United States Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter has announced he will be leaving his position in June, providing President Obama with the opportunity to replace the Republican chosen Justice with someone more socially aware.
Justice Souter was appointed by Republican President George H. W. Bush to represent big business in the Supreme Court. Souter did not let Bush down, consistently voting for big business over society whenever possible, to the extent that business publications openly admit the Court was sided 6-3 or 7-2 in favor of big business (Justice Kennedy being the swing vote, see this Forbes article for an example). Per that same Forbes article,”…William Eskridge, a professor at Yale Law School and a prominent scholar on Supreme Court dynamics said: “Many of the business cases were 6-3 or 7-2 [decisions] and that isn’t likely to change.”
Probably the most extreme example (but not the only one) of Souter’s fixation on putting large corporate profits over people’s rights was his lead opinion in 2008 to drastically reduce the fine paid by Exxon for their negligent and destructive oil spill (Exxon Valdez). Souter’s twisted ruling came as Exxon was pulling down record profits, thanks to so many Americans willing to die and kill for oil profits.
In order to ensure another pro-business candidate replaces Justice Souter, a well financed PR campaign has begun. One slimy psychological tactic used is: to ‘announce’ a likely candidate who is favorable to corporate profits, in this case Justice Sonia Sotomayor a Bush I appointee. Then, to build opposition support for their own candidate, release media ‘attacks’ based on bigotry. In this case, many articles were placed attacking Sotomayor for being a Hispanic woman. These articles cause the expected instinctive reaction from people who hate bigotry to support Sotomayor, a candidate against their own interest. Now many people are supporting Sotomayor, unfortunately without any idea they are being manipulated by well financed PR campaigns.
The candidacy of President Obama is a perfect example of this tactic. Large corporate funding supported his candidacy for president.
Step 1: finance a Black and a female candidate for President who are both strong supporters of Big Business. Both Clinton and Obama have been in favor of increases in military budget, banking financing, etc. Obama has continued to push money to big business since his election.
Step 2: Use ownership of newspapers, TV, and radio media to attack candidates based on sex or race. Never mention the candidates support of controlling corporate financing.
Step 3: Watch people get upset by attacks and become defensive, as planned. Continue attacks to spur their enthusiasm for your candidate.
Step 4: People enthusiastically vote for sympathetic character, who happens to be against their values.
Step 5: Profit!
Obama’s pro-big business actions since his election reinforces an important ideal: it is more beneficial to elect someone whose policies will help Black people than someone who is Black themselves. I’d rather we had Ralph Nader, who has fought for woman’s rights, than a woman who ignores those rights, like Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin. Please, let’s not get fooled again.