The Massey Energy v Caperton case, is a significant Due Process and game changing case recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, in part, due to the award winning article written by Adam Liptak of the New York times regarding the Ohio Supremes.
Like most major impacting cases, affecting the state of the judiciary in states like Ohio and America in general, this case due to certain business ties, is being made all too soon, invisible, if not, safely, forgotten by most major media in the State of Ohio and beyond. Perhaps, it may be they just don't wish to face the stark reality that justice in America, for some time, now, has not been the thing of what most American's are led to believe by various sectors including the media and by some measure of expense, the high court's themselves often portray and try to make people still believe what it isn't.
In part, it may be also, major media corporate interests don't want to turn a true investigative eye on the serious corrupting and affecting interests who hold such all too obvious sway over the present Supreme Court of Ohio and numerous other states high courts, even when a paper like the New Times and well documented evidence, from judicial Center's are willing to put some substance to the issue and to provide at least, some political cover over any would be true investigative effort about the serious bad influence and bribery of high court officials in Ohio and elsewhere by large donor law firms, chamber of commerce interests and other significant special interests with business to get done at this level of operations and government.
The Caperton/Massey Case indicates, there may be an end point at which major donor funding for major supreme court races, like those in Ohio for the past eight years, is to be perceived within the context of a Constitutional level violation terms. In fact, such a violation of major donor special interest funding over such high courts and their actions and decisions, is truly a civil rights type of 14th Amendment Due Process violation as per the arguments for the Caperton side has argued, for those affected citizens and individuals and party litigants who have been so adversely impacted by powerful donor groups and interests who have conspired with the republican party across the State of Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana and others to ensure justice is always firmly dispensed, in a "philosophical" favor or "bent" towards those interests who have the deepest pockets, both on the bench and those who are willing to fill those pockets of those whom serve on the bench...again, both here in Ohio as it has been for the past eight years and among numerous other states.
NOW, in light of Caperton, we need as individuals and groups to not allow the elites of a particular legal profession, or subgroup such as judiciary formed committees who already are all too well entrenched to begin to make the new rules regarding when a justice must recuse themselves given the corporate or major donor special interests are helping to pave the way for a results oriented "philosophical" outcome based series of decisions.
What instead, is needed and required, is an independent, objective "policy" for the various states when such decision, that will be responsive to the will of the people, given such a set of rules, will clearly directly affect every citizen and ordinary individual who may appear before such courts and whom, least we forget, are by definition, the true power of this supposed democratic experiment we refer to as the United States of America.
In one way, we need to immediately ask of ourselves, why do the people of our nation, continually default their rights and their voice and power to the special interests and those who are most closely aligned with the same over the most basic functions of a governmental branch as critical as the judicary?
Could it be, at least, in part, because the media in affected states, like Ohio and elsewhere, don't truly wish to report the impact and the possibilites of what can change if we would educate our common populations and the people across such states and America itself, on the impact and the consequence of major donor money
on today's various high courts? Could it also be reported that the people's courts, are not exactly run for and by the people, today, if in fact, they ever truly were in the past 120 years.
To this end, the Midwest Center is focusing its immediate attention on making known the strong message of the recent Massey v. Caperton decision and the unique status now left to the states, the various courts in the wake of Massey and to assist to raise awareness, that the people of the states are to have a key and strong voice, in recreating the standards and 'floor' for when and whether a justice can be perceived as being someone overinvolved in less than an objective impartial form of justice, and/or is in fact, engaging, individually or as a whole in nothing but crass political and personal 'self dealing' ...when it comes to serving on the high courts, and deriding, the interests of the people and those ordinary citizens, and advocates, who often, have to appear in front of them.
We need to stay engaged even with the solid positive result of the Caperton case. Its not as complete as nor an absolute clear victory for those of us who have been watching and dealing with the issue for the past three or more years.
Yet, it will be a solid guide, even as we think it not as strong as we believe it ought to have been, given the four republican conserivate major [major donor] votes on the Supreme Court. Given Justice Kennedy's and the more moderate to liberal four others willingness to shift the paradigm of major donor interests among state high courts, in terms of viewing such a challenge as one clearly implying a Constitutional Due Process clause level violation, if even ever so slightly, the basic hands off or 'laize faire' approach of a former finanicial capitalistic approach to electing overly biased state supreme court justices, as happened in the West Virginia based Caperton case's purchasing of a seat, to get "results driven" outcomes, is probably a thing of the past.
Furthermore, advocates, court watchers and the citizens of our states, have to make it clear that the Court's recent decision has in fact, changed the rules of game, when it comes to the major donor funding of courts like Ohio's all republican major money bought and conglomerate mobbed up Court has itself, been found so emeshed within.
Our present state court is an all republican court, in a state which that has no other major state elected officials either retaining or obtaining state office or power, in the past four years; this political fact, in itself, bespeaks of corrupting influence of the same kinds of special interest who created the problem in West Virginia that formed the basis of the Caperton decision as having a very firm root on the Court system in Ohio.
Post Caperton, it is now no longer assumed that such endless amounts of cash, given to a particular 'cause' candidate or silent candidacy like those in Ohio, all too often, will NOT then, be subjected to a serious constitutional challenge, if its done in the manner its been orchestrated by certain special interests in Ohio and elsewhere this past decade.
This decision, in effect, should affect the hedgemony of the powerful money driven well honed, business/insurance/republican Supreme Court campaigns in Ohio. such efforts, have been funded by major Columbus, Cleveland and other major city insurance defense industry law firms and sizable chamber of commerce groups and related municipality insurers and business interests as well as particularly strong politically sensitive interest groups like the State FOP.
The issue, in light of Massey v Caperton opens quite a gap in fact, for the states to act in good faith with the spirit of the holding; it has left to the people and interested parties of the various states and concerned citizens and affected advocates to make clear this change is to a sincere and thorough one, not controlled or cleverly concealed by either the same special interests or store bought justices and media that helped to create such major funding issues in the first instance, in our recent American experience with our Third Branch of our government.
Again, Caperton may not have been a clear as some would have liked, including this author, but it is a true, significant start and strong first step in the right direction to curb this abuse of power and influence. We, who have been engaged in this fight and realistic assessment of the state of our judiciary, for some time, and who have as lawyers, gone up against such major special interest influcences, inside this state's high and federal courts, needed just such a win; In Caperton, as slender as Kennedy's opinion maybe, we, nonetheless, clearly obtained one.
Perhaps, there just may be hope for justice in Ohio and elsewhere across this nation, just yet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment