Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Antonin Scalia’


A political coup has taken place and the US Constitution has been overthrown. The so-called conservative justices on the US Supreme Court have lied, cheated and simply made up stuff in order to steal your constitutionally guaranteed freedoms while handing greater constitutional rights to billionaires and their corporations.

With the retirement of US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, President Trump’s nominee Brett Kavanaugh is expected to continue the coup.

While the corporate false news media, both liberal and conservative, will (and has) showered us with speculation of how Kavanaugh will vote to roll back abortion rights, in reality, Trump nominated Kavanaugh to steal your freedoms by rolling back your constitutional rights and to increase the constitutional rights of the billionaires. The abortion issue, while real, is, in reality, a deliberate distraction, a slight of hand, while the corporate justices alter the constitution in violation of the original intent of the founding fathers.

None of the following points has ever been mentioned by the corporate news media and deliberately so, not even the rich man’s bastion of rich man’s liberalism, the New York Times, has dared mention the following.

The corporate/rich man’s wing of the court has been waging class warfare against the 99 percent for forty years in violation of the US Constitution and legal precedence. So it is considered a foregone conclusion that the far right and fascist billionaires who control the Republican Party and the US Senate will confirm Kavanaugh through their senator puppets.

Theses corrupt activist members of the United States Supreme Court blithely favor conservative money, wealth and power over all else. The current anti-Constitution justices corrupted by powerful vested interests are John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch. All claim to be “original intent jurists.” In other words, when they rule on a legal issue, they claim they follow the original intent of the founding fathers.

All four have shown that their job is to rob the 99 percent of their Constitutional rights and to give more legal rights to the rich and their corporations, which they have done time and again. This legal corruption makes it easier for the rich to steal from the rest of us.

The rich derive most of their political, economic and legal power from their ownership of limited liability corporations. Quite naturally, all five so-called original intent justices argue that publicly traded corporations are persons with all of the legal rights of human citizens. These justices are not ignorant little boys.

They know publicly traded corporations did not come out of a woman’s womb. They know corporations are simply an idea of a form of business structure given life by state legislation. They know the United States Constitution does not even mention the word corporation. They know that not a single one of the founding fathers ever mention “persons” and “corporations” together in any sentence, paragraph, or chapter of any of their voluminous writings. The idea that corporations are people subverts the original intent of the US Constitution, which gives only individual’s legal rights. Ideas of business models were never given any constitutional rights by anybody until corrupt supreme court justices decided it was so.

Since the rich control the mechanisms of corporations, the court’s decision in this regard is to hand greater constitutional rights to a legislatively created tool of the rich, giving the one percent greater power than the founding fathers wanted or been able to imagine. Then the corrupt wing of the court issued another class war decision.

The activist Supreme Court declared in its 2010 Citizen’s United ruling that corporations spending money on political advertisements is free speech, but nowhere in the United States Constitution is such power granted or even recognized. And nowhere in any founding fathers writings is such a power to be found. Now corporate advertisements are drowning out the free speech of all others, especially during election season.

In addition, this ruling eliminated one hundred years of campaign financing laws. Two corrupt US Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, “participated in political strategy sessions” to advance this case, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision,” according to Common Cause.

U.S. Supreme Court Cheif Justice John Roberts gave sworn testimony in his confirmation hearings before the US Senate that he would respect legal precedents. He, obviously, lied under oath. Think about it. A known perjurer in now the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. His job is to overthrow the US Constitution on behalf of his class solidarity, just like the other corrupt corporate members of the US Supreme Court. He has been doing a marvelous job.

These corrupt activist justices have simply been making up shit in order to give the rich and their business tools called corporations greater Constitutional rights while diminishing the Constitutional rights of the 99 percent in the process.

The lies, the made-up make-believe that ideas are people and that money is free speech, the perjuries, and working with the rich on cases the justices are about to rule on demonstrate without a doubt that the sole purpose of the corrupted members of the court has been to wage class warfare on behalf of the rich by subverting the US Constitution. Doing so has allowed for a greater political rule and constitutional rights for the rich, and these activist class warriors have succeeded against the original intent of our founding fathers.

Trump nominated Kavanaugh to continue the on-going coup waged by the rich against the 99 percent, the US Constitution and the original intent of the founding fathers.

See the following link for more information. Click here.

Read Full Post »

The corporate news media does not want you to know a lot of things, and this includes such liberal media outlets as the Washington Post and the New York Times, as well as all of the conservative media, such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post. Democratic and Republican Party politicians also do not want you to know certain things.

When Supreme Court Cheif Justice John Roberts went through his Senate confirmation hearings, Democratic senators grilled him on his abortion stance, but never on his insistence that “corporations are people” and “spending corporate money is free speech.” There was never any question asked about the latter two issues, although both are significantly more important to the vast majority of citizens than the abortion issue. The same was true of the confirmation hearings for Justice Neil Gorsuch. The abortion issue was just a distraction, and deliberately so.

The rich, as well as their news media and their politicians of both major political parties, do not want you to know how your legal system and the US Constitution have been undermined in their favor by the so-called justices of the United States Supreme Court. It is all about massive corruption and redistributing income, wealth and political power from the 99 to the 1 percent. They do not want you to know these things.

Below is the editorial the rich, their corporate media, and their politicians don’t want you to see.

A political coup has taken place and much of the US Constitution has been overthrown. Now the corporate wing of the court appears ready to bury more constitutional rights of the 99 percent under a flurry of lies and make-believe.

On February 26, of 2018 the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME, a case that could profoundly affect the ability of public-sector workers to improve their wages and working conditions. If successful, this case will make the United States a right-to-work-for-less nation, and it is expected that the corrupt corporate wing of the United States Supreme Court will unanimously vote yes, despite the fact that the lower courts have consistently rejected arguments in favor of Janus.

The corporate/rich man’s wing of the court has been waging class warfare against the 99 percent for thirty-five years in violation of the US Constitution and legal precedence. So it is considered a foregone conclusion that the majority corporate wing of the court will vote yes in the Janus case.

These corrupt activist members of the United States Supreme Court blithely favor conservative money, wealth and power over all else, and they are about to subvert the United States Constitution once again. Those justices corrupted by powerful vested interests are John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Anthony M. Kennedy. All claim to be “original intent jurists.” In other words, when they rule on legal issues, they claim they follow the original intent of the founding fathers. Nothing could be further from the truth.

All five have shown that their jobs are to rob the 99 percent of as many of their constitutional rights as possible by giving more constitutional rights to the rich, which they have done time and again. This legal corruption makes it easier for the rich to steal from the rest of us, which is why their rulings have coincided and aided the massive redistribution of income and wealth from the 99 to the 1 percent in the United States over the last four and half decades.

The rich derive most of their political, economic and legal power from their ownership of limited liability corporations. Quite naturally, all five so-called original-intent justices argue that publicly traded corporations are persons with all of the legal rights of human citizens. These justices are not ignorant little boys, but they are corrupt to the bone.

They know publicly traded corporations did not come out of the wombs of women. They know corporations are simply an idea of a form of business structure given legal rules to exist by state legislation. They know the United States Constitution does not even mention the word “corporation.” They know that not a single one of the founding fathers ever mentioned “persons” and “corporations” together in any sentence, paragraph, or chapter of any of their voluminous writings. The idea that corporations are people subverts the original intent of the US Constitution, which gives only human individual’s legal rights. Ideas of business models were never given any constitutional rights by anybody until conservative Supreme Court justices decided it was so.

Since the rich control the mechanisms of publicly traded corporations, the court’s decision in this regard is to hand greater constitutional rights to these legislatively created tools of the rich, giving the 1 percent greater power than the founding fathers wanted or were ever able to imagine. Then the corrupt wing of the court issued another class war decision.

The activists of the Supreme Court declared in its 2010 Citizen’s United ruling that corporations were exercising their constitutionally protected free speech rights when they spent money on political advertisements, but nowhere in the United States Constitution was such power granted or even recognized. Nowhere in any founding father’s writings was such power to be found. Now corporate advertisements are drowning out the free speech of all others, especially during election seasons.

Two corrupt US Supreme Court justices, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, “participated in political strategy sessions…to advance this case, perhaps while the case was pending, with corporate leaders whose political aims were advanced by the decision,” according to Common Cause. These two so-called justices were clearly biased in this case, and they voted accordingly, rather than recuse themselves.

In addition, Citizen’s United eliminated one hundred years of campaign finance laws. United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who voted in favor of Citizen’s United, gave sworn testimony in his confirmation hearings before the US Senate that he would respect legal precedents. He, obviously, lied under oath. Think about it; the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court is a well-known perjurer. His job appears to be to overthrow the US Constitution on behalf of the rich, just like the other corrupt corporate members of the US Supreme Court.

These activist justices have been creating make-believe stuff up in order to give the rich and their business tools called corporations greater constitutional rights while diminishing the constitutional rights of the 99 percent in the process.

The lies, the made-up make-believe that ideas are people and that money is free speech, the numerous perjuries, and working with the rich on cases the justices are about to rule on demonstrate without a doubt that the sole purpose of the corrupted members of the court has been to wage class warfare against the 99 percent on behalf of the rich by subverting the US Constitution. Doing so has allowed for greater political power and additional constitutional rights for the wealthy and the court’s activist class warriors have succeeded against the original intent of our founding fathers.

Read Full Post »

labor unions

A well planned legal assault on public unions collapsed last Tuesday when the US Supreme Court deadlocked over a California woman’s lawsuit to strike down labor union mandatory fees, the strongest evidence yet that Justice Antonin Scalia’s death has stymied legal attacks against working people via the court’s conservative justices.

It is highly unlikely the controversial supreme court’s Citizen’s United decision that struck down 100 years of legal campaign finance precedence would occur if the case were brought today.

Lower courts struck down Citizen’s United, but the supporter’s plan was to quickly go through the lower courts, lose, lose, lose, and then overturn precedence with Scalia and the rest of the corporate wing of the supreme court.

As for the mandatory fees case above, the 4-4 split keeps in place a 1970’s era rule that authorizes labor unions to require municipal employee, teachers, college instructors and transit workers to pay a fair share fee to help cover the cost of collective bargaining.

Read Full Post »

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a steadfast friend and ally of the rich and powerful, and that was reflected in many of the votes he made while on the court. Now that he’s gone, and with a massive fight between Republicans and Democrats on the next nominee likely to take a bit of time, Scalia’s loss is having profound effects.

The Minnesota Tribune reported Friday,

“Dow Chemical said Friday it will pay $835 million to settle a long-standing class action lawsuit, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia decreased its chances of prevailing at the Supreme Court.”

That announcement shows how corporations are shifting their legal strategy following the loss of the court’s 5-4 conservative majority.

“I think most corporations facing class actions regarded Justice Scalia as a friend,” said Robert Peck, president of the Center for Constitutional Litigation in Washington. “He has been a thoroughly consistent vote on their side of the equation.”

Dow was found liable in 2013 by a Kansas jury of conspiring to fix prices for polyurethane, an industrial chemical used in everything from packaging to car interiors. The judgment dealt with alleged actions by Dow and several other companies between 2000 and 2003. Dow had petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider the judgment, until Scalia died.

A company spokesman said Friday the court’s current lineup has “increased the likelihood for unfavorable outcomes for business involved in class action suits.”

Now that the Supreme Court has an even split between perceived liberals and perceived conservatives, any tie in the supreme court would automatically shift the decision to the previous lower court ruling against Dow. In other words, the decision against Dow in the lower court would stand, and this case could never again be brought to the supreme court. Dow was going to be a winner with Scalia, and without him, the company is a loser.

This is just one example of the wonderful legal acumen of Scalia. If a company ripped off employees or customers, killed them, maimed them, violated their legal rights, or stole from them, Scalia could always be counted on to vote for corporations, their CEOs, and their rich shareholders regardless of the evidence or the law. This was only natural, I suppose, since Scalia was often seen in the company of the rich and powerful, such as the Koch Brothers.

Click the following link for more on the story.

Dow Chemical Settles Case–Minnesota Star Tribune

Read Full Post »

Supreme Court Justices

On Facebook on February 14, US Senator Elizabeth Warren demolished the arguments of Wall Street/Big Oil Senator Mitch McConnell that President Obama should wait for the next president to fill Antonin Scalia’s vacate seat.

Warren wrote,

“The sudden death of Justice Scalia creates an immediate vacancy on the most important court in the United States.

Senator McConnell is right that the American people should have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court justice. In fact, they did — when President Obama won the 2012 election by five million votes.

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution says the President of the United States nominates justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. I can’t find a clause that says “…except when there’s a year left in the term of a Democratic President.”

Senate Republicans took an oath just like Senate Democrats did. Abandoning the duties they swore to uphold would threaten both the Constitution and our democracy itself. It would also prove that all the Republican talk about loving the Constitution is just that — empty talk.”

McConnell, by the way, voted to confirm a Supreme Court nominee, Anthony Kennedy on February 3 1987, during the last year of the reign of President Ronald Reagan, making McConnell nothing more than a blathering, ideological, Big Oil, hypocrite.

We can also understand something about this process, thanks to McConnell. Political ideology and political connections, such as those that Scalia had with the Koch Brothers, are a significant, and perhaps, only factor, when it comes to selecting a Supreme Court nominee by McConnell.

Read Full Post »

63461582

The corporate wing of the US Supreme Court, a commodity purchased by the Koch Brothers long ago, is likely going to hand down the Koch Brothers influenced, or ordered, decision against public employee unions, just as it destroyed legal precedents with its Koch Brothers influenced, or ordered, decision in the Citizen’s United case. The Koch Brothers wing of the court include Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito and sometimes Anthony Kennedy. To be fair, the Warren Buffett/George Soros wing of the US Supreme Court are the remaining justices.

The object of their decision, of course, is to tip the scales of justice more and more into the hands of their billionaire backers, and away from legal precedents, the Constitution, and the vast majority of US citizens, and the Democratic Party.

The case is simple enough in the soon to be decided Friedrichs v California teachers Association case. Some union members don’t enjoy paying union dues, but they enjoy the benefits of union/management negotiations. So they want a free ride.

“Earlier this month the justices heard oral arguments in the case that turns on the so-called no-free-lunch provision of the union contract in a school district near Anaheim, Calif. It requires teachers to pay a portion of the union’s dues even if they choose not to join. Several teachers sued, claiming that violates their First Amendment rights. Unions take political positions, the teachers noted, with which they might not agree.

By the union’s logic, all teachers benefit from the salary scale it negotiates. So shouldn’t all have to pay their share of the cost of negotiating a contract? Can’t the free-speech issue can be addressed by giving nonmembers a discount — subtracting an amount proportional to what the union spends on political activities?”

The plaintiff, Rebecca “Freeride” Friedrichs doesn’t even want to pay that trivial fee. So she was mysteriously discovered by a billionaire organization, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTWLDF), according to PRWatch.

“The NRTWC has deep connections within the national right-wing network led by the Koch brothers. Reed Larson, who led the national right to work groups for over three decades, hails from Wichita, Kansas, the hometown of Charles and David Koch. Larson became an early leader of the right-wing John Birch Society in Kansas, which Fred Koch (the father of Charles and David) helped found. Several other founders and early leaders of the NRTWC were members and leaders of the John Birch Society, specifically the Wichita chapter of which Fred Koch was an active member.

The groups remain tied to the Kochs. In 2012, the Kochs’ Freedom Partners group funneled $1 million to the National Right to Work Committee, while the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave a $15,000 grant to the NRTWLDF, which has also received significant funding from the Koch-connected DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund. Today, at least three former Koch associates work as attorneys for the NRTWLDF.”

One can rightly suspect the Koch Brothers and their buddies are going after public sector labor unions because those unions largely support Democratic Party candidates. On the national level, Koch Brothers rivals, such as billionaire hedge fund managers Warren Buffett and George Soros, largely control what the Democratic Party does legislatively.

However, the result of this battle between billionaire titans is another nail in the coffin of the middle class, with the weakening of labor unions if Justice Kennedy decides in favor of the Koch Brothers, which means Rebecca Friedrichs has allowed herself to be just another brick in the wall of this never-ending struggle.

– See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/06/12498/who-behind-national-right-work-committee-and-its-anti-union-crusade#sthash.0BWV56Iy.dpuf

As Supreme Court weighs unions, middle class hangs in the balance–Chicago Tribune

Click here for more on the story from the New York Times.

Read Full Post »

money2If money is free speech, then so too are cocaine, cigarettes, gold, silver, services of a prostitutes, and just about everything else you can think of.

If, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the government is severely restricted in regulating money in politics because money is free speech, then the government also has to be severely restricted in how it regulates cocaine, cigarettes, child pornography, services of prostitutes, and just about everything else you can think of.

There is a simple reason why these assertions are true.

Money is not speech. Money is a medium of exchange. That’s the heart of the matter.

A medium of exchange is something that buyers will exchange with a seller when they want to purchase goods or services from the seller. While many things could be used as a medium of exchange in an economy, money is the most common and useful medium of exchange in our society.

In 1976, the US Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that spending money was speech. Thirty-four years later, the US Supreme Court rolled back 100 years of legal precedence in the Citizen’s United case and severely restricted the US government’s ability to regulate the expenditure of money in politics, since money was speech. Since then, the court has further rolled back the US government’s ability to regulate the money being spent in politics. Strange as it may seem to the court’s less honest jurors, the First  Amendment doesn’t mention money, but it does protect speech, not money.

If a medium of exchange such as money is free speech, then no government anyplace under the US Constitution can restrict your use of it to purchase anything, such as prostitutes and illegal drugs. Based on the logic of the US Supreme Court, the next time you’re arrested for using your free speech rights to purchase cocaine or prostitutes, you should defend yourself through the “spending money is free speech” legal illogic, and take it all the way to the US Supreme Court. The corrupt wing of that court (Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy) have no choice but to side with you if they desire to be consistent in their opinions.

Obviously, any medium of exchange has free speech rights. What about gold? What about bartering? What about cigarettes? Cigarettes and gold have been used as medium’s of exchange, and they too have free speech rights.

Dictionary.com defines barter as, “to exchange in trade, as one commodity for another; trade.”

People trade dollars for goods and services, and so anybody who uses money or any other medium of exchange to purchase anything is merely exercising his or her free speech rights.

Since money is a medium of exchange, and is now considered free speech (even if not one cent of US currency can speak a single syllable of English), it stands to reason that the equal protection clause of the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment protects the free speech rights of other forms of medium of exchange–such as bartering.

Long before money was even an idea, people bartered in order to exchange goods and services.

Say that Short Fat Fanny wants to purchase political advertising on the local television station in Fargo, North Dakota. She doesn’t have any money, but she can offer services. And since Fanny is a prostitute and is willing to barter with William, the manager of the television station, for air time, Fanny’s services are clearly just as much free speech as say a Political Action Committee (PAC) using money to purchase air time on William’s station. Fanny’s services are a medium of exchange. Just like a PAC exchanges money for air time, Fanny exchanges services for air time, and maybe tosses in some crack heroin as part of the bargain. Crack heroin now becomes free speech and has First Amendment rights.

People have used cigarettes, gold, fish, crack heroin, sea shells and other things as medium of exchanges, and therefore anything that can be used as a medium of exchange in the purchase of goods and services should be protected First Amendment rights, according to the logic of the court.

In effect, although the corporate propaganda machine doesn’t want you to know this, the supreme court’s decision to give the action of spending money free speech rights, and the court’s later decisions in Citizen’s United and other cases that rolled back the government’s ability to regulate money in politics, extends beyond politics and into every area of government regulation, since spending money is protected as free speech by the First Amendment.

Citizen’s United and Buckley v. Valeo have opened a whole new ball game in the world of politics, and in everyday life.

One can only conclude that the corrupt corporate wing of the US Supreme Court has made some incredibly stupid decisions in these cases, or they made some deliberate political decisions in helping the 1 percent in their war against the middle class.

However, these are not stupid little boys on the court, we can be rest assured that the decisions made in equating spending money to free speech, and limiting the government’s abilities to regulate money in politics, was done in order to allow the 1 percent to use as much money as they could to purchase every iota of advertising space on the air waves and in print during election cycles. That way, the corrupt wing of the court no doubt reasoned, they can keep the 99 percent ill informed and confused as to where politicians actually stand on issues, and to confuse the voters on ballot issues, as well.

The justices made the above rulings in order to rig the economic and political games for the 1 percent and against the 99 percent. In other words, the justices mentioned above are avowed class warriors on behalf of the super rich.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: