On Judicial Review: A Nipple in the Eye of Justice

So SCOTUS made yet another polarizing and controversial decision this week.  They decided that corporations, once again, are people, and women, once again, are not.  Big surprise right?  I could fill volumes of blogs complaining about how the SCOTUS is wholly owned by the Fascist States of Americorp, or how the general populace is once again being oppressed by the silly putty like drooping silver fox balls of old white cronies, or how Antonin Scalia probably has oddly long nipples inside weirdly small areolas, but I won't.  It's gotten to the point in this country, especially over the last few decades it seems, that the check the judicial branch of government is supposed to provide has become more of a nullification or even re-writing of the laws the so called "people's house" puts forth.  To lambaste the blatantly corporatist rulings handed down over the years by SCOTUS is an exercise in futility, as well as taking on each shitty ruling one at a time (which has gotten no where ever because the SCOTUS will always use stare decisis, Latin for we are never wrong so go fuck yourself.)  The old adage goes like this, "you must treat the disease, not the symptom".  Never has there been such a need for this wisdom.

The problem, the disease, (besides Scalia's crazy nips), is the institution of judicial review.  If you are not familiar with what that is, lemme sum up; judicial review is the process by witch the highest court of the land examines a law, not to see if it has been broken or violated, but rather if the law is in fact constitutional.  If the law in question is found to be unconstitutional then that law is no longer a valid statute or rule.  The SCOTUS has the power of precedent, a precedent they set for themselves during the Marshall court in Marbury V. Madison, the unprecedented case to which the first precedent was set for precedent setting by giving themselves the power of precedent and hence forth all decisions would uphold a precedent or set a new precedent, but rarely every go against a previously set precedent.  Marbury was appointed a judge by Paul Giamatti, but the paperwork didn't go through until Giamatti left office to play the Rhino in the Amazing Spiderman 2.  The guy on the nickel became president, and was all like fuck yo appointments Paul Giamatti, and told his secretary of state not to process the papers that would allow Marbury to become a judge.  John Marshall, the chief justice at the time, wrote the court's opinion in the ruling,(that was in favor of Marbury, in case you give a shit).  In that opinion, Marshall decided that the SCOTUS needed a bit more power than it already had, and decided, despite no mention of it in the constitution anywhere, that it was well within the power of the supreme court to judge the constitutional validity of a law itself, not just whether it had been breached.  This was one of president nickel guy's biggest regrets as POTUS, letting this precedent happen without any sort of challenge.  Since that day, the SCOTUS has re-written laws, and interpreted the US constitution like a date rapist sees signs that the victim wanted it, I mean after all, if Santa Clara County didn't want to be fucked by the Southern Pacific Railroad, then they shouldn't have treated it like it was a person...right?

You may think that judicial review has also been a useful tool to the oppressed, and you would be right.  Cases like Brown V. the Board of Education was a huge victory in the civil rights movement.  Miranda V. Arizona provides for protection against police, and makes for badass banter between good guys and bad guys in our favorite buddy cop films, "you have the right to remain...dead."  Roe V. Wade afforded women the protection of their bodies, although it seems that the court is doing something it rarely does here in the Hobby Lobby case, reverse itself...to a degree.  These are all great landmark decisions, but nothing that could not have been achieved through legislation. See the civil rights act of 1965 for example.  It is not, nor has it ever been the job of the high court to have any sort of say in the writing or even interpretation of the laws.  Their job is to be the final stop in the appellate process in judging whether or not a law has been broken.  Their check on the other two branches is to find them guilty if they break the laws that government is tasked with writing and executing.  That's it.

So while judicial review can be a catalyst for social justice, the fact that most of the time it enables oligarchs to rob more, oppress more, and monopolize the majority of wealth, makes the process devoid of any merits it may eek out of its judicial pooper.  Let's stop arguing over table scraps, and start demanding a real seat at the table.