On the issue of courts interpreting law as in Citizens United I’m extremely conservative (or almost insanely progressive depending upon how you view the Constitution*). I am a big, blatant, Humanist and Jeffersonian Constitutionalist.
Now… before I get my shit jumped let me clarify what I mean by “conservative” and clarify that the REAL, historical, meaning of “conservative” has absolutely zero common ground with the #GrandioseObfuscatingPlutocrats of today’s Republican Party Brass. Note carefully that I’m also drawing a bright red line here between the Party Brass and the rank and file members of both parties, they’re completely different critters, with completely different motivations, which I’ll touch on at the end with a video.
So… onward to the topic at hand: The gross intentional violation of Our Constitution by SCOTUS. (aka Gross Judicial Misconduct under the definitions of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment)
A true conservative is one who, first and foremost, seeks to “Protect Our Constitution from ALL enemies foreign and domestic.”
THIS is what the legally binding Oath of Office (Akan Section 3 of the 14th Amendment) demands of every Public Official, including Judges, and members of the Military. Note that there are precisely zero exceptions in that Oath or in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment for politicians, Public Officials, or their corporate fascist bribers. There’s also zero exceptions in 18 USC 201. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201 Which should have been the foundation of the ruling.
In theory, the active protection of our Constitution demanded by the Oath of Office will also protect our Nation, because that foundation of Law is specifically designed to do two things:
Strictly limit government power over individual private Citizens (vs. Corporations)
Allow Citizens a path of legal recourse to reign in unwarranted (unapproved by Citizens via Ratification) government abuses of power. That legal recourse specifically INCLUDES Citizen protests in public spaces per the First Amendment.
Now, with that said I firmly believe that SCOTUS intentionally got this Citizen’s United decision dead wrong. Here’s why:
They did not recuse at least two members who had blatant, personal, profit based, unresolvable conflicts of interest.
They ignored well over 50 years of precedent in using political brinksmanship to overturn all effective limits on corporate campaign contributions.
They ignored the basic principles of fairness which indicate that in order to have an effective “one person, one vote” system; the financial playing field MUST BE REASONABLY LEVEL so that one person’s voice can NOT drown out the voices of thousands of Citizens.
They ignored the intent of our founding fathers to strictly limit the role corporations play in our politics.
They ignored the Fact that giving rights to Corporations simply gives an additional set of Rights to “speak” to only the very wealthy who control these corporations.
They ignored the fact that these rights are already vested individually, and so, to not give these right to corporations harms not one single person because those rights already vest with the individual.
They blatantly and intentionally evaded noticing that large “contributions” are de facto bribes even (especially) when the quid pro quo isn’t explicitly stated. That is they, oh SO conveniently, ignored the velvet covered fist of “We’ll just give our money to your opponents next time.”
They ignored over 200 years of history which shows us quite clearly that every time corporations are allowed unfettered access to policy-makers the Citizens, Nation, and Constitution suffer greatly. (Each of which the justices ARE LEGALLY sworn to protect).
Heres the kicker, and the trump card: They most carefully ignored the Fact that in the actual words of Our Constitution there is precisely ZERO mention or allowance for corporations and trusts participating in Our politics (which means that such things MUST be left to the States, or the Citizens).
They ignored the fact that the actual words of the Sherman Act, 18 USC 201, RICO, and the Clayton Act explicitly, and strictly, limit such use of corporate Bribery of Our Public Officials.
*Remember that little footnote reference to progressivism? Our Constitution, for the time, and for right now, is one of the most insanely progressive (for the Power of Citizens not the government) documents ever used to create and strictly limit the powers of a government.
The only presidential candidate I’ve seen who supports this view is Bernie Sanders. If you read Our As Amended Constitution carefully and look at his Votes carefully you’ll see the same thing I do. He obstreperously, and agressively defends the actual words of Our Constitution where all the other candidates use obfuscation and evasion to claim, in effect, that the limitations in the Constitution only apply to poor folk.
This is why I say I’m writing in Bernie Sanders for POTUS. I’ve seen and been manipulated with the memes of the wasted vote and keep the other guys out at all costs for 35 years now by BOTH parties; when the Fact is that their votes (actions) show clearly BOTH sets of Party Brass are actively servicing their corporate fascist bribers at Our expense.
Here’s the smoking gun on corporate bribery of Our Public Officials (See 18 US Code 201 .https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/201 it’s quite specific and blatantly ignored by the Courts, D.O.J., and Congresscritters)
Note that this was written in 2009 and there are new studies showing that the current ROI on “lobbying” (aka: Corporate Fascist Bribery of Our Public Officials) is now north of 74,000% for the Pharma, Insurance, War, and Banker Mafias.