The People Vs. The Police State: The Struggle For Justice In The Supreme Court

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

“We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.”—Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The untimely death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has predictably created a political firestorm.

Republicans and Democrats, eager to take advantage of an opening on the Supreme Court, have been quick to advance their ideas about Scalia’s replacement. This is just the beginning of the furor over who gets to appoint the next U.S. Supreme Court justice (President Obama or his successor), when (as soon as Obama chooses or as long as Congress can delay), how (whether by way of a recess appointment or while Congress is in session), and where any judicial nominee will stand on the hot-button political issues of our day (same-sex marriage, Obamacare, immigration, the environment, and abortion).

This is yet another spectacle, not unlike the carnival-like antics of the presidential candidates, to create division, dissension and discord and distract the populace from the nation’s steady march towards totalitarianism.

Not to worry. This is a done deal. There are no surprises awaiting us.

We may not know the gender, the orientation, the politics, or the ethnicity of Justice Scalia’s replacement, but those things are relatively unimportant in the larger scheme of things.

The powers-that-be have already rigged the system. They—the corporations, the military industrial complex, the surveillance state, the monied elite, etc.—will not allow anyone to be appointed to the Supreme Court who will dial back the police state. They will not tolerate anyone who will undermine their policies, threaten their profit margins, or overturn their apple cart.

Scalia’s replacement will be safe (i.e., palatable enough to withstand Congress’ partisan wrangling), reliable and most important of all, an extension of the American police state.

With the old order dying off or advancing into old age rapidly, we’ve arrived at a pivotal point in the makeup of the Supreme Court. With every vacant seat on the Court and in key judgeships around the country, we are witnessing a transformation of the courts into pallid, legalistic bureaucracies governed by a new breed of judges who have been careful to refrain from saying, doing or writing anything that might compromise their future ambitions.

Today, the judges most likely to get appointed today are well-heeled, well-educated (all of them attended either Yale or Harvard law schools) blank slates who have traveled a well-worn path from an elite law school to a prestigious judicial clerkship and then a pivotal federal judgeship. Long gone are the days when lawyers without judicial experience such as Earl Warren, William Rehnquist, Felix Frankfurter, and Louis Brandeis could be appointed to the Supreme Court.

As Supreme Court correspondent Dahlia Lithwick points out, “a selection process that discourages political or advocacy experience and reduces the path to the Supreme Court to a funnel” results in “perfect judicial thoroughbreds who have spent their entire adulthoods on the same lofty, narrow trajectory.”

In other words, it really doesn’t matter whether a Republican or Democratic president appoints the next Supreme Court justice, because they will all look alike (in terms of their educational and professional background) and sound alike (they are primarily advocates for the government).

Given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, and corporate corruption, the need for a guardian of the people’s rights has never been greater.

Unfortunately, as I document in Battlefield America: The War on the American People, what we have been saddled with instead are government courts dominated by technicians and statists who march in lockstep with the American police state.

This is true at all levels of the judiciary.

Thus, while what the nation needs is a constitutionalist, what we will get is a technician.

It’s an important distinction.

A legal constitutionalist believes that the authority of government derives from and is limited by a body of fundamental law (the Constitution) and strives to hold the government accountable to abiding by the Constitution. A judge of this order will uphold the rights of the citizenry in the face of government abuses.

Justice William O. Douglas, who served on the Supreme Court for 36 years, was such a constitutionalist. He believed that the “Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.” Considered the most “committed civil libertarian ever to sit on the court,” Douglas was frequently controversial and far from perfect (he was part of a 6-3 majority in Korematsu vs. United States that supported the government’s internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II). Even so, his warnings against a domineering, suspicious, totalitarian, police-driven surveillance state resonate still today.

A legal technician, on the other hand, is an arbitrator of the government’s plethora of laws whose priority is maintaining order and preserving government power. As such, these judicial technicians are deferential to authority, whether government or business, and focused on reconciling the massive number of laws handed down by the government.

John Roberts who joined the Supreme Court in 2005 as Chief Justice is a prime example of a legal technician. His view that the “role of the judge is limited…to decide the cases before them” speaks to a mindset that places the judge in the position of a referee. As USA Today observes, “Roberts’ tenure has been marked by an incremental approach to decision-making — issuing narrow rather than bold rulings that have the inevitable effect of bringing the same issues back to the high court again and again.”

Roberts’ approach to matters of law and justice can best be understood by a case dating back to his years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The case involved a 12-year-old black girl who was handcuffed, searched and arrested by police—all for eating a single French fry in violation of a ban on food in the D.C. metro station. Despite Roberts’ ability to recognize the harshness of the treatment meted out to Ansche Hedgepeth for such a minor violation—the little girl was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained for three hours, and was “frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal”—Roberts ruled that the girl’s constitutional rights had not been violated in any way.

This is not justice meted out by a constitutionalist.

This is how a technician rules, according to the inflexible letter of the law.

Circuit Judge Sri Srinivasan of the DC Court of Appeals, who is rumored to be a favorite pick for Scalia’s spot on the court, is another such technician. When asked to strike down a 60-year-old ban on expressive activities in front of the Supreme Court Plaza, Srinivasan turned a blind eye to the First Amendment. (Ironically, the Supreme Court must now decide whether to declare its own free speech ban unconstitutional.)

By ruling in favor of the ban, Srinivasan also affirmed that police were correct to arrest an African-American protester who was standing silently in front of the Supreme Court wearing a sign protesting the police state on a snowy day when no one was on the plaza except him.

Srinivasan’s rationale? “Allowing demonstrations directed at the Court, on the Court’s own front terrace, would tend to yield the opposite impression: that of a Court engaged with — and potentially vulnerable to — outside entreaties by the public.”

This view of the Supreme Court as an entity that must be sheltered from select outside influences—for example, the views of the citizenry—is shared by the members of the Court itself to a certain extent. As Lithwick points out:

The Court has become worryingly cloistered, even for a famously cloistered institution… today’s justices filter out anything that might challenge their perspectives. Antonin Scalia won’t read newspapers that conflict with his views and claims to often get very little from amicus briefs. John Roberts has said that he doesn’t believe that most law-review articles—where legal scholars advance new thinking on contemporary problems—are relevant to the justices’ work. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Scalia’s opera-going buddy, increasingly seems to revel in, rather than downplay, her status as a liberal icon. Kennedy spends recesses guest-teaching law school courses in Salzburg.”

Are you getting the picture yet?

The members of the Supreme Court are part of a ruling aristocracy composed of men and women who primarily come from privileged backgrounds and who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

These justices, all of whom are millionaires in their own rights, circulate among an elite, privileged class of individuals, attending exclusive events at private resorts orchestrated by billionaire oil barons, traveling on the private jets of billionaires, and delivering paid speeches in far-flung locales such as Berlin, London and Zurich.

When you’re cocooned within the rarefied, elitist circles in which most of the judiciary operate, it can be difficult to see the humanity behind the facts of a case, let alone identify with the terror and uncertainty that most people feel when heavily armed government agents invade their homes, or subject them to a virtual strip search, or taser them into submission.

If you’ve never had to worry about police erroneously crashing through your door in the dead of night, then it might not be a hardship to rule as the Court did in Kentucky v. King that police should have greater leeway to break into homes or apartments without a warrant.

If you have no fear of ever being strip searched yourself, it would be easy to suggest as the Court did in Florence v. Burlington that it’s more important to make life easier for overworked jail officials than protect Americans from debasing strip searches.

And if you have never had to submit to anyone else’s authority—especially a militarized police officer with no knowledge of the Constitution’s prohibitions against excessive force, warrantless searches and illegal seizures, then you would understandably give police the benefit of the doubt as the Court did in Brooks v. City of Seattle, when they let stand a ruling that police officers who had clearly used excessive force when they repeatedly tasered a pregnant woman during a routine traffic stop were granted immunity from prosecution.

Likewise, if you’re not able to understand what it’s like to be one of the “little guys,” afraid to lose your home because some local government wants to commandeer it and sell it to a larger developer for profit, it would be relatively easy to rule, as the Supreme Court did in Kelo v. New London, that the government is within its right to do so.

Now do you understand why the Supreme Court’s decisions in recent years, which have run the gamut from suppressing free speech activities and justifying suspicionless strip searches to warrantless home invasions and conferring constitutional rights on corporations, while denying them to citizens, have been characterized most often by an abject deference to government authority, military and corporate interests?

They no longer work for us. They no longer represent us. They can no longer relate to our suffering.

In the same way that the Legislative Branch, having been co-opted by lobbyists, special interests, and the corporate elite, has ceased to function as a vital check on abuses by the other two branches of government, the Judicial Branch has also become part of the same self-serving bureaucracy.

Sound judgment, compassion and justice have taken a back seat to legalism, statism and elitism.

Preserving the rights of the people has been deprioritized and made to play second fiddle to both governmental and corporate interests.

In the case of the People vs. the Police State, the ruling is 9-0 against us.

So where does that leave us?

The Supreme Court of old is gone, if not for good then at least for now.

It will be a long time before we have another court such as the Warren Court (1953-1969), when Earl Warren served alongside such luminaries as William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter and Thurgood Marshall.

The Warren Court handed down rulings that were instrumental in shoring up critical legal safeguards against government abuse and discrimination. Without the Warren Court, there would be no Miranda warnings, no desegregation of the schools and no civil rights protections for indigents.

Yet more than any single ruling, what Warren and his colleagues did best was embody what the Supreme Court should always be—an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds.

That is no longer the case.

We can no longer depend on the federal courts to protect us against the government. They are the government.

Yet as is the case with most things, the solution is far simpler and at the same time more complicated than space allows, but it starts with local action—local change—and local justice. If you want a revolution, start small, in your own backyard, and the impact will trickle up.

If you don’t like the way justice is being meted out in America, then start demanding justice in your own hometown, before your local judges. Serve on juries, nullify laws that are egregious, picket in front of the courthouse, vote out judges (and prosecutors) who aren’t practicing what the Constitution preaches, encourage your local newspapers to report on cases happening in your town, educate yourself about your rights, and make sure your local judges understand that they work for you and are not to be extensions of the police, prosecutors and politicians.

This is the only way we will ever have any hope of pushing back against the police state.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Soul Glow's picture

Silver is a longterm trade.  The GSR will revalue once gold is over $2k, and that might not happen for a few months.  Gold is a wealth preserver.  Silver is the beta play.  The good news is both are money and in the long term will hold weight.

LieEnforcementOfficer's picture

His death couldnt have been written with better timing if it was on house of cards......

AldousHuxley's picture

Legacy of the best and the brightest of Supreme Court (which is not obvious that judges are politically appointed base on gender, race, etc.)

 

1. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857): Hands down the worst Supreme Court decision ever, Dred Scott held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves, could not be considered American citizens. The opinion even included a ridiculous "parade of horribles" that would appear if Scott were recognized as a citizen, unspeakable scenarios like African Americans being able to vacation, hold public meetings, and exercise their free speech rights.

2. Buck v. Bell (1927): the Court upheld the forced sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities "for the protection and health of the state." Justice Holmes ruled that "society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind" and ended the opinion by declaring that "three generations of imbeciles are enough."

3. Korematsu v. United States (1944): Here, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, finding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of American citizens. In a cruel and ironic twist, this was also the first time the Court applied strict scrutiny to racial discrimination by the U.S. government, belying the idea that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact."

4. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): The Court's famous "separate but equal" ruling upheld state segregation laws. In doing so, the Court made sure that the gains of the post-Civil War reconstruction era were quickly replaced by decades of Jim Crow laws.

 

6. Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): This decision upheld a discriminatory Georgia sodomy statute that criminalized sexually active gay and lesbian relationships. As Justice Harry Blackmun noted in his dissent, the majority opinion displayed "an almost obsessive focus on homosexual activity." Bowers was overruled in 2003 by Lawrence v. Texas, though unconstitutional anti-sodomy laws still exist in several states.

7. Lochner v. New York (1905): the Supreme Court struck down a state law limiting bakery work hours to 10 hours a day, finding an implicit "liberty of contract" in the Due Process Clause and giving birth to the Lochner era.

8. Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918): Here, the Court ruled that Congress could not ban child labor in intrastate commerce. Sure, Congress could legislate against gambling and other vices, but whether children were to be kept out of mines and factories was a question only states could decide.

9. Kelo v. City of New London (2005): Taking land from one private party to give it to another is a valid public use under the Takings Clause, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo. The decision allowed New London to condemn Susette Kelo's land and transfer it to a private developer as part of a "comprehensive redevelopment plan."

10. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission (1992): A developer purchased vacant lots on South Carolina beaches. The state prevented Lucas from building homes on the land. That, according to the Supreme Court, was a total destruction of all "economically viable use" and a per se taking. Not only are the case's factual conclusions implausible, but as UCLA Law professor Jonathan Zasloff notes, the opinion is full of "expressly and needlessly anti-environmental" views.

11. Bush v. Gore (2000): You don't have to be a Democrat to question the wisdom of this Supreme Court case. In a partisan split, the Supreme Court's five Republican appointees halted the recount of contested ballots in Florida, handing the election to George W. Bush. Even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has come to regret the ruling.

12. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker (2008): Want to send a message to corporate wrongdoers? Don't expect the Roberts Court to make it easy. Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill, one of the greatest environmental disasters of the time, and after years years of litigation, Exxon was finally held responsible for its negligent captain and hit with $5 billion in damages. Then the Supreme Court ruled that Exxon couldn't be subject to punitive damages in excess of compensatory ones, dropping total damages down from $5 billion to $500 million. Not only did Exxon evade billions in damages, the Supreme Court's ruling increased the value of its stock by $23 billion in two days. That was particularly a boon to Justice Alito, who chose to recuse himself from the case because he owned Exxon stock.

13. Citizens United v. FEC (2010): Perhaps the most hated decision from the Roberts Court, Citizens United held that political donations are speech protected by the First Amendment, opening the floodgates to unlimited personal and corporate donations to "super PACs." Though widely unpopular, the ruling isn't going away anytime soon. It would take a constitutional amendment or a new Supreme Court makeup to reverse the decision.

 

StateofFraud's picture

No Marbury v Madison?
No McCulloch v Maryland?

Fail. Repost at Daily Cos for warm fuzzies.

freakscene's picture

11. Bush v. Gore (2000): You don't have to be a Democrat to question the wisdom of this Supreme Court case. In a partisan split, the Supreme Court's five Republican appointees halted the recount of contested ballots in Florida, handing the election to George W. Bush. Even Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has come to regret the ruling.

 

history revision

 

before the 5-4 split the court voted 7-2 to stop the madness of vote creation via hanging chads and dangling participles and other mumbo jumbo nonsense

 

that was the decisive vote that upheld Bush as the certified winner of the State

 

starting at the 5-4 vote is partisan, and misleading

Rabbi Chaim Cohen's picture

If we look at what is between us and what the author refers to as our "march toward totalitarianism" we have a bump in the road and it has nothing to do with the SCrOTUS.

We may indeed be headed toward into rife martial tyranny, but I think all this work and $$ put toward dividing the nation, proves that America is being steered toward a trip through the fires of 2nd civil war along the way. That will set the stage for The Global State to subsequently "help us" pick up the pieces with a seemingly overwhelming mandate for complete individual disarmament and demand for blind civil compliance, all draped with the warm fuzzy mantle of an infeasable cultural unity. A new Constitution perhaps? Oh, and 24/7 news stories of several hundred thousand dead American patriots would help to quiet any dissent as well.

Yen Cross's picture

 Everything gets moved back to the lower courts until the Kenyan gets evicted.

Lynx Dogood's picture

The Republcrats will cave. Its about progressivism, that spans both parties. They are all communists... how do you not understand this lie????

Yen Cross's picture

     I see shades of purple.  After Rome fell[410B.C.] , someone picked up the pieces.

 It wasn't the Visigoths.

Durrmockracy's picture

Nobody is going to take your advice for anything.  Did you tell them about the time you got ripped off buying chocolate coins covered in gold colored foil?

Durrmockracy's picture

Awe yeah boyzzzz!  Angry Sinner Blog is in da house!~ 

Happy Days are here again!!

WordSmith2013's picture

Demand Letter Sent To Congress: “Who Killed Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia”

 

http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=31520

Durrmockracy's picture

and "you're" not Dogooder...

Rabbi Chaim Cohen's picture

Indeed, and it involves Global Governance, ala the EU.

Vendetta's picture

the agenda is fascism not socialism or progressivism  ... merger of corporate and government is the definition of it.

Lord Koos's picture

What you describe IS facism.

Lynx Dogood's picture

The rule of law in America has been dead for a while now, with the murder of Scalia. Off the charts.... If you have kids   Run for your lives, they will soon be government property and you will have no say............ The colective has spoken... Turn in our children now

Ms No's picture

That is just it, where is there to run?  This shit has gone global.  If you run to South America its a crap shoot at best.  They alphabets have death squads and organized crime all over those parts and they will be in collapse also.  Its actually is easier for them to kill you there than it is here. 

Mexico?  Oh shit, that will be Mad Max for sure, it already is.  Asia= fuqed, Central America= fuqed, Europe= super fuqud, Australia= will go Stalin for sure and they're fuqed too.  New Zealand= that's where the WASPS will be, they will probably burn you infront of an owl but that might be your best bet.  You could try to go tribal in the Amazon but white people don't do well there with the diseases.  Phillipines and Pacific islands= fuqed and trapped.  Africa= out of the fuqing question, don't be stupid.  I can't think of anywhere else right now. 

rickowens's picture

Quite a rant, you forgot Russia though ;)

Max Cynical's picture

Epic rant by Ken O'Keefe after the DHS prevented him from boarding a flight out of LAX earlier today. "...hopefully 2016 is the year we collectively say go fuck yourselves..."

https://youtu.be/GqPofDjY0og

zeronetwork's picture

There is no place left on this planet earth for american to run and hide. More restrictions are for leaving this country than coming in. No where in the world you can have a bank account or business as an american national. world hates american so much that even sitting in a pub in Venice, the moment you open your mouth as an american you will have a bloody nose. FEMA camp bitches.

Rehab Willie's picture

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of tyrants and patriots" 

 

 

 

Beowulf55's picture

Easy to qoute, but I doubt you will be the first on the front line.............

 

Answer this and I will join you: 

Are you ready to sacrific your life, family, and fortune for what you believe in?

DisasterCapitalist's picture

I agree that what you're discussing will happen due to resolving that question. But I think the question will resolve itself. As life, family, and fortune are directly threatened by the State (already in full swing), the reaction by free Men will simply Happen.

Ms No's picture

This Red team/Blue team fight over appointing a judge is really reminiscent of the state and feds fighting over their percentage of proceeds from civil asset forfeiture.  Which is reminiscent of the two wolves and a lamb fighting over what to have for dinner. 

I feel sorry the people who are unaware of just how completely screwed we are right now, which is almost everybody.

zeronetwork's picture

Getting screwed seems to be the way of life here.

Vendetta's picture

yep, two friends of mine .. both perceive themselves as being strongly conservative/libertarian have completely opposite views of scalias passing.... it just showed me how bent people's views have been through propaganda.  Alito and Roberts are primarily 'federalists' regarding business or government .. gave us 'citizens' united' and unlimited money flowing into the political system.  Whether the next is a obomination pick or the next successor, he or she will also be a federalist awarding more power to corporate interests and rubber stamp TPP and other atrocities even though these agreements are all in violation of the US Constitution

Chupacabra-322's picture

"They no longer work for us. They no longer represent us. They can no longer relate to our suffering."

Worth repeating. Now, grab the Ammo Box.

BuckShotJones's picture

I would suggest everyone read Scalia's dissent on OBERGEFELL

A small taste:

"And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation."

"A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy."

"With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them (via state legislatures) —with each decision that is unabashedly based not on law, but on the “reasoned judgment” of a bare majority of this Court—we move one step closer to being reminded of our impotence." ( by the states ignoring the decisions of the Supreme Court)

Boing_Snap's picture

 

The Federal Supreme Court has scope over those that call themselves citizens, people whom abide by the Statutory side of the Law, this is not what Common Law [wo]men are. The Constitution was devised for average people whom knew the difference, it is useful to those that can remain in Common law jurisdiction. All things Federal were created by Statute, the Federal Supreme court was created to pass judgement on the what is in essence the employee manual for Federal corporate citizens.

The modern education and Courts have removed the access to Common law and people merely accept a status as employees of the Federal/State government. There is a confusion that arises in people, we instinctively know that the government are our employees, but the system is set up to make you accept the status as one of the employees. Now most people will be perplexed with what that last sentence just stated, most will be indignant and they should be, however true Freedom in the US was given to Common Law [wo]men if they we able understand how to obtain it and keep it. That Freedom has been slowly made all but unobtainable.

The Common Law side of the courts is still accessible and will only be recognized in the higher courts at the State level, and with judges that have a higher knowledge of Law in the lower courts, few and far between today.

Common law doesn't require judges to decide for us, our Court gives the orders as well as the other side. The first thing you do when going to Court, suspend the judge from making any determinations, keep the judge in their proper place as a neutral observer that keeps the two parties working towards remedy.

See how that's done by listening to this Introduction from a man who is having success applying Common Law as it should be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkkECkt2gY8

 

zeronetwork's picture

""A system of government that makes the People subordinate to a committee of nine unelected lawyers does not deserve to be called a democracy.""

 

Oh my god, no wonder he got his head under the pillow.

sleigher's picture

I would suggest that those excerpts are a good indicator of why he is dead.  Nevermind the following

"“The grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually

assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It ” ‘is a constitutional fixture in its own 

right. In fact the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional government, serving as a

kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people”. — Justice Antonin Scalia"

Chupacabra-322's picture

"Roberts’ approach to matters of law and justice can best be understood by a case dating back to his years on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The case involved a 12-year-old black girl who was handcuffed, searched and arrested by police—all for eating a single French fry in violation of a ban on food in the D.C. metro station. Despite Roberts’ ability to recognize the harshness of the treatment meted out to Ansche Hedgepeth for such a minor violation—the little girl was transported in the windowless rear compartment of a police vehicle to a juvenile processing center, where she was booked, fingerprinted, and detained for three hours, and was “frightened, embarrassed, and crying throughout the ordeal”—Roberts ruled that the girl’s constitutional rights had not been violated in any way."

Welcome the Fascist Totalitarian Authoritarian Surveilled Militarized Police State.

MalteseFalcon's picture

I'll speculate here. 

The treatment meted out to the black girl was not due to the consumption of a single french fry.

It was due to her conduct after being reminded of the Metro's policy regarding the consumption of food on the premises.

Government needs you to pay taxes's picture

I had a DC Metro food experience once.  My sibling was eating a banana and some fuckwad comes up and starts jawboning on that 'no-food' rule. SOOOO glad I dont use the Metro anymore.  SOOOO glad I left NYC.  Here in SC, nobody starts verbal shit.  Know why?  Cuz we're all 'pieced-up'.  It's very polite and respectful.  The thugcops round here are a little jumpy, though. . .

MalteseFalcon's picture

I can understand your wanting to leave DC or NYC.  They are hellholes.

But if you think you can't get abused by officials in Sc or elsewhere, you are kidding yourself.

As for your sibling and the banana, why didn't your sibling follow the rules?

Abaco's picture

If your speculation is true it doesn't change the flaw in Roberts' thinking. The question at hand is not whether the gir's rights were violated. The question is whether the government exceeded it's authority. Roberts' head would undountedly explode before he would consider ay limit opn government authority.

MalteseFalcon's picture

So the girl is eating in the Metro in violation of the rule. 

She is asked to obey the rule.

She refuses and perhaps "acts out".

Why?

And then what?

Security shrugs their shoulders and walk away?

Abaco's picture

Never occurred to the fucktard Roberts that such a treatment of a 12 year old girl, with no identifiable crime victim, constituteds unreasonable seizure.  Robert's is a trained hamster with all the imagination of a goldfish. The moron actually stated that his responsibility was to find a way to interpret any federal statute as consitutional if at all possible. None of the greatest legal minds in the country batted an eye at that so brainwashed aare they.  Imagine walking into a court where the judge states that it is his job to find for the plaintiff if at all possible. No one would think that fair.

Golden Showers's picture

Perhaps it's time to set up a parallel institution of .Gov

The People's Gov. Comprised of a Congress, a Senate, a Supreme Court and a titular Exeucative head. (Sounds exciting I know, that's what Bill Clinton thought the Oval Office was for, right?). But really. No need to reinvent the wheel on this. No reason to go all violent (what they want). People could just sort of model the institution that is not working for the People and begin operations.

There's still a few landed gentry folks around who dig this. Just start a new America. Like LARPING. LARP military/militia. LARP Senate, Treasury, Congress, President and Supreme Court.

It's damn near a corporate model anyhow. I didn't make it up. How does the most recent incarnation of Blackwater opperate? "Oh, well, we train mercenaries to go and, you know, kill people, for profit... I mean, time to set up the America that we want. Internet is the perfect technology for this. A parallel institution (or two or twenty of same) is the beginning of saying "we don't need you".

As fast as things are going, when the average, ahem, fucking dipshit has no cash or freedom, well, Uber this mother fucker. You need a lift? With as much energy going into getting pissed off about things, people could set up a model system and... and... keep on fight!

NoPension's picture

WE can call it " The Constitutional Congress ". But the King will be mighty pissed.

Cloud9.5's picture

The oligarchs will be pissed.

inosent's picture

i like seeing posts that give constructive proposals for action. i like the idea of an American insurgency to displace the current regime. after all, the jerkoffs who 'control' the board rely on millions of Americans to do their grunt work. I say we are free not to be enslaved to a system we dont want, and have the freedom to come up with, like you suggest, a parallel system. the effect would be the same a secession, but it would be like an undetected virus in the 'system' that slowly begins to kill it, until it is too late to detect.

Sanity Bear's picture

 It was always a mistake for people to rely on a government body like the Supreme Court to limit government power.

 

All the incentives go in the other direction - the more power they allow government to have, the more power they themselves wield.

 

Better to look to state governments to break the federal stranglehold, they're the ones whose powers are stripped away by each federal overreach. They're also a lot easier for regular citizens to influence; I've talked many times to state reps and even a few times with statewide elected officials. In contrast, the few times I have attempted to communicate with federal representatives I've been treated with contempt where I haven't been ignored completely.

 

The one time I attempted to talk to one of my own US Senators, I was rebuffed; I wasn't allowed to see him. Instead I got to talk to an assistant-to-an-assistant, whose first question to me was "What group are you with?" When I said I wasn't with any group, from that moment on she took an attitude of humoring me until I left, and that was the last I heard from them despite many attempts to follow up. And this was one of the less corrupt Senators, which was the only reason I bothered to try at all.

 

 

Ms No's picture

Sounds about right.  All of those lobbyists took your access.  They often use homeless people as their place holders in DC I guess.  So the slimeballs don't even wait in line.

conraddobler's picture

Buried in your story was the real nugget in there.

They were pandering for votes and once they figured out you were only one vote they dismissed you but for an amendment they would have cared even less because you couldn't even vote for him.

That's the way it was setup.