LOOKING WITH only slightly rested eyes at what I posted this morning, I have apologize again by pointing out that what I am taking this from is the machine generated text files of the books which I got at Archive.org. The pdf file of the first volume I downloaded took so long to download from a library in India that I downloaded the far faster to download text files. I mentioned that in one of my recommendations that people read the book a couple of months back.
Going back to download the pdf of the second volume, those seem to have disappeared and you can only get access right now on a "Books To Borrow" basis which is certainly far less accessible for the kind of work I want to do on them. It is curious that that change happened after my recommendation, though I don't know if it's a permanent issue or if it has anything to do with my recommendation. Sometimes coincidences are coincidental. Though as things are developing I wouldn't say paranoia is entirely unwarranted.
Enough for dark humor that isn't that funny.
Louis Boudin at the start of the 1930s was pointing out that those lies were were all piously taught, which were constantly reinforced by the pieties surrounding the cult of the Constitution and the sacralized Supreme Court were already well known by informed lawyers to be lies back then. Not only back then but, as the quote from Jefferson proves, they were known a hundred ten years before Boudin wrote, expressed by the first man whose administration was the loser in Marbury v Madison, the case that started the avalanche in Supreme Court legislation from a bench of unelected lawyers that held itself able to overpower the Congress who were elected by the alleged ultimate power and legitimizers of government, The People.
He points out a number of times that on occasion one of the Supreme Court members, frustrated with their fellow Justices would give away the game while, on other occasions, going along with the Supreme lie that all they were doing was following the words of the Constitution, at times pretending to take the legislative record into account.
The recent article I cited in regard to Supreme Courts, from the man who made liberals rather stupidly superstitious about the actual nature and history of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren, through his far more conservative successor, Warren Burger and his voter-intimidating, racist, Republican-fascist successor, William Rehnquist did something similar in ignoring the 14th amendment and the legislative history that proved their decisions not only negated laws, THEY NEGATED THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN IT SUITED THEIR PREFERENCES.
The actual history of the Supreme Court would make the corruption of the husband of Ginni Thomas so much in the news this week look pretty much par for the course, if a little more obvious to lay people. Obvious and serious corruption started with the generation of John Marshall when over and over again the Court made rulings against the rights and freedom of Black People on behalf of the institution that they participated in and profited from, slavery. You should listen to this lecture, Supreme Injustice, by one of the greatest living American historians, Paul Finkleman. He points out that by the time Roger Taney wrote the infamous Dred Scott decision the Supreme Court had set the record and handed down the decisions that make what Taney said in Dred Scott "settled law." He shows that that kind of judicial influence through making the traditions and habits of the legal profession which are held up as a virtue was a powerful enough force of influence and genteel coercion that it was capable of turning an anti-slavery "justice" into a supporter of slavery as it did Story, one of Marshall's colleagues.
The history of rottenness on that most adulated, idolized, lied about branch of government is actually as sordid as the worst episodes in the other two branches. Only, since federal courts have lifetime appointments, many members of it holding onto their office well into their senescence, the method of correction that Jefferson said made the excesses of the Congress less dangerous, them losing elections and losing office doesn't cleanse and correct the Supreme Court. You can look directly to that fact for why the Supreme Court is the only Court in the federal system which is not subject to a real, effective ethics code, one which would not have the kind of self-interest that Clarence Thomas practices present on an ongoing basis.
No comments:
Post a Comment