The groundwork was set for the inevitable and predictable anti-U.S. Constitution decisions the minute Samuel Alito procured his lifetime appointment on the U.S. Supreme Court on January 31, 2006. G. W. Bush stated, "Sam Alito is a brilliant and fair-minded judge who strictly interprets the Constitution and laws and does not legislate from the bench. He is a man of deep character and integrity, and he will make all Americans proud as a justice on our highest court."
Alito’s 58-42 confirmation, one of the lowest approvals ever for a Supreme Court justice, now rounds out Bush’s much sought-after activist, partisan phalanx of Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia (RATS) court who are now fulfilling each and every one of his and the corporate profiteers’ desires. Recent decisions, as well as those previously ruled on by his colleague-in-arms, Chief Justice John Roberts, foretold the direction in which this court was inexorably headed. And, predictably, they have decided cases exactly as Bush and his right wing activists intended -- narrow-minded, tunnel-vision interpretations, legislated straight from the bench under the direction and aegis of the executive branch.
The U. S. Supreme Court in 2007 has become the equivalent of the Star Chamber of King Henry VIII which was employed as a political weapon for bringing actions against opponents to the policies of the King, in this case G. W. Bush. Like the Star Chamber which bypassed the lower courts of Henry VIII‘s realm, the Bush Vs. Gore case in 2000 also went quickly to the William Rehnquist-led U.S. Supreme Court, installing Bush in the White House via a 5-4 judicial fiat.
The Bush crowd, now with all their ducks in place, is demonstrating their utter contempt and hostility towards individual freedoms and liberties, working to bypass the lower courts, confident that those whom they appointed to the highest court will do their bidding by denying the congressional subpoenas requesting them to answer to the people, requests which they have derisively rejected.
A key to the incredibly sophomoric legal opinions and a precursor to the recent assaults against the citizens of the United States were demonstrated by Chief Justice John Roberts early in his lifetime-appointed Supreme Court tenure. The case before the U.S. Supreme Court, Georgia v. Randolph, in a March 22, 2006 decision in which Samuel Alito did not participate, the divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the police cannot enter a home and seize evidence without a warrant when one occupant agreed to the search after the other occupant refused permission. By a 5-3 vote, the high court said the husband's refusal in a case from Georgia was clear, making the search unreasonable and invalid under the Fourth Amendment protection of privacy rights, despite his wife's approval for it. But here’s the pièce de résistance issued by Roberts where he dissented from the majority opinion: “What the majority rule protects is not so much privacy as the good luck of a co-owner who just happens to be present at the door when the police arrive.”
So, for Chief Justice Roberts, whose subsequent opinion regarding a citizen’s Fourth Amendment protections, reveals his preordained mind-set, it’s just a matter of luck as to who answers the door when law enforcement officers come-a-knockin‘.
For those who wish to see the equally absurd, almost comical jurisprudence and logic of Clarence Thomas who joined Roberts in his opinion during the same case, Georgia v. Randolph, read his dissent. In effect, Clarence Thomas goes so far to say this isn’t even a case of Fourth Amendment protections. Rather, as his fractured thinking surmises, it’s perfectly O.K. if an individual harbors a grudge against another person and simply walks up to a policeman and accuses them of possessing drugs. That’s reason enough, concludes Thomas, for the accused person’s home to be invaded, searched and their personal property seized.
But having this pre-determined antithesis for individual Constitutional protections and liberties, John Roberts exacted his revenge on his liberal colleagues once Samuel Alito completed the pro-Bush administration’s RATS Supreme Court entourage.
In Hudson v. Michigan decided on June 15, 2006, Roberts, joined by Alito, Thomas, Scalia (RATS) + one so-called swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, ruled that police may bust into your home without a warning or a court-ordered warrant, search your home and seize your personal belongings. The decision has been referred to as the “No Knock” rule. Now, thanks to the RATS court, Bush can order his police state goons and thugs to arrest, search, seize and confine anyone without reasonable cause or court-obtained search warrant.
According to a June 16, 2006 Washington Post story, “Before yesterday's [June 15] decision, police executing a search warrant in most jurisdictions had to worry that they might lose a case if they did not first knock on the door, announce themselves and wait a reasonable time for a response before forcing their way in. Now, unless state law says otherwise, the most they would face is administrative discipline or a lawsuit for damages.
Civil liberties groups and defense lawyers had argued to the court that those deterrents are far too weak to enforce the "knock and announce" rule, which, they argued, is often all that stands between an innocent citizen and an errant SWAT team.”
These and other earlier decisions, many of which favored large corporate business interests over citizens’ rights, health and safety, emboldened the Bush administration to put their fully-empowered RATS court, which has now become an extension and an arm of the executive branch, into pursuing aggressive assaults against the United States citizens’ once-inalienable rights and liberties contained in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
In Morse v. Frederick, better known as “Bong hits for Jesus” the RATS court decided that free speech must take a back seat to the indignation and sensitivities of school administrators, ruling that one of the student perpetrators, Frederick, who unfurled the sign, was promoting drugs. Mostly Ignored in the decision was the mitigating fact that both Frederick and the administrator, Morse, were involved in a personal, ongoing feud. But, the case, pursued by Bill Clinton inquisitor and prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, who gained notoriety for his smut-filled impeachment report, was supported by the Bush administration to test the limits of free speech. This ruling will affect future battles between free speech advocates and the attempts at repressing free speech by G. W. Bush (and other power-crazed autocrats) and his totally politicized Justice Department which is stacked with Bush loyalists.
The Ninth Circuit Court “found a First Amendment violation by the school administrators because the school punished Frederick without demonstrating that his speech threatened substantial disruption.”
The RATS court found otherwise and ruled against Frederick, sending a chilling message to all who dare to voice their views publicly, whether with banners or other forms of speech which only the government, much in the same manner that G. W. Bush has the authority to decide who he alone identifies as an enemy combatant, gets to make the call. This precedent-setting ruling now stands on the books as the law of the land. It is eerily reminiscent of the declaration made by former Bush press secretary, Ari Fleischer, who, in the aftermath of 9/11 warned administration critics, “You better watch what you say and you better watch what you do.”
Now, we know, a banner proclaiming “Bong hits for Jesus,” according to the RATS court ruling, does indeed cause “substantial disruption.” Oh yes, we can see how people rioted in the streets, burned cars and caused total mayhem -- all because of an innocuous sign! Does it make you wonder though if, for example, a person held up a sign that said, “Miller Lite for Jesus” that would constitute a substantial disruption? Which of the two drugs, alcohol or marijuana, is most likely to cause aggressive behavior? But, of course, I should’ve known, the RATS court would never do anything to disrupt the liquor lobby by taking a case that might cut into their bottom line!
As the RATS court juggernaut kept rolling over what they perceive the Founding Fathers intended, they decided to continue chipping away at the First Amendment Establishment Clause by specifically endorsing and embracing religion and a government-sponsored program to the exclusion of secular ones, ruling that Bush’s Office of Faith-based and Community Services must be supported by taxpayers’ money.
Both Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have publicly stated that they are “originalists,” meaning that, they among the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court, know unequivocally what the Founding Fathers meant to say when they penned the U.S. Constitution. This is a moot argument because no citizen or legal scholar can challenge that position since Scalia and Thomas have secure, lifetime appointments and do not need to answer or explain themselves to anyone. Once again, via a 5-4 decision by the RATS court plus one so-called swing vote, Anthony Kennedy, mandating public funds for religious institutions supported predominantly by Christian organizations, has become the unassailable law of the land.
In a Media Transparency story Bill Berkowitz reported, “David Kuo, the former second-in-command of the White House Office faith-based organizations to help the poor, published a book titled "Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction," which provided an insiders look at how the Bush White House politicized the initiative, sometimes rejecting applications for federal faith-based funds because they came from non-Christian applicants, mocked leaders of the Christian Right, and betrayed the very essence of the faith-based initiative's charge to help the poor.”
Also, Bush’s crusade to promote “healthy marriage” includes such controversial figures as the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Korean evangelist, whose Unification Church has been on the federal payroll receiving government grants.
So, in spite of Bush’s RATS court legalese mumbo-jumbo, their sole purpose in taking this case was to set the groundwork for tearing apart, not only freedom of speech, but to advance the Religious Right’s oft-repeated contention that the separation between religion and state is a myth.
Clearly, with tax-exempt status for religious institutions firmly embedded in our tax laws the RATS court has now mandated that all American taxpayers must pony up countless and unaccountable millions of dollars to fund, promote and intertwine religion and government, the goal of which is a punitive-minded theocracy that will rule over America.
In a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, diverse, pluralistic society America in the past has always respected the tenets of our U.S. Constitutional laws and protected the rights, freedoms and liberties of all -- until the Bush administration took over via the insidious, partisan, activist, right wing ideologues on the U.S. Supreme Court who installed Bush in the White House in December 2000 via a 5-4 judicial fiat.
Terry Randall, former head of Operation Rescue, underscored that intent forcefully when he stated, “I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you... I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty; we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."
Terry Randall’s message was punctuated emphatically by the current RATS court plus one so-called swing vote, Anthony Kennedy. Their recent spate of anti-U.S. Constitution rulings came about because our U.S. courts, our U.S. Department of Justice and most of our legislators in the U.S. Congress have become handmaidens to the avarice of the corrupt, corporate profiteers whose figurehead and chief CEO, G. W. Bush, was elevated to a kingly throne, installed by five, unelected, lifetime appointees who have now devolved into nothing more than factotums of the corporate plutocracy.
In approximately 600 days G. W. Bush will leave office with the legacy as the most failed presidency in our nation’s history. Nothing will change that. Unfortunately, the detritus left behind in Bush’s RATS court will affect our nation for decades -- unless of course, the people elect legislators who have the courage and fortitude to put the reins on this breathtaking, unbridled judicial arrogance which is moving ever closer to destroying what’s left of our democracy.
Richard A. Stitt
