Originalist poser

Just how is it that the right-wing majority on the Supreme Court can grant the First Amendment to corporations, when the modern limited liability corporation wasn't even legal until decades after the ratification of the Bill of Rights?

Could it possibly be, as with federalism, states' rights, and especially Bush v. Gore, the right-wing activist judges who claim to be originalists are not really acting on principle at all?

I dare question the sincerity of Their High Honors the Supreme Justices! Off with me 'ead!

For anyone who thinks borking has bad connotations, check Robert Bork's further career as a rigid ideologue, willing to rationalize almost any extremity of wingnuttism (who knew that word would be in the Firefox spelling dictionary!). We Democrats and liberals should have borked Scalia, Thomas, and Alito too. The world would be a better place - and especially America would be better without ever having suffered the maladministration of Darth and Duhbya - if we has seen the importance of keeping the first two of those Republican ideologues off the court.

As for Scalito's objection to President Obama's criticism of the Court's predictable bullshit decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Alito knew the stakes, no matter how piously he may now deny it. Principle? The winner establishes principle, and they won, liberal bitches!

Gaffe-hunting

Politics is about disagreement. Sure, it's about settling disagreements, but it starts with diverging opinions and, when it works, ends with a direction.

Last night, President Barack Obama disagreed with the Supreme Court's recent (and horrible) decision on corporate propaganda. This decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission continued to drive through the heart of our democracy the conservative majority's stake of an axiom that corporate money equals free speech. Obama was pointed but polite:

With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.

I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems.

Yet CNN, especially the useless Paul Steinhauser, is raising its eyebrows over Obama disagreeing with the Supremes right there in front of them. Cripes, fellows, go ahead and wet your pants if you're that timorous.

Then, just to be balanced, Steinhauser tut-tuts at Samuel Alito's reaction. Watch the video. All Alito does is mouth (no, not mouth off), "That's not true." CNN implies that Alito is not allowed to visibly disagree with the President.

That is not the country I live in. Honest, polite disagreement is not a threat. The pretense of unanimity is a threat. There's a big difference between SOTU and STFU.

Steinhauser even raises the spectre of Joe Wilson's notorious intemperate outburst. Ah, now we're getting to the truth. CNN thinks it knows how to cover the story so that it need never - ever - worry about distinguishing truth from fiction, right from wrong, or Constitutional from bullshit.

A story about etiquette requires no journalism, just a lot of spouting. Orrin Hatch of course obliges:

I think [Alito] showed quite a bit of judicial restraint.

Of course, CNN let Hatch's testable assertion go unchallenged:

President Obama last night wildly mischaracterized the Supreme Court's decision.

Our media are not interested in calling bullshit. They're interested in selling bullshit.

Tea leaves

There's a certain kind of journalism that calls itself analysis. Sometimes it's useful for setting the background and the imperatives the actors are acting from.

Then there's this kind of piece from Peter Canellos. It strings together a few slightly inside-politics tidbits with a few quotes such as this:

"If [Sotomayor's confirmation] takes a month, it does bump things up against the adjournment time," said Dartmouth College political scientist Linda Fowler. "The worry for Obama is less the loss of bipartisan spirit than the time constraints. An acrimonious nomination fight just eats up a lot of time."

There was an opportunity here put in perspective the previous two Supreme Court confirmations:

• Samuel Alito - "Samuel Alito is gliding toward confirmation as a Supreme Court justice after a week of hearings..."
• John Roberts - "The White House swearing-in ceremony took place three hours after the Senate voted 78 to 22 to confirm Roberts."

There are two possible explanations:

• Republicans are much nastier and more focused in these fights.
• Many journalists are eager or at least willing to adopt the Republican narrative.
  

Just for a moment, I'm going to hold in abeyance my natural suspicion of both Republicans and pundits.

I bet there were analyses just like Canellos's before Alito and Roberts, and those fights hardly amounted to anything. Now, there are sixty Democrats (or should be), and the Sotomayor confirmation will most likely take place with keening, wailing, and gnashing of teeth, but it will still happen quickly.

And the analyses will continue unabated and unabashed.

A raise for your successor

Personally, I'm not in favor of any measure that would further motivate John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito to continue to render their right-wing decisions from the Supreme Court. My apologies to other, more deserving judges.

One more afterthought: The Federal judiciary is thoroughly contaminated with appointees from the illiberal Federalist Society. If they need higher salaries, they can always get jobs as general counsel at one of the huge corporations that their decisions have always favored.

Not that far to fall

The only reason to sympathize with Michael Mukasey is ill health, and of course I wish him a speedy recovery.

"The attorney general is conscious, conversant and alert," said Carr. "His vital statistics are strong and he is in good spirits."

(Vital statistics? Does he look good in a bathing suit?)

What I do not wish is for him to continue to abuse America with defenses of torture, the execrable Federalist Society, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and the rest of the Bushists. CNN, of course, gives us the bullshit story Mukasey testilied to during his confirmation, without noticing that subsequent events have proven it to be bullshit.

The origin of originalism

In the beginning, there was strict constructionism. And the righteous wing saw that it was good.

In time, however, strict constructionism was tainted by the undeniable fact that it arose in support of racism and Jim Crow segregation. The Republicans needed a new brand, and the Federalist Society obliged with originalism.

Jeffrey Toobin does me a favor to remind me of this history, now that the wingnuts are in charge of the asylum. It's a shame we liberals didn't bork at least Scalia and Alito. In their world, no Constitutional freedoms may attach to new media such as blogging.

The Crits, by the way, made their own extremist fears come true. Law today is a tool of the ruling class.