In previous writings, we noted an observed and disconcerting, steady descent of the Supreme Court of the United States [“SCOTUS”], from its historically perceived, exalted and Solomonic stature, [justly deserved by its past dedicated adherence to the impartial scales of justice] to a pragmatically impure institution, undemocratically, responsive to the will of powerful special interests. With respect to its recent, bizarre decision, not to ban a dystopic Texas Statute, involving the woman’s right to abortion, we can confidently, observe that the High Court’s formerly, elegant, principled, and loyal adherence to the traditionally balanced scales of legal justice, has sadly, morphed into the indecorous category of a publicly demonstrated, upset applecart. We will say considerably more on the Texas Statute, following a brief redux on background.
Our early critical comments were made concerning the case of Bush v. Gore . We noted that the case involved issues which were, indisputably, “political” and, accordingly, not precedentially, appropriate or acceptable [nor, certainly, to be ruled upon]. The historically consistent precedent requires that to have a case accepted for consideration by SCOTUS, a prerequisite application for a “Writ of Certiorari” had to be filed, in which there was a successful showing of the total absence of any “political” issue in the case. The legal explanation for this unwavering, harsh prerequisite, was principally founded in the Constitutional doctrine of “Separation of Powers.” This eternally applicable precedent mandates the denial of acceptance, by SCOTUS, of any matter that, in the least, had some political albeit, indirect effect. It is bafflingly clear that the SCOTUS adjudicated case of Gore-Bush had political issues as well as determinative, political impact, every bit as evident as apples in an apple pie.
Far worse, in its negative impact upon our Democratic Republic, [perpetrated by the institution created to ensure its efficacy and endurance], was the unusual and fundamentally undemocratic decision of SCOTUS, in the Citizens United case . In that impactful case, SOTUS bizarrely ruled that “corporations are people,” and therefore, legislation limiting the amount of their contributions, is a violation of personal freedom of speech. This flawed decision unfairly enables special interests to make unlimited contributions to elections and thus, undemocratically, to skew elections in favor of the wealthy business interests, while minimizing the effect of the vote of the ordinary American voter. Its pernicious effect upon the meaningful citizen’s right to vote and its negative effect upon an aspiring democracy, already hobbled by the influence of money, is obvious and repugnant.
The strained and tortured legal rationale of the holding in the United Taxpayers case is an illustrative indication of the shocking surrender and abdication of principle, of America’s formerly esteemed and impartial arbiter of the law, to the powerful interests, in lieu of its entrusted responsibility to assure equality and justice; at the high cost of our democracy.
Every beginning freshman law student and most businessmen are aware, that when the law refers to corporations as “persons,” that corporate “person” is understood to be merely an accepted “legal fiction.” This commercial fiction affords to an entrepreneur limited liability, regarding a business venture properly conducted under his artfully selected corporate name. As provided in the Corporation Law, the business, [as opposed to the human person of the entrepreneur] can sue, and be sued, in its corporate name. Such law concerning corporations, since the historic days of the English Statutes of Elizabeth is intended, specifically, to limit the liability of the individual entrepreneur; as part of society’s economic encouragement to enter into business. As universally known, the law, over the many decades, has never, by Statute or case precedent, granted ” human personhood” to the commercial fiction of “person, ”legally attributable to corporations, by legislative fiat. We are struck by the thought that, if every freshman law student and the average businessman knows this basic principle, certainly the all wise, SCOTUS, ineluctably does.
The recent SCOTUS ’refusal to act, regarding a recent bizarrely construed Texas Statute, interfering with the right of abortion ss provided in the Roe v. Wade decision by SCOTUS is disappointing, This un-American legislation has the analogous, sophomoric utility of an excuse from a visibly chewing, child, caught with his hand in the cookie jar, whose defense is that he misplaced his keys, and was in the process of looking for them.
Texas is the same, Trump-cultish State that tribally, opposes official medical mandates for vaccination and masking to avoid Covid contagion, but energetically and astoundingly, promotes, as an alternative, the widespread ingestion by its citizens of veterinary horse wormers. That same, Bible belt dysfunctional State, has outdone itself by its recent legislative travesty, viz., a Statute, as referred to above, permitting any private Texas citizen or Texas non-governmental organization, to sue anyone, seeking an abortion, as well as any party who aids and abets in the [Roe v. Wade], approved the act, including the uber driver. It is hard to find words to describe this Kafka- like, Alice in Wonderland law, because it is so far outside the realm of practical common sense as well as the entire context of our legal system. It is an ill-informed ignorant and pathetic attempt to circumvent Roe v. Wade’s proscription against the “State’s” ability to interfere with the right to abortion, by the atavistic and wild west authorization of citizen vigilantes, and is a cookie jar devious, and reductively transparent way to enforce the Bible belt State’s atavistic proscription against abortion. The State has been prohibited by Roe, to do it, so, now, any half-witted citizen can do so. In the anticipated litigation, where is the basic legal requirement of “standing” to sue, i.e., a plaintiff who has suffered demonstrable damages? What will be the measure of plaintiff’s personal damages? etc. etc. We could go, painfully, on and on….!
The media reports that SCOTUS, unashamedly, has passed over an opportunity block this asinine and societally paleolithic, legislative travesty. As to the contemporary SCOTUS, we sadly rest our doleful case.
One thought on “Post # 669 SCOTUS: FROM BALANCED JUSTICE TO UPSET APPLECART”