On the Supreme Court

by Jackson Dave

Provision for our Supreme Court occupies three short sections, approximately ½ page of our short constitution. The document is specific as to the court’s function and jurisdiction. With few distinct guidelines, the court relies upon tradition or precedent for guidance.

Until now.

Precedent, which has dominated the proceedings of the court for generations, has dictated that the body, which represents 1/3 of the government, and a crucial part of its checks and balances, be non-partisan. While “politics as usual” tends to dominate the other two branches, the court was to be above the fray and “keep the children from frivolous excess.”

Until now.

The court is the last bastion of protection for minority interests and the oppressed.

Until now.

To further protect the impartiality of the body, the court does not pick and choose which cases or subjects that it wishes to rule upon; The Solicitor General does this.

Until now.

Integrity of the court rises from the integrity of those appointing its officers, namely our presidents. The Senate is supposed to be the watchdog over dubious appointees, but the process begins with the president. History of the court has shown that it has carried such extreme gravity as to soften partisan voices. Known conservatives, such as former California Republican Governor Earl Warren, have become outspoken voices for liberal values. The reverse has also been observed over the years.

Until now.

Recent cracks began to appear in this fabric in 1987 when Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork. Bork was an outspoken advocate for “original intent” and “conservative values”, whatever those might be, and was the first nominee ever opposed by the ACLU. Six of 58 Republican senators joined the opposition.

Next, Thurgood Marshal, the first African American to sit on the bench, retired in 1990. In a cynical gesture, George H. W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to replace him. Thomas was a known, radical "conservative", committed to turning back the clock on civil rights, as though his own social and professional status, gained through positive action and quotas, would be tarnished by others following in his path. Thomas opposed all that Marshal had stood for in a distinguished career; but he was black. He had been a judge for only one year, and had produced no written decisions or briefs. Furthermore, outraged that her tormentor had been nominated for the bench, Thomas was accused by Anita Hill, a co-worker, of sexual exploitation on the job. The nomination produced a circus of televised hearings that clouded the entire proceeding. Thomas survived the hearings with strong opposition from Democrats and two dissenting Republicans.

With this as rationalized provocation, Republicans have taken the ball and run with it, as only Republicans can, by subsequently opposing every candidate proposed by Democratic presidents on partisan terms.

The culmination of partisanship reached a climax in December 2000 when the United States Supreme Court interceded in national election procedures in the state of Florida by overruling a re-count, mandated by the Florida Supreme Court, of a clearly tainted vote. Since the constitution dictates that each state will conduct its own proceedings, this was a clear violation of precedent and the constitution. On a strictly partisan divide of 5 Republican-appointed justices against the 4 others, the court blocked the re-count, effectively appointing George W. Bush to the presidency, over-riding the popular vote and the likely electoral selection of Al Gore.

Moving forward eight years, we find a new president elected by a significant majority of voters. Behind the result was the unprecedented force of a large, “grass-roots” movement of regular citizens, financing the election through donations of $10 to $200. To many, this would appear to be the very flower of democracy in action. Conservative (“original intent”) hearts should swell with pride over the success of this movement. But no. The election brought us a Democratic president.

Hence, the Supreme Court handed down an opinion in the Vanguard Church decision that opens the door to unlimited campaign contribution from corporations. The implications of this decision are staggering, given that most observers believe that excessive money in the campaign finance is already undermining our political system. Beyond that, it now becomes the fiduciary responsibility of every corporate officer to plunge forward with all available financial resources to direct the course and success of their company through political means. Given the excessive gravity of corporate influence through a variety of channels, this has the promise to sweep away completely the will of the people.

The ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, overruled a number of precedents going back 100 years, plus two recent precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.

So what are the implications of this decision on our court?

First, granting corporations equal voice with people is a huge stretch of “original intent”. Virtually no one proposes that Jefferson and the framers championed corporate civil rights. It violates original intent, if not the constitution.

Second, there is a long precedent of denying corporations all but very limited access to direct, legal involvement in our political process. Half the states have strict restrictions on corporate influence, which will be swept aside. This decision comes from total contempt of precedent, from a Republican majority which claims to champion this cause. In his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice Roberts repeatedly invoked the sanctity of both original intent and precedent. This is sheer hypocrisy, if not arrogant disregard of the law by our most hallowed legal body.

Third, the court’s traditional cause of protecting the minority and oppressed is obliterated. Corporations already have by far the loudest voice in our political process. This decision amplifies their voice to further drown out that of the people.

Finally, this decision did not come from a case submitted by the Solicitor General. The Vanguard Church case involved a specific movie, Hillary, the Movie, that was produced to influence the 2008 election. As Ms. Clinton failed to carry the Democratic nomination, the movie became superfluous. But the court stepped out of the context of this case to make a decision of its own choice on our political process that will cast a shadow over all elections to come.

Republicans (who support this decision, of course) contend that it’s fair, and balanced by the provision that labor has also been granted this prerogative. This is a smoke-screen, given that the financial resources of industry dwarf those of labor.

To this “unbiased” eye, it appears that the court has moved to counter the emergence of widespread citizen involvement in the election process that gave us a Democratic president. Our Supreme Court has made a move to unhinge democracy (rule by the people) on behalf of plutocracy (rule by the few and the powerful, on behalf of the few and the powerful.)

In short, the Supreme Court has run amok. It has become an agent of the Republican Party, and has acted in response to a citizen movement to remove Republicans from power, as occurred in the executive and legislative branches. The court has taken this step in response to the threat of the loss of their majority on the bench at the hands of President Obama.

Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush after he withdrew the nomination of Harriet Miers, whose qualifications seemed laughable even to large numbers of Republicans, has proven to be the voice of the contemporary Republican Party. In five years on the bench, Roberts has decided for the prosecution over the defense, for the state against the condemned, for the executive branch over the legislative, for a corporate defendant over an individual, in every case put before the bench.

With Justices Alito, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas on his side, Roberts has the majority needed to push the Republican agenda down our throats even in the face of a congress stacked against them by popular vote. The recent decision by the Arizona Legislature requiring people to carry "papers" proving their legal residence would normally be quickly overturned by the Supreme Court. Not now. In less spectacular fashion, "Citizens United" will undermine our entire legal system by putting all courts in play. The vast majority of states require periodic re-election of judges. These become partisan positions when it's necessary to raise money for campaigning. What judge can afford to make a ruling against a powerful commercial interest when that corporation has the power to unseat him in his next election? Between 1980 and 1990 $85 Million was put into judicial elections. In the following decade it went to $200 Million. The lid is now off.

Perhaps the greatest mischief that this decision injects into our political mix is the threat it poses to confidence in the system. For generations we have “assumed” that the Supreme Court was the last bastion of fair play upon which we could fall back. Not only is the stature of the court compromised, but given the degree to which money and influence already dictate the course of our politics, the open door to unlimited funding from deep pockets could easily destroy any confidence we now have in the congress.

The irony is that our previous Republican president, with unanimous support of Republican members of congress and (seemingly) every Republican in the country, initiated at least three wars (Afghanistan, Iraq and “the war on terror”) and continue to advocate their indefinite extension based on the presumption that we’re bringing “democracy” to the region. Meanwhile, through a myriad of provisions of the “Homeland Security” Act, illegal wiretaps and their majority standing on the Supreme Court, they are systematically attacking our own democracy here at home.

So what precisely does the decision allow, and what can we do about it?

The new ruling does not allow unlimited political contributions to political candidates and parties. It allows corporations (and unions) to finance campaign materials. Corporations may now finance unlimited amounts of advertising, propaganda and broadcast time. The decision also overturns the 30 and 60-day blackout periods provided by McCain/Feingold, allowing scurrilous, “eleventh hour” attacks that candidates don’t have the time or resources to counter. With our bias to this media, this is our most influential source of campaigning power. (The “Swift Boat” attacks on John Kerry, occurring at the very end of the 2004 election cycle, though fabrication, have been credited with determining the outcome of that election.)

There is a citizen movement toward a constitutional amendment to repeal this decision: Move to Amend. Good luck. This process, requiring 2/3 majorities from both houses of congress plus approval from ¾ of state legislatures, could take years. In the time that this requires, the effects of the decision could easily remove any vestige of the integrity from our various legislatures that might be necessary to pass it.

There are things that can be done to mitigate this ruling. If the court can dictate that corporations have unlimited speech, then congress can dictate that we are entitled to know the source of the speech. Robbinsense advocates that campaign materials, henceforth, be required to have documentation prominently displayed to indicate the actual source of funding. No more “straw man” groups (“Citizens for Honesty in blah, blah, blah…” would be allowed.) If an “infomercial” that advocates a political position is known by the viewer to have been paid for by Exxon/Mobile and Bear Stearns, it is likely that viewers will realize they’re being manipulated. The thrust of the message in this case may even backfire.

Please write to your representatives in congress. If you don’t want to take the time to compose a message, use the following:

Congressman/Senator:

I am very concerned by the recent ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. I stridently and respectfully request that you take action to mitigate the consequences that this will have on our election process.

Specifically, I suggest that the time has come when the public should no longer be subjected to propaganda from deep-pocket sources without disclosure. Please introduce and/or support legislation that will require political broadcast material to display prominently the actual source of funding. We should see in large font a static, five-second display of the funding source/s at the beginning of the material, and at the end.

THE FOLLOWING BROADCAST IS FINANCED BY:

EXXON/MOBILE AND BEAR STEARNS

Plus,

THE PRECEDING BROADCAST WAS FINANCED BY

EXXON/MOBILE AND BEAR STEARNS

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

You may copy and paste this letter to an email to your representatives, in websites listed below.

https://boxer.senate.gov/en/contact/policycomments.cfm

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Jackson Dave is a Robbinsense staff writer.

The Myths of Time

In November of 1989 the Berlin wall fell. (George H. W. Bush was President.) On Christmas day, 1991, the demise of The Soviet Union was signaled by the resignation speech of Mikhail Gorbachev.

Previously, in a June ’87 speech at the Brandenburg Gate, President Ronald Reagan had said: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” Any Republican will tell you that Ronald Reagan was personally responsible for the fall of the communist state. Democrats tend to think the nation collapsed of its own dysfunction and inability to adapt to a modern world. The Soviet Union was, as the historian Stephen Kotkin put it, “lethargically stable.”

In the first place, it was not Reagan’s bellicosity, or even the threat of “Star Wars” that softened the Soviet State. While he is now our right-wing darling, at the time, Reagan’s conciliatory policies through arms negotiations and diplomacy provoked anguished and increasingly bitter denunciations from the right. Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus branded Reagan “a useful idiot for Soviet propaganda.” Conservative columnist George Will pounded away at Reagan for having changed. “Four years ago, many people considered Reagan a keeper of the Cold War flame,” he wrote in 1988. “Time flies. For conservatives, Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy has produced much surprise, but little delight.” Republicans are notorious for poor or “selective” memory.

In fact, American presidents for decades had publicly advocated dismantling the wall. Mr. Reagan’s variation was to address their leader personally, at the wall.

Officially, this was East Germany’s wall. President Erich Honecker had no intention to tear down the wall. (He declared at the beginning of 1989 that the wall “will still exist in 50 or even 100 years.”) Honecker had been succeeded by Egon Krenz in November, however, and on the night of Nov. 9, 1989, as East Germans began streaming across the border, Krenz, tried to telephone Gorbachev to ask what he should do. Gorbachev didn’t take the call, and did not intervene. He wanted an entirely new relationship with the United States and Western Europe.

Neither Krenz nor Gorbachev had ordered dismantling of the wall, rather a directive to border guards had been misunderstood. The spokesman for the East German Communist Party misread a press release and told his country's people they were free to go -- "immediately," as of the night of Nov. 9, 1989, and not the next day, when new travel rules were officially supposed to take effect. When East Berliners started one-by-one walking through an open gate, no one intervened.

So the big question is, “to whom or what do Russians attribute the fall of the Soviet Government?” I’m going to put this in small font so it doesn’t jump off the page, but the actual answer is The Beatles.

Emerging from WW II, the Soviet Union was the second most powerful nation in the world. They commanded an enormous army and held much of Eastern Europe in their grip. They had robust industry, educated scientists and working social systems. With Western technology the Soviets exploded an atomic bomb in 1949, then a hydrogen bomb in ‘55. In October of 1957, they put the first satellite in orbit, a wake-up call to the world. They had cool clients all over the world such as Fidel and “Che”.

Though lampooned by Western press, Nikita Khrushchev was a colorful and charismatic leader. He commanded the respect and admiration of most of the Soviet people, and allowed modest forms of freedom, unknown in those lands. Remember that for centuries the Russian peoples had been enslaved and indentured by Mongols and Tsars. These developments were a strange breath of fresh air for a people for whom passivity and general misery had been cultural traditions. In fact, though, the Soviet state was held together by fear and belief. Still there was much at this time for the Russian people to celebrate and be proud of.

In 1964 two significant events occurred. One, Khrushchev was unseated by the Communist Party for being too liberal. He was replaced by Leonid Brezhnev. Dour and phlegmatic, he brought a geriatric regime to power and stifled all seeds of reform.

The second big event of 1964 was the world-wide explosion of The Beatles. While other bands and artists of the age (The Rolling Stones, The Doors, The Who) cast themselves as angry, rebellious, stolid, The Beatles exuded freedom and happiness. These were characters straight from the Russian fancied imagination. The Beatles became icons of all that young Russians wanted or cared about. The government condemned the group as bourgeoisie and dangerous---Western pollution, but enhanced their appeal by banning them, along with anything to do with “rock and roll.” “Popular” Russian music of the age still consisted of accordion-based folk groups and stodgy crooners, singing songs of the 30’s.

People caught with paraphernalia connected with The Beatles (music, attending live performances featuring Beatles music, even pictures) were subject to harsh reprisal including loss of career, loss of educational opportunity for self or children, sometimes imprisonment. Fans might carry pictures of their favorite group hidden in seams of their clothing. The vast majority, even with a picture of the four mop-tops, could only guess at connecting names with faces. The Beatles infiltrated the Russian mass-consciousness. Pictures were copied over and over until they had the fuzzy gauze of a spiritual icon. In a country with state-banned religion, they became the unofficial state religion. The Beatles punched holes in the iron curtain through which the Soviet people breathed.

Music came to the black market when it was discovered that X-ray film could carry the tiny imprints that created phonograph records. Small booths existed throughout The Soviet Union where people could make phonograph records. People could tape a recording of a Beatle song from Radio Luxembourg, take it into one of these kiosks and come out with a Beatle record to sell. If one emerged with Beatles music on a hard disc, they were likely to be apprehended. X-ray film could be rolled up and concealed in the sleeve of a coat.

The allure, fascination, frustration over this group was amplified when Paul seemed to speak to the people with Back in the USSR on the White Album (1968).

By the mid 70s, Beatlemania grew and expanded generationally, as the government began to cash in by selling pirated recordings and paraphernalia. The Beatles had become the embodiment of what the entire culture had longed for. By denying the people the object of their obsession, the government sealed its own fate, total cultural irrelevancy. The people had already defected in mind and heart. Present leaders, including Mr. Putin and Deputy Prime Minister Sergai Ivanov shared the Beatle craze.

In retrospect, for 40 years our elders admonished us that Communism was our greatest threat and came to rail over the emergence of rock and roll music, claiming it would destroy our youth and undermine society. Turns out that far more than any defense system or propaganda campaign, our music destroyed their great enemy.

For those who love to explode myths, the greatest book of the genre that I’ve found is Lies My Teacher Told Me, James W. Loewen.

On Bias

Bias is the common term used to describe opinions that run counter to our own. A person with whom we agree is called “unbiased”. This phenomenon came from early ego-centricism. People thought our world was the center of the universe, then assumed that their country (or culture) was the center of the world.

Common knowledge tells us that Fox News presents Republican Bias, while MSNBC gives us the opposite. While the MSNBC crew presents “accepted” left-wing bias, this perspective comes from its position in the spectrum of broadcasting. These are no left-wing radicals! NBC is owned and operated by conservative, Republican tycoons; their advertisers are large corporations; how “left” can they be? Immediately following Olbermann's scathing commentary on insurance companies last month, came an ad for an insurance company! From my “biased” perspective, Olbermann, Maddow and Moyers are right on. They frequently lead their programs with negative, sometimes scathing, reviews on President Obama. Last month on his program, Moyers stated: "Let's face it, 2 political parties, equal opportunity hypocrites." We invite anyone to send us a comparable quote from Fox.

In a discussion, it’s natural to assume that disagreement comes from the other side’s ignorance. This phenomenon is advanced by the notion that “truth” can be known. Certainly “facts” are available, but “truth” is very slippery. “Opinions” lead to “facts” (which can easily be tailored), then “truth”. People arrive at opposing philosophies because they see the world from differing perspective; their truths are different. Some people, obviously, are more inclined than others to assume their opinions represent reality. Religious people are in the regular practice of connecting their opinions with “truth”, and are probably inclined to allow that connection to extend beyond the spiritual. (Or, people who think this way are more inclined to be religious. You choose.) See Belief, the Choice.

A significant factor in the (perhaps accidental) genius of Ronald Reagan was cultivation of the religious [right] for the GOP. Republican opposition tends to be much "noisier" than what comes from the left because these people come from the assumption that they know “the truth."

The operation of government, on the other hand, is not cut and dried. This is messy business, and we can never expect things to come out the way we want. There are too many competing interests and opinions. One of the many impediments to the smooth operation of political affairs is the amount of “disinformation” floating around. To paraphrase Churchill, “We must make the best of what is left among the ruins.”