More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Joseph A. Palermo

Joseph A. Palermo

GET UPDATES FROM Joseph A. Palermo

The Republican Supreme Court Sticks It to the Little Guy (Again)

Posted: 05/15/11 02:40 PM ET

Once again the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has shown the nation it will always favor corporations over people even if it means conjuring new law out of thin air. Like Citizens United, the recent 5-4 ruling in AT&T's favor gutting the power of consumers to file class-action lawsuits against giant corporations tips the scales of justice against the people and renders the enormous power of corporations even more enormous.

When I first heard about the case, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion there was little doubt in my mind that the Gang of Five -- John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas would figure out a way to ignore Supreme Court precedent and again apply their judicial activism in service to the corporations, and by extension, to the oligarchy they apparently believe the "founders" intended.

It's kind of funny when we see Republican presidential candidates like Mitt Romeny, Tim Pawlenty, and Newt Gingrich pandering to the "little guy" denouncing "elites" who are trampling on their rights only to remain mute on the fact that their beloved Republican Supreme Court never, ever rules in favor of the "little guy."

The Republican president Ronald Reagan gave us Scalia and Kennedy; the Republican president George Herbert Walker Bush gave us Thomas; and the Republican president George W. Bush gave us Roberts and Alito. This cabal has shown over and over again where its true loyalties lie, not to "the law," not to "the Constitution," not to "calling balls and strikes," but to a 21st century version of corporate feudalism. This new corporate feudalism that the High Court is determined to thrust on the nation is even more exploitative than the earlier brand of Medieval feudalism because it is absent noblesse oblige.

The serfs toiling on the corporate plantation can only continue to pay Chase and Bank of America for their underwater mortgages, ExxonMobil and Chevron for their $4 a gallon gas, and AT&T, Comcast, T-Mobile and the rest for the privilege of communicating in a modern society. And if the serfs seek redress the High Court will slap them down before they can get anything substantial off the ground. With Citizens United placing a stranglehold of corporate power over our state, local, and federal system of elections, we cannot turn to our political "leaders" for redress, we can't turn to the courts, and we certainly can't turn to trying to morally persuade sociopathic non-human entities called corporations -- so where does that leave us?

In the current context of unrestrained corporate dominance it's unconscionable that the Obama administration has not done more to blunt its disastrous effects. The Justice and Treasury Departments, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, etc. could be doing a hell of a lot more in bringing balance to the equation of corporations versus people. The administration's lagging performance in holding Wall Street accountable is well known, but it won't even lift a finger to block grotesque mergers like the one between Comcast and NBC Universal, and AT&T and T Mobile. In all these mergers and acquisitions it's always the consumers and the employees who lose, while the CEOs and a select few of shareholders and financiers make out like the bandits they are.

Nothing illustrates the corruption rampant in Washington more than the recent resignation of Federal Communications Commission member, Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican who Obama appointed to show how "bipartisan" he can be, who is now going to work as a lavishly paid shill for the very industry she was supposedly "regulating." Ms. Baker will now make the big bucks serving Comcast/NBC Universal after she voted for the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal. Sweet. And few in the Beltway see anything unsavory about it.

Our political leaders, our Supreme Court, our captains of industry and finance, are so out of touch it's going to be a long, long time before ordinary working people see any relief. All of our institutions, political, economic, even religious, social, and cultural, all of them, are failing the people miserably in pursuit of the Almighty Buck. The cunning game of appointing young ideologues to the bench has paid off handsomely for the corporate power structure. Someone should tell those people running around in tri-cornered hats and talking about the "founders" that it might be wise to save an ounce of their collective wrath for the Republicans who have appointed five Justices who are trampling on individual freedoms in service of corporations.

 
 
 

Follow Joseph A. Palermo on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JPalermo

Once again the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has shown the nation it will always favor corporations over people even if it means conjuring new law out of thin air. Like...
Once again the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has shown the nation it will always favor corporations over people even if it means conjuring new law out of thin air. Like...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,212
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (22 total)
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
01:50 PM on 05/31/2011
I can't stand, but find I must read articles like this for the simple reasons that Palermo is correct and it's so damned depressing.

We MUST find a way to break through. We need a new set of members on the Supreme Court. If only Obama were an actual liberal. . . . .

Is there any hope we can "primary" Obama with an _actual_ progressive? I'd say his goal is to be the Best Republican President in history - after all, Lincoln is his hero. (Too bad he didn't pick FDR - we need an FDR clone in the white house FAR more than we need another Lincoln.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
electrosef
Blue-green-purple Reality exposure
09:45 PM on 05/24/2011
Well said, Professor Palermo. Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bill J4321
03:56 PM on 05/23/2011
At this point, the Justices should abandon all pretense of impartiality and start accepting corporate sponsorship.

Think of the beautiful judicial robes with their colorful corporate logos!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alicia Westberry
college student & blogger
01:29 PM on 05/20/2011
I've got way too much to do to look into this particular case on my own time. Corporations stomping on citizens is nothing new; though.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
electrosef
Blue-green-purple Reality exposure
09:42 PM on 05/24/2011
Of course, you are correct, corporatio­ns stomping on citizens is nothing new... what's new is that stomping is now explicitly sanctioned by SCOTUS. Where can citizens go for justice now? The death march of democracy in the USA marches on, lest we citizens stop it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Malcolm Hensley
Last of the Reagan Republicans
08:27 PM on 05/17/2011
I read the decision and it appears to rest on what has supremacy a state law or the FAA. The commerce clause of the constitution for better or worse seems to have carried the day for the FAA. The question is why is the FAA important in this case?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:13 PM on 05/17/2011
“…John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas would figure out a way to ignore Supreme Court precedent…”

Yeah! All they had to do is go by the Constitution. If past Supreme Court decisions are unconstitutional, they need to be ignored.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
demsrsilly
Proud to be non union
07:22 AM on 05/20/2011
Um, by definition, Supreme Court decisions, unless over ruled later by the Supreme Court or by Amendment, are Constitutional.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rush Libraughl 83
I speak honest and generally
02:09 PM on 05/17/2011
Forgive my ignorance, but what does this mean? I understand the gravity and the terrible acts committed, but where is the resolve? Should people incorporate themselves for protection or leverage?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
maxhnb
calling it like it is
01:32 PM on 05/17/2011
Limit on justices terms would take a Constitutional amendment, and get major opposition from Republicans and red states. no small task. Winning back the House is crucial and 60 in the Senate. the campaign has to never let up on the Medicare issue, the jobs issue and the economic impact of healthcare costs and without the Healthcare act...without which will be much greater .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JeffreyGold
Senator Jeffrey Gold (I)
09:39 AM on 05/17/2011
Every day it gets worse. Every day there is one more piece of evidence that the whole shebang is going to collapse because of top-heaviness. I'm glad it is. It hasn't been working for a long time now. I just wish it would collapse more quickly, so we can get started on the new thing. Who's to blame? The middle class. They couldn't be bothered to see the poor were taxed on their existence income---and did nothing about it. They couldn't be bothered to see that they themselves were being exploited---and did nothing about it. They didn't do anything. They just went to work and kept their mouths shut---assumed their representatives were looking out for their interests, assumed everything would eventually work out, and assumed that they too would soon ascend the corporate ladder to become an overpaid executive. In fact, they believed their chances of becoming a plutocrat were greater than the chances of improving a brutal economic system in which citizens feel as if they need to become millionaires in order to escape it, and resorted to the Great American Lotteries in which to make their fortunes: filing a lawsuit, getting free money from the labor of others by investing in the stock market, flipping real estate, riding a bubble, believing their way into wealth the Tony Robbins/NLP way, Asian fruit drinks, becoming an executive who decides his own salary, and a short list of other ridiculous alternatives to an unnecessary rat race.
10:26 AM on 05/17/2011
Tell us some good news Jeffery! We see things typically but where is this (Mr.) Obama change? It's like he became a member of a country club and forgot all about his ole buddies (working class stiffs).
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
muck-raker
give me liberty or give me death
11:17 AM on 05/17/2011
excellent post.TIME to IMPEACH 5 GOP Supreme Court Judges: The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Democracy

, 2010 will go down as a dark day in history of American democracy, and its decline. The editors of New York Times did not exaggerate when they wrote that Supreme Court decision that day "strikes at heart of democracy" by having "paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding" -- more explicitly, for permitting corporate managers to do so, since current laws permit them to spend shareholder money without consent.
Nor does Michael Waldman, School of Law, exaggerate when he writes that this exercise of the radical judicial activism that the rightwing claims to deplore "matches or exceeds Bush v. Gore in ideological or partisan overreaching by the court. In that case, the court reached into the political process to hand the election to one candidate. Today it reached into the political process to hand unprecedented power to corporations."

The Court was split, with the four reactionary judges (misleadingly called "conservative") joined by Justice Kennedy in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice Roberts selected a case that could easily have been settled on narrow grounds, and maneuvered the Court into using it for a far-reaching decision that overturned precedents going back a century that restrict corporate contributions to federal campaigns.

In effect, the decision permits corporate managers to buy elections directly

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20100124.htm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
starchildjg24
Balance, Logic and Humor Rule
06:48 AM on 05/17/2011
As long as we stay focused on "red and blue" states, Republican vs. Democrat, blaming individuals - this is all Obama's fault, this is all Bush's fault, we shall not be able to overcome this great machine that is stomping us into the ground. We still have the power of the vote, but how do we use it? A candidate campaigns saying all the things we want to hear, and we think this person can save us. But no candidate can run without millions of dollars, and that money comes from corporations. In Florida, our Supreme Court did away with limits on corporate campaign donations, and they can be anonymous. So we don't know who owns which candidates. They cannot fight for the people, they would lose their funding. Republicans, Democrats, Tea Party - it doesn't matter. They all need that corporate money.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joseph Palermo
Huffington Post Blogger/Author/Professor
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pandora1
03:49 AM on 05/17/2011
and again, and again, and
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Joseph Palermo
Huffington Post Blogger/Author/Professor
03:14 AM on 05/17/2011
This comment thread is amazing, it's great to see an involved dialogue like this one with very informed people. The criticism that some people raised that I didn't summarize the minutiae of the case is bogus because if you've read any of my other blogs you'll see that's not what I do, I'm not a journalist, nor a lawyer, just a citizen who analyzes current events, (I provided links and people can google for a summary of the case themselves if they want to be less lazy) -- I'm not a Wikipedia page, but an interpreter of the meaning of events and power relations in American society. Thank you all for the extensive and spirited comments.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
inesison
BitchOnWheels
02:24 AM on 05/17/2011
I remember one poster a while back when the discussion was about affordable healthcare. She said "if everyone was supposed to have access to healthcare then why wasn't it in the constitution? Scary part? She votes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinotter11
Spinning through life and trying to understand it.
01:17 PM on 05/17/2011
Isn't that exactly what is at issue in the USA at present? A majority of legislators, corporate interests, and apparently the public as well must believe that if an American does not have money, he/she has no right to proper health care. She votes and her view is winning.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
inesison
BitchOnWheels
02:10 AM on 05/18/2011
I don't think your getting my point. She asked why our founding fathers didn't put it into the constitution if it's every ones right to healthcare. I told here there was no such thing as healthcare when the constitution was written. So are you saying if you don't have money then you don;t have a right to health care? If that wasn't your point then wouldn't that put us on the same page? Or are you agreeing with the women who said since it wasn't in the constitution then there is no obligation for the government to help. In every other country in the world even Hawaii - OUR state agree that access to health care is a human right and should be available to those who need it not only to those who can afford it. So your post has me confused.'
01:23 AM on 05/17/2011
.
What we all need to do at this point is examine where our ultimate power lies. It is not in our votes; our voting rights are being stolen even as I type this, in many state legislatures. It's also not in accepting the evil being cultivated by a radical Supreme Court. After all, many Democrats voted for the worst two liars: Roberts and Alito. (Of course, these very Dems are living on fat salaries and pensions and healthcare benefits, and will never suffer under these obscene rulings.)

No, our power lies in the purse. It's often derided, but something similar to a General Strike would have real impact. Under such action -- if we all in our individual ways, as best we can with family obligations et al -- I'm sure we all could find 10% to 20% to cut in expenses.

Do we really need that landline anymore? Cable TV? (After all, TV mostly serves to placate us.) Expensive toys? The latest disposable clothes from Walmart? Think about it. Think about what corporation is depending on you to continue spending and sending profits their way.

Perhaps, they assume too much.

.
02:02 AM on 05/17/2011
We can try to use our votes to set term limits (no vote for a politician that has been in for two terms) since the politicians themselves are unlikely to pass such a law. We should also use our consumer power to refuse to patronize the large corporate "parasites" and drive them out of business.

We must push the concept that anyone who benefits from the U.S. business environment without paying a fair share is a PARASITE and is willing to destroy our economy for selfish greed.
10:38 AM on 05/17/2011
Sorry Joy... term limits simply 'limit' our choices. Once we elect good people we would lose them to limits... let's not limit our choices. Too many of the large corporate businesses have already nearly monoplized their markets but I agree with your ultimate goals enough to to be honored to be your first fan!