The Supreme Court And Democracy: Clear And Present Danger! :(

The conservative Supreme Court has done an excellent job in the past decade of undermining democracy and a fair playing field, as shown by two specific situations among others!

First, in the year 2000, in Bush V. Gore, the Republican dominated Supreme Court intervened where they had no business interfering, by deciding to settle the contested Presidential Election of 2000 by stopping the vote recount in Florida, and awarding the electoral votes of that state to George W. Bush over Al Gore, despite the fact that Gore had a national popular vote lead of 540,000! For a Court that claimed to believe in limited federal power and strict interpretation of the Constitution, they claimed the right to decide a presidential election, an arrogant and revolutionary grab of power, which by precedent now, could be utilized again in the future if a presidential election is close! 🙁

Then in January of this year, in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court decided to overcome nearly a century of laws that prevented corporate intervention in national election campaigns, as destroying a level playing field in politics! They decided that special interest groups should have no limit on campaign spending to manipulate elections in their favor!

Both cases helped to promote the Republican cause, instead of the Court acting as a neutral arbiter! And now the news comes that an estimated $400 million will be spent by corporate groups to affect the midterm Congressional elections, as corporations work to prevent regulation and taxation, and bring about a Republican Congress favorable to them! 🙁

If this manipulation of politics, that the Supreme Court has been engaged in promoting, is not somehow overcome by legislation, the likelihood is that Congress, and also the Presidency, may become a permanent GOP majority that will continue to promote the rich and the powerful, and set out to destroy the reform legislation and regulatory laws put into place under Democratic administrations and Congresses since the 1930s!

This country could revert to the Gilded Age and 1920s mentality, and negate the Progressive Era, New Deal, Great Society, and the Obama reforms of the past year and a half! 🙁

This country could potentially become a nation that destroys Social Security, Medicare, and programs that benefit average Americans! As ordinary Americans come to realize that the rich elite are exploiting them and undermining much that has been done to promote equality and opportunity and fairness, the danger of bloodshed and violence and civil war based on economics increases, and destroys the American dream that has sustained us as America has become a better place for all of us! 🙁

4 comments on “The Supreme Court And Democracy: Clear And Present Danger! :(

  1. Michael August 28, 2010 4:33 am

    Actually Gore lost regardless of whether or not the senate picked.
    He had less electoral votes. Even after all was said and done it was proven he lost.

    And on part of the supreme court they are the least “political” out of all the branches and houses.
    The Supreme court has Overturned cases for the republicans as well as the democrats.
    They interpret the constitution as they see fit and how it’s vagueness relates to today’s society.
    Whether or not one party agrees or disagrees it is not up to the party’s to decide what is wrong or right.

    Let’s not play the blame game please. We have had Democratic parties in control that didn’t do so well as much as the Republicans.
    Moderation is where this goverment needs to be.

  2. Ronald August 28, 2010 7:38 am

    Many studies of the Election of 2000 demonstrate that Gore won the state of Florida, but that the Supreme Court interfered with the result, and took the unprecedented action of deciding an election, a radical action which sets the precedent of future Supreme Courts overruling the people in a close election! Gore had fewer electoral votes only because of their intervention, but had a larger popular vote lead than the other three candidates in past presidential election history who won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote and the election–Andrew Jackson, Samuel Tilden, Grover Cleveland. Realize that he had a 540,000 vote lead, a tremendous edge, larger than many winners of presidential elections in the past! If the vote count had continued in Florida, Gore would have won the state of Florida in the electoral vote and won the election with 292 electoral votes!

  3. Jon August 29, 2010 6:14 pm

    The Supreme Court along with every other branch of federal government has grown in size, authority and scope of power over the years. The Bush v Gore case of 2000 is a prime example. However, I believe the author makes the correct opinion that the court overstepped its constitutional and legal authority. The Supreme Court can only intervene itself in a case when there exists a conflict between states or two federal courts – ie two separate conflicting decisions on the same federal issue. The Supreme Court can also intervene when there is federal or state law that contradicts the federal constitution. Judicial review gives the court the power to interpret the constitution and federal laws that are passed.
    Bush v Gore did not require supreme court interference. In fact, no court should have involved itself in the matter. Involving courts in political matters without the existence of a law to interpret regarding the political matter allows justices to involve their personal biases and opinions in their decision. This is exactly what happened in Bush v Gore. Hopefully, if this issue was to arise again, the federal judiciary would restrain itself. However, history shows that federal agencies rarely give up power they have acquired – no matter if they are comprised of Republicans or Democrats.
    Regarding the other case – Citizen United – I have to respectfully disagree with the opinion of the author. The decision does not allow corporations, unions and other business entities the ability to donate money to candidates with no limitations. The decision allows corporations and unions to voice their own opinions with their own money. They are allowed to run pro or anti media campaigns against a candidate or issue, as long as the money is not given to the candidate or issue as a contribution.
    Corporations and unions are affected by laws and regulations and therefore, just as individuals can, they should be allowed to voice their opinions and views on an issue. However, there ought to be restraints in place. For example, the advertisements, should inform the viewer who is sponsoring the particular ad. Furthermore, there should be laws that restrict against un-truthful advertisement and harsh repercussions for firms that violate this. Publicly traded corporations should also seek shareholder opinions before engaging in political advertisement. This precautions should limit corporate political advertisement.
    I would also argue that this new decision will not resort our society back to the gilded age of big business. One can look at the example of what happened to Target recently and the negative repercussions and media attention this company has received for utilizing this new right identified by the Supreme Court. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/13/nation/la-na-target-gays-20100813 Also, it is the job of an informed media and an intelligent citizenry to call out corporations and unions that utilize their new right in an inappropriate manner.
    Yes, our Supreme Court has overstepped its authority in the past and will continue to do so in the future. However, the true threat of federal usurpation of power comes not from the Judiciary, but from the Executive and Legislative branches. The power of these branches has enlarged far more than the Judiciary and will do so no matter what political party is in charge. As history has shown, as our country becomes larger and grows in size and power our federal government follows suit.

  4. Michael August 29, 2010 10:00 pm

    I understand the fact that the Supreme Court might have overstepped it’s actual power. Electoral votes in the electoral college are what win presidential races, not popular votes.
    Popular votes shouldn’t be really taken seriously considering over half of the people voting probably don’t even realize what exactly they are voting for in a candidate. Some might have even voted just on candidates party status.
    So yes, Al Gore might have had more popular votes but it is still unsure how that might have stood in the electoral college.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.