I am reminded of the case U.S. v. Reynolds(345US1) from 1953. I have a copy of the Washington Post article from June 22, 2003 written by Timothy Lynch, entitled "An Injustice Wrapped In A Pretense". Ah, for the good old days when WaPo was not just another government lapdog.
That case seems to represent the first time a government attorney invoked the National Security claim to bamboozle and deceive SCOTUS. It came from the case of a USAF bomber crash in 1948, and the dirty deeds of government, both Solicitor General and SCOTUS, were not revealed until 2000 when the report was accidentally declassified and ended up on the internet. It clearly showed in government reports the negligence of the government.
I hope this Murthy v. Missouri will not demonstrate the complicity of SCOTUS in delivering injustice yet again.
Yes, important distinction. But I think there is also an ethics issue. Most reporters I have talked to – – and I’m the daughter of one—are aware that the proper role of the non-journalist in the phone call is to provide facts, not explicitly to edit the story in any way or kill it, unless the factual corrections or new facts have that effect. I suspect some journalistic ethics books like “the virtuous journalist“ or memoirs of the greats describe this tension. In other words, the three justices who were pressuring the press in their youth may have been oblivious to the fact that the pressure was probably inappropriate. If inordinate pressure were applied, the government official or other caller risks embarrassment— e.g. a description of the government is being overwrought or apoplectic etc.
What I also find egregious is that the plaintiffs’ censored speech was actually correct while the governments was wrong. We are having enough trouble in the medical community with scientific debate without the government shutting it down.
Now we are clearly in the realm of the justices facing something they often have and here may decline to even acknowledge: there is a vast difference between routine congressionally (with heavy influences from campaign coffer-enriching lobbyists) designed legalism, on the one hand, and actual jurisprudence on the other.
Unless the SCOTUS jurists can and do distinguish between their own routine ignoring of that distinction, this case, too, may become as doomed as they rendered, for example, the "Citizens United," a case in which the only citizens who were then united were those legally incorporated citizens whose rights SCOTUS has with increasing aggression over the most recent fourteen decades, routinely elevated into a super-cult of financiers, hedge-funders, et. al., as if they are determined to also undermine the US Constitution's Article IV, Section 2, para. 1: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of Citizens in the several states." That clause they've already bastardized by legally elevating abstract corporations into superior citizens, citizens whose own investors and employees are already, with Citizens United, SCOTUS effectively made legally subordinate to the investors of said corporate entities. The same rule applies to ordinary citizens who make deposits into incorporated banks, credit unions, etc. This also protects those amoral 'derivatives holders' who profit from gambling on our banks, and thereby get priority for depleting our accounts, during a sharp economic downturn, as Ellen Brown and others have long been spelling out. Every 'recession,' like the Great Depression, the US FED, a private corporate holding of the finance industry's lords and ladies, and not the Government ,decides the fate of failing banks and other financial institutions, just as they do with any other failing/flailing corporation. Those of us not incorporated do not legally exist, except when the reprehensible office-seekers pretending to represent us come pleading for votes, and then we are promptly ignored as irrelevant at most, otherwise mere nuisances.
Now the real test of the US's very existence emerges from beneath the cover stories hiding beneath the slime upon the swamp's near shoreline. They screw this one up, and they clearly risk farther stirring the nation's long already rising anger, frustration, and collective fury with all the swampy sleaze, and too many homeless to pay for official sleaze. We all know and have known for four decades and counting the government will never again tax those lords and ladies calling the shots from atop unka' suga's rapidly balding and increasingly, obviously, senile head. How much fuel do they want to add to their swamps burning that slime from the equator to the arctic & antarctic poles? We shall see.
While we wait, we may all want to revisit Lewis Hyde's brilliant book: "Trickster Makes This World: How Disruptive Imagination Creates Culture." Of course, it also goes without saying, that same imagination disrupts existing culture. We have also been witnessing this since long before we began noticing climate change. We should consider that dead lakes and rivers leave their dead zones at the mouths where the deadest rivers barf out their poisonous puke into the oceans from which we all enjoy our tainted seafood.
I am reminded of the case U.S. v. Reynolds(345US1) from 1953. I have a copy of the Washington Post article from June 22, 2003 written by Timothy Lynch, entitled "An Injustice Wrapped In A Pretense". Ah, for the good old days when WaPo was not just another government lapdog.
That case seems to represent the first time a government attorney invoked the National Security claim to bamboozle and deceive SCOTUS. It came from the case of a USAF bomber crash in 1948, and the dirty deeds of government, both Solicitor General and SCOTUS, were not revealed until 2000 when the report was accidentally declassified and ended up on the internet. It clearly showed in government reports the negligence of the government.
I hope this Murthy v. Missouri will not demonstrate the complicity of SCOTUS in delivering injustice yet again.
Yes, important distinction. But I think there is also an ethics issue. Most reporters I have talked to – – and I’m the daughter of one—are aware that the proper role of the non-journalist in the phone call is to provide facts, not explicitly to edit the story in any way or kill it, unless the factual corrections or new facts have that effect. I suspect some journalistic ethics books like “the virtuous journalist“ or memoirs of the greats describe this tension. In other words, the three justices who were pressuring the press in their youth may have been oblivious to the fact that the pressure was probably inappropriate. If inordinate pressure were applied, the government official or other caller risks embarrassment— e.g. a description of the government is being overwrought or apoplectic etc.
What I also find egregious is that the plaintiffs’ censored speech was actually correct while the governments was wrong. We are having enough trouble in the medical community with scientific debate without the government shutting it down.
Now we are clearly in the realm of the justices facing something they often have and here may decline to even acknowledge: there is a vast difference between routine congressionally (with heavy influences from campaign coffer-enriching lobbyists) designed legalism, on the one hand, and actual jurisprudence on the other.
Unless the SCOTUS jurists can and do distinguish between their own routine ignoring of that distinction, this case, too, may become as doomed as they rendered, for example, the "Citizens United," a case in which the only citizens who were then united were those legally incorporated citizens whose rights SCOTUS has with increasing aggression over the most recent fourteen decades, routinely elevated into a super-cult of financiers, hedge-funders, et. al., as if they are determined to also undermine the US Constitution's Article IV, Section 2, para. 1: "The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of Citizens in the several states." That clause they've already bastardized by legally elevating abstract corporations into superior citizens, citizens whose own investors and employees are already, with Citizens United, SCOTUS effectively made legally subordinate to the investors of said corporate entities. The same rule applies to ordinary citizens who make deposits into incorporated banks, credit unions, etc. This also protects those amoral 'derivatives holders' who profit from gambling on our banks, and thereby get priority for depleting our accounts, during a sharp economic downturn, as Ellen Brown and others have long been spelling out. Every 'recession,' like the Great Depression, the US FED, a private corporate holding of the finance industry's lords and ladies, and not the Government ,decides the fate of failing banks and other financial institutions, just as they do with any other failing/flailing corporation. Those of us not incorporated do not legally exist, except when the reprehensible office-seekers pretending to represent us come pleading for votes, and then we are promptly ignored as irrelevant at most, otherwise mere nuisances.
Now the real test of the US's very existence emerges from beneath the cover stories hiding beneath the slime upon the swamp's near shoreline. They screw this one up, and they clearly risk farther stirring the nation's long already rising anger, frustration, and collective fury with all the swampy sleaze, and too many homeless to pay for official sleaze. We all know and have known for four decades and counting the government will never again tax those lords and ladies calling the shots from atop unka' suga's rapidly balding and increasingly, obviously, senile head. How much fuel do they want to add to their swamps burning that slime from the equator to the arctic & antarctic poles? We shall see.
While we wait, we may all want to revisit Lewis Hyde's brilliant book: "Trickster Makes This World: How Disruptive Imagination Creates Culture." Of course, it also goes without saying, that same imagination disrupts existing culture. We have also been witnessing this since long before we began noticing climate change. We should consider that dead lakes and rivers leave their dead zones at the mouths where the deadest rivers barf out their poisonous puke into the oceans from which we all enjoy our tainted seafood.
Good luck charming the tricksters.