TABACCO: We begin by analyzing that Republican/Conservative/Right-Wing Mantra against Activist Judges! They don’t oppose “Activist Judges”, who rule in their favor, only the ones, who act against their interests. Next time you hear that term “activist judges”, consider the source!
Without “activist judges”, Blacks in America would still be SEGREGATED BY LAW, if not in fact LEGAL SLAVES. Lest you forget, it was a COMPROMISE with Southern States that brought about the Constitution by our so-called “Founding Fathers”.
So, if you take it literally without euphemism, Brown vs. Board of Education, 1954, was the act of 9 Activist Judges signing the end of “Separate But Equal”. “Separate But Equal” is a lot closer to the Founding Fathers compromise than letting Black children go to school with White children, Blacks being allowed to drink from public water fountains used by Whites, Blacks being allowed to use same public toilets used by Whites, Blacks being allowed to keep their seats on public transit while Whites stand if Blacks got to seats first (not to mention Blacks riding only in the back of the bus in the first place – that is until the front got filled up and some Black woman had to give up her seat), and Blacks being permitted to vote at all.
So when you hear that phrase “Activist Judges”, it usually means a REDNECK is speaking. They approve of Bush-Gore 2000, Corporations Are People Too, Corporations can spend as much money as they wish for Political Advantage, Eminent Domain, Outsourcing, Lobbying and any other Tyranny of the Rich and Powerful, but oppose Brown Vs. Board of Education, Social Security, Universal Healthcare, Public Education, Welfare and Obama’s Economic Stimulus to create jobs for the jobless (aka “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”).
Republicans, Right-Wingers, Conservatives, Libertarians and Tea Partyers are overlapping egotistical, selfish, Capitalist exploiters regardless of title. And they exploit the Poor and Middle Class aka the WEAKEST AMONG US!
Bernie Madoff was actually sort of a Robin Hood type hero because he ROBBED THE RICH! The rest of these SOBs rob the POOR! There is a lesson to be learned from America:
“Rob the Poor and you are fêted;
Rob the Rich, and you go to Prison!”
There is a Corollary to this Principle, which every Black knows applies to him – just ask O. J.:
“Kill a Black, and maybe you do some time; kill a White, and definitely you will be executed – one way or another!”
Supreme Court to Decide Whether U.S. Corporations Can Be Sued for Abuses They Support Overseas
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday on whether U.S.-based corporations can be sued in U.S. courts for human rights abuses committed overseas. The case involves nine Nigerian activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, executed for protesting Royal Dutch Shell. We’re joined by Marco Simons, legal director of EarthRights International, which filed a “friend of the court” legal brief in this case and has been a pioneer in using the Alien Tort Statute to sue corporations for human rights abuses in Burma, Nigeria, Colombia and other nations. Some legal analysts are comparing the case to the landmark campaign finance ruling in Citizens United, which found that corporations have broad rights under the First Amendment and can directly fund political campaigns. “This case is really about whether a corporation that participates in serious human rights abuses, such as crimes against humanity or genocide or state-sponsored torture, can profit from those abuses and shield those profits from the victims when the victims come to take them to court,” Marco says. [includes rush transcript]
Marco Simons, legal director of EarthRights International.
Jan 05, 2012
Dec 27, 2011
Feb 23, 2012
Jan 06, 2012
Jan 06, 2012
- Earth Rights International
- See past coverage of Nigeria on Democracy Now!
- See past coverage of offshore drilling on Democracy Now!
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution. Donate >
JUANGONZALEZ: The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Tuesday on whether corporations can be sued in U.S. courts for human rights abuses committed overseas. The case centers on a lawsuit that accuses the oil giant Shell’s parent company, Royal Dutch Petroleum, of complicity in the murder and torture of Nigerian activists. In 1995, nine Nigerian activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa, were executed by the Nigerian military government for protesting Shell’s exploration and development in the Niger Delta. The families of the seven Nigerians killed are seeking to hold Shell liable under a 1789 U.S. law called the Alien Tort Statute. A separate suit involving Ken Saro-Wiwa’s family was settled in 2009, when Shell agreed to pay $15.5 million.
AMYGOODMAN: Some legal analysts are comparing this case, Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, to the landmark campaign finance ruling in Citizens United. In 2010, the Supreme Court ruled corporations have broad rights under the First Amendment and can directly fund political campaigns. The Court is now being asked to decide if corporations have the same responsibilities as individuals for violations of international law. The Court’s ruling will also impact numerous other human rights cases being heard by lower courts.
Joining us in Washington, D.C., is Marco Simons, legal director of EarthRights International. EarthRights has filed a “friend of the court” brief in this case and has been a pioneer in using the Alien Tort Statute to sue corporations for human rights abuses in Burma, Nigeria, Colombia and other countries.
Marco, explain the significance of the Supreme Court hearing the oral arguments on Tuesday.
MARCOSIMONS: Yeah, so this case is really about whether a corporation that participates in serious human rights abuses, such as crimes against humanity or genocide or state-sponsored torture, can profit from those abuses and shield those profits from the victims when the victims come to take them to court. It’s essentially about whether corporations are immune from any kind of liability for serious human rights abuses worldwide. And that’s what the Court of Appeals held in this case. They said under no circumstances can a corporation ever be sued for the most serious human rights violations today.
So, a corporation that engages in slave trading, for example, that traffics in persons, that retains the profits of all those activities, they can shield the profits from their victims. They wouldn’t be reachable in U.S. federal court. And we think that whatever you think about the Citizens United ruling, whether it was correct or not, it should be clear after that ruling that if corporations have rights on the same basis as human beings, then they should have responsibilities, as well. And one of those responsibilities is to respect human rights worldwide.
JUANGONZALEZ: Now, this case is also being heard by the Court in tandem with another case, Mohamad v. The Palestinian Authority. Could you talk about that one?
MARCOSIMONS: Sure. The Mohamad case was filed under a related statute, which is known as the Torture Victim Protection Act. The Alien Tort Statute allows foreigners to come into U.S. courts to vindicate their rights. The Torture Victim Protection Act was passed by Congress in 1992 to allow U.S. citizens similar rights to sue for torture and extrajudicial killings. In this case, the victim was a U.S. citizen who was tortured and killed by agents of the Palestinian Authority and the PLO in the West Bank. And the issue in that case is whether organizations, including corporations, but in this case the Palestinian Authority, whether organizations can be sued under the Torture Victim Protection Act. So it presents the question of whether U.S. citizens will enjoy similar rights to aliens or foreigners, when they come into court to sue corporations for human rights abuses such as torture and extrajudicial killings.
AMYGOODMAN: Can you explain, Marco Simons, exactly what the Nigerian case is, the case of the nine Nigerian rights activists in 2000—in 1995, who were executed by the Nigerian military, and what that had to do with Shell?
MARCOSIMONS: Yeah, this case arose out of a conflict in the Niger Delta in the early to mid-1990s, where the Ogoni people, an ethnic group in the Niger Delta, organized a nonviolent protest movement to oppose the practices of Shell, which had been drilling oil in their lands in a very environmentally destructive manner for decades. And the Ogoni protested this environmental destruction and the economic disruption that oil development on their lands had caused. And the response from both Shell and the Nigerian government, which was a brutal military dictatorship at that time, was a very violent response.
The allegations in this case are that Shell paid the Nigerian military, that they called in the Nigerian military to respond to peaceful protests, knowing full well that extremely violent reactions would occur, and that they specifically participated in this trial against these nine Ogoni activists, including Ken Saro-Wiwa and Barinem Kiobel, whose family are the lead plaintiffs in this case at the Supreme Court. And they actually bribed witnesses against Dr. Kiobel and Ken Saro-Wiwa in order to ensure that they were convicted in this trial that was condemned internationally by all kinds of world leaders, including the U.S. president, Bill Clinton, at the time, and the British prime minister, and that ultimately led to the execution of these activists. And so, Shell is—
AMYGOODMAN: I wanted to turn for a moment to Ken Saro-Wiwa himself, in his own words. In 2009, oil giant Shell reached an out-of-court settlement with the family of the executed Nigerian writer/environmentalist for $15.5 million. The landmark trial investigated Shell’s alleged involvement in human rights violations in the Niger Delta, including its complicity in Saro-Wiwa’s torture and execution. He was a famous writer in Nigeria, founding member and president of the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People, or MOSOP. I got a chance to interview him, along with WBAI’s Bernard White, back in 1994 and 1995, when he came to the United States before he returned to Nigeria, was arrested and then killed.
KENSARO-WIWA: Shell does not want to negotiate with the Ogoni people. Each time they’ve come under pressure from local people, their want has always been to run to the Nigerian government and to say to the Nigerian government, “Oil is 90 percent of your foreign exchange earning. If anything happens to oil, your economy will be destroyed. Therefore, you must go and deal with these people, these troublemakers.” And most times, the government will oblige them and visits local communities of poor, dispossessed people with a lot of violence.
And when these communities then protested and said, “Look. Look at the amount of violence that is being used against us, even though we are only protesting peacefully,” then the oil companies will come and say, “Well, there is no way we can determine how much violence a government decides to use against its own people.” So, basically, the local communities have no leverage with the oil companies at all.
AMYGOODMAN: That was Ken Saro-Wiwa on Pacifica Radio station WBAI in New York, just before he returned to Nigeria, was arrested, tried with eight other minority rights activists, and was executed on November 10, 1995. Marco Simon, final comment about the significance of the Supreme Court hearing of the oral arguments on Tuesday?
MARCOSIMONS: Yeah, the significance is simply this: if you are violating human rights, is it really the case that all you need to do in order to shield your profits from the victims is to form a corporation? Because that really seems to be contrary to the basic principles that we hold dear in this country and around the world.
AMYGOODMAN: And the connection between Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Corporation here in the United States?
MARCOSIMONS: Royal Dutch Shell and Shell Oil here are essentially the same corporation. Royal Dutch Shell is the parent. It’s the—Shell Oil here in the U.S. is one of their subsidiaries, as was Shell in Nigeria, the company that was directly involved in the Ogoni crisis.
AMYGOODMAN: Marco Simons, legal director of EarthRights International, thanks so much for being with us.
MARCOSIMONS: Thank you.
TABACCO: The problem is not so much whether this Conservative Court can adjudicate that Corporations are not People when it comes to violating human rights; the problem is rationalizing why they ruled one way on free speech and another way on human rights violations.
If there is a way to “excuse” this Pro-Corporate Decision this time in view of the contrary Pro-Corporate Decision last time, I’m sure the Conservative “Activist” Judges will find it! Would that we were all Corporations! Then we could commit MURDER and get away with it (at least abroad)! Oh, that’s right – INDIVIDUALS CAN INCORPORATE! That makes this “Corporate People” Decision even more DANGEROUS if their Decision is Pro-Corporation AGAIN!
“OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE WHEN FIRST WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE!”
Incidentally, if Corporations are People and they can contribute all the Political Bribes they want, doesn’t that mean the “regular People (unincorporated) can contribute all the Political Bribes they want also!
Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: January 21, 2010
WASHINGTON — Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.
· Lobbyists Get Potent Weapon in Campaign Ruling (January 22, 2010)
· Does Corporate Money Lead to Political Corruption? (January 24, 2010)
Will the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision damage democracy?
A one-stop destination for the latest political news — from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech. The dissenters said that allowing corporate money to flood the political marketplace would corrupt democracy.
TABACCO: Let’s see! Corporations can spend as much as they like on bribery, while the average Joe is limited as to his donations. That makes no sense since Joe’s meager assets already limit his contributions whereas Corporations consider Campaign Contributions as INVESTMENT (so if it isn’t BRIBERY, what would you call it?)
Are Congress and the President more likely to listen to the BIG SPENDING CORPORATIONS or average Joes? The Gulf between Haves and Have-Nots will get even larger and larger and larger and larger and larger…….
The ruling represented a sharp doctrinal shift, and it will have major political and practical consequences. Specialists in campaign finance law said they expected the decision to reshape the way elections were conducted. Though the decision does not directly address them, its logic also applies to the labor unions that are often at political odds with big business.
The decision will be felt most immediately in the coming midterm elections, given that it comes just two days after Democrats lost a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and as popular discontent over government bailouts and corporate bonuses continues to boil.
TABACCO: Shame on Obama and the Democrats! The PROBLEM is we have no alternative: GOP IS NOT A VALID ALTERNATIVE! You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t!
President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
TABACCO: That assessment is absolutely correct. The problem is Obama should have thought of that before he began governing like a GREEDY Republican – that’s why Democrats lost control of Senate (that CONTROL was ethereal, imaginary and nonexistent at best without a 60-vote plurality in the Senate).
And you wonder why Tabacco refers to the Big 2 as Democans and Republicrats! Still, Democans are NEVER as reprehensible as Republicrats on Social Issues, ignoring the People’s will, removal of the Bill of Rights on a state-by-state basis, and promoting Right-Wing Judges to the life-term status of Supreme Court Justices, in whose hands rests the fate of our Constitution Rights.
The justices in the majority brushed aside warnings about what might follow from their ruling in favor of a formal but fervent embrace of a broad interpretation of free speech rights.
“If the First Amendment has any force,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, which included the four members of the court’s conservative wing, “it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The ruling, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.
The 2002 law, usually called McCain-Feingold, banned the broadcast, cable or satellite transmission of “electioneering communications” paid for by corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections.
The law, as narrowed by a 2007 Supreme Court decision, applied to communications “susceptible to no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.”
The five opinions in Thursday’s decision ran to more than 180 pages, with Justice John Paul Stevens contributing a passionate 90-page dissent. In sometimes halting fashion, he summarized it for some 20 minutes from the bench on Thursday morning.
Joined by the other three members of the court’s liberal wing, Justice Stevens said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings.
TABACCO: Justice Stevens was euphemizingly tactful in calling the 5-4 Decision a “grave error” – it is a CAPITALIST ABOMINATION! Even the Supreme Court, with so-called Conservatives dominating the scene, is not immune to CORPORATE CAPITALIST PROFITS. Not for one moment should you think these 5 are NOT getting their FAIR SHARE in Financial Rewards for their VOTES! Next you will think that Cops don’t lie or Priests don’t commit Pedophilia!
Eight of the justices did agree that Congress can require corporations to disclose their spending and to run disclaimers with their advertisements, at least in the absence of proof of threats or reprisals. “Disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way,” Justice Kennedy wrote. Justice Clarence Thomas dissented on this point.
TABACCO: If you are Black, and you supported the installation of Clarence Thomas on the High Court, you must have been HIGH yourself! Clarence is the WORST of the WORST!
The majority opinion did not disturb bans on direct contributions to candidates, but the two sides disagreed about whether independent expenditures came close to amounting to the same thing.
“The difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind,” Justice Stevens wrote. “And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one’s behalf.”
TABACCO: I’ll take it from here, Justice Stevens – Stevens means that
LOBBYING is LEGALIZED BRIBERY,
but Supreme Court Justices cannot be that honest and tactless! Thank goodness, I can be!
Justice Kennedy responded that “by definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate.”
TABACCO: Justice Kennedy has taken SOPHISTRY and HAIR-SPLITTING to new levels of Corruption!
The case had unlikely origins. It involved a documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” a 90-minute stew of caustic political commentary and advocacy journalism. It was produced by Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, and was released during the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008.
TABACCO: “Nonprofits” are often not only NOT humanitarian or noble, but they are often owned and operated by FORPROFITS – in this instance by HAVES & HAVE-MORES! I abhor the use of that term because it is populated by the Ignoble as well as the Noble.
During Obama’s push for Healthcare Reform, groups of PAID MERCENARIES populated Town Hall Meetings to obstruct and sabotage the final bill. Two “Nonprofits” were often referred to by Republicans as “Nonprofits” and UNBIASED, when in fact they were also owned lock, stock and barrel by UNITED HEALTHCARE! One Nonprofit was LewinGroup, which was a subsidiary of INGENIX (another “Nonprofit”), but after Ingenix was OUTED AS A UNITED HEALTHCARE SUBSIDIARY, it has since undergone a name change. See how that works!
Citizens United lost a suit that year against the Federal Election Commission, and scuttled plans to show the film on a cable video-on-demand service and to broadcast television advertisements for it. But the film was shown in theaters in six cities, and it remains available on DVD and the Internet.
The majority cited a score of decisions recognizing the First Amendment rights of corporations, and Justice Stevens acknowledged that “we have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment.”
But Justice Stevens defended the restrictions struck down on Thursday as modest and sensible. Even before the decision, he said, corporations could act through their political action committees or outside the specified time windows.
The McCain-Feingold law contains an exception for broadcast news reports, commentaries and editorials. But that is, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in a concurrence joined by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., “simply a matter of legislative grace.”
TABACCO: Somebody should have demanded that Roberts explain what “legislative grace” means and how it relates to that ruling! U.S. Sophists rarely get called on the “carpet” for their nonsensicals and non sequiturs!
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion said that there was no principled way to distinguish between media corporations and other corporations and that the dissent’s theory would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, on television news programs, in books and on blogs.
TABACCO: Fact is political speech and dissent are efficiently suppressed in America, and that High Court ruling has increased that situation. If you are a Cable or Verizon subscriber, ask yourself why you don’t receive LinkTV as an option! It is FREE to Satellite and Cable subscribers, but only Satellite carries it! Can you say, “POLITICAL CONSPIRACY”!
Justice Stevens responded that people who invest in media corporations know “that media outlets may seek to influence elections.” He added in a footnote that lawmakers might now want to consider requiring corporations to disclose how they intended to spend shareholders’ money or to put such spending to a shareholder vote.
On its central point, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Justice Stevens’ dissent was joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
TABACCO: Remember the names! There you have the WRONG vs. the LEFT! And those “Conservatives” were all nominated by Republican Presidents!
When the case was first argued last March, it seemed a curiosity likely to be decided on narrow grounds. The court could have ruled that Citizens United was not the sort of group to which the McCain-Feingold law was meant to apply, or that the law did not mean to address 90-minute documentaries, or that video-on-demand technologies were not regulated by the law. Thursday’s decision rejected those alternatives.
Instead, it addressed the questions it proposed to the parties in June when it set down the case for an unusual second argument in September, those of whether Austin and McConnell should be overruled. The answer, the court ruled Thursday, was yes.
“When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought,” Justice Kennedy wrote. “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
Film, “Hannibal”, Verger played by Gary Oldman
TABACCO: Obviously there are People, and then there are PEOPLE! Not all “People” are equal! If you are a Corporation, you have “Favored Nation” status! If you are an unincorporated individual, you are a 2nd class citizen!
If all Poor and Middle Class People incorporated, would we be able to make unlimited Political Donations like other Corporations!
Since there is little chance of that happening, that Supreme Court ABOMINATION stood little chance of creating a Major Catastrophe for the Court! But the next one would! Let’s see how the High Court Conservatives avoid this landmine!
To end this discourse, let’s go back to the beginning: Bush-Gore Florida Supreme Court Decision, 2000!
I shall not retry this case because it is much too late now, and the Decision was replete with bias and politically motivated Judicial Prejudice! You are encouraged to go to:
Excerpts selected by Tabacco:
Steven Foster of the Edinburgh University Press said:
On the eve of the election Sandra Day O’Connor had made a public statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her. Clarence Thomas’ wife was so intimately involved in the Bush campaign that she was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees more or less at the same time as her husband was adjudicating on whether the same man would become the next President. Finally, Antonin Scalia’s son was working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the Supreme Court, the head of which was subsequently appointed as Solictor-General.
There has also been analysis of whether or not several Justices had a conflict of interest that should have forced them to recuse themselves from the decision. On several occasions, William Rehnquist had expressed interest in retiring under a Republican administration; one study found that press reports “are equivocal on whether facts existed that would have created a conflict of interest” for Rehnquist. At an election night party, Sandra Day O’Connor became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona. However, both justices remained on the Court beyond President Bush’s first term, until Rehnquist’s death in 2005 and O’Connor’s retirement in 2006.
Excerpts selected by Tabacco
BUSH v. GORE
George W. Bush
(Argued the cause for the respondent)
(Argued the cause for petitioner Harris)
(Argued the cause for petitioner Bush)
Location: Florida Supreme Court
Facts of the Case
Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, and concurrent with Vice President Al Gore’s contest of the certification of Florida presidential election results, on December 8, 2000 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in Leon County tabulate by hand 9000 contested ballots from Miami-Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must immediately begin manually recounting all “under-votes” (ballots which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney, filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on December 9. It heard oral argument two days later.
Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?
Decision: 5 votes for Bush, 4 vote(s) against
Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by “later arbitrary and disparate treatment,” the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court’s scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those and other procedural difficulties, the court held that no constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining (which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take advantage of the “safe harbor” provided by 3 USC Section 5). Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case. Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court’s decision made new election law, which only the state legislature may do. Breyer and Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding that the Florida Court’s recount scheme violated the Equal Protection Clause, but they dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court’s decision ought to be respected. Moreover, the Florida decision was fundamentally right; the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.
“Loathe to make broad precedents, the per curiam opinion limited its holding to the present case.”
If Supreme Court Decisions do nothing else, they do set PRECEDENT! Of all the rhetoric and decision making, this single fact is probably the absolute worst! The Rehnquist Court in 2000 Bush-Gore only reestablished what the Hitler Nazi Party previously proved in Germany:
You can argue any Atrocity with Precedent, Logic (of a sort) and Fact. The Stipulation is you ignore other Precedents, other Logic, and other Facts! That is the Basis of Lawyering everywhere on planet Earth! That is also the Basis of Debating! The problem arises when one side controls the “winner” adjudication!
What the 5 Justice REPUBLICAN MAJORITY said, in effect, was that the next time a case like this comes along, it might be the Democrat in Bush’s shoes and the Republican in Gore’s shoes. They did not want the same result in a future Decision possibly favoring a Democrat!
Tabacco: I consider myself both a funnel and a filter. I funnel information, not readily available on the Mass Media, which is ignored and/or suppressed. I filter out the irrelevancies and trivialities to save both the time and effort of my Readers and bring consternation to the enemies of Truth & Fairness! When you read Tabacco, if you don’t learn something NEW, I’ve wasted your time.
Tabacco is not a blogger, who thinks; I am a Thinker, who blogs. Speaking Truth to Power!
In 1981′s ‘Body Heat’, Kathleen Turner said, “Knowledge is power”.
T.A.B.A.C.C.O. (Truth About Business And Congressional Crimes Organization) – Think Tank For Other 95% Of World: WTP = We The People