By removing campaign finance limits, the court gave the wealthy and corporations more power over government than ever before. Over the past decade, wealthy donors have spent more than $3 billion on super PACs, and a single couple, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, have donated nearly $300 million, according to “Oligarch Overload,” a new report from Public Citizen. These super donors use their contributions to impose government policies that further enrich them, including cutting taxes on the rich. It`s no coincidence that America`s 400 richest families paid less taxes than the middle class in 2018, when campaign contributions and spending skyrocketed. The freedom to spend unlimited sums also gives the very wealthy the opportunity to promote their favorite social policies on a large scale — including liberal policies, such as Michael Bloomberg`s aggressive support for pro-gun control congressional candidates. “Even if you suspected from the beginning that the system favored the rich, you will be shocked to learn how much you are becoming.” – Greg Palast, author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy Imagine if the rich were found guilty of anything. “I`m not ashamed to admit it. When we went to jail, I was absolutely terrified. But I didn`t have to be. You see, for a brief moment, I had forgotten that I was rich and that I lived in a place where everything was for sale. – Jordan Belfort, Wolf of Wall Street One of the first groups to be helped by the new conservative court was wealthy children, or at least children from affluent school districts. There was a growing consensus among lower federal courts, state courts, and law professors that the equality clause required states to balance spending between rich and poor school districts. In 1973, however, the court declared by a 5-4 vote that Texas and other states had the right to spend more money on children in rich counties than on children in poor countries.
In 1983, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Raymond Dirks, an investment adviser who had disclosed inside information to his clients, who were making money from it. It seemed clear that using inside information in this way was illegal, but the court found a dubious flaw. What`s fascinating about this case is that the most conservative justices voted to acquit Dirks, while the more liberal insisted he was guilty. Listen to the full discussion between Goldfarb and Scheer as the two discuss how the flawed U.S. legal system leaves 97% of federal convictions due to pleas rather than trials, leaving the vast majority of Americans without recourse to justice. Good memes/stories about it on subreddit/law school pages. One like, “went out with a rich guy, parked wherever he wanted, and when he was told it was illegal to park there, he said, `It`s legal, it only costs $25,` etc. It`s quite disgusting, but even if they added a prison sentence, there`s still an advantage to being able to afford a better and more attentive lawyer.
It turns out that the U.S. legal system is nothing more than a greed facilitator that has turned American society into a rotten playground for the decrepit rich. That`s the devastating lesson in the pages of lawyer and literary agent Ronald Goldfarb`s latest book, The Price of Justice: Money, Morals and Ethical Reform in the Law. In the latest episode of Scheer Intelligence, Goldfarb talks to host Robert Scheer about his book, which Scheer describes as “damning in his indictment against the corrupt legal profession, where too often profit stifles commitment to criminal or civil justice.” The conservative Supreme Court`s weakness for white-collar criminals is part of a larger phenomenon: its deep and enduring sympathy for the rich. In the 1960s, under the leadership of Liberal Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court became a well-known advocate for the rights of the poor, in areas ranging from the rights of welfare recipients to the right to court-appointed criminal counsel. Over the past 50 years, however, the Court`s sympathies have been reversed: on one legal doctrine after another, it has expanded the rights of wealthy individuals and corporations. I used to do it in Boston. Id pays about $300 in parking tickets each year. It was much cheaper than paying for legal parking. The Dirks case is an example of what has been called the “white-collar paradox” — that conservative Supreme Court justices, who rarely vote to overturn convictions of poor defendants, have shown clear sympathy for the rich. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, according to a study, voted for defendants in about 7 percent of non-white-collar criminal cases — and 82 percent of employees.
The court has certainly had moments when it has stood up for society`s most vulnerable — like a startling 2011 decision that ordered California to reduce prison overcrowding, but not much, and especially not in the last half-century. Much more often, she sided with wealthy campaign donors, wealthy corporations and children born into privileged people. In the vast majority of its cases, the Court has been a refuge not for the powerless and weak, but for members of society who are exceptionally well-off on their own. As a result of this decision, there are now yawning differences in school spending across the country. An analysis of funding in Pennsylvania a few years ago found that a wealthy county spent more than three times more than the county with the lowest spending in the state. Overall, these differences mean that children from affluent families across the country start their lives with better educational opportunities and better chances of later success. This dish, which the upper class loves, has its roots in the election of Richard Nixon in 1968. Nixon promised during his campaign to end Warren Court and replace him with a conservative. A few months after taking office, he appointed a new Conservative chief justice, Warren Burger, and in his first three years in office, he was able to appoint a total of four new justices.
This imprisoned a conservative court that still accompanies us today. The farm has given many more gifts to wealthy individuals and companies. For years, companies have been trying to get Congress and state legislatures to adopt strict limits on class actions. Few things succeeded in getting elected officials to adopt these limits, but the Court prevailed. In a series of decisions, including a high-profile one against Wal-Mart in 2011, it has been much harder for workers and consumers to unite in class action lawsuits that are often the only way for workers to get justice. In the Wal-Mart case, the court dismissed a class action lawsuit filed by some 1.5 million female workers, insisting they did not have enough in common to sue together. The Court also held that the due process clause prohibits what it considers to be excessive punitive damages. He then used this fabricated doctrine to slash jury compensation against Exxon Shipping for the Exxon Valdez and State Farm oil spill for abusing a physically disabled customer.
The rich have accountants for such things. A multimillionaire can usually afford to lose half of their net worth without seeing any real change in their lifestyle, while someone who lives paycheck after paycheck and loses 10% of their income could put them in a spiral of debt that goes out for years. Another group quickly aided by the conservative court were wealthy campaign donors. After Watergate, Congress passed a strict campaign finance bill with strict restrictions on contributions and spending. In 1976, the court lifted spending limits on the basis of the dubious theory that money equals First Amendment language.
