An excellent piece on the subjectivity of judicial decisions (thanks to Greg Coleridge of POCLAD for providing this).

The Supreme Court decides cases in accordance with “The Law.” But “The Law” is not the law that legislatures enact; those laws are what are being adjudicated. So if you believe that the Congress enacts “The Law,” you are mistaken. “The Law” has nothing to do with the laws Congress enacts.

So what is “The Law”? Where does it come from? Well, “The Law” is what the members of the Supreme Court say it is. Where does it come from? They make it up.

———

This last example is especially interesting. Five members of the court concurred in Citizens United: Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas. Kennedy cites these same five jurists 43 times in 24 pages. Thirty-eight of these citations are from previous majority opinions, but 5 are from dissenting opinions. So “controlling rules” need not even be selected from majority opinions; they can be selected from dissenting opinions and anywhere else the jurists choose to find them. Sometimes they are just made up.

———–

The Court, by adopting a procedure used in seventeenth century England known as stare decisis (let the decision stand) has given America a legal system designed to protect the seventeenth century status quo and enhance the wealth of an aristocracy at the expense of the people. The result is that the nation founded by the ratification of the Constitution in 1789 is not the nation Americans live in. The Court has ignored entirely the fact that the Constitution nowhere enshrines any specific economic system or instructs the government to protect private property. In fact, the only two references to private property in the Constitution have to do with how people are to be deprived of it.

Citizens United has been criticized for putting elections up for sale. The Court’s majority in Citizens United would, of course, deny it, but it is noteworthy that Kennedy, in his opinion, uses the word “marketplace” eight times, even citing previous decisions in which the word is used. But isn’t a marketplace where things are bought and sold?

Everything known as case law in America is nothing but the judicial codification of jurists’ personal opinions justified by specious “controlling rules.” It adversely affects the lives of ordinary people far more than all of the enacted federal code. Thanks to the Court, America is a replica of seventeenth century England, where an aristocracy using a predatory economic system prospers while the people languish, where rights guaranteed to the people are transferred to corporations, and elections are bought and sold…

Because of the enigmatic nature of the Court’s decisions and the abstruse nature of legalese, what the Court has done has been done virtually in secret. To expect ordinary people, even those well educated, to do the research and analysis necessary to reveal the reality behind the Court’s actions is unrealistic. Yet the people need to know. This usurping cabal needs to be exposed.

Read The Complete Essay

Spot on analysis from Ruth Marcus…

In opening the floodgates for corporate money in election campaigns, the Supreme Court did not simply engage in a brazen power grab. It did so in an opinion stunning in its intellectual dishonesty.

—————

“If it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more,” a wise judge once wrote. That was Chief Justice John Roberts—back when—and dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens rightly turned that line against him. 

As bad as the court’s activism, though, was its shoddy scholarship. 

First, the majority flung about dark warnings of “censorship” and “banned” speech as if upholding the existing rules would leave corporations and labor unions with no voice in the political process. Untrue. Under federal election law before the Supreme Court demolished it, corporations and labor unions were free to say whatever they wanted about political candidates whenever they wanted to say it. They simply were not permitted to use unlimited general treasury funds to do so. Instead, they were required to use money raised by their political action committees from employees and members. This is hardly banning speech.

—————

The “conceit” of corporate personhood, as Stevens called it, does not mandate absolute equivalence. That corporations enjoy free speech protections does not mean they enjoy every protection afforded an actual person. Is a corporation entitled to vote? To run for office?

—————

Fourth, the majority bizarrely invoked the “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” defense. Under the Austin ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy argued, lawmakers unhappy with being lampooned in the movie “could have done more than discourage its distribution—they could have banned the film.” Beyond untrue. There is no scenario under which works of art about fictional lawmakers could be limited by campaign finance laws. 

That the majority would stoop to this claim underscores the weakness of its case—and the audacity of the result it has inflicted on the political process.

Read The Full Report

New Coalition Responds to Citizens United Decision with a Call to Amend the U.S. Constitution to Overrule the Supreme Court’s Activist Expansion of Corporate “Rights”

Contact: (202) 642-1848 or additional coalition contacts below
www.MovetoAmend.org

Washington, DC - After justices on the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporate “rights” in the Citizens United case, a new national coalition of diverse public interest, community, and business organizations responded with a bold call to overrule the decision and amend the Constitution to restore the power of people over corporations, beyond election law. A complete list of the “Move to Amend” Steering Committee is attached; and a list of other groups and people who have endorsed this new campaign is available at the coalition’s new website:

“This decision was Pearl Harbor for American democracy,” said Ben Manski, Executive Director of Liberty Tree and a lawyer helping to lead the coalition. “Decades of judicial activism culminating in today’s decision have eroded the power of ‘We the People’ to govern ourselves and so our move to amend the Constitution is not limited to the powers of the Federal Election Commission but focuses on the broader implications of the decision.”

“We are inspired by historic social movements that recognized the necessity of altering fundamental power relationships,” added Riki Ott, the Director of Ultimate Civics and a marine toxicologist whose activism was galvanized by the Exxon Valdez spill. “America has progressed through ordinary people joining together-from the Revolutionaries to Abolitionists, Suffragists, Trade Unionists, and Civil Rights activists through to today.”

“In this decision, a handful of unelected judges have revealed their agenda to expand the influence of corporations at the expense of the rights of individuals, and it will not stand the test of time,” said Lisa Graves, Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy and former Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee and Deputy Assistant Attorney General. “Corporations aren’t people and simply don’t deserve the same rights as people; we have to work together to put people before corporations.”

“The movement we are launching is a long-term effort to make the U.S. Constitution more democratic,” noted David Cobb, the Director of the Program on Corporations Law & Democracy and an attorney helping to lead the coalition. “We are a diverse coalition with deep roots in communities nationwide. We recognize that amending the Constitution to restore the power of the people over corporations will not be easy, but we know correcting the Supreme Court is imperative to the progress of our nation.”

SIGN THE MOTION HERE:
http://www.MovetoAmend.org

Exxon. AIG. Enron. Blackwater. Edison. Halliburton. Diebold.

They’ve gone after our tax dollars. Our services. Our jobs. Our schools. Our military. Our votes. Our future. Our freedoms. And the federal courts have helped them every step of the way.

Today, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government.

Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

~~~ We Move to Amend ~~~

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

- Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
- Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our votes and participation count.
- Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions by global, national, and state governments.

SIGN THE MOTION HERE:
http://www.MovetoAmend.org

Ben Manski, Liberty Tree (www.libertytree.org), (202) 642-1848, Manski@LibertyTreeFDR.org

Riki Ott, PhD, Ultimate Civics (www.ultimatecivics.org), (907) 424-3915, otter2@ak.net

Lisa Graves, Center for Media and Democracy (www.prwatch.org), (608) 260-9713, lisa@prwatch.org

David Cobb, Program on Corporations Law & Democracy (www.poclad.org), (707) 362-0333, david@duhc.org

George Friday, National Director of Independent Progressive Politics Network (www.ippn.org) (862) 668-8172, ippn@igc.org

Greg Coleridge, Northeast Ohio American Friends Service Committee (www.afsc.net) (330) 928-2301, gcoleridge@afsc.org

Marybeth Gardam, Women’s International League for Peace & Freedom Corporations vs. Democracy Committee Leadership Team (www.wilpf.org), (515) 210-7928, mbgardam@gmail.com

Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap, Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County (www.duhc.org) (707) 269-0984, kaitlin@duhc.org

Nancy Price, Alliance for Democracy (www.thealliancefordemocracy.org) (781) 894-1179 or (530) 758-0726, nancytprice@juno.com

David Swanson, After Downing Street, (202) 329-7847, david@davidswanson.org

Jeff Milchen, ReclaimDemocracy.org, 406-582-122, Jeff@ReclaimDemocracy.org

This is going to be interesting.

Press Release: Massachusetts School Of Law

ICH - A conference to plan the prosecution of President Bush and other high administration officials for war crimes will be held September 13-14 at the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover .

“This is not intended to be a mere discussion of violations of law that have occurred,” said convener Lawrence Velvel, dean and cofounder of the school. “It is, rather, intended to be a planning conference at which plans will be laid and necessary organizational structures set up, to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth.”

“We must try to hold Bush administration leaders accountable in courts of justice,” Velvel said. “And we must insist on appropriate punishments, including, if guilt is found, the hangings visited upon top German and Japanese war-criminals in the 1940s.”

————-

He noted in the years since the prosecution and punishment of German and Japanese leaders after World War Two those nation’s leaders changed their countries’ aggressor cultures. One cannot discount contributory cause and effect here, he said.

“For Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and John Yoo to spend years in jail or go to the gallows for their crimes would be a powerful lesson to future American leaders,” Velvel said.

Read The Complete Release Here

Interesting overview of the modern history of the Supreme Court and of the members who make it up. It does help to explain some things. Most telling is the current court’s emphasis of exalting order over liberty, and institutional and governmental power over the individual.

In a 2006 opinion for a unanimous court written by Roberts, the former corporate litigator, the court told taxpayers they had no right to challenge the State of Ohio’s tax abatements and investment credits extended to DaimlerChrysler. Taxpayers had argued that they and their communities would sustain injury because the less money DaimlerChrysler paid, the less money the state would distribute mandated revenue to its cities.

But Roberts and his colleagues offered a short lesson in neoconservative, supply-side economics: “The very point of the tax benefits is to spur economic activity, which in turn increases government revenues.” Apparently, the conservative activists of the Bush-Roberts Court have rejected the observation of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that “A constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory.”

When the DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno case is read together with Kelo v. City of New London (2005) - a controversial case permitting private homes to be condemned so that the land on which they sit can be transferred to a private developer - the result is a population stripped of all defenses against corporate power. Workers and taxpayers cannot fight against corporations that take property for the benefit of profit-making, and they are just as powerless to seek redress in court when a town’s officials give the store away to a corporation.

Read the complete article Here from In These Times

War Crimes? Nope. We’re The Law
By Tom Blackburn
Cox News Service
November 20, 2007

At 10 a.m. in central Europe on Tuesday, it will be 62 years since the United States boldly put warmongering on trial.

The U.S. had the full support of Great Britain, the confused acquiescence of France and the cynical participation of the Soviet Union. All four countries provided judges and prosecutors.

The Soviet Union all but had the neck sizes of the accused on file for the nooses that it considered inevitable. Defeated Germany had its own view of war crimes trials: Victors’ justice. Whenever did losers get a fair shake?

A fair trial for the worst of the Nazis is precisely what the Anglo-American legal eagles had in mind. It would not be easy. The victors were going to be open to the charge that they tried people for crimes that had not been on anybody’s books before the war. They knew it, and mustered all the treaties and treatises on the laws of war they could find.

After much back and forth, they settled on four charges. The first 24 defendants, the so-called “top Nazis,” each were accused of some or all of them. The charges were “Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of crimes against peace; war crimes; crimes against humanity; and planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace.”

Jaded wire service reporters, unable to find the names of crimes among the generalities, began writing that the Nazis were accused of “war criminality” and let it go at that. The skeptics were wrong. The court’s rulings and sentences were not preprinted. Three of the original 24 beat the rap.

They included Franz Von Papen, the conservative politician who did as much as anyone to get Adolf Hitler past the last obstacles to power. He believed that he and his aristocratic pals could control Hitler because they knew wines and horses and the Austrian didn’t. The court decided that toxic superficiality was not a war crime.

Another problem for the tribunal was the Soviet Union. It had a judge on the bench but had done many things that Germans were in the dock for. The other victors had blots on their own records. Warriors can’t help it.

“War,” as Gen. William Sherman said, “is hell.” But there is a difference between the heat of combat and policies of states. The Nuremberg precedent was that if crimes were committed on the authority and orders of the state, leaders who held the authority and gave the orders would be at least as accountable as those who actually carried out the orders.

The post-World War II trials were intended to be only the start. The initiative to criminalize aggressive war and its brutalities was typical of the American idealism that had won a war and was determined to make a lasting peace.

It was of a piece with the United Nations, the Marshall Plan and the Berlin Airlift - all engineered by the United States in the name of peace and freedom for a world in which unimagined destructive power was making war too dangerous for humanity.

A handful of treaties are based on the Nuremberg precedent. The United States was a party at first. Then we stopped signing them. The Senate didn’t want to ratify warm-and-fuzzy treaties and international laws anymore. Americans turned into cold-and-hard testosterone tigers.

Neoconservatives say we don’t need international law because the end of the Cold War means that we are The Law. And the neocons are not the only ones.

Alas, the idea isn’t exactly working. It got us into a lot of trouble. Dealing with other World War II offenders, the United States sentenced a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, to 15 years of hard labor for waterboarding a civilian. Now we have an attorney general who couldn’t know if waterboarding is torture until he read the secret documents in which his predecessor said it isn’t torture if the president wants it.

The tigers of America - alerted by whoever puts out these talking points - say, “Yeah, but Asano did other things besides waterboarding.”

Do you doubt that if we had access to the secret records we’d find that “other things besides water boarding” have been done in our name? We don’t prosecute high-level torture anymore. Instead, we condemn Iran.

Tom Blackburn writes for The Palm Beach Post

Who Judges The Judge? Perhaps to reframe the question, ‘Who Should Elect The Judge?’

Is this “reform” movement headed in the same direction as the now stripped (or soon-to-be stripped) Sarbanes-Oxley bill that was to add oversight to corporate bad boys and girls?

It is a good idea for public hearings and revealing the federal judges’ corporate backgrounds…but why should they be appointed for life? Well, if the Constitution says so, then that’s the way it has to be forever. Can’t question that document. . .

Federal judges, like Congressmen, federal agency heads and even US presidents, sometimes take actions believed by other government officials, the public and the press to be outrageous, unethical or even criminal.

The difference for alleged victims and others complaining about federal jurists’ behavior, as opposed to other officials’ behavior, is striking. Congressmen, agency heads and presidents are not appointed to their jobs for life. Federal judges are. And justices of the US Supreme Court are not even bound by the ethics code that other federal judges are. Usually, any federal jurist can be removed only by the incredibly complex and difficult Congressional impeachment process.

- Posted by Kat Walter for USTV Media

Read The Full Article

More evidence of the corruption of a democratic society by having its powers usurped by institutional oligarchy control, in this case as incarnated by a governing body known as The Supreme Court.

The international treaty, drafted in 1963, seeks to protect foreigners, including Americans traveling or living abroad. It requires that officials notify the home-country consulate when a foreigner is arrested or held for “pending trial.”

Despite its clear terms, police and prosecutors in the United States have failed to notify foreign criminal suspects that they have a right to the help of their nation’s consulate.

Two years ago, the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, took up an appeal from the governments of Mexico and Germany. The court, based in The Hague, ruled that the treaty gave individuals a right to reopen their cases if they did not get the proper notification.

But the Supreme Court said Wednesday that it was not bound to follow that ruling.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. acknowledged that treaties ratified by the Senate were part of American law. Nonetheless, under the U.S. Constitution, the power to interpret the law and treaties “is vested in one Supreme Court,” he said.

They don’t reserve the right to interpret the law. They abrogate to themselves the right to make the law. The whole history of the United States is repleat with countless incidents of this handful of un-elected, unjuried judges, the majority of them eminating directly from corporate law firms directly to federal benches, simply making law, often from rationales right out of thin air.

We The People should have full sovereign rights to make the laws to guide and configure the kind of society we want to live in. Until we confront this tool of elite minority control constantly dictating to us what our laws our and who controls them, we will never have a truly democratic society.

Read the complete article from the LA Times Here

So the Supreme Court rules that Bush deliberately disobeyed the law.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in ordering military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.

The ruling, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, who said the proposed trials were illegal under U.S. law and Geneva conventions.

And you get this kind of analysis from the lawyers…

Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, who has represented more than 200 Guantanamo inmates, said, “What this says to the administration is that you can no longer decide arbitrarily what you want to do with people. It upheld the rule of law in this country and determined that the executive has gone beyond the constitutional and international law.”

So reading between the lines a little bit… Congress people had recommended to BushCo to do have their military tribunals legitimately by pass such and such law in 2002… but the Bush administration decided it was better to do it illegally.

And yet…would it be any more “legitimate” to put together an already “legalized” tribunal based on laws that hypothetically had been passed in 2002 (which the Supreme Court would by now have “upheld”)? Would the laws be legitimate? And would the question of legality STILL all be based on the veto or withheld veto of nine unelected and un-juried judges? Judges appointed by an indirectly “elected” (questionable) executive?

I am asking — do we and our colleagues and friends intend to continue to give credence to this system of “justice” by debating the “merits” and weakness of such decisions, thereby giving them social legitimacy —- as if they deserve ANY respect? Is “following the rule of law?” in itself a “good,” even when that structure of law supports and creates and defends the rule of powerful minorities, some with “limited liability,”and a constitutionally and legally condoned and legitimized hierarchy of “rights” that places property “rights” above individual and human rights? Is there ANY justification for celebrating when this structure of law is upheld, defended, strengthened? Or are we instead sabotaging any hope for creating justice and democracy by acting as though “upholding the law” as it is solves anything? Aren’t we defusing the badly needed public outrage that should go off like a firecracker on the Fourth of July? Do we want to keep playing the game and jumping through the hoops?

Just my opinion, but I don’t think enough real thinking goes into the discussion of the “pros and cons” of this or any other court decisions, or the Congress’ partisan and laughable plans to “legalize” the illegitimate, by wiping up the executive’s crapping on rights with the papered proliferation of new powers. As long as the style of play is what we focus on, I don’t see how we’ll ever change the rules so the people call the shots.

One more illegitimate legality will hardly be opposed or forestalled, until people stop seeing the “legal” as equivalent to the “legitimate.” Writing laws that kill rights is easy. Getting appointed judges to uphold them is even easier. I can’t see how we can change the rules of this losing game by remaining dilettantes of political / judicial trivia. We have a court saying IT is the “decider” and an executive saying HE is the “decider.” (And a lapdog Congress saying he’s right).

When will The People DECIDE?

- Posted by BenGPrice@aol.com, CELDF

As if we ever had “free speech rights” at the workplace to begin with, the corporation’s, er the government’s Supreme Court has once again clearly spelled out our lack of rights at work, this time for government workers. And what’s the difference between corporate or government workers in this country where corporations run the government, the Supreme Court - even sitting on it, and our most fundamental laws of the land?

The Supreme Court declared today, in a ruling affecting millions of government employees, that the Constitution does not always protect their free-speech rights for what they say on the job.

Yet another blatant example of just how screwed We the People are, and unless and until we target the structure that denies We People from the getgo, weπre running up a hill of sand with the boulder that even Sisyphus wouldn’t attempt. How absurd must this get?

Read the full New York Times article Here

- Posted by Kat for USTV