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

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


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

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 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

* 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.

~ by Eric Harrington on March 1, 2010.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: