Supreme Justice - Radical or Corrupt?

Don't be naive; the Supreme Court has always been a political cesspool, pitting the two sides of the current political battle against each other. In the 19th century the big fight was over slavery, in the 20th civil rights, in the 21st corporate power.

And the forces of conservative reaction have always been eager to torture all meaning out of the Constitution to justify their slamming the brakes on progress.

You think Bush v. Gore or Citizens United were abominations? Go back and read the Dred Scott decision. Chief Justice Roger Taney makes John Roberts seem like Earl Warren.

"Radical Justices" by Digby:

I remember some smart people warning that liberals shouldn't simply worry about the new Roberts Court overturning Roe vs Wade, but rather should be very concerned about its pro-business tilt. That turns out to be an understatement. This court isn't just pro-business or anti-regulation. It's radically anti-consumer and anti-worker --- far worse than anyone anticipated, I think.

Dahlia Lithwick has written a typically interesting piece about the corporate friendly ruling this last term and what she finds is not just that the Court is favorable toward business but that it is writing a veritable instruction manual for firms to screw their workers and customers without any repercussions. It's fairly amazing:

Depending on how you count "big cases," the Supreme Court has just finished off either great (according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) or spectacularly great (according to a new study by the Constitutional Accountability Center) term for big business. The measure of success here isn't just the win-loss record of the Chamber of Commerce, although that's certainly part of the story. Nor is it news that—in keeping with a recent trend—the court is systematically closing the courthouse doors to everyday litigants, though that's a tale that always bears retelling. The reason the Roberts Court has proven to be Christmas in July for big business is this: Slowly but surely, the Supreme Court is giving corporate America a handbook on how to engage in misconduct. In case after case, it seems big companies are being given the playbook on how to win even bigger the next time.

It's going to be very hard to put this particular genie back in the bottle. And it doesn't bode well for whatever reforms rational people may want to put in place in the near term. This court is proving to be extremely radical on these questions and it's unlikely they will uphold anything that limits the rights of the wealthy and the corporations.

For Roberts, Scalia and probably Alito, taking rights away from people and giving them to corporations is a matter of fundamental belief - they are corporatists to the bone. For Thomas, however, there's another element: money.

Last week, former Senator Russ Feingold sent out this email:

The corrupting influence of special interests has infected most of our government, and we've seen the results: Wall Street ran wild, climate change is being ignored, and pay-to-play politics have started to dominate our Congress.

But there is one body that is supposed to rise above all of that: the Supreme Court. Granted, I have been critical about many of the Court's recent opinions -- and I'm troubled by how many of their recent rulings tip the scale in favor of wealthy interests. But much of America's trust in our system of government rests on the fundamental fairness of the highest court in the land. And we must make sure it lives up to that trust.

However, several recent stories about the conduct of our Supreme Court justices, including Justice Clarence Thomas, threaten that perception. Fortunately, Representative Chris Murphy (D-CT) has introduced a bill in the House that will institute ethics rules to oversee the conduct of Supreme Court justices and protect their integrity from doubt. It's great legislation, but someone needs to sponsor it in the Senate to give it a chance.

Urge your senator to step up and sponsor Rep. Murphy's Supreme Court ethics bill in the Senate.

Justice Thomas' close ties to wealthy donors and his wife's role in the Tea Party have caused serious concerns regarding his impartiality, but these stories are symptoms of a larger problem. We cannot allow even the slightest hint of undue influence from special interests or the appearance of corruption in the Supreme Court. We must act to protect the integrity of our judicial system.

I'm asking progressives like you all over the country to make these calls because I know they can have a significant impact. I was a senator for nearly two decades; we pay a lot of attention to what our constituents call in to tell us.

This link connects you to your senator through Feingold's new organization Progressives United.