Since its establishment, the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS”) have required that all cases initially file a preliminary proceeding seeking approval and acceptance by the Court (“writ of certiorari”). If granted; then and only then, can the matter proceed to be heard. By far, most writs are denied. One historical reason for denial, by consistent legal precedent, is the presence of a political question, in whole or part, such judicial restraint being understood to be in the interest of the avoidance of a violation of the Separation of powers, under the U.S. Constitution.
Nevertheless, famously, starting with Bush v. Gore, it appears that this historic and fundamental principle of law and government was selectively ignored by the Court, resulting no less, in the selection of one candidate for President of the United States over the other (political?).
Worse still was the Citizen’s united case. Not only did the court accept a clearly political case, but held that corporations had “personhood” with First Amendment rights of free speech (read, contributing unlimited sums of money to favored candidates). This meant and means, that elections may be bought by these entities thus destroying the one man one vote required in a Jeffersonian democracy. Talk about “Separation of Powers!”
Going back to Victorian times, it has consistently been the law, and history, that a corporation is a “fictional entity, a creature of the State, created to afford to venturers and entrepreneurs “limited” as opposed to “unlimited” liability, in order to encourage investment in new ventures by limiting the potential of risk to the individual entrepreneur
Every law school student learns and knows, that the legally accepted phrase, and “for the purpose of” is an essential concept in law, in the determination of legal rights and responsibilities
Thus, for the purpose of doing business (only) was, and is the corporation deemed to be a “person” in that it can enter into contracts, sue and be sued in its corporate name. It was preposterous for SCOTUS to hold that a corporation is a person with the First Amendment right of free speech donating enormous sums of cash to political candidates of their liking, just cannot get his head around the concept that SCOTUS doesn’t know what every law school freshman and informed citizen knows, and therefore am mystified as to its motivation.
2 thoughts on “Blog #5 Where you at, SCOTUS?”
SCOTUS has evolved, without authorization, into a legislative function. Who watches the Court?
Only pliny, unfortunately