[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: The People vs. the Police State: The Struggle for Justice in the Supreme Court We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.Dietrich Bonhoeffer The untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has predictably created a political firestorm. Republicans and Democrats, eager to take advantage of an opening on the Supreme Court, have been quick to advance their ideas about Scalias replacement. This is just the beginning of the furor over who gets to appoint the next U.S. Supreme Court justice (President Obama or his successor), when (as soon as Obama chooses or as long as Congress can delay), how (whether by way of a recess appointment or while Congress is in session), and where any judicial nominee will stand on the hot-button political issues of our day (same-sex marriage, Obamacare, immigration, the environment, and abortion). This is yet another spectacle, not unlike the carnival-like antics of the presidential candidates, to create division, dissension, and discord and distract the populace from the nations steady march towards totalitarianism. Not to worry. This is a done deal. There are no surprises awaiting us. We may not know the gender, the orientation, the politics, or the ethnicity of Justice Scalias replacement, but those things are relatively unimportant in the larger scheme of things. The powers-that-be have already rigged the system. Theythe corporations, the military industrial complex, the surveillance state, the monied elite, etc.will not allow anyone to be appointed to the Supreme Court who will dial back the police state. They will not tolerate anyone who will undermine their policies, threaten their profit margins, or overturn their apple cart. Scalias replacement will be safe (i.e., palatable enough to withstand Congress partisan wrangling), reliable and most important of all, an extension of the American police state. With the old order dying off or advancing into old age rapidly, weve arrived at a pivotal point in the makeup of the Supreme Court. With every vacant seat on the Court and in key judgeships around the country, we are witnessing a transformation of the courts into pallid, legalistic bureaucracies governed by a new breed of judges who have been careful to refrain from saying, doing or writing anything that might compromise their future ambitions. Today, the judges most likely to get appointed today are well-heeled, well- educated (all of them attended either Yale or Harvard law schools) blank slates who have traveled a well-worn path from an elite law school to a prestigious judicial clerkship and then a pivotal federal judgeship. Long gone are the days when lawyers without judicial experience such as Earl Warren, William Rehnquist, Felix Frankfurter, and Louis Brandeis could be appointed to the Supreme Court. As Supreme Court correspondent Dahlia Lithwick points out, a selection process that discourages political or advocacy experience and reduces the path to the Supreme Court to a funnel results in perfect judicial thoroughbreds who have spent their entire adulthoods on the same lofty, narrow trajectory. In other words, it really doesnt matter whether a Republican or Democratic president appoints the next Supreme Court justice because they will all look alike (in terms of their educational and professional background) and sound alike (they are primarily advocates for the government). Given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption, the need for a guardian of the peoples rights has never been greater. Unfortunately, as I document in Battlefield America: The War on the American People, what we have been saddled with instead are government courts dominated by technicians and statists who march in lockstep with the American police state. This is true at all levels of the judiciary. Thus, while what the nation needs is a constitutionalist, what we will get is a technician. Its an important distinction. A legal constitutionalist believes that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law (the Constitution) and strives to hold the government accountable to abiding by the Constitution. A judge of this order will uphold the rights of the citizenry in the face of government abuses. Justice William O. Douglas, who served on the Supreme Court for 36 years, was such a constitutionalist. He believed that the Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people. Considered the most committed civil libertarian ever to sit on the court, Douglas was frequently controversial and far from perfect (he was part of a 6-3 majority in Korematsu vs. United States that supported the governments internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II). Even so, his warnings against a domineering, suspicious, totalitarian, police-driven surveillance state resonate still today. A legal technician, on the other hand, is an arbitrator of the governments plethora of laws whose priority is maintaining order and preserving government power. As such, these judicial technicians are deferential to authority, whether government or business and focused on reconciling the massive number of laws handed down by the government. John Roberts who joined the Supreme Court in 2005 as Chief Justice is a prime example of a legal technician. His view that the role of the judge is limited
to decide the cases before them speaks to a mindset that places the judge in the position of a referee. As USA Today observes, Roberts tenure has been marked by an incremental approach to decision-making issuing narrow rather than bold rulings that have the inevitable effect of bringing the same issues back to the high court again and again. Roberts approach to matters of law and justice can best be understood by a case dating back to his years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The case involved a 12-year-old black girl who was handcuffed, searched and arrested by policeall for eating a single French fry in violation of a ban on food in the D.C. metro station. Despite Roberts ability to recognize the harshness of the treatment meted out to Ansche Hedgepeth for such a minor violationthe little girl was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained for three hours, and was frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordealRoberts ruled that the girls constitutional rights had not been violated in any way. This is not justice meted out by a constitutionalist. This is how a technician rules, according to the inflexible letter of the law. Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan of the DC Court of Appeals, who is rumored to be a favorite pick for Scalias spot on the court, is another such technician. When asked to strike down a 60-year-old ban on expressive activities in front of the Supreme Court Plaza, Srinivasan turned a blind eye to the First Amendment. (Ironically, the Supreme Court must now decide whether to declare its own free speech ban unconstitutional.) By ruling in favor of the ban, Srinivasan also affirmed that police were correct to arrest an African-American protester who was standing silently in front of the Supreme Court wearing a sign protesting the police state on a snowy day when no one was on the plaza except him. Srinivasans rationale? Allowing demonstrations directed at the Court, on the Courts own front terrace, would tend to yield the opposite impression: that of a Court engaged with and potentially vulnerable to outside entreaties by the public. This view of the Supreme Court as an entity that must be sheltered from select outside influencesfor example, the views of the citizenryis shared by the members of the Court itself to a certain extent. As Lithwick points out: Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|