Showing posts with label John Roberts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Roberts. Show all posts
Monday, September 17, 2012
John Roberts, evil genius
ROBERT E. MALCHMAN
Full Article:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-06-28/news/32461302_1_individual-mandate-health-insurance-mandate-affordable-care-act
Chief Justice John G. Roberts is an evil genius. The ruling to uphold the Affordable Care Act is, on its face, a win for President Obama both because the media are saying it is and because it is the signature piece of legislation of his first term. But it may turn out to be a pyrrhic victory, as Roberts accomplished numerous, subtle victories for conservative Republicans.
First, remember that “Obamacare” and the individual mandate started out as a proposal from the conservative Heritage Foundation as a counterproposal to the Clinton administration’s health care plan. The only reasons Republicans are now opposed to it is because Obama proposed it and is getting credit for it. Before it was Obamacare, the program was known as Romneycare in Massachusetts — and if the 2008 election had gone the other way, it might be known as McCaincare today.
Meantime, the survival of the Affordable Care Act eliminates any clamor for real, progressive health care reform, whether universal Medicare or for the creation of a public insurance option. Such programs are anathema to conservatives who want most things privatized — either for ideological reasons or so that their corporate masters can further enrich themselves.
The effect of the law will be to drive millions of people to buy insurance from insurance companies in many cases with federally subsidized funds, lining the pockets of those corporations with the public’s money. Is it any surprise that health care stocks were surging in the wake of the ruling?
Obamacare Constitutional but Still Sucks
Robert Sterling, Konformist.com
In a last minute reversal by Chief Justice John Roberts, Obamacare was ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. It is important to note that in upholding the law, the Supremes rejected the usage of the Commerce Clause to justify the individual mandate, which is a victory for those who found such an argument to be insidious. Obviously, include myself in that group.
The claim that mere existence made one involved in commerce (which was central to the Commerce Clause argument) had no historical precedent, as even judges who had previously upheld the law had agreed in unanimty. Even worse, any precedent that was even close to this was one that no self-respecting progressive should ever embrace. (The most notable precedent being written by Antonin Scalia, where he argued that due to the Commerce Clause, the War on Drugs trumps the power of states to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes.) It was disappointing to see so many so-called liberals, in their desperation to defend Obamacare, to be totally oblivious and dismissive of such concerns. It shouldn't be surprising, as in the last four years what has passed for liberalism has bottomed out to merely mean being a pathetic shill for Barack Obama rather than represent any coherent philosophy.
Of course, that Obamacare is constitutional should be the minimum standards one should expect for a law. (Alas, in the age of torture and the Patriot Act, such minimum standards is increasingly becoming a norm.) Another standard is how popular it is with the public. On this score, Obamacare has been a major flop since its inception. A June 2012 NY Times/CBS News poll before the Supreme Court ruling underscored this: 41 percent of all polled believed the entire law should be overturned, while 27 percent wanted an overturn of the mandate. Only 24 percent wanted the law to be upheld. This was despite a relentless push by the White House, Democratic Party and the media establishment to sell the public on the law as some sort of progressive victory. While there was a slight increase in approval of Obamacare after the ruling (a bump that is normal in terms of how polling goes) the general trend on Obamacare is unpopular with a bullet downward.
That Obamacare is unpopular shouldn't be too surprising, and I for one am someone who warned of this when the law passed. And the establishment liberal response to this unpopularity, merely dismissing the opposition to ignorant dupes, is not only false but highly insulting to voters. In this case, the public rightfully smells a loser here. While Obamacare is sold as a progressive law, all its origins come from from right-wing think tanks, and its premises are all based on snide contempt for the poor and working class. It's solutions are based on slashing funds to Medicare (a fact which proves the widely mocked "death panels" cry to be not completely off-base) and the individual mandate is based on the premise that poor young people are somehow cheating the system by not purchasing health insurance they can't afford. It is a Marie Antoinette solution to our health care crisis, except cake is a lot cheaper and not manufactured by parasitic oligopolies that rip off its customers at every opportunity. (The opportunities, thanks to Obamacare, will soon radically increase.) The worst thing about Obamacare isn't Obamacare itself, which I assume will eventually fail and die due to its fundamental flaws. The worst thing about Obamacare is whenever a real progressive reform is ever proposed in the future, it will be called Obamacare II, and it will be that much harder for it to pass. Sadly, any such skepticism will be deserved, as the liberal apologism for the reactionary law known as Obamacare should rightfully discredit any supporters further arguments on the issue of health care.
Poll URL source:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/new-poll-the-supreme-court-and-the-health-care-law/
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Corporations don't have 'personal privacy' rights, Supreme Court rules
AT&T had fought the release of FCC documents based on a law that shields records which might result in an invasion of privacy. An appellate court sided with AT&T, but the Supreme Court did not. March 02, 2011
David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/02/business/la-fi-court-corporations-20110302
Corporations do not have a right to "personal privacy," the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, at least when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act and the release of documents held by the government.
Last year's ruling giving companies a free-speech right to spend money on campaign ads prompted liberal critics to say the court's conservatives were biased in favor of corporate rights.
While not alluding to the criticism, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took a scalpel to a corporate-rights claim from AT&T Inc. that its "personal privacy" deserves to be protected. The ordinary meaning of "personal" does not refer to an impersonal company, he said.
"We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities," he wrote. "In fact, we often use the word 'personal' to mean precisely the opposite of business-related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company's view."
The decision means the Federal Communications Commission may release documents that were compiled during an investigation in 2004 over whether AT&T had overcharged schools and libraries for use of the Internet. The company paid a $500,000 settlement.
When some of its competitors sought release of the documents through the Freedom of Information Act, AT&T objected. It cited an exception in the law that shields law enforcement records which might result in an "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
AT&T won a ruling based on that provision from the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Its judges noted one part of the law defines "person" to include not just an individual but also a "partnership, association or corporation."
Then U.S. Solicitor Gen. Elena Kagan appealed the issue to the Supreme Court. She said the Freedom of Information Act had never been interpreted to protect the "personal privacy" of companies.
All the justices agreed in FCC v. AT&T, with the exception of Kagan, who did not participate. "We trust that AT&T will not take it personally," Roberts said in a parting comment.
david.savage@latimes.com
David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/02/business/la-fi-court-corporations-20110302
Corporations do not have a right to "personal privacy," the Supreme Court ruled unanimously, at least when it comes to the Freedom of Information Act and the release of documents held by the government.
Last year's ruling giving companies a free-speech right to spend money on campaign ads prompted liberal critics to say the court's conservatives were biased in favor of corporate rights.
While not alluding to the criticism, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took a scalpel to a corporate-rights claim from AT&T Inc. that its "personal privacy" deserves to be protected. The ordinary meaning of "personal" does not refer to an impersonal company, he said.
"We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities," he wrote. "In fact, we often use the word 'personal' to mean precisely the opposite of business-related: We speak of personal expenses and business expenses, personal life and work life, personal opinion and a company's view."
The decision means the Federal Communications Commission may release documents that were compiled during an investigation in 2004 over whether AT&T had overcharged schools and libraries for use of the Internet. The company paid a $500,000 settlement.
When some of its competitors sought release of the documents through the Freedom of Information Act, AT&T objected. It cited an exception in the law that shields law enforcement records which might result in an "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."
AT&T won a ruling based on that provision from the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. Its judges noted one part of the law defines "person" to include not just an individual but also a "partnership, association or corporation."
Then U.S. Solicitor Gen. Elena Kagan appealed the issue to the Supreme Court. She said the Freedom of Information Act had never been interpreted to protect the "personal privacy" of companies.
All the justices agreed in FCC v. AT&T, with the exception of Kagan, who did not participate. "We trust that AT&T will not take it personally," Roberts said in a parting comment.
david.savage@latimes.com
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters
From the AP:
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they cause grieving families.
The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.
Roberts said free speech rights in the First Amendment shield the funeral protesters, noting that they obeyed police directions and were 1,000 feet from the church.
"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Roberts said. "As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters
MARK SHERMAN
3-2-11
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests
The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they cause grieving families.
The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.
Roberts said free speech rights in the First Amendment shield the funeral protesters, noting that they obeyed police directions and were 1,000 feet from the church.
"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Roberts said. "As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."
1st Amendment protects military funeral protesters
MARK SHERMAN
3-2-11
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110302/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_funeral_protests
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
High court upholds anti-terror law prized by Obama
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iyoQvMNadtonx9sFU0beOI7UMaUgD9GFTCAG0
High court upholds anti-terror law prized by Obama
By MARK SHERMAN
6-21-10
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the government's authority Monday to ban aid to designated terrorist groups, even when that support is intended to steer the groups toward peaceful and legal activities.
The court left intact a federal law that the Obama administration considers an important tool against terrorism. But human rights organizations say the law's ban on providing training and advice to nearly four dozen organizations on a State Department list squanders a chance to persuade people to renounce extremism.
The justices voted 6-3 to reject a free-speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups to the law that bars "material support" — everything from money to technical know-how to legal advice — to foreign terrorist organizations.
The aid groups were only challenging provisions that put them at risk of being prosecuted for talking to terrorist organizations about nonviolent activities.
But Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court that material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways.
"Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends," Roberts said in an opinion joined by four other conservative justices, but also the liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.
The court often looks skeptically on laws that criminalize speech and holds them to a high level of scrutiny. But Roberts said there is good reason in this case to defer to Congress and the president, "uniquely positioned to make principled distinctions between activities that will further terrorist conduct and undermine United States foreign policy, and those that will not."
Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent aloud in the courtroom. "Not even the 'serious and deadly problem' of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights," he said. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued the government's case at the high court more than two months ago before President Barack Obama nominated her to replace Stevens, who will retire in days.
The Obama administration said the "material support" law is one of its most important terror-fighting tools. It has been used about 150 times since Sept. 11, resulting in 75 convictions. Most of those cases involved money and other substantial support for terrorist groups.
Only a handful dealt with the kind of speech involved in the case decided Monday.
Human rights groups said they were stunned by the ruling.
David Cole, a Georgetown law professor who represented the aid groups at the Supreme Court, said the court essentially ruled that "the First Amendment permits the government to make human rights advocacy and peacemaking a crime."
The aid groups involved had trained the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey on how to bring human rights complaints to the United Nations and assisted them in peace negotiations, but suspended the activities when the U.S. designated the Kurdish organization, known as the PKK, a terrorist group in 1997. They also wanted to give similar help to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka, but they, too, were designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. in 1997.
Representatives of the Tamil Tigers appealed the designation to a federal appeals court, which upheld the government. The PKK has not challenged its terrorist designation.
No serious dispute exists in the U.S. over the designation for groups such as al-Qaida, Abu Nidal and the Shining Path. But some others have legitimate political arms and extensive social missions as well as associations with violence through paramilitary or insurgent means. Hamas, for example, won a majority of Palestinian support in democratic elections.
Once the State Department places a group on the list, it is illegal for Americans or others in the country to provide "material support or resources" to the group. The law also bars travel to the U.S. by representatives or members of the group and freezes any assets that it has in U.S. jurisdictions.
In this case, the Humanitarian Law Project, civil rights lawyer Ralph Fertig and physician Nagalingam Jeyalingam, among others, wanted to offer assistance to the Kurdish or Tamil groups.
The government says the PKK has been involved in a violent insurgency that has claimed 22,000 lives. The Tamil Tigers waged a civil war for more than 30 years before their defeat last year.
Lower courts had repeatedly found parts of the material support law unconstitutionally vague in a lawsuit that began in the late 1990s.
Despite the risk of prosecution, Fertig said he would continue his work on behalf of the Kurds. "We will not let it inhibit our commitment to the Kurdish people," he said.
In his dissent, Breyer recognized the importance of denying money and other resources to terrorist groups. "But I do dispute whether the interest can justify the statute's criminal prohibition."
Breyer said the aid groups' mission is entirely peaceful and consists only of political speech, including how to petition the U.N.
But Roberts said the U.N. was forced to close a refugee camp in northern Iraq, near the Turkish border, because it had come under PKK control.
"Training and advice on how to work with the United Nations could readily have helped the PKK in its efforts to use the United Nations camp as a base for terrorist activities," Roberts said.
The other justices in the majority were Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
The cases are Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 08-1498, and Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder, 09-89.
___
AP Writer Matthew Lee contributed to this report.
___
Online:
State Department list: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
High court upholds anti-terror law prized by Obama
By MARK SHERMAN
6-21-10
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court upheld the government's authority Monday to ban aid to designated terrorist groups, even when that support is intended to steer the groups toward peaceful and legal activities.
The court left intact a federal law that the Obama administration considers an important tool against terrorism. But human rights organizations say the law's ban on providing training and advice to nearly four dozen organizations on a State Department list squanders a chance to persuade people to renounce extremism.
The justices voted 6-3 to reject a free-speech challenge from humanitarian aid groups to the law that bars "material support" — everything from money to technical know-how to legal advice — to foreign terrorist organizations.
The aid groups were only challenging provisions that put them at risk of being prosecuted for talking to terrorist organizations about nonviolent activities.
But Chief Justice John Roberts said in his opinion for the court that material support intended even for benign purposes can help a terrorist group in other ways.
"Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends," Roberts said in an opinion joined by four other conservative justices, but also the liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.
The court often looks skeptically on laws that criminalize speech and holds them to a high level of scrutiny. But Roberts said there is good reason in this case to defer to Congress and the president, "uniquely positioned to make principled distinctions between activities that will further terrorist conduct and undermine United States foreign policy, and those that will not."
Justice Stephen Breyer took the unusual step of reading his dissent aloud in the courtroom. "Not even the 'serious and deadly problem' of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights," he said. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined the dissent.
Solicitor General Elena Kagan argued the government's case at the high court more than two months ago before President Barack Obama nominated her to replace Stevens, who will retire in days.
The Obama administration said the "material support" law is one of its most important terror-fighting tools. It has been used about 150 times since Sept. 11, resulting in 75 convictions. Most of those cases involved money and other substantial support for terrorist groups.
Only a handful dealt with the kind of speech involved in the case decided Monday.
Human rights groups said they were stunned by the ruling.
David Cole, a Georgetown law professor who represented the aid groups at the Supreme Court, said the court essentially ruled that "the First Amendment permits the government to make human rights advocacy and peacemaking a crime."
The aid groups involved had trained the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey on how to bring human rights complaints to the United Nations and assisted them in peace negotiations, but suspended the activities when the U.S. designated the Kurdish organization, known as the PKK, a terrorist group in 1997. They also wanted to give similar help to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka, but they, too, were designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. in 1997.
Representatives of the Tamil Tigers appealed the designation to a federal appeals court, which upheld the government. The PKK has not challenged its terrorist designation.
No serious dispute exists in the U.S. over the designation for groups such as al-Qaida, Abu Nidal and the Shining Path. But some others have legitimate political arms and extensive social missions as well as associations with violence through paramilitary or insurgent means. Hamas, for example, won a majority of Palestinian support in democratic elections.
Once the State Department places a group on the list, it is illegal for Americans or others in the country to provide "material support or resources" to the group. The law also bars travel to the U.S. by representatives or members of the group and freezes any assets that it has in U.S. jurisdictions.
In this case, the Humanitarian Law Project, civil rights lawyer Ralph Fertig and physician Nagalingam Jeyalingam, among others, wanted to offer assistance to the Kurdish or Tamil groups.
The government says the PKK has been involved in a violent insurgency that has claimed 22,000 lives. The Tamil Tigers waged a civil war for more than 30 years before their defeat last year.
Lower courts had repeatedly found parts of the material support law unconstitutionally vague in a lawsuit that began in the late 1990s.
Despite the risk of prosecution, Fertig said he would continue his work on behalf of the Kurds. "We will not let it inhibit our commitment to the Kurdish people," he said.
In his dissent, Breyer recognized the importance of denying money and other resources to terrorist groups. "But I do dispute whether the interest can justify the statute's criminal prohibition."
Breyer said the aid groups' mission is entirely peaceful and consists only of political speech, including how to petition the U.N.
But Roberts said the U.N. was forced to close a refugee camp in northern Iraq, near the Turkish border, because it had come under PKK control.
"Training and advice on how to work with the United Nations could readily have helped the PKK in its efforts to use the United Nations camp as a base for terrorist activities," Roberts said.
The other justices in the majority were Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
The cases are Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 08-1498, and Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder, 09-89.
___
AP Writer Matthew Lee contributed to this report.
___
Online:
State Department list: http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Strange Case of Barack Obama's Oath
http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2009/01/strange-case-of-barack-obamas-oath-of.htmlFriday, January 23, 2009
The Strange Case of Barack Obama's Oath of Office
"At Mr. Obama’s second swearing-in on Wednesday...(t)he photo released by the White House had been taken by its own photographer." (NY Times, Jan. 23, p. A16).
A Cryptogram from the Cryptocracy?
Michael Hoffman investigates
RevisionistHistory.org
"For a couple of smooth-talking constitutional experts, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and President-elect Barack Obama sure had a hard time getting through the constitutional oath of office...The chief justice seemed to say 'to' rather than 'of,' but that was not the main problem. The main problem was that the word 'faithfully' had floated upstream...Mr. Obama seemed to realize this, pausing quizzically after saying 'that I will execute –'
"The chief justice gave it another go, getting closer but still not quite right: “faithfully the office of president of the United States.” This time, he omitted the word 'execute.' Mr. Obama now repeated the chief justice’s initial error of putting 'faithfully' at the end of the phrase. Starting where he had abruptly paused, he said: 'the office of the president of the United States faithfully.” ("I Do Solemnly Swear…(Line, Please?," NY Times, Jan. 20, 2009)
Yes, indeed these two "smooth-talking constitutional experts" couldn't manage to recite the brief oath as it was written. This was largely Chief Justice Roberts' fault. We can believe that this flub was due to human fallibility and that may very well be the case, or we can also wonder whether the very intelligent Chief Justice deliberately mishandled the oath so that it would be administered a second time, under very different circumstances.
Here's how the media reported the second rite: ...After a day’s worth of chatter over whether the president had been properly sworn into office...(i)n 25 seconds, President Obama became president again. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. re-administered the oath to Mr. Obama on Wednesday evening, one day after the two men stumbled over each other’s words during the inauguration ceremony at the Capitol. For their do-over, the two men convened in the White House Map Room at 7:35 p.m. for a brief proceeding that was not announced until it was completed successfully...Only hours after aides told reporters there was no reason to administer the oath again, they concluded it was easier to do it on the first day, rather than have someone challenge the legitimacy of his presidency...Mr. Obama raised his right hand and did not use a Bible....only nine people witnessed the do-over. There were four aides, four reporters and a White House photographer..." (NY Times, Jan. 22, 2009).
This second-time-around doppelganger oath was the real oath, since the flawed first one, done in the sight of millions and upon the Bible of assassinated President Abraham Lincoln was a "challenge (to) the legitimacy of his presidency..."
There was no Bible the second time and with Obama having been compared to John F. Kennedy during the campaign, and with all of the macabre parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln (Lincoln was killed in Ford's theatre, Kennedy was killed in a Ford automobile; Lincoln's secretary was named Kennedy, Kennedy's secretary was named Lincoln; Lincoln and Kennedy were both succeeded by vice-presidents named Johnson, etc.), I'm not sure that if I were Barack Obama I would have wanted to step into the middle of such a highly charged symbol palimpsest -- unless of course the first inaugural oath-taking was little more more than shadow-play.
What appears to be the authentic inauguration took place in a basement, and was an elite rather than a populist rite, with just nine witnesses. It occurred in former President Franklin Roosevelt's secretive, war-era "map room." Before FDR, under presidents from Chester Arthur through Wilson and Coolidge, it was reputedly used to play the game of billiards.
The omission of the Bible is not invalidating since the father of our country did not use one at his inauguration and Lyndon Johnson, on the plane to Washington after's Kennedy's killing, used a Roman Catholic mass book ("missal"), rather than a Bible. Hence, the absence of a Bible per se does not invalidate the oath, but the peek-a-boo nature of the inaugural Bible may be deliberate, in that its momentous presence at the botched inauguration is all the more glaring in its inexplicable absence at the real inauguration.
If symbolism is a language, what is being signaled by this apparently deliberate omission?
Another equally striking aspect of the second oath are the photographs of the ceremony, which feature the looming presence of a vintage portrait above the mantle on the wall behind the president and the chief justice.
The oath is a ritual and this ritual has an icon hovering over it, as if by way of spiritual benediction and patronage. As of this writing, in all the prominent photos of the second oath which this writer has seen, no caption has been provided by the establishment media that identifies the enigmatic man in the portrait. Yet, symbolically, he is the "genius loci," the presiding spirit of the authentic inaugural ceremony of Barack Obama as President. Like the omission of the Bible after so much was made of its presence at the first oath-taking, the omission of any identification of the figure in the painting at the second oath-taking would seem to be significant.
Let us recall that the second oath was performed in secret: "...the two men convened in the White House Map Room at 7:35 p.m. for a brief proceeding that was not announced until it was completed..."
In Freemasonry the god of the secret societies is covertly substituted for the One True God. This false god is identified in the masonic lodges as "the Great Architect."
The mysterious man in the portrait who silently presides over the authentic inauguration of Barack Obama as Commander and Chief, is Benjamin Latrobe, the great architect of the U.S. Capitol.
Copyright 2009 • All Rights Reserved
Michael Hoffman's latest book is Judaism Discovered, now in its second printing; available from http://www.revisionisthistory.org/
***
Labels: Barack Obama, billiard games, Chief Justice John Roberts, cryptocracy, Freemasonry, Inauguration, Latrobe, Map Room, masonic symbolism, occult, shadow plays
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Supreme Court restores habeas corpus
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/12/boumediene/index.html
Glenn Greenwald
Thursday June 12, 2008
Supreme Court restores habeas corpus, strikes down key part of Military Commissions Act
In a major rebuke to the Bush administration's theories of presidential power -- and in an equally stinging rebuke to the bipartisan political class which has supported the Bush detention policies -- the U.S. Supreme Court today, in a 5-4 decision, declared Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 unconstitutional. The Court struck down that section of the MCA because it purported to abolish the writ of habeas corpus -- the means by which a detainee challenges his detention in a court -- despite the fact that the Constitution permits suspension of that writ only "in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion."
As a result, Guantanamo detainees accused of being "enemy combatants" have the right to challenge the validity of their detention in a full-fledged U.S. federal court proceeding. The ruling today is the first time in U.S. history that the Court has ruled that detainees held by the U.S. Government in a place where the U.S. does not exercise formal sovereignty (Cuba technically is sovereign over Guantanamo) are nonetheless entitled to the Constitutional guarantee of habeas corpus whenever they are held in a place where the U.S. exercises effective control.
In upholding the right of habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees, the Court found that the "Combatant Status Review Tribunals" process ("CSRT") offered to Guantanamo detainees -- mandated by the John-McCain-sponsored Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 -- does not constitute a constitutionally adequate substitute for habeas corpus. To the contrary, the Court found that such procedures -- which have long been criticized as sham hearings due to the fact that defendants cannot have a lawyer present, government evidence is presumptively valid, and defendants are prevented from challenging (and sometimes even knowing about) much of the evidence against them -- "fall well short of the procedures and adversarial mechanisms that would eliminate the need for habeas corpus review." Those grave deficiencies in the CSRT process mean that "there is considerable risk of error" in the tribunals' conclusions.
The Court's ruling was grounded in its recognition that the guarantee of habeas corpus was so central to the Founding that it was one of the few individual rights included in the Constitution even before the Bill of Rights was enacted. As the Court put it: "the Framers viewed freedom from unlawful restraint as a fundamental precept of liberty, and they understood the writ of habeas corpus as a vital instrument to secure that freedom." The Court noted that freedom from arbitrary or baseless imprisonment was one of the core rights established by the 13th Century Magna Carta, and it is the writ of habeas corpus which is the means for enforcing that right. Once habeas corpus is abolished -- as the Military Commissions Act sought to do -- then we return to the pre-Magna Carta days where the Government is free to imprison people with no recourse.
In its decision, the Court emphasized (and revived) some of the most vital principles of our system of Government which have been trampled upon and degraded over the last seven years (emphasis added):
The Framers' inherent distrust of government power was the driving force behind the constitutional plan that allocated powers among three independent branches. This design serves not only to make Government accountable but also to secure individual liberty. . . .
Where a person is detained by executive order rather than, say, after being tried and convicted in a court, the need for collateral review is most pressing. . . . The habeas court must have sufficient authority to conduct a meaningful review of both the cause of detention and the Executive's power to detain. . . .
Security depends upon a sophisticated intelligence apparatus and the ability of our Armed Forces to act and interdict. There are further considerations, however. Security subsists, too, in fidelity to freedom's first principles. Chief among these are freedom from arbitrary and unlawful restraint and the personal liberty that is secured by adherence to separation of powers. . . .
The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times. Liberty and security can be reconciled; and in our system, they are reconciled within the framework of law. The Framers decided that habeas corpus, a right of first importance, must be a part of that framework, part of that law.
In ruling that the CSRTs woefully fail to provide the constitutionally guaranteed safeguards, the Court quoted Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 84: "The practice of arbitrary imprisonments, in all ages, is the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny." It is that deeply tyrannical practice -- implemented by the Bush administration and authorized by a bipartisan act of Congress -- which the U.S. Supreme Court, today, struck down.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was -- and remains -- one of the great stains on our national political character. It was passed by a substantial majority in the Senate (65-34) with the support of every single Senate Republican (except Chafee) and 12 Senate Democrats. No filibuster was even attempted. It passed by a similar margin in the House, where 34 Democrats joined 219 Republicans to enact it. One of the most extraordinary quotes of the post-9/11 era came from GOP Sen. Arlen Specter, who said at the time that that the Military Commissions Act -- because it explicitly barred federal courts from hearing habeas corpus petitions brought by Guantanamo detainees -- "sets back basic rights by some 900 years" and was "patently unconstitutional on its face" -- and Specter then proceeded to vote for it.
The greatest victim of the 9/11 attack has been our core, defining constitutional liberties. Of all the powers seized by this administration in the name of keeping us Safe, the power to imprison people indefinitely with no charges and no real process is the most pernicious.
Passage of the Military Commissions Act was spearheaded by John McCain, who was anointed by cowardly Senate Democrats to speak for them and negotiate with the White House. Once McCain blessed the Military Commissions Act, its passage was assured. Barack Obama voted against it, and once its passage appeared certain, Obama offered an amendment to limit it to five years. That amendment failed, rendering the MCA the law of the land without any time limits.
The Supreme Court today did what the Founders envisioned it should do: it protected our basic constitutional guarantees from erosion and assault by a corrupt majority within the political class. In so doing, the Court took a mild though important step in reversing some of the worst and most tyrannical excesses of the last seven years. Patrick Henry warned long ago of the unique dangers of allowing executive imprisonment without meaningful process:
Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings -- give us that precious jewel, and you may take everything else! . . . Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
In his concurring opinion in Brown v. Allen (1953), Justice Jackson wrote:
Executive imprisonment has been considered oppressive and lawless since John, at Runnymede, pledged that no free man should be imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed, or exiled save by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. The judges of England developed the writ of habeas corpus largely to preserve these immunities from executive restraint.
Our political and media elite were more than willing -- they were eager -- to relinquish that right to the President in the name of keeping us Safe from Terrorists. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court, in what will be one of the most celebrated landmark rulings of this generation, re-instated that basic right, and in so doing, restored one of the most critical safeguards against the very tyranny this country was founded to prevent.
UPDATE: Three of the five Justices in the majority -- John Paul Stevens (age 88), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (age 75) and David Souter (age 68) -- are widely expected by court observers to retire or otherwise leave the Court in the first term of the next President. By contrast, the four judges who dissented -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts and Sam Alito -- are expected to stay right where they are for many years to come.
John McCain has identified Roberts and Alito as ideal justices of the type he would nominate, while Barack Obama has identified Stephen Breyer, David Souter and Ginsberg (all in the majority today). It's not hyperbole to say that, from Supreme Court appointments alone, our core constitutional protections could easily depend upon the outcome of the 2008 election.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
At the High Court, Damage Control
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/27/AR2008022703207.html
At the High Court, Damage Control
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, February 28, 2008; A02
Chief Justice John Roberts was pained.
Exxon Mobil, the giant oil corporation appearing before the Supreme Court yesterday, had earned a profit of nearly $40 billion in 2006, the largest ever reported by a U.S. company -- but that's not what bothered Roberts. What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion -- roughly three weeks' worth of profits -- for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.
"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.
The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people."
The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.
Perhaps, though, his consternation was misplaced. Everybody knows the wheels of justice turn slowly, but in the case of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, things have dragged on so long that Lady Justice's blindness could reasonably be attributed to cataracts.
Nineteen years after the Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound and spilled 11 million gallons of oil, the 32,000 plaintiffs -- mostly fishermen, cannery workers and Native Alaskans -- have received no punitive damages from Exxon.
A jury awarded them $5 billion in punitive damages -- a record level, for a record disaster -- and an appeals court cut that in half. Now, the Supreme Court seems inclined to deal another insult to the victims (as many as a fifth of whom have already died) by cutting the award further.
Arguing for the Alaskans, Fisher, a tall and lanky Stanford professor with unruly gray hair, pointed out to the justices that the spill "destroyed an entire regional economy." Yet Exxon fired only one person, Capt. Joseph Hazelwood, who even the oil company admitted was drunk at the time of the accident, while executives received bonuses and pay raises. "What you have today are 32,000 plaintiffs standing before this court, each of whom have received only $15,000 for having their lives and livelihood destroyed and haven't received a dime of emotional-distress damages," Fisher argued.
Several justices, however, seemed more concerned about the emotional distress of the Exxon executives. "I assume the test is the person has to be high enough that it justifies holding the entire corporation" responsible," Antonin Scalia said, "and I doubt whether a captain is high enough."
Justice Anthony Kennedy, wagging his finger at Fisher as he challenged the lawyer's argument, charged that "the corporation's responsibility or complicity or culpability is simply not relevant under your theory of the case."
Roberts seemed the most agitated as he argued that Exxon wasn't responsible for the captain's unauthorized drunkenness. "I don't see what more a corporation can do," he said. "What more can the corporation do other than say 'Here is our policies' and try to implement them?"
Fisher tried to deflect some of the more barbed questions -- "I don't want to act like a dog chasing his tail here, Justice Kennedy . . . I'm not going to fight you on that" -- but it was clear that the court's main motive in hearing this case was to cut the jury award. When Fisher said he thought the justices had agreed to hear the case because of an unsettled aspect of maritime law, Scalia cut him off.
"That," the justice said, "and $3.5 billion."
One thing working in the Valdez victims' favor: Justice Samuel Alito, an Exxon shareholder, recused himself from the case. Also in the plaintiffs' favor: No justice, with the possible exception of Scalia and the ceiling-staring Clarence Thomas, liked Exxon's assertion that no punitive damage is legitimate.
Ruth Ginsburg pointed to the evidence that "Exxon knew that this captain had a severe alcohol problem, and yet, they let him stay on voyage after voyage and did nothing about it."
Even Roberts seemed skeptical when he asked Exxon's lawyer, former solicitor general Walter Dellinger: "So you have to have a shareholder driving the boat before you can assess liability?"
Dellinger licked his lips frequently and drank generously from his water glass. "Exxon gained nothing by what went wrong and paid dearly for it," he pleaded to the justices.
It seemed likely Exxon would have to pay more for it -- though not terribly much. The court's dealmakers, Kennedy and David Souter, floated the idea that punitive damages could be double the amount of compensatory damages -- about $800 million, instead of the $2.5 billion ordered by the appellate court. Souter wondered aloud whether "we've simply got to come up with a number."
The notion of the justices pulling a number out of thin air seemed a bit too neat for an oil spill that spoiled 1,200 miles of Alaska's coastline. But then the argument had less to do with the dead marine animals and ruined fishermen than with an obscure maritime law case from 1818 called The Amiable Nancy-- or, as Scalia put it, the "Amiable Whatever It Is."
As the justices probed the intricacies of the laws of the sea, Ginsburg discussed Rule 50. Kennedy invoked Instruction 30, Instruction 33 and Instruction 36. Spectators showed evidence of drowsiness. Reporters yawned -- at least until they were jolted awake by an alarming prospect raised by Ginsburg, who spoke about "a new trial" and the "next time around."
A new trial? After 19 years of legal fighting? Out on the plaza after the argument, Brian O'Neill, one of the Alaska victims' lawyers, conceded that, whatever the Supreme Court's ruling, Exxon had already won. "I guess the lesson you learn," he said, "is that if you're big and powerful enough, you can bring the system to a halt."
At the High Court, Damage Control
By Dana Milbank
Thursday, February 28, 2008; A02
Chief Justice John Roberts was pained.
Exxon Mobil, the giant oil corporation appearing before the Supreme Court yesterday, had earned a profit of nearly $40 billion in 2006, the largest ever reported by a U.S. company -- but that's not what bothered Roberts. What bothered the chief justice was that Exxon was being ordered to pay $2.5 billion -- roughly three weeks' worth of profits -- for destroying a long swath of the Alaska coastline in the largest oil spill in American history.
"So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?" Roberts asked in court.
The lawyer arguing for the Alaska fishermen affected by the spill, Jeffrey Fisher, had an idea. "Well," he said, "it can hire fit and competent people."
The rare sound of laughter rippled through the august chamber. The chief justice did not look amused.
Perhaps, though, his consternation was misplaced. Everybody knows the wheels of justice turn slowly, but in the case of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill, things have dragged on so long that Lady Justice's blindness could reasonably be attributed to cataracts.
Nineteen years after the Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound and spilled 11 million gallons of oil, the 32,000 plaintiffs -- mostly fishermen, cannery workers and Native Alaskans -- have received no punitive damages from Exxon.
A jury awarded them $5 billion in punitive damages -- a record level, for a record disaster -- and an appeals court cut that in half. Now, the Supreme Court seems inclined to deal another insult to the victims (as many as a fifth of whom have already died) by cutting the award further.
Arguing for the Alaskans, Fisher, a tall and lanky Stanford professor with unruly gray hair, pointed out to the justices that the spill "destroyed an entire regional economy." Yet Exxon fired only one person, Capt. Joseph Hazelwood, who even the oil company admitted was drunk at the time of the accident, while executives received bonuses and pay raises. "What you have today are 32,000 plaintiffs standing before this court, each of whom have received only $15,000 for having their lives and livelihood destroyed and haven't received a dime of emotional-distress damages," Fisher argued.
Several justices, however, seemed more concerned about the emotional distress of the Exxon executives. "I assume the test is the person has to be high enough that it justifies holding the entire corporation" responsible," Antonin Scalia said, "and I doubt whether a captain is high enough."
Justice Anthony Kennedy, wagging his finger at Fisher as he challenged the lawyer's argument, charged that "the corporation's responsibility or complicity or culpability is simply not relevant under your theory of the case."
Roberts seemed the most agitated as he argued that Exxon wasn't responsible for the captain's unauthorized drunkenness. "I don't see what more a corporation can do," he said. "What more can the corporation do other than say 'Here is our policies' and try to implement them?"
Fisher tried to deflect some of the more barbed questions -- "I don't want to act like a dog chasing his tail here, Justice Kennedy . . . I'm not going to fight you on that" -- but it was clear that the court's main motive in hearing this case was to cut the jury award. When Fisher said he thought the justices had agreed to hear the case because of an unsettled aspect of maritime law, Scalia cut him off.
"That," the justice said, "and $3.5 billion."
One thing working in the Valdez victims' favor: Justice Samuel Alito, an Exxon shareholder, recused himself from the case. Also in the plaintiffs' favor: No justice, with the possible exception of Scalia and the ceiling-staring Clarence Thomas, liked Exxon's assertion that no punitive damage is legitimate.
Ruth Ginsburg pointed to the evidence that "Exxon knew that this captain had a severe alcohol problem, and yet, they let him stay on voyage after voyage and did nothing about it."
Even Roberts seemed skeptical when he asked Exxon's lawyer, former solicitor general Walter Dellinger: "So you have to have a shareholder driving the boat before you can assess liability?"
Dellinger licked his lips frequently and drank generously from his water glass. "Exxon gained nothing by what went wrong and paid dearly for it," he pleaded to the justices.
It seemed likely Exxon would have to pay more for it -- though not terribly much. The court's dealmakers, Kennedy and David Souter, floated the idea that punitive damages could be double the amount of compensatory damages -- about $800 million, instead of the $2.5 billion ordered by the appellate court. Souter wondered aloud whether "we've simply got to come up with a number."
The notion of the justices pulling a number out of thin air seemed a bit too neat for an oil spill that spoiled 1,200 miles of Alaska's coastline. But then the argument had less to do with the dead marine animals and ruined fishermen than with an obscure maritime law case from 1818 called The Amiable Nancy-- or, as Scalia put it, the "Amiable Whatever It Is."
As the justices probed the intricacies of the laws of the sea, Ginsburg discussed Rule 50. Kennedy invoked Instruction 30, Instruction 33 and Instruction 36. Spectators showed evidence of drowsiness. Reporters yawned -- at least until they were jolted awake by an alarming prospect raised by Ginsburg, who spoke about "a new trial" and the "next time around."
A new trial? After 19 years of legal fighting? Out on the plaza after the argument, Brian O'Neill, one of the Alaska victims' lawyers, conceded that, whatever the Supreme Court's ruling, Exxon had already won. "I guess the lesson you learn," he said, "is that if you're big and powerful enough, you can bring the system to a halt."
Exxon suxx. McCain duxx.
http://www.gregpalast.com/exxon-suxx-mccain-duxx
Exxon suxx. McCain duxx.
by Greg Palast
For TomPaine.com and OurFuture.org
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Nineteen goddamn years is enough. I’m sorry if you don’t like my language, but when I think about what they did to Paul Kompkoff, I’m in no mood to nicey-nice words.
Next month marks 19 years since the Exxon Valdez dumped its load of crude oil across the Prince William Sound, Alaska. A big gooey load of this crude spilled over the lands of the Chenega Natives. Paul Kompkoff was a seal-hunter for the village. That is, until Exxon’s ship killed the seal and poisoned the rest of Chenega’s food supply.
While cameras rolled, Exxon executives promised they’d compensate everyone. Today, before the US Supreme Court, the big oil company’s lawyers argued that they shouldn’t have to pay Paul or other fishermen the damages ordered by the courts.
They can’t pay Paul anyway. He’s dead.
That was part of Exxon’s plan. They told me that. In 1990 and 1991, I worked for the Chenega and Chugach Natives of Alaska on trying to get Exxon to pay up to save the remote villages of the Sound. Exxon’s response was, “We can hold out in court until you’re all dead.”
Nice guys. But, hell, they were right, weren’t they?
But Exxon didn’t do it alone. They had enablers. One was a failed oil driller named “Dubya.” Exxon was the second largest contributor to George W. Bush’s political career. Enron was firstr. They were a team, Exxon and Enron.
To protect their corporate backsides, Enron’s Chairman Ken Lay, prior to his felony convictions, funded a group called Texans for Law Suit Reform. The idea was to prevent consumers, defrauded stockholders and devastated Natives from suing felonious corporations and their chiefs.
When Dubya went to Washington, Enron and Exxon got their golden pass in the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts. On Wednesday, as the court heard Exxon’s latest stall, Roberts said, in defense of Exxon’s behavior in Alaska, “What more can a corporation do?”
The answer, Your Honor, is plenty.
For starters, Mr. Roberts, Exxon could have turned on the radar. What? On the night the Exxon Valdez smacked into Bligh Reef, the Raycas radar system was turned off. Exxon shipping honchos decided it was too expensive to maintain it and train their navigators to use it. So, the inexperienced third mate at the wheel was driving the supertanker by eyeball, Christopher Columbus style. I kid you not.
Here’s what else this poor ‘widdle corporation could do: stop lying.
On the night of March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez was not even supposed to leave harbor. Here’s why. Tankers are not allowed to sail unless unless a spill containment barge is operating nearby. That night, the barge was in dry-dock, locked under ice. Exxon kept that fact hidden, concealing the truth even after the tanker grounded. An Exxon official radioed the emergency crew, “Barge is on its way.” It wasn’t.
Had the barge been in operation, it would have surrounded the leaking ship with rubber skirts - and Paul’s home, and Alaska’s coast, would have been saved. But Exxon couldn’t wait for its oil.
Paul’s gone – buried with Exxon’s promises. But the oil’s still there. Go out to Chenega lands today. At Sleepy Bay, kick over some gravel and it will smell like a gas station.
Tort Tart
What the heck does this have to do with John McCain?
The Senator is what I’d call a ‘Tort Tart.’ Ken Lay’s “Law Suit Reform” posse was one of the fronts used by a gaggle of corporate lobbyists waging war on your day in court. Their rallying cry is ‘Tort Reform,’ by which they mean they want to take away the God-given right of any American, rich or poor, to sue the bastards who crush your child’s skull through product negligence, make your heart explode with a faulty medical device, siphon off your pension funds, or poison your food supply with spilled oil.
All of the Democratic candidates have seen through this ‘tort reform’ con – and so did a Senator named McCain who, in 2001, for example, voted for the Patients Bill of Rights allowing claims against butchers with scalpels. Then something happened to Senator McCain: the guy who stuck his neck out for litigants got his head chopped off when he ran for President in the Republican Party. One lobbyists’ website blasted McCain’s “go-it-alone moralism.”
So the Senator did what I call, The McCain Hunch. Again and again he grabbed his ankles and apologized to the K Street lobbyists, reversing his positions on, well, you name it. In 2001, he said of Bush’s tax cuts, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans.” Now, in bad conscience, the Senator vows to make these tax cuts permanent.
On “Tort Reform,” the about-face was dizzying. McCain voted to undermine his own 2001 Patients Bill of Rights with votes in 2005 to limit suits to enforce it. He then added his name to a bill that would have thrown sealhunter Kompkoff’s suit out of federal court.
In 2003, McCain voted against Bush’s Energy Plan, an industry oil-gasm. This week, following Exxon’s report that it sucked in $40.6 billion in earnings, the largest profit haul in planetary history, Senators Clinton, Obama and several others in both parties sponsored a bill to require a teeny sliver of oil industry super-profits go to alternative energy sources. Technically, it involved ending a $14 billion tax giveaway granted oil companies by the Bush Administration in 2004. Senator McCain wouldn’t support George and his oil patch buddies then. But now, Candidate McCain won’t back the repeal of this gawdawful tax break.
In this showdown with Big Oil, McCain is AWOL, missing in action.
Well, Paul, at least you were spared this.
I remember when I was on the investigation in Alaska, bankrupted fishermen, utterly ruined – Kompkoff’s co-plaintiffs in the suit before the Supreme Court – floated their soon-to-be repossessed boats into the tanker lanes with banners reading, “EXXON SUXX.”
To which they could now add, about a one-time stand-up Senator: “McCain duxx.”
***
Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestsellers Armed Madhouse and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Subscribe to his investigative reports at http://www.gregpalast.com/
Exxon suxx. McCain duxx.
by Greg Palast
For TomPaine.com and OurFuture.org
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Nineteen goddamn years is enough. I’m sorry if you don’t like my language, but when I think about what they did to Paul Kompkoff, I’m in no mood to nicey-nice words.
Next month marks 19 years since the Exxon Valdez dumped its load of crude oil across the Prince William Sound, Alaska. A big gooey load of this crude spilled over the lands of the Chenega Natives. Paul Kompkoff was a seal-hunter for the village. That is, until Exxon’s ship killed the seal and poisoned the rest of Chenega’s food supply.
While cameras rolled, Exxon executives promised they’d compensate everyone. Today, before the US Supreme Court, the big oil company’s lawyers argued that they shouldn’t have to pay Paul or other fishermen the damages ordered by the courts.
They can’t pay Paul anyway. He’s dead.
That was part of Exxon’s plan. They told me that. In 1990 and 1991, I worked for the Chenega and Chugach Natives of Alaska on trying to get Exxon to pay up to save the remote villages of the Sound. Exxon’s response was, “We can hold out in court until you’re all dead.”
Nice guys. But, hell, they were right, weren’t they?
But Exxon didn’t do it alone. They had enablers. One was a failed oil driller named “Dubya.” Exxon was the second largest contributor to George W. Bush’s political career. Enron was firstr. They were a team, Exxon and Enron.
To protect their corporate backsides, Enron’s Chairman Ken Lay, prior to his felony convictions, funded a group called Texans for Law Suit Reform. The idea was to prevent consumers, defrauded stockholders and devastated Natives from suing felonious corporations and their chiefs.
When Dubya went to Washington, Enron and Exxon got their golden pass in the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts. On Wednesday, as the court heard Exxon’s latest stall, Roberts said, in defense of Exxon’s behavior in Alaska, “What more can a corporation do?”
The answer, Your Honor, is plenty.
For starters, Mr. Roberts, Exxon could have turned on the radar. What? On the night the Exxon Valdez smacked into Bligh Reef, the Raycas radar system was turned off. Exxon shipping honchos decided it was too expensive to maintain it and train their navigators to use it. So, the inexperienced third mate at the wheel was driving the supertanker by eyeball, Christopher Columbus style. I kid you not.
Here’s what else this poor ‘widdle corporation could do: stop lying.
On the night of March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez was not even supposed to leave harbor. Here’s why. Tankers are not allowed to sail unless unless a spill containment barge is operating nearby. That night, the barge was in dry-dock, locked under ice. Exxon kept that fact hidden, concealing the truth even after the tanker grounded. An Exxon official radioed the emergency crew, “Barge is on its way.” It wasn’t.
Had the barge been in operation, it would have surrounded the leaking ship with rubber skirts - and Paul’s home, and Alaska’s coast, would have been saved. But Exxon couldn’t wait for its oil.
Paul’s gone – buried with Exxon’s promises. But the oil’s still there. Go out to Chenega lands today. At Sleepy Bay, kick over some gravel and it will smell like a gas station.
Tort Tart
What the heck does this have to do with John McCain?
The Senator is what I’d call a ‘Tort Tart.’ Ken Lay’s “Law Suit Reform” posse was one of the fronts used by a gaggle of corporate lobbyists waging war on your day in court. Their rallying cry is ‘Tort Reform,’ by which they mean they want to take away the God-given right of any American, rich or poor, to sue the bastards who crush your child’s skull through product negligence, make your heart explode with a faulty medical device, siphon off your pension funds, or poison your food supply with spilled oil.
All of the Democratic candidates have seen through this ‘tort reform’ con – and so did a Senator named McCain who, in 2001, for example, voted for the Patients Bill of Rights allowing claims against butchers with scalpels. Then something happened to Senator McCain: the guy who stuck his neck out for litigants got his head chopped off when he ran for President in the Republican Party. One lobbyists’ website blasted McCain’s “go-it-alone moralism.”
So the Senator did what I call, The McCain Hunch. Again and again he grabbed his ankles and apologized to the K Street lobbyists, reversing his positions on, well, you name it. In 2001, he said of Bush’s tax cuts, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans.” Now, in bad conscience, the Senator vows to make these tax cuts permanent.
On “Tort Reform,” the about-face was dizzying. McCain voted to undermine his own 2001 Patients Bill of Rights with votes in 2005 to limit suits to enforce it. He then added his name to a bill that would have thrown sealhunter Kompkoff’s suit out of federal court.
In 2003, McCain voted against Bush’s Energy Plan, an industry oil-gasm. This week, following Exxon’s report that it sucked in $40.6 billion in earnings, the largest profit haul in planetary history, Senators Clinton, Obama and several others in both parties sponsored a bill to require a teeny sliver of oil industry super-profits go to alternative energy sources. Technically, it involved ending a $14 billion tax giveaway granted oil companies by the Bush Administration in 2004. Senator McCain wouldn’t support George and his oil patch buddies then. But now, Candidate McCain won’t back the repeal of this gawdawful tax break.
In this showdown with Big Oil, McCain is AWOL, missing in action.
Well, Paul, at least you were spared this.
I remember when I was on the investigation in Alaska, bankrupted fishermen, utterly ruined – Kompkoff’s co-plaintiffs in the suit before the Supreme Court – floated their soon-to-be repossessed boats into the tanker lanes with banners reading, “EXXON SUXX.”
To which they could now add, about a one-time stand-up Senator: “McCain duxx.”
***
Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestsellers Armed Madhouse and The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Subscribe to his investigative reports at http://www.gregpalast.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
