we can say that if every time we disagree with an opinion we think it must be "corruption"...
This is at best not a mature pov... or at worst borderline paranoia.
rsp,
Campaign finance reform in 7 words: No Caps, Full Disclosure & US Citizens Only.
I agree, Matt, nauseating attitude of the left. They've taken a turn toward the nasty. When they disagreed with Bush he was stupid. When they disagree with the court they are corrupt. When they disagree with congress... The thought never occurs to democrats that they might not have support for their ideas because they aren't very good ideas and prone to wild reactionary policy and conspiracy theory.
Roberts ain't corrupt. He just calls balls and strikes like he said he'd do in his confirmation hearings. It's just that his "strike zone" seems a little peculiar to many fans and it appears strange that the pitching duo "money" and "power" always win their starts whether or not they have their good stuff on a given day.
David,
It doesnt seem peculiar to like probably half the country imo.... this is what elections are supposed to be about...
The left here in the US is not serious imo... they just know how to complain when things dont go their way...
rsp,
It depends on what the meaning of "corrupt" is. The whole point of rule is that the ruler or ruling elite makes the rules and defines the terms.
Nixon: "If the president does it it's legal."
Increasingly the US is being run under a double standard of law ad justice because it is now defined as such by the ruling elite.
It will take a populist revolt against the elite to change this.
The Tea Party isn't it as it becomes clear that it is controlled by a faction of the ruling elite and would simply change the rules to favor that faction.
What passes for populism on the left is Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, but they are not going to lead a successful political revolt against the entrenched system. They could effect some changes at the margin but that's it.
Lofgren is NOT a leftist. He's a disaffected, lifelong Republican.
"Lofgren is NOT a leftist. He's a disaffected, lifelong Republican."
Right. Same with Paul Craig Roberts and Bruce Bartlett.
Some of these people are standing up and calling BS.
How do you imagine corrupting influences on the justices?
I don't often agree with some of right thinking justices but no definition of corruption is simply to be conservative or liberal!
Of all the people in government that are likely to be corrupted, these are the last people that I'd imagine.
SEC investigators or bank regulators with cushy jobs waiting for them and their family members in the private sector, ok. Politicians, of course. Academics hoping for political appointments? You bet. Judges though?
Being justice of SCOTUS is one of the highest positions in the halls of power, or even an appellate court judge. That's why the objection to "activist judges."
These views are selected on the basis of their position in the power structure and the reliability of their ideological views.
I would not call it personal corruption but systemic perversion.
Your supreme court justices are essentially political appointees. The SCOTUS: working as designed.
I wouldnt vote for Hilary Clinton if she paid me directly $1M...
If she spent $1T on her campaign, and she was running against Paul Ryan, and Ryan spent $1 on his campaign, I'd still hold my nose and vote for Paul Ryan...
I dont see how campaign/political contributions can "change votes"... people vote on basic principles not how many commercials are put on TV...
This whole "citizens united" thing is a big nothing-burger... and is a confusion factor on the left... its imo a big distraction on the left they should expend their energies on other issues...
And as far as the abortion issue, I believe Scalia, Alito, and Roberts are all practicing RCs and dont be surprised if they rule against the abortion issue if a case involving it comes before them.... its part of their faith... what will we say then that they are corrupt? They are getting paid off by the elite wall street pro-life lobby?
The left has bigger issues to worry about imo...
rsp
Post a Comment