Time Frames and Taboo Data Blog

…this concerns recent U.S. history and it should not be forgotten if we value the principles of true democracy.

Do religious dogmatists or political activists dominate the United States Supreme Court today?  As unlikely as that may sound, there is considerable evidence to support such a suspicion.  It is not prejudice to point out that five of the nine justices on the US Supreme Court are Roman Catholic.  Percentage-wise that certainly does not fairly represent the diverse faiths of the majority of American citizens.  And it is not political bias to point out the fact that all five of those Catholic justices were nominated by Republican presidents, and that many of the Republican members of Congress who confirmed them had used religion as a political lure for voters.  That these five justices routinely formulate their “decisions” as a bloc can be pointed to as supporting evidence in an accusation of willful perversion of justice that is supposed to be made available by them for the protection of people of all diverse faiths.

One’s devotion to a particular faith system is not necessarily a testament of one’s integrity or wisdom. Like love, faith may also be blind to glaring weaknesses in their choice.  In the situation of love, the choice that one makes rarely affects the lives of the masses.  Dogmatic faith, on the other hand, can and has destroyed countless millions of lives through the ages.  Consider how faith caused the slaughter of millions across Europe throughout the church-fueled Dark Ages.  It was a long timeframe in which the corporate-styled Catholic faith system was used for justifying the indulgence in unwarranted imprisonment, torture and slaughter of million of people across Europe.  History records that horror as the “Inquisition.”  Over seven million persons were tortured and killed in the guise of Christian faith in Spain alone!  That tendency of religious injustice and inequality which had once prevailed so long across Europe was a frightening warning to the founding fathers of the United States, which is why they so adamantly insisted upon separation of church and state.

To Chief Justice John G. Roberts credit, early on in his career he had often made known his approval in regard to fundamental First Amendment values (freedom of speech).  And this makes it all the more difficult to understand his leading the court in a 2010 decision to dismantle campaign  finance laws which would allow money-bloated corporations the First Amendment rights that were intended only for private citizens. By this betrayal of the Constitution which declare private citizen rights these five “justices” decreed that corporations were to be regarded as private persons!  It smacked of payback time for the corporate money that had put them in the seats of justice, and it opened the way for corporations to freely distort and corrupt and misrepresent the wishes of true private citizens.  That high court decision was in no way the means of protecting free speech of individual persons.  The opening line of the US Constitution, if those five “justices” would read it, states, “We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice…”  It does not say, “We the corporations…”

All of the exemptions and benefits for corporations that the bloc of five had railroaded through longstanding democratic safeguards had been a bit too much for President Obama, and in his January 2010 State of the Union address he referred in a straightforward but polite manner to the “justices” legalization of the unethical allowance given to corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to support candidates who would do corporate bidding.  Roberts, with supreme indignation, further shamed the high court by stating publicly that he found the president’s criticism to be “very disturbing!”  Again Roberts ignored that the First Amendment allows everyone the right to question the actions of some governing branch—even the President.  And in a later speech at the University of Alabama, Roberts had the audacity to say that President Obama had “denigrate” the State of the Union into a political pep rally!  Clearly it is Roberts, leader of the disdainful interpretation of the US Constitution, who sank into inappropriate political mud-slinging.  That was more than “very disturbing” conduct by a Supreme Court “justice” who is expected to retain an impartial position in passing any public judgments.

The White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, later pointed out the obvious miscarriage of the Constitution’s declarations by the US Supreme Court, the declaration of equality and democratic justice for each private citizen.  “What is troubling,” the Press Secretary said regarding the president’s rightful concern of the loss of the rights that properly belong to the private citizens, “is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections—drowning out the voices of average Americans.”

The record of the Supreme Court Justices’ decision stands:  These five “justices” overturned a longstanding precedent that prohibited corporations from spending their enormous funds in national elections, and this contemptible decision presents an alarming threat to our democracy.

The five Republican-Catholic “justices” who forced this atrocious decision that corporations have private citizen rights upon the real private citizens, if they have any genuine loyalty to this democratic form of government or to the private citizens they are supposed to serve, they would reverse their outrageous decision.  Otherwise, every one of those five “justices” who took the oath to defend and uphold the people’s rights are not patriots and should be impeached.

It was also this John Roberts’ Supreme Courts’ favoritism of profiteering corporations over the nations’ private citizens which, in a later decision, thumbed their collective noses at private citizen rights again by placing severe limitations upon the legal steps that allowed private citizens to join together in class-action law suits against the too frequent wrongdoings of corporations against their employees.  It was the workers—the producers—who brought forth and assured all the advances and productivity in American society, and which fought for the principles of fair exchange among citizens.  Denying the victims of corporations wrongful deeds their day in court (such as the employees) is the first step into a corporate run government of tyranny.  The Supreme Court is not a holy branch of government, and such decisions as reviewed here are reason enough to demand public accountability.

This entry was posted on October 7, 2011 at 2:50 pm and is filed under agnoticism, Atheist, culture, freethought, Government, politics, random, religion, Social, thoughts with tags Chief Justice John G. Roberts, corporations given "person" rights, Europe history, First Amendment values, personhood in the Constitution, political bias, US Supreme Court. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.