Five years ago this week, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court decided to allow unlimited amounts of corporate spending in political campaigns. How important was that decision? At the time, some said criticism of the decision was overblown, and that fears that it would give outsize influence to powerful interests were unfounded. Now, the evidence is in, and the results are devastating.
The Supreme Court's Billion-Dollar Mistake | David Cole | The New York Review of Books marketing software&utm_term=The Supreme Courts Billion-Dollar Mistake
It appears we are becoming a feudal society using dollars instead of land-ownership as the controlling factor.
Indeed. I don’t know the stats on this, but it seems like a growing percentage of the population are becoming today’s
“indentured servants” to debt, with less and less to show for it.
For just one example: more and more college students who come out with a degree of questionable market place value
and also a debt that makes home ownership, and a few kids, an unrealistic goal.
(edited to fit in the margins)
Oh dear Mitch McConnell’s Supreme Court justices are all up in arms and crying about, being called, dishonest, un-American and captured by right wing billionaires and extreme right-wing political gamesmanship
It took conservatives 50 years to get a reliable majority on the Supreme Court. Here are 3 reasons why.
GOP presidents haven’t always appointed conservative jurists
Divided party control of government in the past limited GOP gains
Ideological conversions among Republican justices
Although the story does seem to avoid a screaming reality about the Right Wing slow and steady take over - DARK MONEY AND A MASTER PLAN
Dark Money and the Courts
The Right-Wing Takeover of the Judiciary
Dark Money and the Courts: The Right Wing Takeover of the Judiciary | ACS
Dark Money and the Courts
The Far Right is pursuing an audacious effort to capture America’s courts. Fueled by $250 million in secret “dark money” contributions, they seek to enact a radical social and economic agenda they could never achieve legislatively. This page shares reporting on the secret donor network behind the Far Right’s attempt to turn the judiciary into a tool for partisan and corporate interests. Learn more, including what you can do to protect a fair judiciary. …
1 Like
All told it’s taken 400 Million Dollars to stock today’s crop of Extreme Right Wingnuts upon the Supreme Court.
Here’s a worthy update to this story. Takes him a while to get to the reason why I want to share this - besides Sinema’s trashed his calculus of yesterday - still the rest is worth remembering.
Dec 7, 2022 - Mehdi Hasan
Democrats have earned the right to celebrate after incumbent Sen. Raphael Warnock’s victory over Republican Herschel Walker in Georgia’s Senate runoff. After all, their 51-49 Senate majority means they’ll be able to confirm federal judges at a much faster pace.
But let’s not forget, dark money has given conservatives — and their often-unqualified judges — a big head start. Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse has authored a book on the subject, and he joins Mehdi to discuss.
I wonder if there’s any moderate Republican Senator who’s so sick of the anti-democracy garbage of the MAGA crowd, that they’ll be inspired to do a tit or tat on that Sinema witch.
=============================================
The other billion dollar mistake is allowing political animals with axes to grind onto the Supreme Court. The Thomas promise?
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told his law clerks in the ‘90s that he wanted to serve for 43 years to make liberals’ lives ‘miserable’
Jun 24, 2022, 11:17 PM
Dec 8, 2022
With the crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court getting worse, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe joins MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell to explain why Justice Thomas’s participation in oral arguments for Moore v. Harper was in violation of federal law.
28 U.S.C. 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge
(a)
Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b)He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances:
(1)
Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding;
(2)
Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it;
(3)
Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy;
(4)
He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(5)He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:
(i)
Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party;
(ii)
Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;
(iii)
Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding;
(iv)
Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
(c)
A judge should inform himself about his personal and fiduciary financial interests, and make a reasonable effort to inform himself about the personal financial interests of his spouse and minor children residing in his household.
(d)For the purposes of this section the following words or phrases shall have the meaning indicated:
(1)
“proceeding” includes pretrial, trial, appellate review, or other stages of litigation;
(2)
the degree of relationship is calculated according to the civil law system;
(3)
“fiduciary” includes such relationships as executor, administrator, trustee, and guardian;
(4)“financial interest” means ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small, or a relationship as director, adviser, or other active participant in the affairs of a party, except that:
(i)
Ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds securities is not a “financial interest” in such securities unless the judge participates in the management of the fund;
(ii)
An office in an educational, religious, charitable, fraternal, or civic organization is not a “financial interest” in securities held by the organization;
(iii)
The proprietary interest of a policyholder in a mutual insurance company, of a depositor in a mutual savings association, or a similar proprietary interest, is a “financial interest” in the organization only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the interest;
(iv)
Ownership of government securities is a “financial interest” in the issuer only if the outcome of the proceeding could substantially affect the value of the securities.
(e)
No justice, judge, or magistrate judge shall accept from the parties to the proceeding a waiver of any ground for disqualification enumerated in subsection (b). Where the ground for disqualification arises only under subsection (a), waiver may be accepted provided it is preceded by a full disclosure on the record of the basis for disqualification.
(f)
Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section, if any justice, judge, magistrate judge, or bankruptcy judge to whom a matter has been assigned would be disqualified, after substantial judicial time has been devoted to the matter, because of the appearance or discovery, after the matter was assigned to him or her, that he or she individually or as a fiduciary, or his or her spouse or minor child residing in his or her household, has a financial interest in a party (other than an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome), disqualification is not required if the justice, judge, magistrate judge, bankruptcy judge, spouse or minor child, as the case may be, divests himself or herself of the interest that provides the grounds for the disqualification.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 908; Pub. L. 93–512, § 1, Dec. 5, 1974, 88 Stat. 1609; Pub. L. 95–598, title II, § 214(a), (b), Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2661; Pub. L. 100–702, title X, § 1007, Nov. 19, 1988, 102 Stat. 4667; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)
1 Like