Today’s news:

Supreme Court ruling gives businesses power to decide elections

Five-four: That Supreme Court proportion sends chills down one’s spine and should down the spine of our country. Back in 2000, that sole lifetime appointment position of one of the three branches of our federal government, the judicial, decided the presidential candidate with the popular vote of the American people would not occupy the Oval Office by halting the Florida recount vote, which might have given the candidate the electoral vote as well.

That intervention into the electoral process cursed us with a president for four years who, by initiating a pre-emptive faux war, insured his re-election for another four. A country does not change administrations during a war, invented or otherwise. Those eight years brought us to the apocalypse precipitated by that Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision. Finally, in 2008, that apocalypse was passed on to the next president.

And now we have another 5-4 outrage by our nine robed rogues. Five “independent” Supreme Court justices have decided to give corporations, together with their foreign owners, and unions the right to buy the elections of our future candidates.

It makes no difference if the mega-dollars spent by those special interest organizations are right, left or in-between. The absurdity that they should have the opportunity to contribute to a party’s candidate just like you and me is outrageous.

This is opposed to what should be the manner in which our political figures are selected: federally funded campaigns. One person — not a group morphed into one person — one vote. That vote should be based on what the candidate proposes on his or her platform and not on how much TV, radio, newspaper, telephone, online, etc., time he or she can afford to purchase.

Right and left, McCain and Feingold realized the need to reform the electoral finance situation. Now five justices have put our elections up for sale and it appears there is no way of reversing their decision. Kind of gives a new, convoluted meaning to the often-abused term “democracy.”

Didn’t the Republicans cry that newcomer Sonia Sotomayor would tend to legislate from the bench? That is what these five patriotic supporters of their country, the United States of Corporations, just did.

In the 2000 debacle, the five “independent” justices were conservatives while the other four were composed of two appointed during a Democratic administration and two Republican-appointed ones who could not stomach the outrageous overreaching of their five fellow “independent” conservative Supreme Court justices.

Now in 2010, the five are again conservative “independent” Republicans and the other four composed of three Democratic appointees plus this time one Republican-appointed one who rebelled against the injustice of selling American elections to corporate contributors.

Supreme Court justices should be voted into office with term limitations. That they are independent and non-partisan would be laughable if only it did not hurt so much trying to laugh at the injustice of it all.

Nicholas Zizelis

Bayside

Pin It
Print this story Permalink

Reader Feedback

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not TimesLedger.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to TimesLedger.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

CNG: Community Newspaper Group