Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘supreme court’

Now that Right Wing Political Hack and Noted Perjurer Brett Kavanaugh is a US Supreme Court Justice, politicians, such as Republican US Senator from Alaska Lisa Murkowski, worry that the Supreme Court will lack credibility for impartiality when making decisions on cases. She need not worry.

The corporate wing of the US Supreme Court has been extremely partial toward Republican billionaires whenever their interests happen to be the case in front of them, so much so that one might rightly suspect the five judges are on the payroll of the billionaires or expect to receive some payback once they leave the court.

Perjurer Brett Kavanaugh now joins Perjurer Chief Justice John Roberts in ensuring the rollback of labor rights, voting rights, civil rights, environmental regulations, health and safety regulations, consumer protections against Wall Street investment banks and other large corporations, and anything else that might impede the growth of billionaire profits.

These corporate plutocrats (John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, and now Brett Kavanaugh) have raped and plundered the US Constitution with lies in order to ensure the billionaires who control the Republican Party are granted greater political and economic power at the expense of everybody else.

No better example exists than Chief Perjurer John Roberts. When referring to Roe vs. Wade during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings Roberts said, “There is nothing in my personal view…that would prevent me from applying precedents under stare decisis,” which is the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent. Roberts also said, “I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness.” Roberts also testified he would act as an “honest umpire” when making decisions. It turns out all of these were lies. The so-called honest umpire threw evenhandedness and legal precedents out the window years ago.

In Citizens United vs the FCC, Roberts and the rest of the corporate wing of the court wiped out 100 years of legal precedent that allowed regulation of campaign finances. Conservative backers of Citizens United lost in lower courts repeatedly but always appealed, knowing that the conservative wing of the US Supreme Court would side with them. The same process occurred with Janus vs AFSCMC. Conservative supporters of Janus lost time and again in the lower courts, but knew, as did their liberal opponents, that once the case reached the Supreme Court it was a done deal. Forty years of legal precedents were eliminated by Robert’s utterly corrupt billionaire court.

Repeatedly, the Roberts corporate/billionaire court has rolled back voting rights, labor rights, campaign finance laws, all to the benefit of their billionaire backers and against the interests of the 99 percent, while eliminating legal precedents in the process.

Now we have Brett Kavanaugh on the court, a Republican political hack and even more notorious perjurer on the court than is Roberts.

How has the corporate wing of the court been able to do this? They have made up fables, things like corporations are people, international trade treaties are not international trade agreements, money is free speech, etc…. They have simply lied about all this stuff and used this make-believe to advance the Constitutional rights of the billionaires and their corporations while simultaneously pushing back the rights of the 99 percent, which would have stunned our founding fathers.

So do not believe it when you read about how Kavanaugh will change the court into a political hack organization. It has been for a long time already. It may be the most politicized branch of government, but one whose decisions are law, even if total corruption is behind these laws. We may need to begin ignoring Supreme Court rulings since corruption is the primary factor determining cases.

You will not be able to find a greater political hive of villainy and corruption than the corporate wing of the United States Supreme Court, which is nothing more than an arm of the billionaire controlled Republican Party.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Professor Christine Blassey Ford accused Brett Kavanaugh of having sexually assaulted her back in the day. She testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Kavanaugh testified before the same committee that Ford’s accusation was not true. This was a he said/she said moment.

However, when questioned about his alcohol consumption back during the time of the alleged crime, Kavanaugh, the treasurer of his high school Keg100 club, said he was always a light drinker. This brought about accusations from his friends from days of yore that he was lying. On top of that, it appears he lied about a few other things during his confirmation hearings.

It is a federal crime to lie to Congress. And, indeed, if he did lie, that makes him a perjurer.

Kavanaugh’s college roommate and friend says Kavanaugh was often drunk, violent and belligerent. This has been corroborated by several other classmates of Kavanaugh. It appears, once again, members of the Republican Party are about to vote to put a well-known perjurer on the United States Supreme. Chief Justice John Roberts is also a well-known perjurer and Republican Party hack.

Kavanaugh appears to have lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and they don’t give a damn. This suggests something quite ugly about the entire Republican Party, at least its members in the US Senate. Partisan politics and political power are more important than honesty in a Supreme Court Judge. Make no mistake about; Kavanaugh is a Republican Party hack.

Is there not a single Republican senator who will stand up to the billionaires who control their party? Chuck Grassley does not care about Kavanaugh’s lack of honesty. Orrin Hatch seems to enjoy it when Kavanaugh lies to him and his Senate colleagues.

Is there not a single Republican in the United States Senate in which honesty matters? Is it all about naked power, redistributing income and political power and wealth from the 99 to the 1 percent? Susan Collins? Lisa Murkowski? Will no Republican stand up for honesty? Jeff Flake, you are quitting the Senate. Can you not vote for honesty in judges by voting against Kavanaugh?

Anybody with half a brain knows the Republican’s can find an honest and qualified Supreme Court nominee who is anti-abortion (to satisfy the base) and who will argue with a straight face that corporations are people, money is free speech, labor unions are bad and illegal, corporations and the rich are good, working people are lazy, and trade treaties are not trade agreements.

Something really stinks about Perjurer Kavanaugh, otherwise, the Republicans would drop him as a candidate, or launch an FBI investigation into whether or not he lied to Congress. It’s pretty obvious he lied multiple times to Congress.

Links
Bernie Sanders Wants FBI to Determine If Kavanaugh Told the Truth–Huffington Post

Kavanaugh’s College Roommate Says Lied-San Diego Union Tribune

All the Lies Kavanaugh Told-Huffington Post

Read Full Post »

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a Republican Party challenge to a federal campaign finance restriction that prevents political parties from raising unlimited amounts of cash to spend on supporting candidates.

The Republican Party of Louisiana had argued that a provision of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violates free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution. But the justices let stand a lower court’s ruling that rejected the Republican challenge.

Apparently, the Court’s corrupt class warfare corporate wing (John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) has decided that only corporations and people have constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights and not political parties. This is stunning inasmuch as corporations and political parties are not mentioned in the US Constitution, and the only reason why any court would approve of giving corporations any kind of personhood rights is to shift the balance of political power from individual voters to the rich and powerful via their wealth accumulation legal tools known as corporations.

In other words, the court’s corporate wing, whose members have historically come from well-to-do families, is playing class warfare by perverting the meaning of the great document in favor of the rich. By playing make believe that corporations have constitutionally guaranteed legal rights, the court is able to provide a legal lie that corporations have free speech rights, and then by insisting that spending money is free speech, they’ve effectively and deliberately given the airwaves to the only organizations and people who can afford to take them, which happens to be the corporations and rich people with all the money.

This is precisely why the corporate-leaning court in recent years has rolled back campaign finance restrictions. In 2010, the court paved the way to unlimited outside spending on elections in a case called FEC v. Citizens United that concerned corporate spending. Given its bias toward class warfare against the 99 percent, it is shocking the court turned this new case away.

Since the corporate wing of the Supreme Court is in the majority, the US Supreme Court is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the most powerful US corporations and billionaires. Actually, it has been for quite some time.

Read Full Post »

Neil Gorsuch, Donald Trump’s nominee to be the next US Supreme Court justice, is completely unfit for the office. There are a myriad of reasons why this is so. The most damning thing is that he thinks corporations are people.

That’s been the slogan repeated by conservatives for over a hundred years, and yet, corporations are purely and only an idea of a business structure that sprang forth from somebody’s mind and not from a woman’s womb. Conservatives, and Gorsuch in particular, haven’t figured out the difference between babies that spring forth from a woman’s womb, and an idea that originated from a human brain.

Anybody who has not figured out the difference is not mentally fit to sit on the bench of the United States Supreme Court. That really means that none of the conservative justices, and perhaps a few of the liberal justices as well, are not mentally fit to serve on the highest court. Yet, there they are, and that’s because the US Supreme Court is a battle ground between persons with legal rights protected under the US Constitution, and the corporations used by the rich and powerful to take those rights away, as much as possible. The rich have used this argument to provide themselves with greater legal rights through their corporations, since those corporations are managed and largely owned by the 1 percent.

Ergo, the idea that publicly traded limited liability corporations are persons protected by the US Constitution is simply a legalistic slight-of-hand maneuver that has succeeded to undermine the original intent of the founding fathers to establish and protect individual rights, and twist the law in favor of the rich and against the 99 percent. That is the sole purpose of using this lie in legal matters.

Gorsuch takes this anti-original intent further than most conservatives. He ruled that a truck driver should have frozen to death in his tractor rather than abandon his load and get to safety. Whenever possible, he has ruled for corporations and against people, as if working persons are disposable raw material whose sole purpose is to generate profits for corporations. Those profits primarily redound to the benefit of the rich.

Gorsuch does not care about original intent when it comes to the US Constitution. He is a judicial champion of the billionaires and their corporations in their war against the 99 percent.

Who among the founding fathers said that corporations were people? Who among them said that an idea of a business structure from somebody’s mind had the same constitutional protections as a person conceived in a woman’s womb? Not a single one of them said or wrote or implied such a thing, so far as I can discover.

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 »

After the Koch Brother’s wing of the US Supreme Court came under intense criticism for its incredibly corrupt decision in the Citizen’s United case, which granted business corporations constitutional rights, sometimes called personhood rights, the corporate media attempted to confuse the public, so as to dilute the public wrath toward the court’s five corrupt, corporate members, Chief Justice John Roberts (a well known perjurer), Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito (Another well known perjurer), Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia. See Precedents Begin to Fall for Roberts Court–New York Times.

Pundits on television and commentators in the written press defended the court’s decision by saying nonsensical things, such as shareholders of corporations are people and deserve constitutional rights. This type of argument was only intended to confuse people.

A business corporation is “an imaginary business model given the legal rules to exist and operate by legislative authorization under the legal fiction of being an “artificial person.” Shareholders are the owners of business corporations, which are only ideas.

To suggest shareholders of corporations are the same as the corporations they own is as illogically sound as to suggest that a person who owns a dog is in fact his dog, or the people who own a chicken poop farm are the chicken poop on their farm, or the people who own communal land jointly are the land they own, or the husband and wife who own a house together are the house, or the person who owns toilet paper is the toilet paper she owns.

Don’t let the pundits and commentators of the corporate propaganda machine lie to you.

Another point never made in rebuttal to the “shareholders are corporations” argument was that corporate shareholders already have constitutional rights as individuals. Besides, the US constitution does not grant group rights, it only grants individual rights, and shareholders already had those.

Even that point would have only served to divert our attention from the real issue, which is shareholders are not corporations anymore than the owner of kitty litter is kitty litter, although that nonsense seems to make sense to the folks at Fox News, as well as Chief anti-Justice John Roberts, as well as his fellow anti-justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia.

The economic, political and economic games are rigged in favor of the 1 percent by the 1 percent. The US Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision, and the public defense of that decision, and corporate personhood, were just other ways of further rigging the game to hide the the gigantic economic, political and judicial corruption that soaks the United States, its corporations, and its governments. The anti-justices of the US Supreme Court simply did their job, which is why they were nominated by US presidents and confirmed by the US senate, and so they created another conduit to help the 1 percent increase that corruption, and continue to redistribute income from the 99 to the 1 percent without the 99 percent ever seeing it.

That’s the mission of the corrupt, corporate wing of the US Supreme Court: Chief anti-Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia.

Click the link below for more on this issue.

the-easy-case-against-corporate-personhood-part-2-and-the-case-for-money-out-of-politics–JohnHively.wordpress.com

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »