Dear Mr. President,

In the interest of bi-partisanship, just say no. Since “no” is the Republican answer – some say modus operandi – to everything, they can hardly object. Well, they can, and you can bet they will – but no thinking person pays any attention to them anyway. Since you prefer compromise to conflict, it will be difficult for you to change. So start small by saying “no” to calls for you to apologize for some of your recent statements.

Don’t apologize for calling Las Vegas what it is – a shithole in the desert where people piss away their money drinking, gambling and whoring. You were much more subtle, but hell, this is a town that advertises itself as a den of iniquity – what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Vegas not only deserves its reputation, it welcomes it. Who knows? Your remark could be good for business.

In any case, you spoke the truth, Mr. President – stand by it. 

And don’t apologize for calling out the Supreme Court for the controversial 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a dangerous decision that yet again favors corporations over people. Pundits and politicos can argue about etiquette – a side-dish that has the distinct flavor and foul odor of red herring – but that offense, if such it is, is the merest triviality compared to a wrong-headed decision that could well be the death-knell for what little remains of democracy in this republic.

The Court likes to bill itself as the last line of defense for the individual, but with this decision, it gave corporations unfettered influence over election campaigns and political causes. It was a radical extension of a perverted precedent that held corporations are persons, a notion so logically absurd it ought to be laughable. But no one who understands the awful implications of that view – or this decision – is laughing.

This decision reflects the same sort of perverted logic that argued turning the economy over to the greediest bastards on the planet would promote the commonweal. We see all too clearly where that insidious idiocy has led.

Defenders of the decision duck the moral and logical arguments, and intone stare decisis binds them to precedent. Have they no mind or heart or soul of their own? Is precedent more important than people? Are we all to be prisoners of the law?

As it was written long ago, “Man was not made for the law, but the law for Man.”

Opponents argue the decision did not follow precedent, but that charge ought to be beside the point, since the original decision was so obviously flawed. To argue that precedent matters in this case is to argue two wrongs make a right – or more precisely, that because the Court erred more than a century ago, it should continue to err on the side of corruption.

Those who try to justify such perfidy by claiming to be slaves to “original intent” are being equally foolish – or duplicitous; surely it was not the intent of the Founders to bind the hearts and minds of men trying more than two-hundred years later to find equitable solutions to problems the Founders could not have imagined.

One thing is certain; many – if not most – of the Founders would have disagreed vehemently with this decision. Because of their miserable experience with tyrannies like the East India Company, they had no love of corporations.

Again, such arguments are beside the point, for the purpose of the court is not to simply follow precedent or even the Constitution. It is to mete out justice as fairly and equitably as possible. In recognition of this primary duty, from time to time, the Court has stretched the boundaries of the Constitution to fit political and social realities.

Without the precedent-setting ruling of Brown v. Board of Education, racists would still be permitted to claim schools were “separate, but equal”, a practice so prevalent, a lie so obvious and an evil so perfidious, the court was compelled to do what legislators lacked the courage to do.

Without Roe v. Wade, desperate women would still be forced by desperate circumstances into back-alley butcher shops, where they would do what women that desperate have always done. Roe v. Wade simply made de jure what has always been de facto.

The decisions in these cases broke with precedent to provide justice and secure the rights of living, breathing human beings. But sadly, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission trampled on the rights of living, breathing human beings by granting inordinate power to corporations to buy and sell elections and politicians like any other product. It was a decision so wrong it deserved to be challenged publicly by the one person in our government charged with representing all the people.

You spoke the truth, Mr. President – stand by it

©2010 Tom Cordle