The Hostile Takeover Of Our Court System
Category: Gaming The System
David Sirota reminds us why the little guy is losing, losing, losing in our court system. Excerpts from his latest article in the Huffington Post:
It's easy to forget what Supreme Court nomination fights really mean once they are over.
What gets buried in this cycle, of course, is the fact that the Supreme Court exerts itself most forcefully on the key financial and corporate power issues - the issues that engineer who are winners and who are losers in America's economy.
That's why Big Business took such an interest in Supreme Court nominations, directly coordinating with the White House to vet potential nominees. That's why Corporate America salivated when Bush nominated Roberts - Big Money's "go-to lawyer," according to his associates. That's why wealthy executives cheered when Bush later nominated Sam Alito, the guy Businessweek noted "consistently has come down on the side of limiting corporate liability, limiting employee rights, and limiting federal regulation." And sadly, that's why the confirmation hearings carefully avoided serious discussion about the economic issues. It's all because Big Business and their bought-off politicians understand the advantage they get by infiltrating the inside of the court with their vermin. They understand, in short, the private profit potential of performing a hostile takeover of America's court system.
The result is that the Court is becoming even more complicit in helping Big Money interests transform the legal system into the sharp, poisoned-tipped arrowhead of Big Business's profit spear - rather than a shield protecting America's citizens. This has come into especially stark relief over the last few weeks.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Hostile Takeover Of Our Court System:
» Punitives and the Supreme Court from TortsProf Blog
David Sirota has this piece about the importance of Supreme Court nominees outside the hot-button social issues, in particular in the context of the Williams cert grant. He doesn't note that Scalia and Thomas dissented in State Farm, which is [Read More]
Tracked on June 1, 2006 09:36 AM