The Yale-Harvard Supreme Court: Us versus Them

Over the past few weeks, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has rendered several major decisions. These have either been applauded or vilified depending on which side of the political spectrum one is on. Personally, I could care less about the decisions, which from my perspective have less to do with legalities than compared to the tactics of divide and conquer as practiced by Oligarchs for centuries. But what is disturbing, is the sever lack of universal representation that currently, and in the past has comprised the jurist that sit on this nine person corpus.

Since 1956, at any given time, there have NEVER been less than three justices from Harvard and/or Yale sitting on the SCOTUS. And since the appointment of Anthony Kennedy in 1988, Harvard and Yale graduates in concert have comprised a majority of the court. When Elena Kagan was confirmed, it made all sitting on the SCOTUS had either attended Yale (Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Sonia Sotomayor) or Harvard (John G. Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer) for law schools. Can you say American aristocracy? 

I say this because in Washington of recent decades, it appears that the prevailing assumption as it pertains to the SCOTUS is that, the best minds and smartest people for the job graduate from either Yale or Harvard. Albeit a possibility of fanatical truism, in reality such never has, or will be the case. As such, unlike representative bodies like the Senate or the House of Representatives, the SCOTUS is not representative of AMERICA at all. Sure you got black and Latino persons, and some white men and white women, but that just doesn’t cut the cake and rather too simplistic in a diverse population inclusive of regional distinctions in thinking as ours.

This disproportionality in the number of justices from Harvard and Yale is frightening and should be to all. It is a form of legal aristocracy because there is none when it regards diversity of the legal educations of the folk who happen to be on the most important political body in our nation. I mean is it impossible to find a great and smart legal mind from the halls of Duke, Stanford, Northwestern, University of Virginia, William and Mary or the University of Tennessee? Nope, the Yaleharvarification of the SCOTUS aint about quality of the mind, but moreso of the Presidents whom appoint them and the legal field good ole boy network.

In simple terms, this is all about limited access networking. First, for the past 26 years every president has been a graduate of Yale or Harvard. This may be why among other things; all of the sitting members of the SCOTUS are either Catholic or Jewish. And it seems that all clerked on the Supreme Court once upon a time ago. If this constitutional republic is to function at full capacity and utility of its citizenry, diversity of education at the highest ranks of government, in particular the SCOTUS is paramount and a matter of survival.

When our elected officials, the folk who are responsible for making these sections and appointments to government positions we did not have a say of choosing and working on behalf of the citizenry, limit their pool to a small body, it works against the best interest of the nation. I mean, we saw what happened when African Americans and women were added, so why restrict the applicant pool in this instance?

The danger is that under the present results of this process, we get a narrower perspective on life because people in the restricted pool are reinforced to think the same and have more in common than different.

Imagine where our nation would be if we did this in all fields. Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard, Fred Smith of Federal Express attended the University of Memphis for his MBA, Steve Jobs dropped out of Reed College and Warren Buffet went to University of Nebraska. I guess if you are starting a business or not looking for a job there are different requirements compared to obtaining a SCOTUS appointment. Could you imagine a field of Business dominated by just two schools? Oh that is right, you can, and well argue the observation in the affirmative since it were the Harvard and Yale Finance MBA’s that blew up and crashed Wall Street and the national and global economies.

Where would we be if science, technology and medicine operated in this manner? This would mean no University of Tennessee Medical Center or St. Jude Hospital in Memphis, no John Hopkins, Duke, Stanford, Cornell, Chicago, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, Cal Tech, MIT and Washington University in St. Louis.

The entire ideal of just two schools running the decision that will impact the entire nation is feculent. It is clear that other factors may be involved that may not even benefit the citizenry but rather the government and corporations since they are people now legally as a consequence of several recent court decisions. Most should be able to detect how many modern SCOTUS decisions benefit global plutocrats more than us, and in concert with the media and the criminal behavior of bankers and financiers; like the other two branches of our government, the SCOTUS seem to repeat a narrative of a future that George Orwell would have described as being manufactured to serve the interest of all and everything except justice, truth, virtue, and liberty. If my corollary is correct, this will not result in anything good for America.

Google: March 1st Youtube Changes Much Bigger and InvassiveThan Thought

tweet-a-boo, i see you

If you are an avid reader, you may be we4ll aware of two of the finest works of science fiction written over the past 100 years: Audous Huxley’s A Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984. In A Brave New World, Huxley attempts to warn us of a future plagued with interest supportive of scientific utopianism. A world in which people are just victims of propaganda to be manipulated. In 1984, George Orwell describes a petrifying dangers that man, in search of a Utopia may create via government in order to have an orderly society, but at the expense of the freedom of the people. In the book “Big brother” is always watching, “Ignorance is strength” and “freedom is slavery.”

Yesterday, the U.S. Library of Congress said it will start saving and archiving all worlds’ tweets from around the world due to a new partnership with Twitter. Each public tweet from 2006, when the first began to date will be archived. This means that all information that is on the public timeline, from twitpics, to your location, to any link will be recorded for all of history for anyone to search and study.

This just displays how significant view the Internet is in this digital age. After six months, all public tweets will be made available to the Library of Congress. It has been estimated that between 50 to 60 millions of tweets are published each day. Biz Stone, one of the founders of the micro-blogging service wrote “…there are some specifics regarding this arrangement. Only after a six-month delay can the Tweets will be used for internal library use, for non-commercial research, public display by the library itself, and preservation."

So be leery of what you send out in your limited 140 character space, for if you plan to run for congress or any political office, your tweets will be available for you opponents to use anyway fit.

will the real terrorist please stand up

In a few years from now, I may not be able or worse, imprisoned or executed for writing some of the things or expressing my personal views, I the manner I desire on such topics. In particular if Senate Bill S.1959 has its way. S. 1959 A bill to establish the National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism, and for other purposes. The billed has just passed in the house (H.R. 1955) and now is headed to the Senate. To add another stupid pet trick to the mix, the bill only targets United States citizens and make continuous use of basic Constitutional protections it targets in an effort to fight supposedly home grown terrorism.

The general purview for such a law is scary for two reason, first it is buttressed on the assumption that since 9/11, America is less safe (been the same to me all my as a man of color). The second is that the wording is unclear and vague at best. Based on the way it reads, this act could be easily used to label anyone or group that has strong critisim of the government. For example, in section 899a, “violent radicalization” is stated to “means the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically based violence to advance political, religious, or social change.” In the same section, Ideologically based violence ” is defined as “the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs.

Now I may be wrong, but are they saying “thought crimes” in the Orwellian sense, or as they put it, “Planned use” can be looked as an act of terror? Would my thoughts if perceived as hostile to a selected administration and being against our war efforts, posted on the Internet via my blog be considered as acts of terror?

I say yes. In section 899b, finding (3), it is written that “The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens.”

The bill is supposed to be an amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and in the house, was sponsored by Rep. Jane Harmon (D-CA) -in picture. If you asked me, she should be the poster girl for what a homegrown terrorist looks like. For anyone who attempts to restrict my personal liberties under the guise of fear and paranoia, is the real terrorist – so stand up lil momma.

Stupid pet tricks

Got damn revenuers. I tell you, at this rate, I will never run out of stuff to say about our government. I just found out that my tax dollars have gone to file an indictment against the all time home run leader Barry Bonds. A federal grand filed this for perjury and the obstruction of justice lying.

Of all folks, the Federal government have some nerve to call anybody a liar or to accuse anybody of obstructing justice. Last I heard, the filibuster was still used in the hallowed halls of congress. And why, for steriods? From what I have read, this is the result of a four year investigation. Four years – they don’t even take four years to investigate each other (senators and congress persons), or to investigate the fowl-up of FEMA with regards to Katrina, or why the mortgage lending industry has lead to an increase in foreclosures across the country, or why it take 93 cents to make one Canadian dollar, or why the Veternans Hospitals of American can’t provide health care to men and women who serve our country.

Streriods are a marvel of science. The are used every day. In medicine alone, they are prescribed daily to people who do not play sports to assist them with recovering after surgery. Steriods are also extremely useful ( both male and female sex steroids) in mediating or protecting against cardiovascular disease (CVD) and hypertension in some individuals. Anabolic-androgenic steroids are even used for alcoholic liver disease. Why can’t sports figures use them but regular folk like you and me can?

And why Barry Bonds, they didn’t indict Rush Limbaugh for his drug addict behavior of abusing Oxycontin. Shit, I bet half the folks in the legslative, executive and judicial branches of government are taking some prescription medication that is a steriod by the definitions of organic chemisty that learned back at Morehouse. Organic chemistry is the study of the properties of carbon-based compounds that are organic.

Just tell me, who are the members of this Grand Jury and why not make them take drug trest to discern if they using steriods. Why aren’t their names made public? We know that our current President is a recovering achololic and cocaine addict but they don’t indict him, and he running the country, spending more money than we have and sending men and women to die daily in a war over an emotion.

I tell you, is it just me, or is their no pragmatism in government anymore? Im a libertarian, but I feel that George Orwell when he penned 1984 and Aldous Huxley when he wrote Brave New World may have been right. You think Ray Bradbery will be next, I man wil they start burning books like they did in Fahrenhiet 451? Or is this a replication of an old David Letterman skit called “Stupid Pet Tricks?” If so can we put folks like this to sleep? Just a question.