There is nothing in the Constitution that requires Supreme Court justices to be lawyers, but they all are.  Many of them over the course of history were corporate lawyers; most came from backgrounds, inherited or acquired, of wealth and power.  Thus it has been so since 1800 when the Supreme Court was first packed by Federalists, and thus it was so when the Supreme Court made itself the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution with Marbury v. Madison (1805).

When FDR packed the Supreme Court as part of the New Deal this provided fodder for a few foaming “free market libertarians” to cry “Foul!” but it was really business as usual.  The thing is, FDR wanted to pack it to serve a different agenda than it’s historic mission, the one that earned it the title of “laissez faire court” throughout the nineteenth century.  Yet the Supreme Court always has been the product of party politics as expressed through the jurisprudence of wealth and power elites.

Given their allegiances it may seem incongruent that, in reality, the Supreme Court always had a socialist agenda.  For a brief part of its history, from the 1930s to the 1970s, this was predominantly a populist socialism.  For most of its history, pre 1930s and post 1970s, it has been predominantly corporate socialism.  In both cases they passed laws empowering centralized government to benefit the Supreme Court’s favored social targets at the time, the populace or the corporations.  I do not doubt they forever have noble intent with their paternal mission; I simply doubt the benefits of this paternal mission to real democracy.

If we consider all the branches of government together, including the fourth estate, for any election year one-half of those branches currently favor corporate socialism.  And this is by far the most influential half.  For one part of this half influences public opinion, even fooling people into thinking that free markets and business corporations can coexist, while the other part of this half effectively has the real control for how our government functions.  It’s almost irrelevant what goes on with the other branches, whether they are controlled entirely by Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals.

Make no mistake, the government we’ve had since the seventies is the government that corporate socialists wanted, even as they use mouthpieces such as the Tea Party to rail against it.  So even as the recent election results appears to introduce some political balance, Democrats and Republicans alike are marginally more than pawns in the game being played by the other, imbalanced half of the political equation.

Tags: ,