Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Monday, July 9, 2018

How the Democrats Helped Create an Ultra-Reactionary Supreme Court- And Strip Women of Their Abortion Rights

It's long past time to call out the Democratic Party of the U.S. on one of its major con games. The one in which they claim to be the sole bulwark protecting America from a right-wing "takeover" of the Supreme Court. The one in which they claim that they are the guardians of abortion rights, rights in permanent peril from unnamed right wingers.

Before I continue, I want to bullet-point the critical facts you need to take away with you:
  • Extreme reactionary Antonin Scalia was elevated to the Supreme Court by a Senate vote of 98-0. Those weren't 98 Republicans. Scalia was later one of five GOP apparatchiks on the high court who stole the 2000 presidential election for George Bush (Bush the Younger). [1]

  • Democratic Senator Joe Biden (later  vice president in the regime of Barack "The Drone Assassin" Obama) functioning as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was instrumental in putting known sex offender Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. Thomas, like Scalia, voted to steal the 2000 presidential election for the GOP (Gang Of Plunderers). [2]

  • EVERY reactionary elevated to the top court, with its immense power, has gotten there with the support of Democratic Party senators. Even the ones who vote against confirming them soft-pedal how awful and evil the nominees are.

  • In the last year of the presidency of Hit Man Obama, a vacancy opened up on the Supereme Court. In an unprecedented power grab, the Senate Majority Leader, Republican Mitch McConnell (a venal coal industry stooge from Kentucky) announced that Obama would not be allowed to fill that vacancy. And Democratic response was- some grumbling under their breath and acceptance. Obama himself didn't give any evidence of even caring! (Yet there are still morons who think he is a "progressive" who was somehow thwarted by forces beyond his control. Now imagine if the situation was reversed, and a Democratic-controlled Senate denied a GOP president the right to fill a Supreme Court vacancy! There would be DAILY howls of outrage, even calls for a military coup "to restore the Constitutional order." That's because the Republicans are like rabid wolverines and are serious about power. That's how, with a minority of the populace behind them, they have taken over the presidency, the Congress, the Judiciary, and two-thirds of the state legislatures and governorships. (They have long dominated and controlled the military and secret police apparatus.) They have used their control of state legislatures to draw districts that allow them to elect the majority of Representatives to the national House of Representatives with a minority of overall voters. The Democrats are mainly a party of grifters, unserious about power, just looking for profitable sinecures for themselves.

Okay, that last bulletpoint was a long one, but essential. Now on to the body of the essay, which will illustrate the utter cynicism of the Democrats in manipulating people who are duped into relying on them to protect the few hard-won rights we have.

Every election "cycle," which is to say, every two years [3], Democratic political hacks running for office send out tons of political junk mail to citizens, hoping to woo their votes. One of the perennial themes of this propaganda bombardment is how the Supreme Court hangs in the balance, and the need to protect the right to abortion, which was only granted to women by a divided Supreme Court in the Roe vs. Wade decision. That decision was made under pressure from the women's movement, and only granted a limited right, in the first trimester of pregnancy, after which the government was deemed to have an "interest" in interfering in personal and medical decisions and exerting control over people's bodies.

In the years since, the organized reactionaries of the U.S., including the Republican Party (GOP), rightwing religious zealots, the Catholic Church bosses, and assorted rightwing media and political cadres, have relentlessly attacked abortion. The terrorist arm of this novement has assassinated doctors and clinic workers with bombs and guns, committed thousands of arson and other attacks on abortion clinics, blockaded clinics and much else. The legal offensive has been even more devastating, with states controlled by the GOP (Gang Of Plunderers) virtually eliminating abortion clinics by various legislative encumbrances that in effect persecute the clinics. Some states have functionally outlawed abortion drugs, which in early pregnancy are the cheapest and easiest way to terminate a pregnancy. (By the way, these same creeps who care so much about "unborn children" are the same ones who deport children fleeing gang and state violence south of the U.S. border back to their deaths, who destroy water containers left in the desert for them, who rip children and infants away from their refugee parents and separate them by thousands of miles. They have historically supported the murder of children by fascist death squads in the U.S. empire, and bombing cities and villages in Vietnam, Korea, and elsewhere that kill large numbers of children, babies, and mothers. So I have a sneaking suspicion that reverence for the sanctity of life isn't their actual motive.)
There IS no abortion provider in almost every town in the U.S. Over 90% of U.S. counties have no abortion facility. Abortion has been stigmatized and isolated, banished from the body of the medical profession. The cowardly medical schools don't even teach their students how to perform abortions,

And what has the Democratic Party been doing all the while the assault on abortion rights has continued unabated for 44 years?

Every election they yell at their voters that the right to abortion is under assault and therefore you must vote for them. And that's pretty much it.

And they ensure that the Supreme Court has a hard rightwing majority, They do this to have a scare tactic to run in elections on, and they do this because they too are fundamentally reactionaries. They serve the corporate oligarchy, which of course wants a reactionary judiciary. They believe in state power over citizens- as the repressive legislation pushed into law by their presidents Truman, Clinton, and Obama proves. Obama gave the government the power to indefinitely imprison U.S. citizens in military gulags without charges or legal representation, by government fiat. The government need only label the victims "terrorists." That is now law because of Obama.

Let's dispose of another myth. The repeated, false assertion that the court is divided into a "liberal" wing and a "conservative" one. The actual division is conservative and reactionary. The conservatives ("liberal") mostly try to preserve the status quo, which is the definition of conservatism. The reactionaries want to change the status quo to make it more repressive, and to decrease the influence of the population and give the rich and large corporations ever more power. This is a program of radical change, NOT "conservatism."

1]  In a bit of ironically poetic justice, the Democratic candidate who along with his party let the GOP steal the 2000 election, Albert Gore, was one of the Senators who voted to put Scalia on the Supreme Court.

2]  Biden made sure Thomas, an arch-reactionary black man who is an enemy of African-Americans in many ways, including his attacks on affirmative action, made it through the confirmation process by stifling witnesses who would have buttressed Anita Hill's testimony about Thomas' vulgar sexual harassment of his underlings, and more critically Biden privately assured his Democratic Senate colleagues not to believe Hill. The story of  Biden's treachery is told in the book "Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas," by Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson. The authors were reporters at the Wall Street Journal at the time the book was written. Mayer went on to be a staff writer at The New Yorker magazine, where she is today. Abramson became the very first female to ascend to the top editor post at the oh-so-august New York Times.



Abramson's tenure as top editor was short. She accidentally discovered that the publisher and chairman, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., whose family has long owned the paper and its other properties and who inherited his job from his Daddy, was chiseling her on her pay, paying her less than her male predecessors. Sulzberger was miffed when Abramson confronted him about this, proceeded to fire her, and then engaged in a campaign of character assassination against her.

So "liberal" of him!

This sexist asshole also hired the scandalous former BBC boss Mark Thompson. After notorious pedophile and BBC star Jimmy Savile died, the BBC had an expose ready to air. That was killed, and in its place a tribute to Savile was aired. Thompson claimed to know nothing about any of this, despite being in charge. Sulzberger thinks this guy is worth paying millions for.
The result so far has been a discrimination suit against Thompson for the toxic environment he's helped create (or perpetuate) at the NY Times. Two black female employees allege in their lawsuit that Thompson introduced an "environment rife with discrimination based on age, race and gender." It further links his behavior to similar actions by him during his BBC tenure. ["New York Times chief executive accused of discrimination," BBC News, 29 April, 2016.]


3]  In the U.S., one chamber of the national legislature, the "House of Representatives" of the U.S. Congress, stands for election every two years. There are 435 Congressional districts, thus 435 representatives covering all the 50 states. Congressional districts are proportioned roughly by population.

The other chamber of Congress, the U.S. Senate, has 100 Senators, two Senator for each state. This gives grossly disproportional weight and power to sparsely populated states hard rightwing states, and greatly weakens the political weight of populous states. So California has two Senators, and the 20 least populous states, whose total population equals that of California, have 40 Senators. So arch-reactionary states like Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, the two Dakotas, Iowa, Arkansas, Louisiana, and so on, are a powerful structural and institutional factor in making the U.S. a rightwing nation, even though only a minority of the population is rightwing in this putative "democracy."

Senators are elected for six year terms. Every two years, one third of the Senate stands for reelection.
U.S. presidents serve 4 year terms. The years that aren't presidential election years are called "off-year elections."

The terms of Congresspeople and presidents is set out in the Constitution. The Republicans passed a Constitutional amendment in the 1950's limiting the president to two elected terms. This was done in reaction to the fact that the Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected president four times in a row starting in 1932. Ironically, Republican Dwight David Eisenhower, elected in 1952 and 1956, may well have won a third term if not for this amendment.





Friday, April 6, 2018

Trump's Attack on Sex

How's this for irony? A known sex assaulter is making it harder for people to access birth control. His regime has issued rules allowing even more religious zealots to refuse to pay for health insurance that covers contraception. (Apparently his regime's deregulation mania is selective.) This is piled on top of the GOP-controlled Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case to allow companies owned by religious fanatics to deny contraception coverage to their employees in company medical insurance plans. Trump has gone even farther, causing regulations to be issued allowing company bosses with "moral" objections to birth control to exclude contraception reimbursements from company health plans.

Sick.


                  Hey! You don't need birth control if I'm only grabbing 
                                           your pussy! Believe me!

Fuck You, Feminists!


Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Supreme Court Okays Using DNA To Frame Up Innocent People

No, that's not what they say they did. But whether they realize it or not, that is now what's going to happen.

What the Supreme Court just ruled, 5-4, is that police can take DNA from people they arrest (not convicted yet, obviously) and add it to a database, just as they do with fingerprints. The case involved a Maryland defendant who was identified as a rapist after he was arrested for assault, as a result of the swab of cells taken from inside his cheek and tested against a DNA database including evidence samples from unsolved crimes including rapes.

This is an example of how hard cases make bad law. A scumbag like this needs to be captured and imprisoned. [1] But the precedent it establishes tightens the screw of police power around everyone's necks yet another notch.

The decision split the court in an unusual way. The "conservatives" (reactionaries) and "liberals" (conservatives) didn't line up on opposite sides from each other, but rather some were on each side of the decision. Antonin Scalia, in the minority, decried the decision, so it must be really awful!!

The reason I say this opens the door to DNA frame-ups is because that is what the police and FBI ALWAYS do with their powers. That is what they have done, over and over, with fingerprint evidence, for example.

What? you say. How is that possible?

Very easily, actually.

In the case of fingerprint frame-ups, there is a nearly foolproof method. The police merely claim they lifted a fingerprint of their chosen victim from a crime scene or from a piece of evidence such as a weapon or whatever.

There have been a few cases where the police got caught doing this. In California in the early 1970s there was a case that made the newspapers of a hapless ice cream vendor framed up who served 8 years until the frame-up was unraveled.

More recently, in New York State the State police were caught using planted prints in this manner. [2]

It must happen thousands of times that we don't know about. Since the public is brainwashed to believe that fingerprint evidence is infallible, no one believes someone who protests that that can't be their print. (Ah, it was their print, it just wasn't where the cops said it was!)

Back in the 1970s I read a textbook on fingerprint "science" by one of the recognized experts in the field, Andre A. Moessens. One section dealt with the issue of faking fingerprint evidence. He described a number of methods and why each one could be exposed. Then he came to the last one, where the police could "theoretically" claim to have lifted a print from a place they didn't. He said in that case we just have to trust the integrity of the police not to do that.

Right. Ever hear of "testilying," pal? [3]

Besides claiming to have lifted prints from sites they actually didn't obtain them from, police also misidentify prints, sometimes in good faith, sometimes accidentally. Frontline had a pretty good documentary a few years ago about the unreliability of so-called forensic science. [4] (It's more of a pseudo-science, actually. First, they claim an exactitude that is just false. Then they transfer the inculcated belief in the infallibility and precision of fingerprint "matching" to all manner of things that is just fraudulent, like hair, handwriting, tire tracks, tool marks, barrel marks on bullets, paint chips, even bite marks! There were numerous bogus murder convictions in Georgia based on bite marks on victims' bodies allegedly "matching" a defendant's teeth! You'd think common sense would be enough to refute such nonsense!)

Fingerprint "matching" is actually more of an art than a science, but the police will never admit that, since it would undermine their undeservedly ironclad credibility. The FBI claimed they had a  "100 percent positive"  fingerprint match to an Oregon lawyer, Brandon Mayfield, who just happened to be Muslim, between him and a print from the 2004 Madrid railway bombing. He had a hellish few weeks, until the Spanish police announced that they arrested the person who actually had the finger the print came from. And since the finger was attached to that man's hand, and not to Mayfield's, it was a bit of an OOPS moment for the FBI.

The FBI had insisted the prints were an "absolutely incontrovertible match." And the FBI touts itself, and with longtime media cooperation has created the myth, that it is some kind of elite police force, the creme de la creme of "law enforcement." So imagine how competent the thousands of state, county, and local police departments are in America. Imagine how it is in poorer countries.

Well, in the Mayfield matter, the FBI apologized, and paid some money (which their victim had to sue them to get, of course- Gee, why are Americans "so litigious?" Could it be because that's the ONLY WAY to get redress for wrongs? Just wondering). Usually the FBI gets away with this sort of thing, and much worse, including political assassinations.

So now they can do the same things with DNA. Since a swabful of inner cheek cells contains a huge amount of detectable DNA molecules, there is plenty to use for purposes of "finding" some at crime scenes, etc. Just like taking a fingerprint and putting it on an evidence card. If the FBI agent or police officer says he got this sample he's submitting to the database for matching from such-and-such a spot, that is very hard to disprove. He merely has to assert it. And in U.S. courts, there is a presumption that police don't lie- even after so many years of evidence to the contrary. (And people not blindly hypnotized by authority are systematically weeded out from jury pools in advance of trials, so there is little skeptism among jurors towards police testimony and "evidence.")

To be sure, DNA could have been used anyway to frame people up, without the Supreme Court's help, by surreptitiously obtaining people's DNA. Perhaps a femme fatale or fake "friend" could serve a victim a drink, and the saliva left on the glass taken, a trick police already use against people in custody. Or government burglars could swab your toothbrush when you're not home. There are myriad possibilites for such a "dirty trick." But it would have also been necessary to "officially" get DNA from the target's body directly, in order to "prove" a "match." So without this legalization of taking DNA from arrestees- and the FBI has arranged countless tens of thousands of pretext arrests, for example the late political activist Abbie Hoffman alone was arrested over 50 times- it would have been harder to frame the person. They would have first had to be convicted of a felony to overtly take DNA from their body. (That was already allowed.)

The number of victims of just FBI political frame-ups is too numerous to list here. Two prominent ones are Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt (eventually exonerated after 30 years in a dungeon) and Leonard Peltier, who is destined to die in a Federal "supermax" torture prison. Peltier was framed with fake FBI "forensic science" evidence that claimed ballistic tests matched his rifle to a bullet taken from a dead FBI agent who had attacked American Indian Movement members. (One of whom, Joe Stuntz, was killed by the agents in the attack, a fact that never gets mentioned for some reason, so I'm mentioning it right here, and secret policemen who don't like it and monitor this site can lump it- I'm sorry, "lump it" won't translate well for those who use the Translate widget on this page. It means "too bad for you, I don't care.")

During appeals, the FBI was forced to admit that the ballistic "match" was bogus, but of course the appeals court let the conviction stand anyway, despite the utter absence of any other evidence proving Peltier shot the agent. The FBI has made clear over the years that releasing Peltier is absolutely unacceptable to it, and people IN the establishment know enough not to mess with the FBI, which has blackmailed and imprisoned many politicians and judges over the years. Plus Federal judges are ideologically hostile to anyone who forcibly resists the oppression of the system.

But a legal system that is part of the enforcement machinery of an oligarchy cannot be relied upon as a vehicle for justice. That means that almost anyone, at any time, not just opponents of the system, can be victimized by such a judicial system- and many are, both those who are victims of criminals where the perpetrators are overlooked, and those framed up as criminal culprits- framed up by lazy and indifferent police and prosecutors, or framed up by criminals with state power.

1]  Rapists are particularly dangerous as they are usually repeat offenders. Except maybe for Bill Clinton, who raped Juanita Broaddrick, as a story on NBC revealed some years ago. Clinton had thugs threaten women he'd sexually used or abused- one had her cat killed, and a goon then accosted her while she was jogging and terrified her, for example. His right-hand woman, Betsy Wright, had as one of her tasks suppressing "bimbo eruptions," that is, ensuring that his past paramours would maintain omerta (silence). So it is impossible to know if he only raped one woman in his entire life.

However we do know that he's committed mass murder more than once.

-In Haiti, where he overthrew Aristede and had the CIA create a death squad called FRAPH. (FRAPH stands for "The Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti," an amazingly cynical and Orwellian title. It was like a successor to the murderous Tonton Macoute of the Duvalier dictatorship.)

-In Sudan, where he blew up the country's only pharmaceutical manufacturing plant, newly built, which meant death for thousands of poor Sudanese.

-In Iraq, where the sanctions he maintained are credited with killing 500,000 Iraqi children. When Leslie Stahl confronted his Secretary of State, the evil harridan Madeleine Albright, about this on the TV show 60 Minutes, asking "was it worth it?" Albright didn't even dispute the half million dead children Stahl cited and ended her answer with "We think it was worth it." What the "it" was that was allegedly achieved, I still can't figure out. Of course, their goal was to overthrow Saddam Hussein, which was not accomplished until Clinton's successor Bush the Younger invaded Iraq.

 -In Rwanda, where he ordered UN Secretary General Kofi Annan* to pull out UN troops instead of sending requested reinforcements, which led directly to the genocide there. The commander of the troops said he could have easily prevented the slaughter with relatively few reinforcements. (Most of the killing was by machete and burning people alive. These were mobs, mostly, not modern military forces committing the massacres.) That last one is maybe more of a failure to prevent, although it wasn't mere passivity, but active interference that in effect aided and abetted the murderers.

So that's four mass murders on Clinton's head, three of them very directly and deliberately by him. If you want to add one more failure-to-prevent mass murder to his account, there's his failure to kill Osama bin Laden when numerous opportunities presented themselves, according to former CIA officer Michael Scheuer. Scheuer also faults Bush II for similar failures. (See youtube.com interviews with Scheuer, especially "Conversations With History.") Of course this one wasn't foreseeable, as the Rwandan one was, and is speculative, as killing bin Laden would not have necessarily prevented the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers. We're told the "mastermind" of that is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, currently on "trial" in a kangeroo pseudo-court on the military base in occupied Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. It's not that I necessarily doubt his guilt. I just don't like Stalinist-style show trials that make a mockery of justice and legal process. In fact, such show trials are highly destructive to law and justice, not only in the particular instance, but by discrediting law and justice conceptually and delegitimating them in the eyes of the people.

* Annan was a willing U.S. stooge, in the tradition of UN Secretary Generals. In fact, those aren't so pliable risk death, as happened to Dag Hammarskjold, who was murdered in 1961 when the CIA sabotaged his plane, to prevent him from interfering with U.S. designs in the Congo. See the BBC News magazine story "Dag Hammarskjold: Was his death a crash or a conspiracy?" Also CIA assassin Dean Selmier, in his book Blow Away, which describes his career as a killer for the CIA, recounts a conversation with a French intelligence officer who tells him Hammarskjold was murdered, and that the Frenchman said he opposed the hit. Barnes and Noble is selling the book online for $1.99. A bargain for a hardcover!

2] Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia article, "Fingerprints." I recommend the article to interested readers.

"In April 1993, in the New York State Police Troop C scandal, Craig D. Harvey, a New York State Police trooper was charged with fabricating evidence. Harvey admitted he and another trooper lifted fingerprints from items the suspect, John Spencer, touched while in Troop C headquarters during booking. He attached the fingerprints to evidence cards and later claimed that he had pulled the fingerprints from the scene of the murder. The forged evidence was presented during John Spencer's trial and his subsequent conviction resulted in a term of 50 years to life in prison at his sentencing. Three state troopers were found guilty of fabricating fingerprint evidence and served prison sentences."

I wonder who did more time in prison, the victim or the police criminals? Wikipedia doesn't say. I don't have time to research it at the moment- but you can.

Of course, the real solution to all this is honest, ethical police and prosecutors with checks on their ability to pursue  ideological vendettas and political agendas (whether of personal aggrandizement or repression of dissent and resistance to injustice). That won't happen until they are less powerful and under more external controls. "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," as Lord Acton famously phrased it. The problem isn't so much the tools of law enforcement as who wields them, and for what ends.

3]  There are so many examples of blatant frame-ups by venal cops and prosecutors over the years, in numerous states, that it would take a large tome just to cover the ones that became prominent in the media. Right now in New York, there is an ongoing review of murder convictions engineered by a Brooklyn, NY detective, who for example used the same drug addict as an "eyewitness" in numerous separate murder cases! The only reason the cases are "under review" is because the New York Times, to their credit, exposed some of the "questionable" cases, thus forcing the venal Brooklyn District Attorney, Charles Hynes, to order a "review." He's up for reelection yet again, but he needn't worry: TV network CBS has rushed to his rescue with a suspiciously timely multi-episode TV series lionizing his office, including portraying as heroic a vicious prosecutor in his employ who was revealed by the Times series as a frame-up artist. If I had to speculate as to why, I'd say it's because Hynes has made himself useful to the powerful Jewish Hasidic community in Brooklyn (which votes as a bloc) and CBS is a key organ of Jewish power in the U.S. This kind of cohesiveness is one key to Jewish power in America. (Contrast that with the fractiousness of African-Americans, who daily gun down other African-Americans for no good reason.)

There are a number of stories on the NYT website, such as "Review of 50 Brooklyn Murder Cases Ordered,"  "Scrutiny on Prosecutors After Questions About Brooklyn Detective’s Work," "Jailed Unjustly in the Death of a Rabbi, Man Nears Freedom," and "In Review of Brooklyn Cases, So Many Obstacles." You can search their website for more. And that's just one example in the U.S. This happens all over, all the time. With the increase in police and prosecutorial power over the last few decades, and the evisceration of rights and protections for the people, we should expect it to get worse.

4]  See "Judge Harry T. Edwards: How Reliable is Forensic Evidence in Court?" In fact, there are a number of relevant stories at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/   Search with the keywords "forensic science on trial."