5-11-2010 (Tuesday)

I mentioned yesterday that I would address my problems with the Supreme Court here in America. So here we go.

It isn't that I have a problem with the Supreme Court existing. But I have a problem with how it is made up. I do not like the fact that it is a position that is made up of appointed individuals. Now, I realize I am yelling about a problem and I have not come up with a way to fix it. I am not sure how we would go about it. I realize that it would be problematic to have an election every time a judge needs to be replaced. It is enough of a head ache to have a presidential election every four years.

But those problems aside. I guess my biggest issue with the Supreme Court is that it is an appointed position that is a lifetime appointment. I find it disturbing that in a country that at least gives lip service to the idea of democracy. The highest court in the land is made up of lifetime appointees. Another area of concern for me is that if Kagan becomes a justice that means that 5 of our justices will have gone to Harvard. Let me think, who else in politics has gone to Harvard?

Oh! That's right. George W. Bush and Barack Obama both went to Harvard along with Al Gore the administration before. I do not know about you guys but I am getting tired of the Ivy Leagues running our country. I am not sure but the last time I looked they do not seem to be doing a very good job of things. In fact 18 of past and present Supreme Court justices have come out of Harvard. I will admit that I sometimes like to dabble in conspiracy theories and it is mainly for my own amusement. But I think one could build a pretty good case and find valid reasons to be concerned with the fact that the majority of people making and interpreting law in this country have all gone to the same university. That sameness of institution concerns me.

That is all for today.

1-22-23 (Friday)

Good morning America. Say hello to our new corporate masters!! Yesterday in a 5 to 4 vote the United Stats Supreme Court ruled that there are now no spending limits on how much money a corporation can spend on or for a political campaign or candidate. To put this in different terms. If a company like Nike wanted George H. W. Obama III to be in office they could, in the past, give him a limited amount of money or open a PAC (Political Action Committee) that they could use to raise money and to funnel money through. Now with the new Supreme Court ruling Nike could spend say a billion dollars to run commercials or buy blocks of advertising. Really with no limits to the shape it could take. While it is true that they can't give the money directly to the candidate this still concerns me.

The reason it concerns me is that humans are lame. We are not pleasant people, sure some of us are but allow me the generalization, at our core humans tend to look out for number one. I am already in low opinion of most politicians to begin with. What this ruling means that the pressure a politician may already feel to rule in favor of a financial supporter may be magnified ten or even one hundred fold. In my personal life if someone gives me money for something even if it is a gift for a holiday I tend to feel like I need to give them the benefit of a listen if they have a suggestion as to how I might spend it.

So how is politician supposed to not listen and even do what a corporation asks or tells him to do when they say 'hey pal, we spend x millions of dollars to get you elected. If you do not we will spend it on your opponent in the next cycle.' I just do not see a good outcome for this. I think it will make the public more cynical of the whole process and make politicians more corrupt if that is even possible.

Maybe I am wrong and if a reader can explain to me why. Then by all means please do so. I would love to hear it.