Talk about your activist judges!

Editorials

Discussion

February 3, 2010

Anonymous The Tahlequah Daily Press Wed Feb 03, 2010, 10:05 AM CST

At least five members of the U.S. Supreme Court have left no doubt that they, despite their own frequent criticism of robed colleagues who would make laws rather than interpret them, are intent on doing that very thing.

Nearly two weeks ago, in a 5-4 decision, the high court gave its blessing to something both the left and right on the political spectrum have feared: carte blanche for big businesses and unions to funnel millions of dollars into congressional and presidential election campaigns.

The eventual outcome of this move should be crystal-clear, even to children in a sixth-grade civics class. Money does indeed talk, and those with plenty of it will now have voices capable of totally overriding what the rest of us have to say.

How could anyone claim this to be democracy in action? The founding fathers, who envisioned at least a semblance of representation for “regular Americans,” must be flipping frantically in their graves.

Certainly Theodore Roosevelt, so famed for his “trust-busting” efforts, would be appalled. It was he who said, during a State of the Union address: “All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law; directors should not be permitted to use stockholders’ money for such purposes.”

Now, most of the checks and balances we’ve taken for granted have been tossed unceremoniously out the window. And this, by a court largely seated by presidents who railed relentlessly against “activist judges.” How much more “activist” can one get, than acting solely on the part of special interests rather than the general public?

Stalwarts in both the Republican and Democratic parties have swam for years against this tide of political spending. Remember the McCain-Feingold Act, which in part barred ads funded by unions and corporations in the 11th hour of election campaigns? It just went the way of the dodo, as did other provisions designed to create accountability and transparency.

As for Sen. John McCain himself, he declared disappointment with the decision, but seemed resigned to it – and to the fact that years of his efforts have been shot down. He all but conceded there’s nothing that can be done. After all, these “activist” justices will remain seated until they die or retire.

Perhaps we should take this one logical step further, and have the candidates bear the logos of those who “sponsor” them. It would be rather like Jeff Gordon racing a car with DuPont or Pepsi emblazoned upon the hood. Joe Blow can declare himself the “AFL-CIO candidate” with an appropriate stamp above the bill of his ballcap, while opponent Bob Smith waves a banner bearing the names of giants in the banking industry.

Chalk up another win for big money, and another loss for voters. And another piece of evidence that the Supreme Court – at least, in its present incarnation – doesn’t necessarily deserve the respect accorded it.

Text Only

Editorials

Cancelling class complicated call
The decision by Tahlequah Public Schools officials to hold classes Monday, despite the threat of a snowstorm, sparked a bit more controversy than similar cases in the past. Perhaps the reaction was related to the looming school board election, or it may have been a culmination of years of frustration on the part of parents and patrons.

February 15, 2012
Banning inside trading was the only way to go
Though the action was a no-brainer where the public is concerned, the U.S. Senate made the right move last week when it approved a bill clarifying that it’s illegal for members of Congress, their staffs and many executive-branch employees to use insider information to get a leg up on stock trading.

February 13, 2012
Earmarks by Inhofe, others aren’t right
That smell in the air might not be bacon frying in your kitchen, but the unfolding of another porky project for an Oklahoma politician.

February 10, 2012
Press release deadlines for candidates
If you are running for a political office for which Cherokee County voters can cast ballots, it’s not too early to be thinking about a press release announcing your candidacy. Indeed, some have announcements already appeared in the Daily Press.

February 8, 2012
Superintendent pay: Freeze it
Rep. Jason Nelson, R-Oklahoma City, may not have planned to seek hero status; perhaps his action was even designed to make up for past legislative offenses. Either way, he’s about to become the darling of the moment for many Oklahomans who believe certain public school superintendents make far too much money.
Nelson is calling for a freeze on superintendents’ salaries, and rightly so.

February 6, 2012
Is your stuff not getting published?
If you’re a regular contributor to the “news” side of the Daily Press, we hope you haven’t noticed anything missing lately – like copy or photos you’ve submitted to us for publication. But if you have, there’s a good reason why, and there’s something you can do about it.

February 2, 2012
Cast your ballot, for children’s sake
As the old saying goes, if you don’t vote, you don’t have a right to complain about what you get.

January 18, 2012
Do your part to help THS senior party
Graduation from high school is a rite of passage – for many young people, the first major milestone in their lives. It signifies the end of childhood, and the crossing of the threshold into adulthood, although the newly minted adults still won’t be old enough to drink for another couple of years.

January 14, 2012
Drivers must stop for all school buses
Earlier this week, an 11-year-old boy was struck by a car after he got off a school bus on Downing Street. Fortunately, the boy wasn’t gravely injured, but he could have been.

January 13, 2012
Service unappreciated
It has become evident that the sentiment, “thank you for your service,” is an empty one when it comes to the medical profession.

January 13, 2012
More Editorials Headlines

This question is not for people who have never attended church, nor those who still attend the same church they always did. It's for those who no longer attend their original church of choice. Why did you stop attending your original church?

Editorials

Search Results

Discussion

Talk about your activist judges!

This question is not for people who have never attended church, nor those who still attend the same church they always did. It's for those who no longer attend their original church of choice. Why did you stop attending your original church?

Site Map

Contact Us