Goodwin Liu, a federal appeals court nominee of the Obama Administration, has been in the Senate’s spotlight, and the ensuing Senatorial rants by members of the Republican Party have underlined one of the ultimate hypocrisies in modern politics:  while preaching from the pulpit of anti-intellectualism, they claim to support Constitutionalist courts, as do most modern Republicans.  This, however, is a laughable lie.

An important point to understand is this bias of anti-intellectualism, which, for some reason, assumes that smart, educated, intellectually curious individuals are somehow an anathema to the world.  While there may be arguments that certain types or subdivisions of intellectuals are not fit for politics, such as lifelong academics or researchers of an esoteric field, this is obviously not an across-the-board truth.   Intelligent people should be revered for either their innate brilliance or the intense dedication to the discovery of information, not to mention their areas of expertise, as they have been throughout humanity’s history – there would be no modern world without any of the most archaic of thinkers and intelligista, even were they considered to be elite.  This is the sad truth of the generations currently in power that have devalued education and failed, massively, to do their basic duty of preparing the world for those following after them.

Anti-intellectualism, however, is but a prelude to the larger Republican lie:  Constitutionalist courts.  The basic premise of Constitutionalist courts is that the singular role of the courts in America, at any level, is to enforce a strict interpretation of both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in their original incarnations, entirely ignorant of recent events, rulings, people, technology, or anything else that should be so obviously relevant.  Their core intention is, perhaps, admirable, since the courts do not, or should not, make law, and should only be interpreting it within the realms of other laws, with an eye on precedent – but their fundamentalist viewpoint of this issue leads them astray.

When a document is to be strictly interpreted, as if it was supremely perfect at the time of its creation, there is an immediate and obvious disconnect between its intent, imperfection, and age and the modern era, but, more importantly, it often leads to fights over sociopolitical progress, since those who wrote documents such as the Constitution simply could not foresee the very different future that was approaching – slavery, women’s rights, and certain types of federal regulation have all fallen prey to this blinder-based viewpoint.  No matter the issue at hand, Constitutionalist courts are simply a nonviable approach, and yet Republicans nationwide insist that they not only support this type of a judiciary, but also participate in furthering such an agenda.  The irony, however, is that these very same individuals applaud the overturning of precedent, and, ultimately, conservative activism while preaching about those “outrageous” liberals.

The most damning evidence on this count is the recent Supreme Court case that chose not to address the issue at hand, but instead a much larger and more entangled issue that was only tangentially related, resulting in the overturning of hundreds of years of legal precedent for campaign finance law – the impending inevitability of catastrophic corporate-politics yet to be truly seen.  Almost all Congressional Republicans applauded this decision, with some were even in attendance, claiming that this was a strike against the federal government and their supposed overbearing powers.  What happened to Constitutionalism, since there is no mention of corporations as a part of Free Speech, the very excuse used for this ruling?  The Supreme Court ruled on a very obvious Republican-Democrat dividing line, leaving many to ask whether openly biased conservatives such as Scalia or Roberts are capable of separating personal politics from the rule of law – one of the basic requirements to be a non-activist judge.

With the never-ending conservative dissent on abortion rights, federal regulation, the new healthcare laws, religion-tainted public education, and various other issues, it seems likely that another mammoth case will reach the Supreme Court within the near future that will, once again, prove that Republicans are far more activist than Democrats.  Even if the evidence shows that Democrats are typically more judicially activist than their Republican counterparts, then there is an important distinction:  Democratic judges, much like their legislative counterparts, often stand for progress and the rule of law, whereas Republicans have been in favor, as have conservatives have since prior to the foundation of the nation, of the status quo, the subjugation of people unlike them, and a very obvious, questionably seditious anti-federal government bias.  Worryingly, the Supreme Court is about to become even more conservative, following the most conservative Court since FDR, with the loss of the accidentally-liberal powerhouse found in John Paul Stevens.

It is incumbent upon the Republican members of Congress who do not share this ludicrous view to make clear the hypocrisy of their colleagues, along with Democrats, pundits, and mainstream media who truly care about the future of the United States of America.  If the Senate, and personal politics, continues to influence the courts in a clear slide downward to the right, the very freedoms and stability of America may come into question, as each piece of federal legislation is judged inside a conservative court that is most definitively non-Constitutionalist.  Judicial Republicans, meet your old friend hypocrisy.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, on Facebook, via email, or on Twitter.

Last week, the United States Supreme Court made a decision, on a 5-4 vote, that corporations are entities with corporate personhood, and, as such, are allowed the rights of Free Speech.  This essentially reverses decades, if not a century, of precedence that understood fictional creations do not have even a close resemblance to people, and do not deserve the same freedoms, rights, and considerations.  However, the ideological, and tangentially financial, interests of a bitterly divided Court are apparently more important than the structure and sanity of the nation or its people.  Corporations are now permitted to essentially spend their funds, in a political context, as they see fit – inevitably leading to even greater corruption than already exists within the American government.

It should come as no surprise that the current Court, a body of nine individuals, holds six members that were appointed by a Republican President, and all but one of them voted in favor of this decision.  Republicans have, in the last three decades, lauded the ideals of Big Business, the free market, and deregulation, and this ruling is nothing less than a major victory for their party’s ideology and financial backers.  As evidenced by the last year of political nonsense, the process of passing legislation within America is nothing less than selling out to the highest bidder, and, since Republicans consider Big Business to be their greatest supporter, they have sold out at an even greater cost than ever before:  the ultimate vitality and stability of the nation.

Much has been said about how this is going to destroy American politics, especially by President Obama and the ever-bold Representative Alan Grayson, as nearly every thinking citizen realizes that allowing oil companies, Wall Street, the insurance cartel, and other corporate interests with large bank accounts the ability to influence politicians, or those voting politicians into office, will lead to nothing but utter disaster – there was a reason why corporate interests were divested from the political process in the first place.  Even those Republicans/conservatives without a political career understand what a terrible moment for Democracy this decision is.  Healthcare legislation has been difficult enough to pass without the direct intervention of the very industry that wants so desperately for it fail, but what will happen when they are allowed an even greater influence?

It is sad, disappointing, and, above all, embarrassing that the Republicans of the Supreme Court would place party interests over intelligent decisions on cases, essentially eschewing the very job they are paid to do.  Even more worrisome, however, is that these Justices are of the very same party that shouted in self-righteous anger, during the Justice Sotomayor confirmation process, about using the Court to make policy and allowing personal politics to become embroiled in the judicial process – a deeply ironic moment for the Republican party.  One of the prevailing rules of the American judicial system is that precedent counts heavily in case decisions, with the weight increasing relative to its age and strength, but this no longer seems to matter.  The case that resulted in the outrageous decision to allow corporate personhood was not one that was brought to the Supreme Court for this purpose, but rather was reformed for this purpose to allow a bully pulpit for the conservative Justices to shape American politics through their substantial influence that is entirely independent of an election process or term limits.  If ever there was an example of using the Court to make policy, placing personal politics before the judicial process, and abusing power, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is it.

If Congress has become so corrupt and politically divided as to become almost impotent, and the Supreme Court is willing to overturn laws, regulation, and precedent at ideological whims, who is left to defend the people of the United States of America?  In a three-tiered government meant to produce the best possible outcome, not the worst, only the President is left to stand up for what is right, ethical, and noble.  But while the Office of the President has gained power since the foundation of the nation, President Obama can only produce so much either by himself or through sheer political strength of will.  He has many grand ideas based on what has historically produced the best results, such as industry regulation, and the successful policy decisions of other nations, such as a progressive overhaul of healthcare; however, none of this can be accomplished on his own, or by any lone President, because of the very structure of America’s government.

This dire political state will only further collapse if corporate interests and personal greed are continued to allow free reign within the political system of the United States.  For a great nation that has accomplished so much and influenced the world in such a large and beneficial fashion, the devolution into a non-functioning Democratic Republic that does not represent its people has apparently arrived to the great sadness of thinking persons worldwide.

From Kyle Brady…

Kyle can be found on his blog, via email, or on Twitter.