Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit 1 Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend 14 (17 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats   No comments

General News

The Bushes' Court

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 1   Well Said 1   Valuable 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H3 6/30/13

Become a Fan
  (25 fans)

America is Almost at the Mercy of the Hateful Four

By William Boardman   

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.


The Hateful Four and Their Moral Godfather. by [Bradblog.com]

Monsters Exist Everywhere, They're Just Not in Charge Everywhere 

Four members of the United States Supreme Court have shown again in the court's decisions of recent days that they represent the very worst of America when it comes to race or gender, just as they have shucked the constitution in support of money and partisanship in the democratic process. 

The four are Chief Justice John Roberts together with Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas.  They are the Hateful Four in so many senses -- for the hateful views they express, for the hateful practices they support, for the hateful spirit they bring to a country in need of wisdom and healing. 

Or is there some significant part of the national life that their decisions have improved? 

The Hateful Four reached critical mass in 2006 when Alito assumed the bench, following Roberts in 2005, Thomas in 1991, and Scalia in 1986.  One third of our  Supreme Court was appointed by one family named Bush, and it's possible that Vice President Bush had influence on President Reagan's choice of Scalia. 

Bush v Gore Set the Table for the Hateful Four

Only two of the Hateful Four (Scalia and Thomas) participated in Bush v Gore (2000), which appointed the President who appointed the other two.  That decision was issued per curiam, to create the legal fiction that the decision was made unanimously, "by the court." As a result, there is no signed majority opinion, although there is one signed concurrence (by Scalia, Thomas, and then Chief Justice William Rehnquist).   There are also four different dissents signed variously by five other justices. 

Only Justice Anthony Kennedy put his name on nothing in this case, thereby staking his claim to a startling absence of courage in the face of a decision that would open the country to mindless wars and recklessly unregulated economic behavior, all of which continues to do us harm.  In this light, Bush v. Gore is more aptly characterized as a quia volo decision, which means, translated literally, "Because We Want To." 

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Hateful Four voted as a bloc to shift America's already degraded market politics closer to monopoly politics, using a tortured version of the First Amendment to decide that non-persons had the right to buy as much free speech as they wanted.   As Kennedy, the opinion's author, put it:  "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."   

 "Supreme Court overrules God" -- tweet by Todd Starnes, Fox News

On June 26, the Hateful Four held together but failed to prevail in their homophobic support for the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor.  Abandoning the Hateful Four this time, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion that upheld a lower court's ruling that federal tax law treated a lesbian couple with blatant unfairness when compared to the way it treated mixed-gender couples.

"The federal statute is invalid," Kennedy wrote, "for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment," which provides, among other things, for "the equal liberty of persons" under law. 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

Vermonter living in Woodstock: elected to five terms (served 20 years) as side judge (sitting in Superior, Family, and Small Claims Courts); public radio producer, "The Panther Program" -- nationally distributed, three albums (at CD Baby), some (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Nuclear Perceptions Fight Reality

Fukushima Spiking All of a Sudden

Vermont Asks: "What the Fukushima"?

Fukushima Meltdowns: Global Denial At Work

Military-Industrial Complex Owns Vermont

Accountability in Vermont?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
No comments