OpEdNews Op Eds

Transcript Of An Interview With The Five Conservative Justices About The Recent Corporate Free Speech Case.

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 6 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

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

opednews.com Headlined to H4 2/1/10

February 1, 2010

Transcript Of An Interview With The Five Conservative Justices

About The Recent Corporate Free Speech Case.

Your reporter recently was fortunate enough to be granted an interview by five Justices of the Supreme Court, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. The subject of the interview was the Court's recent decision granting corporations the same free speech rights as human people. The interview was held in a secret chamber in the Court's basement, where the conservative justices keep casks of amontillado. Justices Kennedy and Roberts did most of the talking for the conservatives, with occasional interjections from others.

It seemed to me that the best way to give the reader the full flavor of what these eminent jurists had to say would be to publish large sections of the transcript. Each Justice is identified by his initials in the transcript: AK (Anthony Kennedy), JR (John Roberts), AS (Antonin Scalia), CT (Clarence Thomas) and SA (Samuel Alito). Your reporter is identified by the initials YR (which does not stand for Young Republicans).

YR: "Good morning Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito.

Let me say first that I am most grateful for your willingness to sit for an interview about a particular case, which is never done by individual Justices, let alone a collective group of Justices. So I deeply appreciate your willingness to do this.

JR: No problem. We know you will play it straight down the right. So we know you will be fair.

May I offer you some amontillado?

YR: No thanks.

Justice Roberts, the dissent said your group of five were striking a blow against democracy. President Obama said, and I quote, "This ruling strikes at our democracy itself . . . . I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest. The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections." So your group of five is charged with attacking democracy. Do you have a response?

JR: May I offer you some amontillado?

YR: No.

JR: You're darn right we struck a blow against democracy. We think important decisions having a big effect on the country should be made by the five of us, not the louts who are elected to Congress or the Executive. We particularly think we should be the ones to elect the President. Four of us and the sainted Justice O'Connor elected George Bush and nothing bad resulted from that, did it? That guy Obama is lucky there were no hanging chads in 2008 or John McCain would be the President.

May I offer you some amontillado?

AK: My decision is a victory for free speech. In the first place, our freedom of speech prevailed, so the decision is a victory for free speech. Then too, I don't know whether you read that rag the New York Times and read the article by Sheryl Gay Stolberg in the January 24th issue. She really knows what's up with the Supreme Court since she so rarely writes about it. And she said "The ruling was expected to unleash a torrent of attack advertisements in the coming midterm election." Good. That is a victory for free speech too. BANZAI!!!!

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6

 

Lawrence R. Velvel is a cofounder and the Dean of the Massachusetts School of Law, and is the founder of the American College of History and Legal Studies.

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
Related Topic(s): ; , Add Tags

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

Preliminary Memorandum of the Justice Robert H. Jackson Conference on Federal Prosecutions of War Criminals

Investing With Bernie Madoff: How It Happened, What Happened, What Might Be Done (Part I)

Irving Picard's Three Percent Commission In The Madoff Case.

Alan Dershowitz on Whether to Prosecute Executive Branch Criminals

Madoff And The Mafia: A Mere Speculation Or Almost A Sure Thing?

It Appears That The Madoff Scam Was Not, Repeat Not, A Ponzi Scheme.

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  
3 people are discussing this page, with 5 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

I read your entire piece, all 6 pages. Thank you f... by Steven G. Erickson on Monday, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:32:33 AM
I think the new form of protest will besarcasm, li... by Steven G. Erickson on Monday, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:46:55 AM
Who does not have the greatest admiration for LV's... by hommedespoir on Monday, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:35:51 PM
Who does not have the greatest admiration for LV's... by hommedespoir on Monday, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:36:15 PM
And I second Mr. Erickson comments. Satisfying and... by boomerang on Monday, Feb 1, 2010 at 11:03:45 PM