How to Bribe a Supreme Court Justice

[babylonsister]

Michael Kieschnick
President of CREDO Mobile
Posted: March 15, 2010 01:13 AM

How to Bribe a Supreme Court Justice


The Los Angeles Times performed a serious act of journalism by covering the interesting conflict of interest facing Justice Clarence Thomas.

Mr. Thomas is married to Virginia Thomas, who just launched Liberty Central. The lead endorsement comes from two prominent Tea Party activists.

Liberty Central is thoughtfully organized under tax law as a c(4). It can take unlimited corporate contributions, not disclose them, and engage in partisan activities.

Ponder that for just a moment. The wife of a Supreme Court justice has organized a political non-profit linked to Tea Party activists whose activities can be supported to an unlimited extent by corporations whose donations need not be disclosed to the public. Similarly, Mrs. Thomas is under no obligation to disclose her compensation to anybody.

None of this appears to be illegal in part due to the recent Citizens United court ruling by the Supreme Court that freed corporation contributions from certain key restrictions. That radical and controversial decision passed by a 5-4 vote, and surprise, Justice Thomas voted yes.

When the Times asked Mrs. Thomas about this interesting situation, she responded with the traditional right wing charge of the media imposing a double standard on conservatives, pointing out that the elected governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, is married to a federal judge. She conveniently left out that any political contributions to Mr. Rendell are both limited and fully disclosed under Federal law, and that Judge Rendell scrupulously avoids any political activities.

Justice Thomas has been a reliable right wing, pro-corporate vote since his first day on the court. He can hardly be described as a swing vote whose vote could be bought. But perhaps he could be rewarded for services rendered. Or, if service on the bench becomes tedious, he might be persuaded to extend his tenure if important cases are looming on the horizon.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-kieschnick/how-to-bribe-a-supreme-co_b_498693.html

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[Doctor_J]

2. With the Felonious Five, the ideology isn't as appalling as the corruption

I fear that they will not leave peacefully.

[tinrobot]

5. Corruption IS their ideology

[Raster]

3. Anita Hill was dead-right about Justice Pubic Hair. We should have listened.

And for shame this unscrupulous cretin sits in Thurgood Marshall's chair. Unconscionable.

[watrwefitinfor]

4. +1

[goclark]

6. Absolutely ~ a sin and a shame! nt

[BlueMTexpat]

16. +1000!

Actually, many did ... just not enough to defeat his confirmation.

[formercia]

17. Anita Hill is a Heroine for speaking out.

and she was out there on her own.

K&R 10,000 times over.

[FormerDittoHead]

7. One other thing, IMO the BIG thing...

I know I'm a broken record on this but I have yet to see anyone else anywhere get this.

Immediately following the ruling there were a batch of messages here suggesting that nothing significant had changed. Under prior law, nothing would stop a very rich person from spending his own money and doing pretty much what is being done now. The only difference was that the instrument was changed, and the money could be channeled through a corporation. I gathered people making this argument didn't see a significant difference.

Here's the difference.

If I were a rich person and wanted to spend my personal money on political causes, yes, I could have done all that - BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN *MY* MONEY.

THE GAME HAS CHANGED.

While the wealthy own a vastly disproportionate amount of corporate wealth in this country, in the past 30 years they've been willing to sell off a significant amount of their stock to the middle class through retirement mutual funds and pensions, THEY HAVE, HOWEVER, RETAINED *COMPLETE* *CONTROL*.

If you own corporate stocks through a mutual fund or pension fund - YOU HAVE ZERO control on those companies.

If you're like me and own stock in companies through a brokerage, you WILL get voting proxy cards forwarded to you - OFTEN TOO LATE TO SUBMIT AND NEVER *ONCE* OFFERING ANY REAL CHOICES ON YOUR PART EITHER THAN CHOOSING RICH PERSON "A" OR RICH PERSON "B" TO CONTROL THE COMPANY.

*NOW* the 100% of rich people running and controlling 100% of the Fortune 1,000 can use THE SHAREHOLDER'S MONEY - NOT THEIR OWN to influence the gov't.

THAT'S THE *BIG* CHANGE - AND IT'S ONLY BEGINNING...

[harkadog]

14. Untrue.

Corporations still can't participate in political campaigns. The 1907 law on this was left unchanged and was not even challenged in the case.

[Historic NY]

8. So is his wife now a registered lobbyist? How can he maintain he is unbiased?

[NJmaverick]

9. This is a scandal on par with Nixon's water gate

[fasttense]

10. The Dancing Supremes showed their corrupt and biased hand when

they picked our President for us in 2000. It was perfectly clear then they were no longer judges or justices. They had become a political junta very similar to judges in banana republics. Maybe a few justices in the dancing act are not corrupt but they seem to be doing nothing about the ones that are corrupt.

Since the RepubliCON Dancing Supremes got no grief from their illegal and criminal behavior in 2000, they have just continued down the path of destroying our hard won freedoms. They are reprehensible and unethical. They deserve NO respect and should be jailed like all gangsters.

Instead they continue to collect bribes and award rulings to their favorite political cronies. They are a disgrace and a blight upon Democracy.

[philly_bob]

11. Virginia Thomas was on Bush Transition team during Bush v. Gore. (nt)

[Doctor_J]

12. This period in US history is going to end very ugly

The only question is are we going to fight (really fight), or end up like the Rwandans.

[Demeter]

13. I Don't Have Bribery in Mind

something a little more permanent and purgative.

[donheld]

15. K & R

[yurbud]

18. k & r: when can we impeach these bastards?