Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  

Useful Idiots of the Coup

BUZZFLASH'S LAST CHANCE DEMOCRACY CAFE

BY Steven C. Day

This is clearly not the time to mince words. So let’s say it out loud. The Supreme Court’s holding in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, handed down yesterday, wasn’t just a bad decision. It was a coup d’état — the latest and most decisive phase in a slow rolling judicial coup that began nine years ago with Bush v. Gore, when five intellectually dishonest right wing justices decided to substitute their choice for president for that of the people. It gained traction when John Roberts, having been appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by that very same judicially anointed president, committed perjury — yes perjury — to gain confirmation by falsely claiming to the Senate that he’d be a cautious jurist, respectful of precedent. And now, at long last, it has reached its culmination in a decision by that Court that effectively destroys what little is left of American democracy.

From now on, thanks to these five fanatics in black robes, corporations will be free to spend their bottomless treasuries, without restriction, to influence elections. Remember what Sollozzo said to Don Corleone in the first Godfather movie? “I need, Don Corleone, all of those politicians that you carry around in your pocket, like so many nickels and dimes.” That was small potatoes compared to what’s coming now. Thanks to the Supreme Court majority, behemoth corporations are now entirely free to buy and sell politicians with the same reckless abandon — and utter disregard for the public interest — with which they consume smaller companies, swallowing them whole.

And if any politician gets in their way, they’ll be no need for anything so crude as putting a horse’s head in their beds to bring them into line. The threat of spending a few million bucks — a drop in the corporate bucket — against them in the next election will more than suffice.  

And yet, even as I stare at the rubble of what was once our democracy, strangely, the people I find myself angriest at aren’t the corporate barons themselves, or even the five judicial fanatics who have done so much to empower them. Instead, I find that my fiercest rage is directed against those so-called civil libertarians who have become the useful idiots of this coup, providing intellectual cover for the destruction of what is best about our system of government.

I won’t bother to name them all. They certainly do not represent the entire civil liberties community, but they’re out in strength. If you’ve been paying attention, you’ve probably seen them yourself. One was on display on Olbermann last night, Jonathan Turley. While admitting the decision presents some troubling real world concerns, in the end, he asserted that he had to come down on the side of the First Amendment. Jesus, with friends like that the Bill of Rights doesn’t need any enemies. I’m sorry, but anyone who can’t see the difference between a living, breathing human being expressing his beliefs and a corporation using other people’s money to buy influence is a moron, regardless of his academic rank or scholarly credentials. 

Unless some way can be found to change it, this decision, far from protecting free speech, will eventually destroy meaningful personal liberty, including freedom of expression, in this country. Perhaps these self-appointed “civil liberties” purists haven’t read the relevant history, but if they had they’d have discovered that civil liberties tend not to do very well in times of plutocracy. Hardly surprising. Why would our corporate overlords want to put up with all the fuss? 

And as for the assertions that we can fix the problem with fundamental changes of other kinds, like publically financed elections, this is pure fiction. Sure we need those things. We also need invisible fairies who fly around and grant our every wish, but we aren’t going to get that either. If we couldn’t accomplish such change before we completely handed the keys of our government over to the superrich, why would anyone think that we could do so now?

As a lawyer, I deal with folks like this all the time: people who aren’t nearly as smart as they think they are, who dig so deep into an intellectual conundrum that by the time they come up for air they can’t tell the difference between a hand full of diamonds and a fist full of manure. They make fools of themselves, while all the while toasting to their own brilliance. Unfortunately, this time it is American democracy that will end up holding the manure.

The ACLU signed on in favor of corporate America in this case, by the way. They even submitted an amicus brief in support of the plaintiff’s position. As it happens, I got my ACLU membership renewal papers in the mail the very same day Citizens United came down. I haven’t sent them an outraged letter resigning from the organization (they like that too much; it makes them feel noble). But I’d suggest they not count on my membership fee next year.

I don’t give money to useful idiots.




Misleading title

Thought it was about all the "true progressive" Obama supporters ...

Good-bye ACLU membership

I mailed my ACLU membership renewal notice, sans check, letting them know of my displeasure with their Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission amicus brief.

Obviously the measly $50 a year from a disablity pension for my membership will not buy as much free speech as thousands from one of the ACLU's corporate donors.

 

ET Spoon

et tu, ACLU?

misguided principles run amuck.

Call to arms?

The Supreme Court ruling has been described by several major pundits and bloggers as the end of Democracy.

When I enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1966, I swore an oath to defend my country.  I was sent to Vietnam, where someone else who was defending his country shot me.

 It is said, "Once a Marine, always a Mariine.".   Am I still under obligation of the oath I swore?  If corporate entities are ending my Democracy, it means the enemy is here and now.  What should I do?

I'm afraid so

Last night, Mike Malloy ended his show with the quote about the "four boxes of freedom:  soap, ballot, jury and ammo -- to be used in that order."  I guess the Supreme Court is as far as a jury can take a person and that leaves the final alternative.

I don't think it is possible to overly hype this decision.  We are all familiar with the Hermann Goering quote by now, and corporations with their unmatchable depth of funding, will ALWAYS be able to convince _just_enough_ fools by their propaganda to halt ANY progressive movement in this country.  Just take a moment to let that sink in.  "Game over, man!"  Totalitarian corporate dictatorship with the facade of elections -- and everything that will bring you and your children when corporations come first.

I've always thought of corporations as demons.  Psychopathic entities that aren't living creatures.  If they are given total control over us, would even an atheist define these as the End Times?

 

 

Tea Baggers as useful idiots

So anyone or any corporation with deep pockets can say whatever they like and spread it around in major media, huh? Does that include documentaries outing the Supremo Fascist Five?

How's about an advertising campaign that is targeted at the Tea Baggers, painting the F-5 as Facist Big Government activist judges who are threatening to take away their democratic right to vote for the president of their choice. Scalia has already declared that to be the case, back around their last major criminal action in 2000. You get the RW radicals stirred up, you know, the ones that carry guns everywhere, quote Jefferson, and say it's alright to spill blood for their country -- and there might just be a real live reenactment of the Pelican Brief solution to the Supremes problem. Heaven forbid..

All life is sacred -- I'm not advocating physical assassination of the Supremo Fascist Five. But since they are politicians now, political assassination would suffice -- and do a service to the Court, ridding it of the cancer that has pervaded it.

The Constitution provides nonviolent solutions

'Article III of the Constitution states that judges remain in office "during good behavior", implying that Congress may remove a judge for bad behavior via impeachment. The House has impeached 14 federal judges and the Senate has convicted six of them.'

It's time to put impeachment back on the table. All five Supreme Court Justices who participated in this corporate coup should be impeached and removed from office for their bad behavior.

Hey look at that! Instant Liberal Supreme Court!

Now if you are still looking for blood, I suggest you try them for treason, which carries the death penalty.

There is just one - no 41 - problems

There is no way that the Senate Republicans will allow the impeachment of their pet solons. Not now. Not when they have all but completed their plan. They will filibuster until Lady Liberty turns to dust, and there is nothing legal under tha law (as corrupted by the Regan-Bush-Cheney cabal) that the people will be able to do about it.

We will have to find another way - and I hope we don't lose the Republic doing so.

The 1st Amendment

What part of:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;

Is so hard to understand? No law means exactly that - none, zip, nada, zilch. NO restrictions on speech, whether its by a corporation, a partnership, a church or an individual. NO LAW.

Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be a warning - not a newspaper!!

What part of "people" is so hard to understand?

When I read the Bill of Rights, I see many references to "people". But I see no references to any nonhuman entities such as corporations, organizations, PACs, corporate personhood, etc.

Please show me where in the entire Constitution it specifically states that any nonhuman entity has the same rights, or even some rights as "people".

NO restrictions?

 

"NO RESTRICTIONS"

 

Really, "Truth Teller"? Because if you really belive in "No Restrictions", then I guess you're also in favor of kiddie porn. I hope you don't have kids. Do you also want to defend libel, slander, fraud, incitement to riot, and the proverbial "Shouting 'Fire!' in crowded theaters"?

All of the above are examples of harmful and detrimental "speech" that have been exempted from 1st amendment protections, and IMHO very rightfully so. This travesty of a decision opens us up to all kinds of detrimental effects that, in the view of any reasonable erson, outweigh the "rights" of Corporate "persons" by a very wide margin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Al Qeada is a faith-based initiative.

Not Free Speech issues

Kiddie porn, slander, fraud and yelling "fire" in a crowded room are all bad things independent of free speech. The first is bad because the child has no consent and is not sexually mature. Slander is wrong because of the lie, but in order to know it as such you have to let the person speak out. You cannot eliminate slander and keep empirical research. Both may come to an equally destructive conclusion in the populace at large about a person or institution, but the acquisition of facts in real research would allow us all to know the truth and sort the fact from the slander. Talk to the media about that one, though...research, facts? ha!

Yelling "fire" is bad not because you have the freedom to yell it out, but because when used improperly, it can cause unnecessary death and injury.

So, how exactly is any of the above a free speech issue and not wrong on other factors?

The 1st Amendment

What part of:

Spending money to buy political infuence is not speech is so hard to understand?

Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.  Say no more.

The whole transaction can take place without a single word being spoken.