"Supreme oligarchy" by E. J. Dionne Jr at the Washington Post

[applegrove]

Supreme oligarchy

by E. J. Dionne Jr at the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-jr-supreme-oligarchy/2014/04/06/823f15ea-bc2e-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html?tid=rssfeed

"SNIP...................



An oligarchy, Webster’s dictionary tells us, is “a form of government in which the ruling power belongs to a few persons.” It’s a shame that the Republican majority on the Supreme Court doesn’t know the difference between an oligarchy and a democratic republic.

Yes, I said “the Republican majority,” violating a nicety based on the pretense that when people reach the high court, they forget their party allegiance. We need to stop peddling this fiction.

On cases involving the right of Americans to vote and the ability of a very small number of very rich people to exercise unlimited influence on the political process, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his four allies always side with the wealthy, the powerful and the forces that would advance the political party that put them on the court. The ideological overreach that is wrecking our politics is now also wrecking our jurisprudence.

The court’s latest ruling in McCutcheon et al. v. Federal Election Commission should not be seen in isolation. (The “et al.,” by the way, refers to the Republican National Committee.) It is yet another act of judicial usurpation by five justices who treat the elected branches of our government with contempt and precedent as meaningless. If Congress tries to contain the power of the rich, the Roberts Court will slap it in the face. And if Congress tries to guarantee the voting rights of minorities, the Roberts Court will slap it in the face again.



...................SNIP"

[sabrina 1]

1. The SC lost all credibility when it appointed Bush POTUS. That treasonous act made it clear that

if we are to remain a Democracy, the Judicial Branch of what was intended to be a 'balance of power', is badly in need of reform. After that treasonous act went unpunished, NOTHING they do should surprise anyone.

Oh, yes, 'Nader', look over there ....

[jaysunb]

4. +1 n/t

[rhett o rick]

5. Well put. Our SCOTUS is too powerful. Not at all what was intended by our founders.

I like the Nader reference. The disastrous rain (intentional) of King Georgie the Dim-Son is all Ralph Nader's fault.

Sooner or later we must rebel. Peacefully (meaning on our part). The oligarchs wont be peaceful. And I dont think we should wait until 2016 with duel of the mega-corporatists Jeb vs. Clinton-Sachs. If either wins in 2016, we are doomed to poverty and serfdom.

Draft Eliz Warren.

[2naSalit]

7. another +1

[blkmusclmachine]

2. ,

,

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. The pretense, indeed.

And although I keep hearing about how the difference between Republicans and Dems is shown in the Supreme Court, each and every Republican on the Supreme Court is only there because Dems allowed them to be there. They were savvy enough to block Harriet Miers, but were 'fooled' by John Roberts? Really? Yes, the conservajustices were all nominated by Republican Presidents. But they were all allowed to take their seats because at least some of the Dems decided to vote to let them do so.

John Roberts is chief justice of the supreme court because Baucus, Bingamen, Byrd, Carper, Conrad, Dodd, Dorgan, Feingold, Johnson, Kohl, Landrieu, Leahy, Levin, Lincoln, Lieberman, Murray, both Nelsons, Pryor, Rockefeller, Salazar, and Wyden joined ranks with Republicans to put him in that office. A full HALF of Democratic Senators at the time felt that John Roberts was the right man for the Supreme Court Justice spot. He was confirmed 78-22.

Scalia was even worse - he was unanimously confirmed.

At least with Samuel Alito, only Byrd, Johnson, Conrad and one of the Nelsons voted to confirm him, although that was enough to break the filibuster and confirm him 58-42. Thomas was a 52-48 confirmation, but didn't have a filibuster to deal with.

The crappy decisions handed down from the Roberts court are on the heads not only of the Republican Presidents who nominated those justices, but the Democrats who voted to confirm them as well.

[rhett o rick]

6. If I remember right, when I asked Sen Murray how she could support Roberts

she responded that a president should get his nominations. I hope I remember that accurately. Dear Ms. Murray, who still thinks we live in a Democratic Republic, Georgie Bush the Dim-Son was not the legal president. Therefore, you should not consider he deserved any respect at all. As a democratically elected representative it's your job to do the right thing and you failed. Checks and balances means that if you have an idiot for president YOU DONT APPROVE OF HIS NOMINATIONS. At least she didnt yield her integrity and support the slaughter of innocent Iraqi children like Clinton-Sachs did.

The system isnt working, so why are we continuing to work within the system?

[The Wizard]

8. As George Carlin once said

"We have owners."

[MindMover]

9. I am mad as hell ......

[pacalo]

10. Mr. Dionne got it just right.

I give an enthusiastic nod to these paragraphs:

Roberts writes as if he is defending the First Amendment rights of all of us. But how many people are really empowered by this decision? According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 1,715 donors gave the maximum amount to party committees in 2012, and 591 gave the maximum amount to federal candidates. The current estimate of the population of the United States stands at more than 317 million.

Those using the word “oligarchy” to describe the political regime the Supreme Court is creating are not doing so lightly. Combine McCutcheon with the decision in the Citizens United case and you can see that the court is systematically transferring more power to a tiny, privileged sliver of our people.

(...)

In his McCutcheon opinion, Roberts piously declares: “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” This lovely commitment escaped him entirely last summer when he and his allies threw out Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Suddenly, efforts to protect the right of minorities “to participate in electing our political leaders” took second place behind all manner of worries about how Congress had constructed the law. The decision unleashed a frenzy in Republican-controlled states to pass laws that make it harder for African Americans, Latinos and poor people to vote.