When the Law Falls Silent
It was just a little more than a month ago that I posted “The Grand SCOTUS Facade” on Zero Hedge. If I may be so bold as to shamelessly quote myself, ”But if the supremacy of The Empire is threatened by external or internal forces those very same three governmental branches, either separately or in unison, will act to protect The Empire and its special interests………and the Constitution be damned if it gets in the way.”
In the very next paragraph I go on to declare,” For example in decades past the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) affirmed slavery in America and then approved by abstention Abraham Lincoln’s blatantly unconstitutional power grab from the states, only to rule against it after the Civil War had ended and the damage had been done. Incredibly they even ratified the corralling of US citizens of Japanese descent during WW2 and the taking of their property without compensation.”
I’ll be the first to admit that I love the warm and fuzzy feeling of having my bias confirmed. From my perspective, that of the so called fringe point of view, my confirming stroke usually comes from reading other like minded people who have reached similar conclusions following different paths. Rarely do I receive affirmation from the mainstream media nor would I expect to. One must read between the lines when perusing the state media for the actual intent and meaning behind the public propaganda.
So I was a bit surprised to discover that none other than U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was the latest to provide me with that deliciously naughty feeling I get between my toes when my confirmation bias has just been tickled. Thank you Justice Scalia. I won’t tell my wife if you won’t tell yours.
Its one thing to discuss among friends, neighbors and alternative media the potentially revolutionary idea that The Empire has no legal clothes. It’s another entirely when one of The Empire’s Supreme Court justices says it in his out loud voice. Wow! Clearly Justice Scalia is seated on the SCOTUS for life because no instrument of State who needs to be re-appointed, re-elected or just really interested in staying employed by the State would ever speak such truth to power.
What I find really interesting is the manner in which he delivered the bomb shell personal opinion, that of someone who was confirming what we all already know to be true. Duh……when push comes to shove isn’t it obvious the State has no legal clothes?
Replying to a question from a University of Hawaii law school student regarding the 1944 Korematsu v. United States Supreme Court decision that affirmed the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War Two, Justice Scalia is quoted as saying "Well, of course, Korematsu was wrong. And I think we have repudiated in a later case. But you are kidding yourself if you think the same thing will not happen again."
Ummm….actually Justice Scalia, it was the propaganda spouting system itself, personified by all the King’s horses and all the King’s men, who has been kidding me into believing that my “rights’ are supreme and will be held above all other interests because “We the People” hold these truths to be self evident.
Scalia went on to explain "That's what was going on — the panic about the war and the invasion of the Pacific and whatnot. That's what happens. It was wrong, but I would not be surprised to see it happen again, in time of war. It's no justification, but it is the reality."
That’s a relief. Just as long as my constitutionally protected ‘rights’ are unilaterally abridged by The Empire, then the rape upheld by The State’s Supreme Court Justice’s because of deliberate public fear mongering fanned by manufactured State propaganda in order to herd the population into cutting off their noses to spite my face….well, I’m down with that dawg. All good here bro.
The various mainstream press reports, all of which read nearly word for word as if quoting a press release, then go on to mention this little gem. “Scalia cited a Latin expression meaning, "In times of war, the laws fall silent."” Interestingly not one newspaper decided to name the actual Latin phrase, assuming I suppose that their readers would not care to know or that the assembled reporters repeaters didn’t understand the phrase and needed it explained to them by the students in the room. That phrase is “Inter arma enim silent leges”.
Thankfully there was a legal expert in the room (other than Justice Scalia of course) to interpret the words of the Supreme Priest who was clearly off his meds and once again mindlessly ranting in public.
The Associated Press informed us that “Avi Soifer, the law school's dean, said he believed Scalia was suggesting people always have to be vigilant and that the law alone can't be trusted to provide protection.”
Well, if you can’t trust the law who, or what, can you trust? After all aren’t we a nation of laws? Doesn’t the law apply to everyone, rich or poor, educated and ignorant? Am I to assume that this ‘mistake’ by the Supreme Court was comparable to the mistake I made last night when I sprinkled too much red pepper in the spaghetti sauce? Oops, sorry Mrs. Cog, my bad. Here, have some cold water to wash that mistake away.
“Soifer said it's good to hear Scalia say the Korematsu ruling was wrong, noting the justice has been among those who have reined in the power of military commissions regardless of the administration.”
Ok! So am I to assume that Scalia is one of the good guys? Too bad there are eight other Justices who could form a majority to confirm that my death or internment at the hands of The Empire was lawful and righteous at the first sign of public fear and panic in response to a (highly likely) false flag attack or similar State sponsored provocation.
"We do need a court that sometimes will say there are individual or group rights that are not being adequately protected by the democratic process," Soifer said.
Is Soifer talking about the Supreme Court that is supposedly immune to public, governmental and corporate pressure and is ultimately tasked with protecting my ‘rights’ above all else? You mean to say that not only the law, but the arbiters of the law, might not actually uphold my rights because of public, governmental or corporate pressure? Say it ain’t so Soifer, say it ain’t so.
Another source provides an additional quote that did not seem to make it into the mainstream media’s ‘repeating’ of Scalia’s soon-to-be-regretted comments. Of note was Scalia’s interpretation of the function of the Supreme Court of the United States.
“"The function of the court is not to keep the other two branches (legislative and executive) in line; that's not what we're for. We're there to stop harm to individuals," Scalia said.”
Interesting observation Justice Scalia, considering you just admitted that your colleagues from 1944 failed to do precisely that when the law fell silent in the face of government warmongering which in turned fanned the flames of public panic and blatant political and racial scapegoating. And I might add, a government which is doing the same thing during today’s “Global War against Terrorism” by condoning Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, extralegal killings/executions, death by drone etc.
I suspect Scalia was following the time honored tradition of politicians, despots and scalawags everywhere and speaking ‘for local consumption’. After all, he was speaking in Hawaii to a group of young adult law students, some of whom likely have family, friends, and possibly even distant relatives who were actually interned or deported during that wonderful experiment in truth and justice for all (except of course for US citizens of Japanese descent) during World War Two.
Let me quote from Josh Blackman’s blog. “Having an independent judiciary that, even in times of war, can check the other branches, is the last line of defense. This is the point Jackson’s concurrence in Youngstown conveys. ““With all its defects, delays and inconveniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the Executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary deliberations. Such institutions may be destined to pass away. But it is the duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up.””
Got that Justice Scalia? Let me repeat that just in case you were busy confirming your own bias. “But it is the duty of the Court to be last, not first, to give them up.”
Of course the above “Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.” opinion by the 1952 Supreme Court was speaking about the actions of the President “to avert a nationwide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense” by issuing an Executive Order to seize and operate the steel mills.
By the time the Executive Order was overturned by the SCOTUS, a scant two months later, the intent of the order (to avert a strike) had been accomplished and no personal liberties or ‘rights’ had been completely trampled in the process. So it is safe to say that the SCOTUS ruling was a ‘safe’ decision that could be presented as maintaining the facade of ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ without actually encumbering or dissuading The Empire from its relentless pursuit of cronyism and expanded power.
I often say that the true measure of a society is how well it takes care of its weakest citizens. I shall amend that to say that the true measure of a society is how well it adheres to its own laws, which were supposedly put in place to protect its weakest citizens, during times of political stress or war.
The facade that constitutes the ‘belief’ that America adheres to a higher standard in all things American, including “The Law of the Land”, is not just crumbling, but wasn’t real to begin with…..except of course when it was convenient to those who held, and presently hold, the true power in America these days, the financial/military/corporate powerhouses including the mega banks and their idiot savant, the Federal Reserve.
Introducing a portal into the mind of Cognitive Dissonance. www.TwoIceFloes.com