The Deck Is Fully Stacked
Kudos to Glenn Greenwald for his thorough exposure of the inherent cowardice of King George and his minions. Despite all their protestations of "unitary executive" and "inherent authority", the Bushites have done everything they can to prevent any court of competent jurisdiction from ever ruling on the legality of their actions. They kicked Jose Padilla out of the "enemy combatant corps" just in time to prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing his arrest and incarceration. They short-circuited the secret FISA court to avoid having to answer any questions about the NSA's electronic vacuum cleaner projects. The lists goes on, and Glenn chronicles them all at his blog "Unclaimed Territory" http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/. Most recently, he notes, the royalists on the Senate Judiciary Committee have blackmailed Chairman Arlen Specter into dropping a provision from his proposed FISA "reform" (which in itself renders FISA meaningless) that would have required the secret court to review the NSA warrant-free snooping and rule on its legality. As Glenn notes:
"One would think that if they really believed that they had the clear-cut legal justification for warrantless eavesdropping which they claim to have, they would be eager to have a court rule on this issue so that this unpleasant controversy -- with all of these mean-spirited and utterly baseless allegations of lawbreaking -- can finally be put to rest. And yet, time and again, they do precisely the opposite: they desperately invoke every available measure to prevent any judicial ruling as to the legality of their behavior." http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/05/gop-senators-block-judicial-review-of.html#links
But I wonder if all this legal shell-gamesmanship isn't just a stalling tactic. During the first four years of his reign, King George had to contend with those flaming liberals Sandra Day O'Connor and William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. But not any more. John Roberts, inventor of the "presidential signing statement" that has rendered all acts of Congress null and void, and Samuel Alito, who never met a police power he didn't like, are on the high bench now. And they are making life so much easier for those in charge. In an Ohio case, the new Chief Justice writes:
"State taxpayers have no standing... to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers." http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/14587337.htm
Let's allow that to soak in a moment. What Roberts is saying is that "We the People" no longer have any stake in the actions of government. If a taxpayer cannot challenge the "tax or spending decisions" of the government, then the taxpayer can challenge NO decisions of the government. It's as simple as that. For there is no decision made by any level of government that isn't, at its heart, a decision about taxation or appropriation. Whether it's a city council decision on"use rates" for the municipal water utility, or $109 billion to fund a war or two (or, apparently, three in the near future), every action of every government turns on its power to raise and spend money.
And with a single sentence, the Roberts court has cut all American citizens out of all those decisions. Never mind those First Amendment niceties about "the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Under the current regime, the people have no "standing" to seek "redress". The courthouse doors are locked to them.
We might take some solace in the integrity of the court as an institution had this case been decided on a 5-4 vote, with vigorous dissents from the so-called "liberal" members of the bench. But it wasn't. The ruling in DailmerChrysler v. Cumo was unanimous. Not one justice objected to the Roberts assertion that "taxpayers have no standing...to challenge state tax and spending decisions". (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg merely expresses "reservations" in a concurring opinion.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1704.pdf (.pdf file)
Here, then, is the plain evidence King George has been awaiting. The Supreme Court is finally, and fully, his for the asking. The Justices see no reason to listen to the pleas of average Americans who have been wronged by their government, for they have no standing to challenge any government action. The Cumo decision is the green light. The Supreme Court has become, for all intents and purposes, the Royal Court, and the monarch may do as he pleases.
"One would think that if they really believed that they had the clear-cut legal justification for warrantless eavesdropping which they claim to have, they would be eager to have a court rule on this issue so that this unpleasant controversy -- with all of these mean-spirited and utterly baseless allegations of lawbreaking -- can finally be put to rest. And yet, time and again, they do precisely the opposite: they desperately invoke every available measure to prevent any judicial ruling as to the legality of their behavior." http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/05/gop-senators-block-judicial-review-of.html#links
But I wonder if all this legal shell-gamesmanship isn't just a stalling tactic. During the first four years of his reign, King George had to contend with those flaming liberals Sandra Day O'Connor and William Rehnquist on the Supreme Court. But not any more. John Roberts, inventor of the "presidential signing statement" that has rendered all acts of Congress null and void, and Samuel Alito, who never met a police power he didn't like, are on the high bench now. And they are making life so much easier for those in charge. In an Ohio case, the new Chief Justice writes:
"State taxpayers have no standing... to challenge state tax or spending decisions simply by virtue of their status as taxpayers." http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/14587337.htm
Let's allow that to soak in a moment. What Roberts is saying is that "We the People" no longer have any stake in the actions of government. If a taxpayer cannot challenge the "tax or spending decisions" of the government, then the taxpayer can challenge NO decisions of the government. It's as simple as that. For there is no decision made by any level of government that isn't, at its heart, a decision about taxation or appropriation. Whether it's a city council decision on"use rates" for the municipal water utility, or $109 billion to fund a war or two (or, apparently, three in the near future), every action of every government turns on its power to raise and spend money.
And with a single sentence, the Roberts court has cut all American citizens out of all those decisions. Never mind those First Amendment niceties about "the right of the people... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Under the current regime, the people have no "standing" to seek "redress". The courthouse doors are locked to them.
We might take some solace in the integrity of the court as an institution had this case been decided on a 5-4 vote, with vigorous dissents from the so-called "liberal" members of the bench. But it wasn't. The ruling in DailmerChrysler v. Cumo was unanimous. Not one justice objected to the Roberts assertion that "taxpayers have no standing...to challenge state tax and spending decisions". (Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg merely expresses "reservations" in a concurring opinion.) http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1704.pdf (.pdf file)
Here, then, is the plain evidence King George has been awaiting. The Supreme Court is finally, and fully, his for the asking. The Justices see no reason to listen to the pleas of average Americans who have been wronged by their government, for they have no standing to challenge any government action. The Cumo decision is the green light. The Supreme Court has become, for all intents and purposes, the Royal Court, and the monarch may do as he pleases.
posted by wally at 8:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home