President Declares War on Supreme Court; Pictures at Eleven

In the annals of hypocrisy, a prominent place has to be given to the indignation on the part of Democrats as to the recent Supreme Court decision having to do with who, or what, is allowed to donate money to political campaigns. To hear them talk, you would think that the fate of the nation had been turned over – lock, stock, and barrel – to massive, faceless multinational corporations. Well, to begin with, my theory is that the fate of the nation already _is_ in the hands of massive, faceless multinational corporations and other related entities. But whether that's true or not, the notion of Democrats objecting to corporate largesse is a bit absurd, since – as we all know by now – the rich donate at least as much money to the Democrats as to the Republicans, if not more. The Democrats are, as I have explained numerous times, the party of the rich and the poor... and it is primarily the contributions of the modestly-endowed that keep the Republicans afloat -- you know, those so-called "values voters" who see the country they grew up in slipping away into dystopian oblivion. And if you want to talk about the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party, the situation is even more so; I doubt if one rich, or "culturally poor" person has even donated to either one. Corporate America – and, by extension, the corporate world – has, after the early years of struggle, cast its lot with the collectivists for the simple reason that, under socialism, their bottom line is more enhanced that it would be under a decentralized, laissez-faire system. Call this the moral corruption of capitalism, if you like... or the death of true capitalism. The fact remains that the government is a bigger spender than any individual, or any conglomeration of individuals... and the charms of true competition have long since been traded in for the corporate security blanket that government provides -- as vividly illustrated by the recent and ongoing "bailouts". There was a point – and I can't say precisely when it was, but I suspect somewhere in the vicinity of World War II – when the balance shifted from the marketplace to the public trough when it came to the expected source of wealth for big business... not that the marketplace is not still a factor for the “little guys” -- you know, the small businesses that are in the process of being taxed out of existence. See, I don't think the choice between Wal-Mart and, say, Sears, or Target, is a real one, any more than the choice between Chrysler and GM, or between Microsoft and Apple. They are all heads of the same hydra. My idea of competition, and a free market, is the small, independent bookseller vs. Barnes & Noble... or the local coffee shop vs. Starbucks. And I suppose that even among large businesses there are some vestigial remnants of competition where the government doesn't yet have the upper hand; pizza and fast food companies come to mind, for instance. And as for the “competitive bidding” among defense contractors – well! That's about as genuine as professional wrestling. One outfit gets one contract, the other gets another, but all prosper and all stay in business, because, basically, their contracts, and their favored status with the government, are the biggest and longest-running pork barrel in history. And all – please note – donate generously to political campaigns, especially to the Democrats, because, as everyone knows, the road to socialism is the road to prosperity – for the few, that is.

But I suppose that, for all this, the Democrats feel they still have to, from time to time, make noises and mouth words consistent with the myth that they are still “the party of the people”, and the Republicans are “the party of big business”. It's all too pathetic, really. Here, for instance, are Senators Charles Schumer and Chris Van Hollen proposing “a bill that would ban political ads by corporations that have as little as 20 percent foreign ownership”. Heck, that would prevent both the Democratic Party and the Republican party from political advertising! The bottom line is, what difference does it make whether the powers that be are involved in resourcing political campaigns openly or under the table – the outcome is the same. And, since both major parties are firmly in the pockets of the corporations, the outcome remains the same regardless of who wins any given election. But again, in the war of ideas – assuming it isn't already over and done with – it's appearances, and propaganda, that count, not the reality.

But that's not even the most interesting aspect of this controversy. That would be the open challenge delivered by President Obama to a captive audience of Supreme Court justices during his State of the Union address, in which he said, “With all due deference to separation of powers, (the court) reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections." Now, to begin with, when a politician uses the phrase “with all due deference” what he is typically saying is that the person, or people, in question are not due any deference at all. And this would certainly be true of the recent history of the relations between the Executive Branch and the Supreme Court – and I don't care which major party you're talking about. Contrary to the outdated notion that the Executive, or Congress, proposes, and the Supreme Court disposes, recent history has provided one example after another of the other two branches of government basically ignoring the Supreme Court – in spirit for certain, and often in letter as well. The Court hands down a decision having to do with affirmative action, say – and what happens? Is there a flurry of corrective action to declare null and void any law, or regulation, or policy, designed to implement affirmative action? Heck no, they simply ignore it and go on their merry, politically-correct way. I suppose that the greatest example of push-back to date has been FDR's “court packing” attempt... but presidents of a more recent vintage have not done much better. Clinton was notorious for, basically, ignoring Court decisions and encouraging his minions to do the same – the attitude being, to paraphrase Joseph Stalin, “how many divisions does the Supreme Court have?” And it's perfectly true, of course – the supremacy of the Supreme Court is only sustained as long as there is a sense of honor (and deference) among those charged with writing, and enforcing, laws, and that sense of honor has been noticeably missing of late.

Having said that, however, it is still a bit startling to see a president, in the most public of all public forums, getting totally up in the face of the Court while they sit there like mummified Buddhist monks (with the exception of Sam Alito, who apparently couldn't contain himself – but I'm sure he's been severely reprimanded for his expression of skepticism). To say, in so many words, “we don't care what you say, we're going to do it our way”... well, at least now it's out in the open. Which means that, for all intents and purposes the Supreme Court is now an irrelevant and vestigial antique, not unlike Britain's House of Lords. They can sit in judgment all they like, but if they can be ignored with impunity what difference does it make? Might as well make the Supreme Court building into a high-end food court for the convenience of Congressmen who are tired of the navy bean soup in the Senate cafeteria.

But in another sense this sorry situation is largely the Court's fault. They have had, over the years, ample opportunities to defend the Constitution against the inroads of socialists, collectivists, and totalitarians from all across the political spectrum, and have almost invariably failed in that duty. The very fact that, as Joseph Sobran has noted, “anything called a 'program' is unconstitutional” -- and that the vast majority of government agencies likewise have no constitutional basis – reflects a sorry tale of years of neglect on the part of those who should have been the last line of defense. Making the most of the allegedly “ambiguous” parts of the Constitution, and ignoring the parts that are as plain as day, has contributed to the situation as well (think “penumbras” and so on). “Providing for the general welfare” and the commerce clause have been elevated to virtual fetishes, while the Tenth Amendment has been set on the shelf like a dusty World's Fair souvenir. All in the interests of, I suppose, keeping peace in the family... and also political correctness, even though the Court is supposedly the least subject to political pressure of any assembled body in the nation – or so it was intended to be. So after years – decades – of failure in this regard, they can hardly object when a president reads them the riot act. All they can do it sit there in their stoic black robes and sweat it out, waiting for the proceedings to be over with so they can retreat to their Greek temple across 1st Street and go back to pretending they still have some power.

Ah yes, those carefree days of my youth when, thoroughly indoctrinated by my social studies teachers, I still believed that “separation of powers” was a reality. In fact, I even gave a speech on the subject, for the American Legion oratorical contest. (I didn't win, because my presentation was too dry and academic compared to the histrionics of the other speakers. They probably still vote Republican.) But I'm afraid the reality has been somewhat different, and more depressing, than all that. When it comes to waging war, for example, Congress can pretend to offer “advice and consent” but the fact remains that an American president can send any number of troops to any foreign country any time he (or she) pleases, and no one can stop him (or her) (just steeling myself for Hillary's eventual victory). And if Congress should dare pass a law contrary to the wishes of the president, why, there is the ever-popular executive order... or, at worst, a “signing statement” that basically says “I'm going to ignore this law... and, by the way, how many divisions does Congress have?” Now, I suppose the Supreme Court can, on occasion, thwart the wishes of Congress... but they will just turn around, as in this case, and blanket the landscape with such a multitude of new laws amounting to the same thing that the Court will eventually wave the white flag of surrender. (You don't like racial quotas? Well, then we'll just call it affirmative action. And if you don't like that we'll call it something else. We'll never run out of new names for the same old thing.)

Another thing that is oft forgotten in all of this is that the Supreme Court cannot decide on the Constitutional merits of anything unless someone brings a case before it – and this, as we know, is a long, drawn-out process that can take years (unless the case has to do with who the next president will be, and then it's handled with lightning speed). The justices may sit around wishing and hoping that a given question, or issue, will be presented for their consideration... but they cannot originate cases. All they can do is take what bubbles up from the provinces and choose to either hear it or not... and if they choose to hear it, the tattered rag that is all that's left of the Constitution is barely enough to wipe their glasses with. Not that there aren't some Constitutionalists on the Court, but they are vastly outnumbered by “penumbrists” and “general welfare-ists”, and so on, who would have to have a Road to Damascus experience in order to become born-again believers in, and defenders of, the Constitution.

Then there is the perennial dead hand of “settled law”, and the typical justice would consider himself (or herself) a radical bomb-thrower if he or she handed down a verdict contrary to any prior decision going back to the days of John Jay. After all, weren't those men and women every bit as intelligent as we are... and didn't they have the interests of the country and its citizenry in mind every bit as much as we do? Never mind the fact that many of the justices over the years have been nothing more than political hacks and empty suits who happen to have a law degree. They are, after all, appointed by presidents – and what president wants to set up a healthy body of opposition to his ambitions? None that I know of. So the Court tends to wind up being a sheltered workshop for the malleable... not that, again, there aren't some occasional exceptions (the result of some oversight by a president, I'm sure).

So yes, the Court has brought its troubles on itself, to some degree – mostly through neglect and the desire to “go along to get along” (though what the sanctions would be for not doing so escape me). But a civilized republic would respect its supreme court and make up for its ultimate lack of power by way of deference and obedience... the way civilized people respect their physically frail elders. So part of the problem is also the total lack of respect of wisdom which has come to dominate public life. How many times of late has a president, or governor, been characterized as “youthful”, as opposed to “wise”? Solomon himself would wander the streets of Washington for years wondering where all the wisdom went (and why the citizenry allowed it to happen). Well, he might luck out and read some opinions by Antonin Scalia, but other than that...

Well, I don't imagine that Obama, with his State of the Union challenge, struck the final blow. Either it has already been struck, or it has yet to be. But we now know, at least, where he stands on the matter, and we see that he sees no problem with his position. And thus, the slouch towards totalitarianism continues...