The Brett Kavanaugh supreme court nomination, and the scandal around it, have been major news in the US MSM for weeks now.
Charges of an immoral and criminal nature against him, including attempted rape, have seen his nomination process mired in controversy. Although how much this rape accusation is a smokescreen for his disdain for the average Joe in favor of the elites in his judicial decisions, remains a serious question.
Like many of the establishment elites ‘movers and shakers,’ whether they be politicians or CEOs, Kavanaugh comes from the same fetid cesspool of privileged and entitled US political and economic culture, corrupt to the core.
Kavanaugh’s lies, arrogance, and fake show of piety is just part and parcel of the psychopathic personalities currently in charge of the US establishment.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be an honest and impartial arbiter. It is supposed to apply constitutional law to cases, blindly, and guard against abuses of power by the government; at least on paper.
But history and facts show that in reality the Supreme Court has traditionally served the interests of the elites since the beginning of the hapless US experiment.
Here is an excerpt from Howard Zinn's book 'A Peoples' History of the United States' which reflects this centuries-old reality:
However, in 1877, a Supreme Court decision (Munn v. Illinois) approved state laws regulating the prices charged to farmers for the use of grain elevators. The grain elevator company argued it was a person being deprived of property, thus violating the fourteenth Amendment's declaration "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.'' The Supreme Court disagreed, saying that grain elevators were not simply private property but were invested with "a public interest" and so could he regulated. One year after that decision, the American Bar Association, organized by lawyers accustomed to serving the wealthy, began a national campaign of education to reverse the Court decision. Its presidents said, at different times: "If trusts are a defensive weapon of property interests against the communistic trend, they are desirable," And: "Monopoly is often a necessity and an advantage."
By 1886, they succeeded. State legislatures, under the pressure of aroused farmers, had passed laws to regulate the rates charged farmers by the railroads. The Supreme Court that year (Wabash v. Illinois) said states could not do this, that this was an intrusion on federal power. That year alone, the Court did away with 230 state laws that had been passed to regulate corporations.
By this time the Supreme Court had accepted the argument that corporations were "persons" and their money was property protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Supposedly, the Amendment had been passed to protect Negro rights, but of the Fourteenth Amendment cases brought before the Supreme Court between 1890 and 1910, nineteen dealt with the Negro, 288 dealt with corporations.
The justices of the Supreme Court were not simply interpreters of the Constitution. They were men of certain backgrounds, of certain interests. One of them (Justice Samuel Miller) had said in 1875: "It is vain to contend with Judges who have been at the bar the advocates for forty years of railroad companies, and all forms of associated capital. . . ." In 1893, Supreme Court Justice David J. Brewer, addressing the New York State Bar Association, said:
It is the unvarying law that the wealth of the community will be in the hands of the few. . . The great majority of men are unwilling to endure that long self-denial and saving which makes accumulations possible . . . and hence it always has been, and until human nature is remodeled always will he true, that the wealth of a nation is in the hands of a few, while the many subsist upon the proceeds of their daily toil.
This was not just a whim of the 1880s and 1890s-it went back to the Founding Fathers, ho had learned their law in the era of Blackstone's Commentaries, which said: 'So great is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the common good of the whole community." *
Educational institutions today teach this same regressive philosophy, even at the highest levels.
Instead of applying constitutional law to cases, the creatures on the Supreme Court throughout the ages have used legal gimmickry, trickery, and absurd and questionable explanations and excuses to put their stamp of approval on abhorrent and clearly illegal government acts and abuses of power.
Sadly, it has been like that from day one. Did the Supreme Court’s first chief justices bother explaining how slavery existed in a country with the most lofty constitution, which proclaimed that ‘all men were created equal?’ How about the atrocities committed on the Native American Indians? Did any chief justice at the time criticize this as a violation of the Bill of Rights?
Did the supreme court ever do anything of note to curb the power of wealthy elites and their dangerous machinations, like pushing through the Federal Reserve Act, which has undermined the US financial system, and put it into the hands of private interests?
Did the court stop the imperialist wars against Mexico, Spain, and others based of false flags? What about the more recent wars and acts of US military aggression based on lies and fraud?
The US supreme court today is a rubber stamp agency, a notary public for the US establishment’s abuses of authority for its personal self-enrichment, to the detriment of everyone else.
Each judge on that court is a political animal, and an ‘activist’ judge. The ones appointed by democratic presidents serve the political and financial interests of the democratic clique of gangsters who rule over that sad land, and the ones appointed by a Republican president serve the political and financial interests of the republican clique of gangsters.
These judges allow their personal peculiar political ideology, economic and social views to color their decisions. Because they are appointees of presidents, it can be no other way. There is no independent appointment and vetting process for these people, and therefore we should expect them to do only what their political party masters want.
Detractors may point to instances of the supreme court actually approving enlightened decisions, such as the civil rights act, Roe vs. Wade, etc., but these are blips and rain drops, approved only because they did not upset the elites profit-making apple cart too much. Anything that does, is struck down, rolled back, killed, and made illegal.
This same corrupt US legal system’s disregard for its own laws in favor of the US elites’ interests colors the US regime’s disdain for other laws, international and UN included.
This is clearly demonstrated by such true-blue US absurdities as a New York judge applying multi-billion-dollar judgments against Iran-a sovereign nation- under false pretenses, extra-territorial sanctions, the US regime’s open disregard for the ICC when it comes to Palestinians’ legal action against the zionist entity’s human rights abuses, and against the recent UN court’s judgment that certain anti-Iranian sanctions enacted by Trump are illegal because they violate human rights laws.
And let's not forget the poison cherry on top of this corrupt organization's list of misdeeds: the SELECTION of the president in the election of 2000, which brought the degenerate and discredited George W. Bush to power.
The main consideration in all of this government post appointment rigmarole is whether the candidate for the spot-whether it be presidential, congressional, senatorial, gubernatorial, judicial, or in law enforcement-is faithful to the powers-that-be, public and private.
If that candidate shows the willingness to uphold and empower the status quo, then they are appointed. If not, they wouldn’t even be in their current positions in the first place.
Despite his past transgressions, lapses in judgment, and general low-life attitude, Kavanaugh will be appointed because he is an establishment creature. And just like the military, the police, FBI and intelligence services, they are meant to serve the elites’ interests first and foremost; or are willing to do so faithfully once appointed.
The nomination process is all about making sure they do; constitutional or any other law be damned.
* Sources:
'A Peoples' History of the United States' by Howard Zinn, pp.261-262
No comments:
Post a Comment