The latest battle in dismantling the 20th century is about to be lost in the Supreme Court. Maybe. We’ll soon find out. The Voting Rights Act–the law that forbids discrimination against voters based on race or color–not just black people, mind you, Asians, Hispanics, native Americans, Alaskans–is in danger of being overturned. There’s very little anyone can do about it. Justice Roberts makes snide and objectively false statements about there being more discrimination in Massachusetts than anywhere else. Nino Scalia calls protecting voting rights, a “racial entitlement.” OMG the E-word! Entitlements are bad–except when they benefit rich old white men. Hey Nino–Italians were a discriminated against minority as recently as the 1930s–and Sicilians were barely considered white men by substantial numbers of people in the US. Perhaps the “original intent” would mean that you only have to ensure the voting rights of 3/5 of the non-white population?
Among the other conservative four, Alito has been wisely keeping his mouth shut, but we know which way his tail blows in the wind. This leaves Clarence Thomas. OK Clarence. Is protecting the voting rights a racial entitlement? Just remember–if it is, you may never have made it to those robes. In fact, you may never have voted Republican. Or Democratic. We really want to see how you’re going to come down on this one.
Still, it could be a 5-4 one way or the other depending on which side of the bed Kennedy, the usual swing voter, got up this morning. But let’s hope that Roberts gets one of his “Do I really want my court to come off as the worst court since the Dred Scott Decision” moments. And maybe one or two others will be so disgusted at Scalia’s blatant bigotry.
And remember–race is the first step. Property ownership is the next.
“Hey, mister, can you stake a right to vote to a fellow American what’s down on his luck?”
Now, NONE of this happened because the colonists disputed the RIGHT of the East India Company to spend money to influence Parliament for legislation on its behalf. Oh, NO, the colonists APPROVED of corporate influence on the government. In fact, they wished that there was some way to increase the influence of corporations–like expensive election campaigns that the corporations could freely underwrite and make sure their chosen candidates had all the money they needed to defeat their opponents. No, the only issue was the Tea Tax–no taxation without representation, as our grade school history books repeated ad nauseam in lieu of trying to get brainless little monsters to understand an issue with subtleties and complexities. As a matter of fact, most of the colonists didn’t understand it either–but the “Framers” all did, especially since many of them were tea merchants. So when they compained about the reasons for declaring independence in that little document of 1776, they put the blame SQUARELY on King George, who probably wasn’t aware of the entire imbroglio, NOT on the East India Company. So when Messrs Madison and Jefferson tried to float an additional amendment to the new Constitution in 1789 against the formation of monopolies–having fought a WAR in the meantime that was provoked in part by corporate interference in governing the colonies–it was rejected–NOT because the various states had laws against monopolies already, but because, by gum, these would be AMER’CUN monopolies and thus, because of the principle of CORPORATE PERSONHOOD, have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which in the case of corporations, is defined as ungodly profits.
I want to applaud the five justices for the chutzpah of having the honesty to pound the last nail in the coffin of Democracy. This outdated concept was certainly not in the Framers’ minds at the outset…after all, these five justices are strict constructionists and that means they See Dead People and talk to them all the time. And what did they see in the Framers’ minds? Why Corporatism, of course. After all, corporations are much more reliable than ordinary citizens–they always have but one goal. And, unlike citizens, they don’t have to die, so the most successful corporations can literally live forever, giving the government the benefit of its influence. And now, through the power of globalization, these corporations are in a large part owned by foreign powers, giving the US the benefit of what other nations think we should do to help them help themselves. And I do mean, “Help Yourself!”
Imagine, some people have IRONY ALERT. Well, Kiddies, here’s a story from history, the way Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy, remember it. Back in 1773, the British East India company was near collapse and decided that building up their market in the American colonies would be a good idea. Now since 1767, the Colonies were subject to a tax on tea, so the CORPORATION went to Cong… Parliament and asked for an exemption from the tax, since this would give them an advantage in the market. Parliament, many of whom had interests in the corporation, decided that this was a good idea and passed the Tea Act, setting up a somewhat complicated way of keeping the tax off the company. Now the American colonials never liked the Tea Tax to start out with and when Parliament granted the company its exemption, things exploded. They refused to allow tea to be landed at every port up and down the seaboard. The captains of most of the ships obliged and left without delivery–except in Boston, where the colonial Governor decided to take a hard line and would not sign departure papers for the vessel. So the colonists in Boston upped and chucked all the tea into Boston Harbor and the first Tea Party was held.the strange idea that this development should be opposed. Get with the program, guys, stocks and bonds, not ballots!