Just remember that the politicians that get to the final part where we get to vote for them have already been vetted by the Plutocrats to begin with. That is why someone like Dennis Kucinich was tossed out and character assassinated (they don’t need to kill you now) and never had a chance to get to where we could choose. Because they had a fake Progressive populist who looked good and sounded better but was nothing else but a Regressive. Only a few degrees less bad than the Republican version. But make no mistake there are no free choices here. The decision has already been made. Do you want you evil lesser or greater? No more choice than that. It didn’t all happen in one year. If it had people would have thought a coup had taken place. But since it was gradual over 30 years they got accustomed to it. It became the new norm, like the two jobless recoveries we have had since 2001.

@Sabagio

And the grand illusion is that we have the resources to sustain a security that is beyond our borders. This is the type of security that is draining the country. We have no business doing so in the first place.
    And any citizen here who directly or indirectly “helps out” another country or entity at the expense of our own citizenry without it’s explicit evidential consent, is a traitor and should be dealt with as such.

Instead of a comment, I have some civics questions, perhaps rhetorical since I’ve not heard of any current research being done on them by the Mediaocracity, 60 Minutes, Dateline,...Barbara Walters.  They are: 

Since the current Supreme Court has seen fit to grant the same rights reserved previously for individuals, to corporations who aren’t citizens or sentient beings, but are controlled by decision makers (or puppet masters) who may or may not be US citizens, are we not in fact now being controlled by foreign agents, interests, …countries who have historically, not acted in our best interests or national security?  Has anybody out there thought about that?  Is our economic future, our hopes for buying America,  our loyalties to US brands and companies, now wasted efforts, if major stockholders and boards of directors controlling these assets owe their allegiances to countries other than the US?

It seems as if these days, the Queen of England and the King of Saudi Arabia have more rights and access to political power in our country than the citizens voting in every election thinking that together they are making a difference,  a positive change for our future and our children’s future.  Delusion? Illusion?  Maybe.  But does it not seem un-American to somebody else besides me about all the media attention paid to William and Kate and their state visit to former colonies? Here are two very young people who, except for the historical and hysterical accident of birth, are insignificant and inconsequential, now and forever more, to what happens to the rest of us every day.  Perhaps we are STILL colonies, tenants and share croppers,bought and sold in the global market place and don’t know it.

  If there are any constitutional scholars out there in DC-land or elsewhere, please enlighten me,...if you can. 

Sabagio Mauraeno

Don’t sweat it E.J.

Relax, the rich and powerful are also getting protected by the other two branches of government as well….

by the rich, for the rich, etc etc

If you don’t like plutocrats, quit voting for them!

Night-Gaunt—

I personally believe attempts at reform would be fought so hard by the plutocrats, who control the media that defines the nation-level public discourse, that the benefits would not be worth the cost and effort. Accordingly, I believe in invoking our fundamental freedom to govern ourselves and embark on a more radical, open-ended re-construction of how we live.

But if any reform could work to make our society more democratic, you’re right—the reform has to reduce the power of money to control politics and the public discourse. To that end, getting rid of corporate personhood would help, as would proportional representation. These and other pro-democracy reforms could theopretically be accomplished through some sort of Constitutional Convention, but is it really concievable the corporate plutocrats and their dumbed-down Tea Party shock troops would let that happen? I say we start pioneering our way into uncharted territories where we use our freedom to create new kinds of communities, new societies, with like-minded people.

But for those interested in pursuing reform, here is a proposal from some well-intentioned people for a movement to get “money outta politics”: http://moneyouttapolitics.org/

The United States Supreme Court now sees its central task as comforting the already comfortable and afflicting those already afflicted.

That is very succinct and correct. It didn’t happen over night and those who orchestrated it are not finished yet. So what do we do? Get the money out of it. But how? Grass roots and get in the kinds of people we need on the local, state and eventually national level. Then how is that done? Many are already doing it. They can always use more people and I’m afraid, much more money. Our adversaries own most of the money these days for a reason.

Conservatism = Authoritarianism with a human face.

According to the Supreme Court (in Citizens United and now this case most glaringly), the 1789 Constitution does not allow a democratically-elected Legislature (federal or state) to rein in the power of money and corporations—under the 1789 Constitution, as brought to the present through the courts, money rules over democracy. It is therefore time to apply the basic principle announced in the Declaration of Independence (the principle we should all celebrate on Independence Day)—if a form of government fails to secure the interests to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness of the governed, those people have the right to “throw of” the illegitimate government and create new ones as they best see fit. That is right in the Declaration of Independence!—the document that created this nation and is therefore more fundamental than the 1789 Constitution, which we are free to “throw off.” The 1789 Constitution has been a disaster for democracy, which is not too surprising as it was written by elites trying to ensure the maintenance of a social hierarchy in which the “respectable” people like themselves were and remained in control.

So the Supreme Court’s ruling should be seen as just another symptom of the corrupt, anti-democracy government wrought by the 1789 Constitution (and the plutocratic social organization of modern capitalism more generally), a government (and way of life) we have the fundamental democracy-based freedom and power to reject as we forge our own, new paths thru the collapse of capitalist modernity, creating new societies and ways of life based on true democracy, where the kind of power plutocrats wield will no longer exist.
http://democracylight.blogspot.com/2011/04/path-to-utopia-of-true-democracy.html

“Montesquieu’s most influential work divided French society into three classes (or trias politica, a term he coined): the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the commons.”

*************************************************************

Our Government has devolved into a quasi Constitutional Monarchy, with the Supreme Court assuming the role of surrogate monarch; ruling by fiat according to political perspective. Everything is political; the Constitution is a political document, the combined effort of politicians with political perspectives. The U.S. Constitution, out of necessity and because of a mutual sense of urgent purpose, was the result of political compromise. The U.S. Constitution was nothing more than a blueprint for Government; more like a rough draft hastily scribbled on Parchment, full of ideas noble, and some not so noble. The U.S. Constitution, “The Living Constitution,” is subject to interpretation based on political perspective. We fought a Civil War, to some extent because of conflicting interpretations of the U.S. Constitution. A strict constructionist political perspective would have denied us the “Bill of Rights.” Yes everything is political; religion is political, with people interpreting their sacred documents according to political perspective. Political perspective is perhaps better described as philosophical perspective.

Supreme Court Justices are political appointees, everyone knows that, but there has been an ongoing ridiculous myth regarding the impartiality of Justices, Judges, and the legal system in general. Supreme Court Justices are the surrogates of the Executives who nominate them, and they are nearly always confirmed by politicians apparently motivated by propagating a ridiculous sanctimonious myth. 

“As of 2010, 151 people have been nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Senate has rejected twelve.”

When the Supreme Court rules, as it has, that the guilt or innocence of someone convicted of a capital crime is irrelevant as long as legal procedures were followed, a rational person must question the rule of law as it pertains to justice. Everything that Hitler did was done under the rule of law. The legal system can be, and is being, corrupted by institutional constituencies not of “We the People.” It’s Montesquieu’s de facto Aristocracy and surrogate monarchy that are corrupting our legal system.

Using legalese and the rule of law to determine what is just, ethical, or moral, is inadequate when justice, ethical behavior, and morality are the goals. Justice, ethics, and morality should determine the rule of law, and not vice a versa.

Recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States, have not promoted justice, ethics, and morality, quite the contrary, and validating these decisions by the authority of the law, and a legal system corrupted, serves no good end, it only serves the interests of political/philosophical perspectives detrimental to “We the People” and beneficial to aristocrats, monarchs, tyrants, and their like.

To put it most succinctly, laws are made by the rich and powerful to protect the rich and powerful, that’s always been the case and this reality has only changed by degree. I’ll proffer that we need less evil law, less evil politicians, and that the evil must be restrained from their evil, even if that evil can only be restrained by degrees. “We the People” need less evil in order not to be overwhelmed by an avalanche of evil. It, is, a question of lesser evils.

SOCIAL JUSTICE

suf: We elected clown Reagan twice, let’s not be shocked about the Reagan/Bush crime family court.

We did indeed. Meaning what?

Meaning this: Instead of the mindless bitching-in-a-blog, let’s go out and do something about our political convictions/opinions - because ultimately, if LaLaLand on the Potomac is in a mess, it’s because we, the sheeple, let that mess happen.

In any democracy, its elected politicians are no more nor any less a reflection of the constituency that voted them into office. Meaning, you and me. So, let’s get a Lot Smarter at election time. Staying at home moaning that “they’re all a bunch of crooks” is unacceptable laziness - and the prime reason nincompoops get elected.

Of course, the question remains, “How’s that, smarter?” The response to that question I submit is this: Look at the facts and above all learn how to ask questions that prompt debate. Even when you think you have the answers.

ADVERSARIAL DEBATE

Our courts of law must distinguish the truth from falsehood based upon adversarial exchange. Similarly, our forums are the best way to obtain the necessary sense of the other side with which to reform or refine our own beliefs.

The forums, and particular the web-technology available, are wonderful means for developing informative debate.

MY POINT : Social justice

But even more, at the heart of a political movement are some fundamental convictions commonly shared. Mine are progressive based upon what I have learned to appreciate whilst, as a American, living in Europe. It is a sense of Social Justice.

Based upon the notion that, yes, whilst we may be all created equal, life does treat us equally. It can however, if we chose correctly, make our existence both equitable and dignified. That is, none too-far-ahead and none too-far-behind - while accepting that we cannot all be treated equally.

Is that asking for too much?

POST SCRIPTUM

We could of course throw this democracy away and call in the Khadaffi family to run the country. I understand they are available.

Democracy is like love - you can’t miss it if you’ve never had it. But you can miss it when you no longer have it.

The people of this world are suffering from collective insanity but fortunately Mother Nature is not.

Reagan once famously shouted down a dissenter: “I paid for this microphone.”
***********

And that dissenter was….George H.W. Bush.

So, what are going to do about it? Vote again?

“Yeah yeah yeah, if that is what you reduce it to, then between
the two evils it is.  Pick one, as ITW implores.  Toss a coin or just
don’t vote.  Your choice.  No whining later, okay? “

Actually there are two choices ,when you lump the Donkey with the Elephant together ,that does leave another choice and whining is part of the process.

radson, July 1 1:25 pm - “Shen:Its the lesser of two evils
argument once again isn’t it . A Republican Hahahahahah
.what the hell is that.” 

Yeah yeah yeah, if that is what you reduce it to, then between
the two evils it is.  Pick one, as ITW implores.  Toss a coin or just
don’t vote.  Your choice.  No whining later, okay?

radson, July 1 at 1:25 pm Link to this comment

Shen:Its the lesser of two evils argument once again isn’t it . A Republican Hahahahahah .what the hell is that.
**************

Ooo,Oooh, I know this one! Pick me! Pick me!

Shen:Its the lesser of two evils argument once again isn’t it . A Republican Hahahahahah .what the hell is that.

Well…rad go ahead and vote for a Republican!  You are part of
the voting public aren’t you?

Shen :Yeah right, blame it on the ‘public’ .Vote for WHO ?

A Democratic president sat two liberal justices, regardless of any
other lackadaisical action on issues we might fault him for.  The
current rabid flavor of the 5-4 Supreme Court on behalf of the rich
and powerful is all the more reason to make sure a Republican does
not win the 2012 election as there are a couple of Justices ready to
leave the bench.  If they are replaced by conservative justices, it will
be only the fault of the voting public.

They’re not even bothering to hide it any more on the court.

It has been illegitimate for many years now.

I suggest a modest proposal, that the Supreme Court be renamed the Most Inferior Court. And it’s new acronym would pay homage to one of the court’s most ardent supporters, the MICOTUS.

The ‘Golden Freedom’ and Liberum Veto is alive and well and spreading ,like a disease.

The Bush Administration was the epitome of ineptness, particularly in its proposition of both Scalia and Thomas to the Court.
************

Point of order here:
Scalia was appointed by Reagan in 1986, as was Kennedy in 1988.  Thomas was appointed by George H.W. Bush (Bush 41) in 1991. (43’s other SC justice was David Souter, now retired).

Roberts and Alito were appointed by Dumbya (Bush 43).

Ginsburg and Breyer were Clinton appointees, and Kagan and Sotomayor are Obama’s.

(Jimmy Carter is the only President in living memory not to have a USSC appointment.)

THE CONSTITUTION

St: Not one word in the constitution about the Supreme Court being able to decide the constitutionally of anything.

You’re right, but to establish itself with this power, the Marshal Court invoked itself with it and Congress did not disagree. It is therefore established as a rule.

From WikiP:

The Court’s power and prestige waxed during the Marshall Court (1801–1835).[6] Under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including specifying itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison)[7][8] and made several important constitutional rulings giving shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and the states (prominently, Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden).

Besides, the founding fathers borrowed from the French political philosopher Montesquieu as regards the “separation of powers” that they wanted as the core criteria of our governance. Our tripartite governance has passed the test of time and, yes, it is still in evolution as it should.

The Law of the Land must keep up with the times in which it is implemented.

The Bush Administration was the epitome of ineptness, particularly in its proposition of both Scalia and Thomas to the Court. But that does not mean that the essential nature of the Supreme Court, based upon its interpretation of the constitution, is at stake.

Except in the minds of people like Scalia and Thomas who think dogmatically, “Well, if it aint in the constitution then it cannot possibly exist”. Which is dead wrong. The constitution is a good foundation, but the Bill of Rights, passed long afterwards is also a key part of the legalistic foundation of our country.

A document that is two-and-a-half centuries old should not be employed in a context was not foreseen. In this manner, it is sometimes implied that the Supreme Court “legislates from the bench”, because it can extend or strike down legislation passed by Congress.

MY POINT

The Supreme Court is doing its job, even if we do not like the manner in which it makes some decisions. But we need only one more Supreme Court member to retire and Obama will shift the preponderance of the court Leftwards.

Unless, or course, he doesn’t get elected. Think of that consequence during the run-up to next year’s PotUS elections - because it is as important and perhaps more so than any other subject/matter/issue that might be discussed during the campaign.

THE IMPORTANCE OF GEUNINE COMMONALITY

EJD: This court has created rules that will have the effect of declaring some corporations too big to be challenged through class actions, as AT&T consumers and female employees at Wal-Mart discovered.

Whoa!, EJD. Consider the partially dissenting opinion as posted on the Supreme Court’s web-site:

WAL-MART STORES, INC., PETITIONER v.BETTY DUKES ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[June 20, 2011]

JUSTICE GINSBURG,  with whom JUSTICE BREYER,
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, concurring in part and dissenting in part.

The class in this case, I agree with the Court, should not have been certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).  The plaintiffs, alleging discrimination in violation of Title VII, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., seek monetary relief that is not merely incidental to any injunctive or
declaratory relief that might be available.

The Left-leaning of the Court thought yes, indeed, this case cannot be considered a class-action suit - but that does not stop the court case if pressed in another, less general manner.

Dionne’s conclusion that some companies will escape class-action suits is not valid. The nature of the “class-action” must be better justified - that is all the ruling says.

For instance, as Ginsburg says, 

The Court errs in importing a “dissimilarities” notion suited to Rule 23(b)(3) into the Rule 23(a) commonality inquiry.  I therefore cannot join Part II of the Court’s opinion.

Without going into the legalistic logic of the opinion, it should be evident that the rules for similarity are essential to any class action suit. One does not simply amalgamate a group of people and attack a company or a person just to hassle them.

The homogeneity of the grouping must be substantiated - that is the genuine commonality of the plaintiffs.

This case is very much alive, imho - just on a smaller scale.

MY POINT

Let’s not go ballistic, people, in our journalistic reporting - or we begin to look as rabid as the other side.

There is PLENTY of wrong out there that is genuine and we can stick it to their hides.

Also worth reading, this editorial from the NYT: Ethics, Politics and the Law

Does anyone really believe there is “justice” in the U.S. any longer when the ultra-uber-wealthy seem to be the only players in the “big game” that has become our American system of government? The rich and powerful have always enjoyed advantages, but today I feel utterly dis-empowered by the rulings of the SCOTUS. There isn’t a day that goes by these days when I don’t feel the icy-cold grip of the plutocracy around my throat…..I don’t feel very “american” anymore.

Wait. They’ll decide that women’s bodies are public property, incubation machines that are essentially no different from Frank Herbert’s Axlotl Tanks, used by the Bene Tleilax for growing Face Dancers, Ghola clones, and other genetic machines.

They are part of the Republican Machine that wants to repeal the 14th Amendment (the one that outlaws slavery and guarantees anyone born on American soil is an American).

Scalia finds the 5th Amendment, against self-incrimination, a problem.  After all, he’s stated publicly it’s OK if the police “slap around a suspect” (I believe those are his exact words).

Thomas has no problem taking money via his wife from companies and rich individuals who have cases that may well come before the USSC, and never recuses himself. Neither does Scalia.

Roberts and Alito were put on the Court to carry out the wishes of Bush’s inner circle, and they, along with Thomas, Scalia, and, disappointingly, Kennedy, are putting the nails in the coffin of what was once the United States of America.

You cannot keep a ship from sinking by continuing to cut holes in its hull.  The water runs in, not out.

“That’s the unfortunate experiment on which we are now embarked,” says Dionne.

I beg to differ.  It’s not an experiment at all, but an action with a known consequence.  The purpose of experiments is to try to discover an unknown. Every-body knows the outcome of this edict—inequality of influence in favor of wealth, which enables any and every public office to be bought by the highest bidder. 

This is viciously destructive of democratic methods, as is the entire “corporatioins as persons” notion.
Citizens have a recourse:  Look online for citizen organizations working against these encroachments on political justice, and help them out with money and volunteer work.

Not one word in the constitution about the Supreme Court being able to decide the constitutionally of anything.