THE ALITO ANGST

People have unfairly expressed their surprise and displeasure at Supreme Court Justice Alito’s obviously pained and public negative reaction to President Obama’s criticism of a recent decision by the court.

There is no reason for surprise.  How would you react if your pants were on fire?

 

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT

There is a movement afoot to add one more amendment to the constitution – this time to undo the damage to our democratic system caused by the obviously partisan politics of the Flaunting Five.

These men who are named to life terms on the Supreme Court bench-pressed personhood on Corporations.  Ordinary folks would get life sentences for lesser actions.

The language of their decision was not so much a slippery slope, as syllogistic slop.  If a corporation is a person as a result of being an association of citizens, then a citizen should be able to acquire a spouse, and should that corporation produce something that doesn’t meet its standards, that corporation should be allowed to cut its losses and terminate that portion of the business.  A Corporate citizen should also be allowed to merge with one or more citizens of the same model.  Such associations will be known as gender benders.

I applaud the passion of those who would overcome this absurdity by the only means they, in their limited thinking, believe is at their disposal – a Constitutional amendment.  That has all the effectiveness of firefighters hoping to stamp out a roaring inferno by peeing on it while the lush forest is transformed into ashes.

Instead of waiting around twenty years or so, why not take immediate actions informing the future as well as clarifying the present?

Change the name of the institution.  The Supreme Court will henceforth be known as The Extreme Court.  The people appointed to serve on the Extremists bench will be known as Highway Robers, and Pete Seeger will be commissioned to write a new song at the beginning of each open session, This Land Aint Your Land, and another when they leave the room, Hail To The Thief.

The statue, Contemplation of Justice, should be removed from the front of the court building and replaced with the statue of Justitia, Lady Justice, with the blindfold removed from her eyes and shoved up her nostrils so that she can avoid the stench.

The scales of justice she holds should show one tray loaded with gold bricks that tip the balance totally out of whack.

The Extremists can no longer hand down decisions.  As the lowest of the low, they can only hand them up.  One exception; they will be allowed to incorporate their own little association of citizens, and offer opinions on the fifth Tuesday of February.

In honor of The Extremist who exhibited displeasure at being called out during the State of the Union address, his birthday, April 1, shall henceforth be called April Alito’s Day.

Congress can eliminate all payment for the running of the court.  The Extremists, called by polloi simply as The Injustices, can then take their case to their own court. However they will all have to recuse themselves from any involvement in the hearings.

Their decisions must be unanimous.  If just one of the nine appointees to the Extreme Court wishes to filibuster, the court may not decide anything other than what kind of hood they wish to make part of their dress codes.

When court is in session, only the audiences can speak.  However, the Extremes will be allowed to use their cell phones (each will get his own cell), until they get their twitters out of the ringer.

 +++++++++

Note:  My father, who studied in 1910 at Northeastern University School of Law, told me with great relish of an occasion when one of his law professors had tried a case before a typical Boston, politically appointed, thoroughly corrupt and completely incompetent judge.

Every objection he raised to a blundering court ruling was overruled by the judge, who became increasingly annoyed at this extremely well informed attorney.

When the attorney announced that he was going to appeal all the judge’s decisions, the robe-wearing clod warned him that if he heard one more objection from him that he would fine him $50 for contempt of court.

Whereupon the furious attorney responded, “$50 wouldn’t begin to express my contempt for this court.”

It would be neat if the story ended on that triumphant note.  However, ethics demand the full story be told.  The judge’s response was to raise the fine to $100, a considerable sum in those days.

That was 100 years ago.  I wonder how much old Sam Alito would charge the American public for their contempt of the constitution trashing action taken by him, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy.

To hell with that.  We should be allowed to fine them for contempt of Constitution.


+++++++++