The United State’s Supreme Court has in a decision, referencing the 1st Amendment on Free Speech, let political campaign money free, also from “general funds” within 60 days of an election. This has been regulated since the Age of the Trusts, lately through the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Bill. Direct contribution to candidates as hitherto is not affected.
This is in reality a Coup d'Etat and the political landscape is expected to change from Oligarchy to Corporativism if this decision cannot be circumvented through legislation or yet another Amendment to the Constitution. A critical article on Citizen Link an outlet of Focus on the Family (!) is found under the Headline.
A worrying factor in the background is what is generally called Dominionism. The efforts, since a few decades back, by some Calvinist Sects to establish the OT laws of men as the law of the land, proscribing the Civil Rights of women, gays, and so on. More on that in the next post.
Remains to be seen if the Supreme Court in its decision has not overreached itself… Maybe Chief Justice Roberts is not quite as clever as he thinks.
I refer to what I wrote on the 30th of September 2005 after he was appointed:
The three part Separation of Powers (Europe traditionally has two since the 1st Millennium) of Mr le Baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu gives the Judiciary great and increasing political clout, which – not surprisingly – is politicized in ways unthinkable to us. Local attorneys and judges are politically elected, and federal judges are nominated by the Executive (the President) and confirmed by the Legislative power (the US Senate).
Before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate Roberts – politely but firmly – declined to reveal how he views the Constitution versus Legislation and Civil Rights, or certain well known cases such as Roe versus Wade, and others. He only conceded that precedence is important and often binding, but he wouldn’t way how he would act as Chief Justice.
The latter is to no little degree quite right, because Roberts in reality has been a judge for less than 2 years ;=)
This makes Roberts an unknown entity. Nor has the Administra-tion released more than a fraction of the records the Judiciary Committee asked for from Roberts’ work for the Administration 20 years ago.
One has appointed a man of no properties. In any other system he would – as a matter of course – have been put on waiting for another 5 or 10 years…
Personally I am quite worried about this. Not only because of the choice of a perfectly un-known person to influence American Society (and by implication us all) for the next few decades, but also because of what I know about the English Law Lords.
The British equivalent to the Supreme Court is made up of a dozen Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, supplied by as many others who are no longer in Ordinary, but yet haven't attained the age of 75, or other jurists who have been elevated to the Peerage.
The Lords of Appeal are naturally among the Best, the highest Paid and the Brightest there are, but they are not men without properties.
No one becomes one of the Worlds best Jurists for being brilliant at judicial niceties.
In stead we find among the Lords of Appeal a strong devotion to the Law as such, to the Principles of the Rule by Law, and to Human Rights – precicely what Judge Roberts didn’t have anything to say about.
In the cases I know somewhat closer this comes out of deep personal experience. Several of the Lords of Appeal originate from South Africa and have been formed by their years under Apartheid before they moved to the “motherland” – as it still was those days – and could fulfil their dream to devote themselves to the Value and Rights of Human Beings.
In one case I know that this devotion goes back yet another generation – to that of my Grandparents – and an insight about the horrors of Nazism, in a life-long effort, all from the 1920-ies, in co-operation, also with good persons within the Church of Sweden, for Freedom and Democracy in Europe.