- Posted July 16, 2014 by
Watertown, New York
This iReport is part of an assignment:
- Does the US Government Really Have a Desire to Change Police Behavior? Maybe They Should Recuse Themselves for a Conflict of Interest
- Is PBA President Pat Lynch As Outraged Over Eric Garner's Death? Or ...
- The US Revolution is Being Televised
- Obama Backs Spending Bill That Guts Financial Regulation To Avoid Shutdown? Is Obama Really a Democrat?
- No Indictments for Torture- Bush Administration; Murder- Police Officers- Darren Wilson and Daniel Pantaleo, or Fraud- Wall Street Banksters In US?
U.S. Supreme Court's Relevancy- A Rubber Stamp for the Corporate, Republican and Misogynists' Interests?
The question is, "Whose Supreme Court is it now- ours or theirs? And who is it that they serve since they no longer consider the People's interests".
The conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justices, that are now serving at the pleasure of Corporate America, the Republican Party, and the Kochs, have been zealously ignoring the nation’s basic laws while aiding and abetting the expansion of the state and corporate agenda for years, so why should they start interpreting the Constitution now?
I add the Kochs because a few of these U.S. Supreme Court Justices have attended Koch conferences.
Think that's unusual? You're not alone.
When Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed by President George W. Bush, said in his Senate confirmation hearing, that he would only "call balls and strikes and refuse to change settled law, many liberals resisted the urge to laugh.
We knew better, but hoped that he truly believed his own statement. We want to give the benefit of the doubt to a man when he says he's going to do something.
With the Robert's Court's decision on Citizens United and a litany of conservative challenges to 'settled law', we have seen that Robert's account of his intention has been less than honest.
For years, liberal political activists have relied on Justices to protect liberal values and policies whenever the religious right and corporate interests have fought to impose their selfish views of the World upon the majority of progressive Americans —like Roe v. Wade, which struck down every abortion law in conservative states and the nation and has allowed a woman to have a choice if needed despite what the Bible-thumping misogynists on the Right have interpreted the role of a woman to be in their narrow view of the World.
But maybe now, with this court, and Roberts at the helm, the Right can turn back the clock to a time they feel comfortable with where women were in their rightful place, according to them- at home, raising children, daring not to question their husband's authority as it is stated in their Bible that the man is the head of the household.
Somehow those that believe this way always omit the part that says the husband is supposed to consider first, his wife's feelings in any decision.
Robert's Court has also decided that corporations are now people. People with lots of money that becomes speech which can influence those that watch only FOX News and vote according to how many 'yard signs' they see on their way to the poll.
This helps the conservatives to maintain their power, along with gerrymandering, voter suppression, which the Supreme Court has made easier by gutting the laws designed to prevent this, because the GOP is not interested in changing their ideology to better align with and represent the growing American majority of voters.
We need to change how the Supreme Court Justices are selected and the number of years they serve. There should be nobody that serves for a lifetime.
"Everyone wants to put more of “their” justices on the high court. Jonathan Turley of George Washington University Law School suggested increasing the size of the high court from nine to 19. David R. Dow of the University of Houston Law Center proposed impeaching errant justices. The Right once campaigned against arrogant judges exceeding their authority. Now the Left denounced unelected jurists who dared to overturn legislation “passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” as President Obama put it."
Senators were not elected in our country's past. They were appointed until we decided that people were responsible to elect them from each of our states.
An equal number of conservative and liberal Justices, need to be on the Court so that a consensus would need to be reached by a majority of them before they could act.
The credibility of the U. S. Supreme Court has never been lower among the American electorate.
That credibility is at historic lows.
After Citizens United, the repeal of important provisions of the Voter's Rights Act, and countless other protections and basic rights for Americans, there is good reason to now doubt the legitimacy of our country's highest court.