Elizabeth Warren. (photo: Michael Dwyer/AP)
29 March 17
readersupportednews.org
Trump trying to hand highest court over to highest bidder
hen
Justice Antonin Scalia died last year, giant corporations and their
right-wing buddies spent millions of dollars to keep the Supreme Court
seat open so that Donald Trump could fill the vacancy. It was only the
latest step in their campaign to tilt our courts in favor of big
corporations and the wealthy. Now, the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch
to the Supreme Court is their reward. Anyone who believes in a neutral
Supreme Court guided by equal justice for all should oppose this
nomination.
Over the past three decades — as the rich have gotten
richer and middle-class families have been left behind — the scales of
justice have been weighted further and further in favor of the wealthy
and the powerful. That tilt is not an accident. It’s the result of a
deliberate strategy by powerful interests to turn our courts over to the
highest bidder.
Its effects have been devastating. Recent court
decisions have let giant corporations that cheated their consumers off
the hook, unleashed a flood of secret money into the political process,
and made it easier for businesses to abuse and discriminate against
their employees.
At the core of this strategy is an all-out attack on
fair-minded, mainstream judges. A prime example is the unprecedented
blockade of Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court — a
consensus nominee praised by Republicans and Democrats alike as a
thoughtful, intelligent, and fair judge. None of that mattered for
powerful right-wing groups that decided that Garland’s record did not
reflect a sufficient willingness to bow down to the interests of the
wealthy few. So they poured millions into a public smear campaign to
stop his confirmation and leave the seat open.
During his campaign, Trump promised to nominate a
Supreme Court justice selected exclusively from a list drawn up by
far-right groups with ties to these same wealthy interests. As
president, Trump kept that promise when he nominated Gorsuch last month
to fill the vacancy.
Even before his elevation to the bench, Gorsuch’s
right-wing, pro-big business views were clear. For example, he wrote an
article arguing that liberals are too addicted to the court system and
should keep important social issues like gay marriage,
physician-assisted suicide, and school vouchers out of the courts.
Notably absent was a similar critique of conservatives who pursue their
interests in the court system. And Gorsuch has advocated for making it
harder for investors and shareholders to bring lawsuits when companies
commit securities fraud.
On the bench, his judicial decisions show a remarkable
ability to shape and re-shape legal arguments in ways that benefit
large corporations and disadvantage ordinary people seeking justice. In
the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores case, when he had to choose between
the “rights” of corporations and the rights of women, Gorsuch sided with
corporations. In consumer protection cases, when he had to choose
between the “rights” of corporations and the rights of swindled
consumers, Gorsuch sided with corporations. In discrimination cases,
when he had to choose between the “rights” of corporations and the
rights of employees to be free from harassment and abuse, Gorsuch sided
with corporations.
Gorsuch has taken positions that are even more extreme
than his extremely conservative colleagues. When it comes to the rules
that protect public health and safety, Gorsuch is more radical than
Scalia was. Gorsuch believes that courts should not be required to defer
to expert agency interpretations of their governing laws. If he had his
way, he’d make it even easier for corporations to challenge health and
safety rules that prevent them from polluting our air and water,
poisoning our food, undermining public safety, or cheating people out of
their hard-earned savings.
Big companies and rich right-wing billionaires are
spending top dollar to help a judge like Gorsuch get over the finish
line. But that’s not how our court system is supposed to work. Our
courts are supposed to be neutral arbiters, dispensing justice based on
the facts and the law — not the party with the most money or political
power.
Gorsuch is charming and intelligent. He has an
impressive legal pedigree. But this is not a Miss Congeniality pageant
or a contest for the nominee with the fanciest degrees. This is a vote
for a justice who will sit on the highest court in our nation for the
next generation and decide cases that will touch every human being in
this country. Cases about a woman’s right to choose, voting rights,
LGBTQ rights, secret spending in our political system, and freedom of
speech and religion. The next Supreme Court justice will help determine
whether our courts will serve the interests of all of us or bend to the
will of the powerful moneyed few who helped place them on the court.
There is only one question that should guide us in
that decision: whether the nominee will defend equal justice for every
single one of us — rich or poor, black or white, female or male, gay or
straight, popular or unpopular. Gorsuch’s record shows that he is not
that nominee.
At a moment when the awesome power of the presidency
is in the hands of someone who has shown contempt for our Constitution,
our independent judiciary, our free press, and the principles that make
our nation a beacon of democracy, this decision is more consequential
than at any time in recent history. We cannot stand down when the
president of the United States attempts to hand our highest court over
to the highest bidder. And that is why I believe Judge Gorsuch’s
nomination should be blocked.
No comments:
Post a Comment