The $upreme Court Rules in Favor of the Corporate Thieves

Corporate control of the justice department reared its ugly head again today.  The Supreme Court, once more, sided with large corporations,  as it dismissed a massive class-action lawsuit that charged Wal-Mart with systemic gender discrimination.  This ruling strengthens the divide-and-conquer strategy of the power elite by eliminating the possibility of citizens to collectively seek justice against the enormously powerful corporation.  The individual's access to the justice system is even more limited now that a higher burden of proof  is required before an employment discrimination class action can be certified.

“Those without means to hire an attorney or pursue a claim rely on class-action lawsuits to level the playing field and change the policies and practices of elite corporations. The court’s sharply divided ruling has made it more difficult for these individuals.” -- Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

The U.S. might still rank as one of the top nations insofar as income and wealth go, but the distribution is so massively skewed in favor of the top 1%, it's the epitome of deceit.  Exclude the wealthiest 1%, and let's see where we rank...most likely, at the very bottom.  Thanks to the  $upreme Court ruling, low-level hourly employees, of whom many  live at the  poverty level, without insurance, are now at the mercy of Wal-Mart and/or any of the large corporations who do not respect their employees.

Individual women can still sue Walmart. But their options and opportunities will be limited by their isolation and economic circumstance. As Walmart Watch notes: Walmart Associates live on poverty-level wages and often do not have access to benefits. Walmart’s average sales associate makes $8.81 per hour, according to IBISWorld, an independent market research group. This translates to annual pay of $15,576, based upon Walmart’s full-time status of thirty-four hours per week, well below the poverty line for a family of four. Additionally in 2010, Walmart’s health insurance covered only 54 percent of their associates while tens of thousands of associates qualify for Medicaid and other publicly subsidized care.”

Read more...

Sliding Further Down the Slippery Slope of Government Intrusion.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that we, the people are increasingly losing our right to be secure in our homes and in our persons.  In an ironic twist, just as we get the news that cops may be suspect in the Long Island serial killings (Of course, the NYPD denies this), the Indiana Supreme Court - in a decision that overturns centuries of common law - ruled, that residents have no right to resist the entry of police, without warrant.

This decision stems from a case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.  Dissenters, Justices Robert Rucker and  Brent Dickson said that they would have supported the ruling if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations.

"We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence." -- Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David

Another dissenting judge said,

“government agents may now enter their homes illegally – that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances.”

What did the three justices that ruled that police can break down the door of any home, if the situation warrants  (left to the arbitrary discretion of the police official)?   Well, they said residents can later protest the entry through the court system.  Kind of hard to do if you're dead, injured for life; not to mention, it's not going to bring back any loved ones who happen to wander into the line of fire during the warrant-less intrusion.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, 8-1, that police can enter our personal residences, without a warrant, if they smell marijuana, and simultaneously, hear the toilet flush. Why? There is a possibility that the flusher was getting rid of evidence. Now, this ruling is more specific, as it applies only to marijuana, that "dangerous" plant that I'm sure, saves more lives than it takes.  Nevertheless, once again, citizens are left dangling on a hook, at the mercy of arbitrary officials, and their arbitrary decisions.  The one and only dissenting judge, Justice Ruth Ginsburg, wrote,

“Police officers may now knock, listen, then break the door down, never mind that they had ample time to obtain a warrant,”

and quoted in a New York Times article :

“How secure do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and, on hearing sounds indicative of things moving, forcibly enter and search for evidence of unlawful activity?”

The infringements to our freedoms are always cloaked under fear and national security; however, that cloak is getting more transparent every  day.  It's hard to deny the serial assaults on our Constitutional liberties and the ongoing attempt to erode the protections of  American citizens from wholly irrational government action, even if you buy into all of the propaganda.  The protection of the lives, health, and property of American citizens, and the preservation of good order and the public morals mean very little, if anything to those who reside at the top of our power structure.

Read more...

Corporate Citizens United to Take Over America.

The Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, that allows corporations, unions and interest groups to spend as much as they want on political campaigns opened a Pandora's box of potential ways to exploit the already corrupted campaign process, as well as paving the road for "corporate persons" to to render we the people, obsolete.

Secret corporate "people" are  funneling their funds into nonprofit organizations - who don’t have to disclose their funders, and who can spend as much as half of their revenue on political activities - in order to buy elections that further their corrupt agendas.   Some of these nonprofits appear to be shell groups for political operatives looking to influence races. Mike McIntire of the New York Times investigated one of those groups, the Coalition to Protect Seniors, and came up empty when he tried to track down exactly who was behind the group.

The Supreme Court opened the door for foreign nationals to intervene in American elections. And guess what? The right-wing didn't waste any time, personally escorting them through...patriotic as always. Yep.  Lee Fang from Think Progress broke the story about foreign contributions to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a trade association organized as a 501(c)(6) that can raise and spend unlimited funds without ever disclosing any of its donors, that are possibly being used to fund political ads. They have already raised over $75 million and paid to have ads run more than 8,000 times on behalf of Republican Senate candidates.

"What we found were several fundraising documents that the Chamber has been using in places like Bahrain (and) India. The documents say foreign businesses are welcome and ask that these businesses send money to the same campaign account the 501(c)(6) that the Chamber is using to run attack ads. And they're telling these foreign businesses that they can have a voice in American public policy debates." - Lee Fang

Then, if things aren't bad enough, the Citizens United precedent  threatens to undermine progress in America's hard fought battle for equality.  Specifically, the repeal of the "public accommodations" section of the "The Civil Rights Act" which specifically states: "to confer jurisdiction upon the district courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in public accommodations."

But who and why would anyone want to repeal any part of the Civil Rights Act?  The libertarians, of course, who populate the the "Tea Party" movement, for one. They believe private businesses should be permitted to discriminate without legal repercussions, therefore they believe the public accommodations section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act interferes with the corporate citizen's first amendment rights. Glen Beck, at his “Restoring Honor” rally held on the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech," claimed that he and his Tea Party followers would “take back the civil rights movement.”

Links:

Move to Amend

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

* Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
* Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.
* Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

A recent report, Fading Disclosure: Increasing Number of Electioneering Groups
Keep Donors’ Identities Secret by Public Citizen found that in the 2004 elections, 98% of outside groups disclosed the names of donors who paid for their political ads.  Fast forward four years and only 32% disclosed the names of donors.

GOP Quietly Funded Foreign Donations.

Republicans Thwart New Campaign Finance Disclosure Rules As DISCLOSE Act Fails Procedural Vote in Senate

Read more...

Interfering with a Citizen’s Fundamental Rights Under the Constitution Without Explanation.

Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the Northern District of California declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional Aug. 4, and he suggested that only the state could defend the law. In his ruling overturning Prop. 8 and in a subsequent order denying a stay, he said the "measure's sponsors had failed to show any prospect of harm in allowing same-sex weddings."

Just last week, the federal appeals court decided that same-sex marriages remain barred while the case is on appeal, despite the fact that the state is not defending the measure.  Moreover,  the 3-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit did not even state its reasons for issuing a stay that put the marriages on hold until the court decides whether Prop. 8 violated the constitutional right to marry.  The appeals court will decide whether the initiative's sponsors have legal standing to represent the state's interests during a hearing the week of Dec. 6 in San Francisco.

So, this order, without any kind of explanation leaves thousands of gay and lesbian couples wondering why they can't marry, and millions more people wondering why Prop. 8 remains in effect after a federal judge found it unconstitutional.

Links

Support for Same-Sex Marriage - Support for gay marriage has risen to 45 percent or more, according to national polls, and a CNN poll this month found that a narrow majority of Americans supported same-sex marriage.

Courage Campaign 

Read more...

Arbitration Fairness

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Rent-A-Center v Jackson, "dealt a major blow to consumers and employees who seek to challenge arbitration agreements on the ground that they are unfair or unconscionable", instead, upholding the authority of arbitrator to rule on the validity of agreements to arbitrate, relegating American workers to arbitration proceedings that can be structurally biased to favor large corporations, showing once again how the Supreme Court favors corporations and unfairly disadvantages hard-working Americans.

However, President Obama, by signing into law the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), under the just-passed Wall Street Reform Act, helps limit the use of abusive forced arbitration clauses in financial contracts.

“The new CFPB will help address the abusive forced arbitration practices used by banks against consumers. Congress must now pass the Arbitration Fairness Act to ensure these predatory clauses are banned once and for all.” -- American Association for Justice President Gibson Vance.

Two other bills have been introduced in Congress to stem the abusive practice of forced arbitration:

Arbitration Fairness Act 2009 - sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), would ensure that the decision to arbitrate is made voluntarily and after a dispute has arisen, so corporations cannot manipulate the arbitration system in their favor at the expense of consumers and employees.

Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act (S. 512 / H.R. 1237), sponsored by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) and Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), would eliminate forced arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts.

Read more...

Corporate Death Penalty

After all corporations are entitled to all the rights of a person. Why shouldn't they be subject to the death penalty. Especially now that the Supreme Court decision (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) further did away with distinctions between 'corporate rights' and 'individual rights'.

Thom Hartmann's article Halliburton & BP -- Is it time for the Corporate Death Penalty?:

"President Barack Obama pretty much stated the obvious when he called the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico "a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster." The oil well pouring a river of crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have the normal type of remote-control shut-off switch used in Norway and the UK as last-resort protection against underwater spills, largely because the oil companies themselves are responsible for "voluntary" compliance with safety and environmental standards.

It was in 1994, two years into the Clinton administration, when this practice of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse was legalized, about the same time George W. Bush was doing the same thing in Texas, a program pushed hard in the previous administration by Dan Quayle's so-called "competitiveness council" charged with deregulating industry. The accident has led to one of the largest ever oil spills in U.S. water and the loss of 11 lives. Voluntary safety for oil wells, but you and I can get stopped by the police if we don't fasten our safety belts? Eleven people have died because Halliburton and BP wanted to save money.

In the first hundred years of this republic it was commonplace for rogue corporations to get the corporate death penalty -- being shut down, dissolved, and having their assets sold off. Through the 19th century, it averaged around 2000 companies a year that got the axe. If the Supreme Court now says that corporations are people -- and they did -- then these corporations should be eligible for the corporate death penalty. Time to break up and sell off the pieces of Haliburton and British Petroleum."

Read more...

Supreme Court: Death Penalty Is 'Totally Badass'

Read more...

Right-wing Coup D'etat

“Those in power must invent noble lies and pious frauds to keep the people in the stupor for which they are supremely fit.” -- Leo Strauss, godfather of neo-con scholars

I've always wondered, why, considering the hatchet job on Clinton, while in office, and the Bush v. Gore pillage, did the neo-cons let an African-American Democrat follow on the heels of the Republican political front man, George W (credentials: inadequately educated "party boy" blatantly manifesting an anti-intellectual, cowboy machismo and religiosity, whose repeated failures in business earned him the position of Gov. of TX) they plundered into office?

Because no matter what you think of W, he accomplished a hell of a lot to further the neo-con agenda, which entailed taking over Washington, steering the US into a Middle Eastern war, nominating necon "activist judges" (Alito and Roberts: his most important mission), deregulating Wall Street, promoting the rights of corporations over individuals, unchecking the power of the President, shredding the Constitution...in other words, basically leaving this country in a shambles (Project for the New American Century ).

So, why after all the trouble the neo-cons went to over the last three decades, in order to usher in their agenda, would they allow someone who seemingly represented the antithesis to W, carte blanche?

Well, for one thing, who better to clean up after a wealthy white man, than a black man? However, aside from the fact that any President following Bush would inherit the insurmountable task of putting Humpty Dumpty together again, the real answer lies in installation of "the highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government" to the Supreme Court.

Yep, President Obama's election is all part of the plan. Not only is Obama their convenient "fall guy", they have nothing to worry about as far as anyone interfering in their agenda, thanks to the Republican party, who transformed itself into a two-year old, as they've become the "party of no", but even more importantly, securing traitors to American democracy in positions of power, in which it is very easy to take even more power and show America who is boss.

If we don't do something now, you can bet the neoconservatives have done, and are doing something, and that something is setting the stage for an era that will make the Bush years seem rather serene.

Read more...

Will Multinational Corporate Lobbyists Define America Now?

The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision opened up a huge loophole in the restrictions that we have on foreign entities participating in our elections. Now, foreign corporations with U.S. subsidiaries will be able to make 'independent expenditures' to American political campaigns.

Democrats have already begun drafting legislation that could restrict the possibility of foreign influence in our election campaigns. However, it is doubtful that anything, short of a constitutional amendment, will impact on the ruling.

Democrats are also eyeing restrictions on U.S. companies that are subsidiaries of foreign-owned corporations; they believe the public will be outraged by the possibility of foreign influence in U.S. election campaigns. The high court's majority opinion avoided addressing possible implications for foreign-owned firms, which are barred from direct participation in U.S. elections but can use their American subsidiaries to form political action committees.

Foreign subsidiaries are already "lashing out at reports that congressional Democrats are looking to block foreign-owned corporations from seizing on the Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling last week".

Saudi Arabia has already asserted that the development of renewable energy is their biggest threat. Now, they can do something to stop their "biggest threat". Saudi Arabian-owned subsidiaries operating in the U.S. can and will expend as much as they want to advocate for the defeat of candidates who support clean energy legislation.

Tough legislation must be drafted to keep domestic corporations from operating on their own as if they were not foreign-controlled companies.

Read more...

Does the Supreme Court Ruling Call for a Populist Revolt?

E.J. Dionne Jr. of the Washington Post believes - that after the Supreme Court, in a fundamental reversal of precedent, that removed legislative restrictions on the role of corporations in political campaigns, ruling that companies can spend as much as they want to support or oppose individual candidates - "the only proper response to this distortion of our political system by ideologically driven justices is a popular revolt".

This court ruling should also challenge the fake populism we have seen of late. It disguises a defense of the interests of the powerful behind crowd-pleasing rhetoric against "Washington," "taxes" and, yes, "Obama."

President Obama has helped feed this faux populist revolt by failing to understand until recently how deeply frustrated politically moderate, middle-class Americans are over policies that bailed out the banks while leaving behind millions of unemployed and millions more alarmed about their economic futures.

If average voters came to see government primarily as an instrument of the banks, why should they believe that the same government could help them on matters of health care and employment? This problem was aggravated by puffed-up, self-involved U.S. senators who conspired to make the legislative process look as ugly and chaotic as possible.

Obama began turning toward populism before the results of the Massachusetts Senate race rolled in. Republican Scott Brown's victory made the new turn imperative.

The president has now offered a modest tax on the big financial institutions to cover the costs of bailouts, and a tougher approach to banks that will limit their size and their capacity to make economy-wrecking financial bets. It's a decent start, and it's about time.

Read more...

Corporations Conveniently Cloak the Psychopaths Among Us

Yet, the Supreme Court is endowing these giant psychopathic super powers with even more super powers, without the threat of severe punishment that we mere humans are subject.

Why? Well, it all started with the legal doctrine of "corporate personhood", established in the late 1800s, that makes the claim corporations are persons or human beings, therefore they are intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for persons or human beings. Fast forward one-hundred years and the powers that be have decided it's in we, the human beings, best interest if we the human beings serve these giant beasts that house the psychopaths residing within.

But what makes powerful wealthy people believe that corporations are persons? From what I remember from economics 101, a corporation is an artificial legal and social structure where human beings gather for economic reasons. Yes, it (the corporation) is very good at raising capital, creating wealth, providing a return for its shareholders, etc. However, it cannot serve on a jury, cannot serve time, cannot serve our country, nor can it serve breakfast. It can "live" forever...can "live" in multiple nations at once...can "live" with or without oxygen, food, sex, and all the other things we humans require. The bottom line is, that it is an it...that's it.

The good thing. Obama's angry. Maybe that means he's not going to take it anymore.

Read more...

Do We Have the Right Not To Be Framed?

In 1977, 17- year old Terry Harrington (left), captain of his Omaha high school football team, was being recruited for a possible scholarship at Yale when he was arrested for the murder of a retired Iowa police captain, killed by a shotgun blast while working as a private security guard.

What followed next is an example of the kind of injustice most of us can only conceive of in our worst nightmare. Prosecutors Joseph Hrvol and David Richter, along with local police, went to work suppressing evidence that pointed at another suspect — Charles Gates, while manufacturing evidence against the two chief suspects, Terry Harrington and Curtis McGhee, Jr. The two men were convicted of the murder in separate trials, and each was sentenced to life without parole.

After the police records were uncovered in 2003, Harrington successfully petitioned the Iowa State Supreme Court to overturn their convictions. All of the witnesses against them recanted their perjured testimony. The Iowa Supreme Court set aside both convictions, citing exculpatory evidence pointing to another suspect that was withheld from defense counsel in both trials.

Their case (Pottawattamie County v. McGhee) turned on whether prosecutors, who knowingly fabricate evidence to convict an innocent person should be susceptible to lawsuits, or if prosecutors should always have absolute immunity from such suits, no matter how bad their behavior. Keep in mind that investigating police officers, less educated than prosecuting attorneys, don’t receive that kind of immunity. So, then, why should it be granted to prosecutors acting in the same capacity?

As citizens of the U.S. most of us assume we have the right to prove our innocence if we are wrongly convicted of a crime. We probably even assume that we will be compensated for the cost of being wrongly convicted. That is the cost of attorney fees, loss of employment, earnings and earnings potential, not to mention, the loss of time with our loved ones, etc. In other words, we assume that the preservation of justice is paramount in this country, and that the legal process works to ensure that the truth will set us free .

However, this is not the case. It could even be said, the odds are stacked against we, the average people, considering the absolute immunity of judges and prosecutors, and the monopolistic legal system currently in place. Prosecutors have the "right" to frame you with total immunity. The Supreme Court maintains that even prosecutors who knowingly hide or invent evidence in a case that results in the conviction of an innocent person cannot be sued for damages. As morally abhorrent as this is, it is legally sound, just as the following quote from Justice Antonin Scalia is morally abhorrent but legally sound:

“This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”

In Brady v. Maryland, judges said prosecutors have an absolute duty not only to not hide evidence, but to divulge evidence that could show innocence.

Teacher says Prosecutor ruined her. - "A former high school teacher who was exonerated of charges that she had sex with a student has sued her prosecutor, claiming Kenton County Attorney Rob Sanders indicted her though he knew the allegations were bogus. She claims Sanders "acted with malice" in pursuit of "publicity, attention and redemption in how he handled a prior student/adult sex case."

Read more...

Is Executing an Innocent Person Cruel and Unusual Punishment?

Troy Davis, a black man, who was charged, tried and convicted in Georgia for murdering a white police officer was sentenced to death in 1991.

There was no physical evidence against Troy Davis. The weapon used in the crime was never found. The case against him consisted entirely of witness testimony. Seven of the nine non-police witnesses have recanted or contradicted their testimony. Many of these witnesses claimed they were coerced by police which resulted in fabricated testimony at trial. One of the two witnesses who has not recanted or contradicted testimony is Sylvester Coles, the principal alternative suspect. Nine individuals have signed affidavits implicating Sylvester Coles. Troy Davis has never had a hearing in federal court on the reliability of the witness testimony used against him.

Last month, after the Georgia Supreme Court denied Davis' appeal, the Davis defense asked the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to declare that the State violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment when it executes an innocent man. After initially delaying the Davis execution, SCOTUS is now refusing to declare that executing an innocent man violates the clause added to the Eighth Amendment.

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”.

In other words, SCOTUS' lack of words, affirms that state sanctioned execution is commensurate with innocence or more precisely disenfranchised innocence.

So, while our "justice" system "debates" semantics or lack thereof, Troy Davis may suffer the "cruel and unusual" punishment of being executed as an innocent man on Monday, October 27.

Read more...