Supreme Joke

The USA is endowed with a “Supreme Court”, which is mentioned in a few words in the initial document establishing the Constitution of the USA. It was not meant as a Constitutional Court, but came to be progressively used that way. Thus a few individuals named for life have enormous powers. Such a system is intrinsically diabolical (thus friendly to the Lord of Hell, Pluto).

Power corrupts, and supreme power, especially in matter of justice, corrupts supremely.

Enormous powers for the few in matter of justice is not democracy. In the Athenian Direct Democracy, some juries had to have a quorum of 6,001 (yes, more than six thousands, depending upon the gravity of the matter). The Athenian system, established more than 2,500 years ago, was not perfect. Ours is clearly anti-democratic.

Scaglia was a judge named for life at the Supreme Court by Ronald Reagan in 1986. Reagan’s education was sport announcer, and then actor. Reagan avoided combat in World War Two, but knew how to leverage McCarthyism. That made him a perfect politician to serve the satanic ones. Reagan became governor of California, where he imposed a tuition on the PUBLIC university of California.

Imagine the enormity: a public service became the exclusive province of the rich. That was just the beginning.

No Plutocracy Is Strong Enough

No Plutocracy Is Strong Enough

After this important symbolic victory, plutocracy flew from success to success. Now tuition at the so-called “public” University of California can be as much as a third of median family income in the USA (the income before taxes, social security, health insurance, etc.). So this distinguished plutophile, Reagan, was fully qualified to name a king of justice to rule over the USA.

That king was Scaglia. Scaglia was the leader of the “conservatives” at the Supreme Court Of The US (SCOTUS). He flew from success to success.

In 2000, SCOTUS stopped the recount of the vote for the presidential election of the USA. The difference of votes between Bush and Gore was around 300 (three hundred) votes, in favor of Bush. Gore had asked for a recount, and Florida law, when it was that close, required a recount. (Had Florida gone to the Gore, Gore, who was only five electoral votes behind Bush, would have been 45 votes ahead, and be elected President. Moreover Gore had won the popular vote.)

Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz, wrote:

[T]he decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath.[57]

At an election night party, “Justice” Sandra Day O’Connor became upset when the media announced that Gore had won Florida, her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.[59] However, both Justices remained on the Court beyond President Bush’s first term, until Rehnquist’s death in 2005 and O’Connor’s retirement in 2006. According to Steven Foster of the Manchester Grammar School:

“On the eve of the election Sandra Day O’Connor had made a public statement that a Gore victory would be a personal disaster for her. Clarence Thomas’s wife was so intimately involved in the Bush campaign that she was helping to draw up a list of Bush appointees more or less at the same time as her husband was adjudicating on whether the same man would become the next President. Finally, Antonin Scalia’s son was working for the firm appointed by Bush to argue his case before the Supreme Court, the head of which was subsequently appointed as Solicitor-General.”[60]

In 2013, retired “Justice” Sandra Day O’Connor, who voted with the majority, suggested that perhaps the Court should have declined to hear the case, which “gave the court a less-than-perfect reputation”.

The interpretation of the details can be argued. The basic point, though, is that enormous influence is exerted by putting so much power in a few hands, and it extends to their entourage. For example the Chelsea Clinton of the Clinton Foundation is in charge of fighting pollution in California (yes, more than weird; more exactly she finances, through the Clinton Foundation a private company which sells devices which detect pollution; why should it concern Europeans? Because some day it’s that company, ultimately financed by taxpayers in the USA, and then scaled up, which will be in charge of measuring pollution in Europe).

Gore dropped his lawsuit, and was rewarded by a gigantic fortune and the Nobel Prize (sounds familiar?)

Is the USA a democracy? No. Officially, Gore beat Bush by more than half a million votes:

Winner:   50,456,062 votes Main Opponent:   50,996,582

Then, of course, there was the “Citizen United” decision. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), is a U.S. constitutional law case approving the unbounded, uncontrolled spending in political campaigns by (PLUTOCRATIC) organizations. The United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited the government from restricting independent political expenditures by a nonprofit corporation (such as all and any “charity” financed by plutocrats, or, as they love to call themselves, “philanthropists”) . Then SCOTUS extended that to for-profit corporations, and other associations. By allowing unlimited election spending by individuals and corporations, the decision has “re-shaped the political landscape” of the United States.

The USA, formerly a republic, went, with the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United”, from de facto plutocracy to formal constitutional plutocracy.

Even Jeb Bush, one of its main beneficiaries, wants to get rid of the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision. He said: “this is a ridiculous system we have now where you have campaigns that struggle to raise money directly and they can’t be held accountable for the spending of the super PAC that’s their affiliate”.

Why do nine judge 320 millions? Some will say: expertise. However, the SCOTUS was not created as Constitutional Court. Other countries have specialized Constitutional Courts. In a country such as France, there are actually four distincts “supreme courts”: the Cour de Cassation, the Conseil d’Etat, the Constitutional Court, and the European Supreme Court. It all depends what the conflict is about. None of these judges are there forever, and they can be, and have been, impeached.

In any case, now plutocracy is the Constitutional Law of the land in the USA.

So it is, when too much power goes in too few hands.

And it has an impact, worldwide as the USA, as the world’s most powerful nation, anchor of nearly all the world’s major institutions, is the conductor of the world’s symphony, the One Way Descent to Hell.

So RIP Scaglia, we are left to enjoy the hell you organized for us, serving your masters well.

We write, and some will read. But will it reach? Did Montaigne become Montaigne because he was a close friend of the king and many other plutocrats paid attention to what he wrote? Probably. Some may have written better, and disappeared in a night, which they never left.

Still we go, as humanity always did.

Thought without passion is like motion, without motivation. A parody of humanity. A demolition, of incarnation. Existence, without sentience.

The supreme joke is on those Very Serious People who never understood that their supreme greed, is not just pathetic, but actually comical.

Not so, will the Supremes object: our refined pleasure is the power we have on you, and how much we can make you suffer: “Citizens United”. Sure, I agree. Sadism rules, and not just in black robes, my point entirely. Power enables cruelty to become supreme, and forget, in the thrall of passion, the frailty of the human condition. This is true, but it’s not just.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , ,

11 Responses to “Supreme Joke”

  1. John Rogers Says:

    Just excellent. Hope you are feeling better. You get more done with pneumonia than I do on my best days.
    And now a selection of online comments on Scalia’s demise:

    As Clarence Darrow said: “I’ve never murdered anyone, but I have read some obituaries with great satisfaction.”

    As Mark Twain said: “I did not attend the funeral, but I sent a nice note approving of it.”

    “I never said a positive thing about him before. I won’t start now.”

    “They say you should speak only good of the dead. Scalia is dead. Good.”

    “Let each person mourn Scalia’s passing in his own way. Mine involves champagne.”

    “He got to die doing what he loved. Killing adorable little quail.”

    Betty Bowers: “My condolences to the Koch brothers on their loss.”


    • Gmax Says:

      Excellent! Scalia is a greater source of inspiration dead than alive.
      BTW, the Koch fortune started with Hitler. Why are they allowed to keep it?


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Totally hilarious quotes! Keep those coming, please! You are also generous. I just discovered that, somehow a piece of text was missing about Gore v. Bush in my text. This pneumonia, three weeks+ on antibiotics now, has sapped my strength. I feel like a sequoia stump. And little greenery in sight.


  2. Gmax Says:

    Spectacular metaphysical, or as you say, metapsychological twist at the end! They are sadists, so they can forget they are only dogs! I love it!


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I think it’s direct psychology, but I also thought it was not EXPLICITLY pointed out before (it’s implicit in Sade). So it’s “metapsychological” in that sense…
      Thus: The passion of cruelty not only allows to forget life’s cruelty, but it justifies it, and the Will to Power is its tool. Roll over Nietzsche!


    • Paul Handover Says:

      If only we were governed by dogs. For they are creatures of integrity!


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Hi Paul! Hmmm… In Iran, there used to be bears, tigers, leopards, wolves and… wild, really wild dogs. I am sure you would not be pleased to hear the story four geologists in Iran told me… Let me say geologists feared wild dogs more than any creature, including venomous snakes…

        Also you should look into the story of Diogenes the Cynic. After all, he is officially the one who learned first from dogs…


        • Paul Handover Says:

          Maybe so but that doesn’t alter the fact that dogs are creatures of integrity and as you so often report in this place integrity is a rare ingredient in much of the affairs of humankind.


          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Hi Paul!
            I think the integrity and pleasantness of dogs as you know them, are mostly the fruit of the environment you created for them. They reflect you, and the unbounded (?) love you project, and they would reflecting differently in different circumstances. I have met a wolf once in the total wilderness, from a few feet away, and also giant African “Wild Dogs” (Lycaons), and, although they had comparable mentalities, as far as I could tell, those mentalities had nothing to do with that of conventional dogs. Much greater pride, intelligence, and a form of calculating sentience I have seen in monkeys, but not in domesticated dogs. Same for Cheetahs relative to cats, BTW… (Although they are different genuses outright, so the comparison does not fly well…)

            Another thing is that there are 2 types of integrity: moral integrity (the one you think of), and also intellectual integrity (the latter is like multi-cores in a CPU: it’s not something we want! ;-)!)

            Food for thought…


  3. De Brunet D'Ambiallet Says:

    That Supreme Court is then the judicial cover for the corporate takeover of the world by America?


  4. picard578 Says:

    Reblogged this on Defense Issues and commented:
    This clearly shows the joke that is representative democracy. Representatives are supposed to represent the people, but more often than not, that link is cut and hijacked, and representatives end up representing capitalists. Nine corporate giants own almost all the media in the US, situation is no different in many Western countries, and people still believe they live in the democratic system. Well, apparently not so much anymore, if ever-lower number of participating voters is any indication.


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: