As if we needed more proof to see, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the nation's highest court is infested with those who are nothing more than partisan lackeys with political agendas and loyalties in direct contrast to the people they're supposed to represent:
By ruling this week that there are no limits regarding private campaign contributions, the Republican majority of the Supreme Court have taken another brazen step in an almost mind-bogglingly deliberate attempt at eviscerating whatever roadblocks remain on the way to total corporate governance, and a victory for big business fat-cats, everywhere.
As far as you and I are concerned, the fact that it's happening right under our noses and we're not going to do anything about it shouldn't come as a surprise. Why? Because it's who we are:
"...all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer... than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
Two hundred years ago, the composers of the Declaration of Independence knew exactly what they were dealing with when they wrote the incredibly perceptive quote above, and today, that willingness to suffer is exactly what the boys with their fingers in the pie are counting on. And, who could say they're wrong?
President Clinton's 1999 signing of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act removed the barriers that prevented banks from taking your money to "Vegas" and letting it ride. Barriers that were in place for 60 years, until a few republican senators on the hook to the big banks decided it was time to shake things up a bit.
Not only does the Wikipedia entry of the Gramm bill do a fine job of offering explanation as to what the passage of this act means, it also takes the time to point out that, just a year before, while the lobbyists were doing their thing on Capitol Hill, the folks at Citicorp merged with Travelers Insurance to form "Citigroup" -- a combined bank and insurance co., among other things, -- and a blatant violation of the law at the time, which, surprise, was granted a stay until it could be made legal.
Coincidence? It's almost as if the folks at Citi knew something was in the works and wanted to be ready to pounce the second they got word your money was now fair game. Nah. That would be illegal.
In describing the act, the entry also mentions how Rep. John Dingell, a democrat from Michigan, argued that the passage of this act would allow banks to become "too big to fail" and that this would, no doubt, "...result in a bailout by the Federal Government."
Scary, huh? Almost ten years before the actual events. Yet, calling Rep. Dingell a psychic would be like calling someone who tells you not to cross the highway at rush hour Nostradamus.
You can go back and point to a million failures by our government in relation to preventing the economic collapse of '08; the slipshod manner of the SEC, lack of proper oversight, breaches of pubic trust by ratings agencies, banks, etc., conspiracy by accounting companies, blah blah blah.
Yet, several years from now, when we look back at what caused the next financial collapse, one that could potentially derail not only our tomorrow, but, more likely, our children's as well, we will be able to point to the nation's highest court and squarely say, without blinking an eye:
"You sirs, are primarily responsible for the spot we now find ourselves in. For, had you taken the time to listen to the voice of the people -- or just read a Wikipedia article on occasion -- you would have realized that removing government regulation from finance was what got us into this mess in the first place. Had you, for just a moment, looked back at the carnage caused by the deregulation of the banks, it may have given you pause before signing off on Citizen's United, or McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, or the most recent, Ignorance vs. Common Sense, we would now not be looking at yet another, and exponentially more devastating situation, than the one we're currently in."
When a Justice on the court goes as far in his dissent to come out and say exactly what many of us are thinking -- that this ruling "...devastates what remains of campaign finance reform " -- you know we're in trouble.
You would think, especially in the wake of the recent revelations of GM's "corporate culture" of trading lives for profit, the Justices who ruled to further weaken the already paper-thin barricade between the voice of The People vs. the voice of Industry, would have erred on the side of caution.
If they need examples, all they need to do is venture outside their security detail to see what happens when restrictions are removed.
Case in point, according to history, the last phase in the "Collapse of an Empire" is the exalting of that society's chefs.