The week of injustice....

Today, America seemed transfixed as they sat waiting with bated breath to hear the verdict in the Casey Anthony murder trial. When the jury found her not guilty, many feigned shock and outrage at such an injustice. Much like the OJ Simpson case, the prosecution built a case on forensics and circumstantial evidence and when the defense brought that evidence into doubt, the case falls apart. That does not mean that she didn't commit the crime, but that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt Casey Anthony's guilt to a jury.

While all of this went on, the Supreme Court committed a real injustice in the case of Connick v. Thompson. In this case the Orleans Parish District Attorney's office headed by Harry Connick Sr. tried John Thompson for murder. A jury found Thompson guilty and sentenced him to death. He spent the next 18 years in prison, including 4 on death row. Shortly before his 1999 execution case, a private investigator uncovered evidence that the DA's office withheld which would have proved Thompson's innocence. He was freed, then sued the DA's office for wrongful imprisonment. A jury found the DA's office liable in that action and awarded him $14 million in damages. Based upon precedent in a 1963 case, Brady v. Maryland, where the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors had the duty to hand over all evidence, including evidence that might prove the defendant's innocence during discovery as part of fulfilling the constitutional requirement of due process. This Supreme Court thought differently.

Our favorite Justice, Clarence Thomas, authored the majority opinion where, in a surprise vote of 5-4, the Court held that the DA's office could not be held liable for the actions of a lone prosecutor. In defense of decency, Justice Ginsburg authored a scathing dissent and opted to read it aloud in open session. She clearly pointed to numerous cases over period of many years where the DA's office under Connick routinely suppressed exculpatory evidence, particularly in capital cases.

When you look at these two cases, while Casey Anthony's case can be labeled tragic, it is the Thompson case which seriously undermines our sense of justice, which is the bedrock our nation and its freedom is built upon.

Welcome to the Oligarchy

Over the last several years, the conservative movement sought to rein in what they saw as government intrusion into areas where the believed it ought not to be involved. Over the few weeks it has become clear that the movement wishes to dismantle our form of representative democracy and replace it with a neo-feudal society headed by an oligarchy.

While the Republicans in congress hold the full faith and credit of the United States Hostage as they try to extort the elimination of the social safety net as their price for doing what everyone says has to be done, the Supreme Court has been laying the groundwork for corporation to supplant the our elected representatives as policymakers for the nation. Last week, they denied class status in a sex-discrimination case brought against corporate behemoth, Wal-Mart on flimsy grounds. Research conducted by Barbara Ehrenreich and Nelson Lichtenstein clearly show evidence of a corporate climate that institutionalized gender bias in the realm of promotion, a claim 5 Justices said they found so egregious that a Jury should not even have to power to consider the merits at trial.

Then today the gang of 5 sought to chill political speech, when they ruled that Arizona's public campaign financing law, which sought to provide relative parity between candidates and their ability to spend money on speech as going to far. They clearly showed that, in this decision, they want only those with unlimited financial resources to have a say in our elections.

What can we do about this?

First, we need to pressure Congress to extend the ethical codes that govern our federal judiciary to the Supreme Court. These codes define conflict of interest, and specify when a justice must recuse themselves from a case. It also defines what conduct would be unbecoming of a justice. It would prohibit them from engaging in partisan and political activity or accept gifts that might be viewed as means to curry favor. Our founders wished to see a judiciary that could act as arbiters of justice and not become law unto themselves. Remember every member of the House and one third of the Senate will be up for reelection, if the cries for this become deafening, the incumbents might fear ouster if they try to block such a measure.

Second, contact your Senators and voice concern over the ethical behavior of members of the Supreme Court and that members of the Judiciary committee should investigate the issues that have arisen. Clarence Thomas has had many issues, from the financial disclosure documents that failed to report his wife's income as a political operative, to the gifts he has received from the likes of Christopher DeMuth and Harlan Crow who had interest in many cases before the court. Justices Thomas, Scalia and Alito all engaging in partisan political activites, such as the speeches given by Thomas and Scalia at one of the Koch Brother's Secret Retreats. Investigate the activities in the full light of day and then if the evidence suggests that they may be true draft articles of impeachment against any Justice whose conduct falls short of the ethical behavior we expect of our Supreme Court.

Remember, political change can only come from the governed. We need to see the political activism like the world saw in 1968. We need to harness the spirit of Egypt, Tunisia, Wisconsin and tell the likes of John Boehner, and Mich McConnell and their patrons that we will not allow our nation to devolve into an oligarchy as we sweep them from power.