Supreme Court NOT for the Citizens

Why in the name of justice does the U. S. Supreme Court seem to be conspiring to screw the U.S. citizens?  This president-nominated and sentate-appointed group of judges today, largely from Republican nomination, has moved in an alarming direction ever since it interfered with citizen voting rights and overruled the popular vote to install G. W. Bush as the god-sent president.  That certainly worked out well.

So here we are in the closing days of January 2010 (the 20th), still reeling and trying to recover from the financial and moral disasters that the Bible-based Bush administration oversaw, and the supposedly unbiased Supreme Court has actually eased corporate political campaign spending!  The floodgates were flung wide-open by this august body so all the obscenely wealthy special interest gangsters can organize and coördinate their underhanded and deceiving ad campaigns (remember the disgraceful swiftboat lies?) with millions of corporate dollars now freed for use in crushing true democracy.

Things do not add up as true justice in any demonstrations of across-the-board representation of, by or for the people.  No religion, for example, is supposed to be shown partiality by the government, but today the diversity of citizen’s faiths are subjected to the decisions of a Supreme Court where six of the nine Justices are CATHOLIC—a two-thirds imbalance.  That certainly does not jibe percentage-wise with the nation’s diverse choices of faith systems.

This imbalance in religious representation is a legitimate reason for citizen concern, especially since the Supreme Court asserts “unreviewable power” (stated by Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice, 1969 to 1986).  Burger also noted that the court is likely to “self-indulge itself,” and that it was unlikely to “engage in dispassionate analysis.”

It has been noted among other critics that the Supreme Court, as it stands now, pretty much promotes a culture in which its interpretation of the nation’s laws is easily wielded as a weapon of intimidation and not a protective means that covers of, by and for the people.  A sense of true or equal justice for the citizens does not equate with lifetime tenure that the Justices enjoy; it does not relate with the majority of citizen conditions.   No judge has to relent his/her seat due to medical incapacity; there have been those who remained on the bench despite age-related deterioration and still passed judgments from an older cultural understanding.

In the political times of Alexander Hamilton, a Founding Father of the United States and the first U. S. Secretary of the Treasury, he could assess life tenure thus: “Nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office.”  He would probably see some flaws in that assessment if he dropped back in for a visit today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: