Supreme Court Fraud – the decision that could destroy what’s left of America
The 6th installment from a 5 part series from “The Pen”
OK, let's jump back into it. If you recall from our 5th scary episode, we were discussing the concept of "weight" in judicial precedents, specifically the fact that ONLY the actual "holding", the actual issue addressed and DECIDED by a prior court is binding on a later court, which forms the basis for stare decisis. Here, Kennedy, writing the decision for the Supreme Court 5 demonstrates that he is either functionally incapable, or otherwise unwilling or too dishonest, to even engage in critical thinking. For he claims license to revisit the holdings in the Austin and McConnell cases by arguing that there were "conflicting" lines of precedent (opinion p. 32), based on his reading of the Buckley and Belloti cases (opinion pp. 28-31). In effect he is arguing a kind of stare decisis standoff between these other cases and the ones he would overturn, thus inviting himself to step in to resolve the conflict. Except that Kennedy ADMITS in writing that Buckley did NOT "consider" the ban on corporate and union independent expenditures (opinion p. 29), and Belloti did NOT "address" the constitutionality of this ban EITHER (opinion p. 31). Thus, neither case has binding value as a precedent since those courts did not rule at all on the issue at hand. Instead he asserts that, based on some other stray language NOT the actual holdings in those cases, those Courts, in his omnipotent after the fact opinion WOULD have rejected such bans IF they had decided those issues. This is despite the fact that the only support for such an assertion are the LOSING dissents by himself and his black robed conspirators from these same cases!! In short, he rewrites ad hoc the decisions in the Belloti and Buckley cases to say what they would have said if he had prevailed originally, and asserts that his counterfeit version of those decisions now call the legitimacy of the real decisions into question. This is judicial, intellectual fraud at its most despicable level. Kennedy elevates, to the status of binding precedent, dubious speculation about what a previous Court would have done, equates that in weight with the holding of a case that DID directly decide the issue (Austin, as further reinforced by its AFFIRMATION in McConnell), and then throws up his hands and says, "Oh, gosh, nothing to do but decide this anew." Of course we all remember how both Roberts and Alito sat there in their sheep's clothing in their confirmation hearings promising up and down they would respect stare decisis in the morning, lying through their mild-mannered pointy teeth that they were not drop kick right wing ideologues with precedent demolition for an agenda. So naturally neither one of them wanted put THEIR names down as official authors of this outrageous affront to the whole idea of binding decisions. No, Roberts (who as "chief" justice decides who writes what opinions) assigned the role of case assassin in this case to Kennedy, a hatchet job he was already chaffing at the bit to perform (based on his history of dissents). But in the most self-serving way Roberts and Alito DID add a concurring opinion (pp. 5-9) going on and on about how this is all really in the true spirit of stare decisis, never ONCE addressing any of the factors they cited at their confirmation hearings which MIGHT justify overturning precedent, namely that something had fundamentally CHANGED (social views, found unworkable, etc.) since the prior decision. In fact the only thing that has changed is the presence of themselves as voting members of the Supreme Court, to now call black what was previously ruled white. Especially nauseating is Roberts' argument that because the previous losing dissents were "spirited" they should now prevail to the contrary (concurring opinion, p. 9). So to review, Kennedy manufactured a bogus controversy among previous decisions, to use as a pretext for resurrecting dissenting and losing opinions that have NEVER been binding precedent for any purpose whatsoever, and on that basis to then overturn the actual binding precedent which was Austin. By his own admission the Austin case was the FIRST court to directly address the issue of independent expenditures, the ONLY court to previously decide it (opinion p. 32), and he now purports to reverse it (and the McConnell case which further affirmed that holding) based literally and solely on the CONTEMPT he had for the real precedent all along. In a word . . . despicable. But we are still far from finished even dealing with just the gross errors of case law analysis in this monumentally dreadful decision. So please stay tuned to this activist channel for the next verse in the Ballad of the Bandit Supreme Court 5. Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible. If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so HERE AND NOW WHAT TO DO: If you are keenly interested in the sixth installment of our series of analyses condemning the Supreme Court decision saying corporations can take over our elections, please forgive the length of this alert. There is so much ground to cover and so little time to act before November. 1) New Action Page For The Save Our Democracy Bill Because first, we have a critical NEW action page (relax, it's not as strident as the last one on health care) , which we are asking EVERYBODY to submit, calling on the House Administration Committee (with a special function which will send them a direct fax) to pass strong legislation reinstating control over corporate influence. Of course we also need a Constitutional amendment categorically repudiating the wrongful reading by the Supreme Court 5 (Kennedy, Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas), but we still need Congress to immediately confront the Constitutional crisis already in high gear, to try to mitigate the damage before the next general election. House Administration Committee Action Page: The link above is the regular action page. For Facebook participants ONLY use the link below instead [Facebook] House Administration Committee Action Page: And this is the Twitter reply for this action @cxs #p1035 HOUSE BILL: House member Alan Grayson stepped forward with at least 6 proposals, three of which have already been incorporated into legislation sponsored by Senator Schumer and House member Chris Van Hollen, which is now already before the House Administration Committee. These proposals would: * Stop foreigners from buying our government. * Prevent government contractors like Blackwater from stealing our elections. * Force disclosure to shareholders when a company wants to bribe and threaten elected officials Please urge Chairman Brady of the House Administration Committee to move these bills as expeditiously as possible, and to strengthen the final bill with additional measures to not only disclose political bribery, but to STOP it. 2) Second, we need a thousand volunteers RIGHT NOW to help distribute the "Corporations Are NOT The People" and the "Impeach The Supreme Court 5" bumpers. For our own part we have already sent out over 10,000 of these, mostly entirely for free. We need YOUR help to get these plastered on every auto bumper, school book cover and lunch box in the country. We now have a special page where you can get a bulk pack of 25 of these stickers for a very modest cost, just to help keep this initiative going. Please become the leader in your own neighborhood to help get these out there. Bumper Sticker 25 Packs: 3) Third, if you have a web page of any kind, on a blog, MySpace, or your own site, please, please, post one of the sidebar buttons (and you will get an automatic link back from ALL of our action pages), again to send people to our page where anyone can get a copy of one of these bumper stickers, for no charge, not even shipping. You can get the simple code to paste from at the top of the page where we are giving the bumper stickers away at Free Bumper Stickers And Button Code: CONSPIREALITY: Also sign our petition to tell President Obama we support agressive Banking reform.