My response to one NY Times reader regarding the Supreme Court . . . [View all]

[markpkessinger]

In the comments to an editorial in today's New York Times titled, "The Court Follows the Money," one reader wrote:

< . . . . >

If reform is impossible, then a revolution is needed. What kind of revolution? How to proceed? Many paths are possible, none are easy. Let me suggest two places we might start.

First, stop voting. At the least, never again vote for the lesser of two evils. Again, if the system is irredeemable, then the sooner it fully breaks, the better off we will be in the long term. Working for the election of Democrats leads to nothing but heartbreak. That energy is better spent elsewhere. The more the tea-party and like minded elements succeed, the quicker the collapse of the system will arrive. Scarry? You bet.

< . . . . >

I couldn't let that one stand. Here was my response (which has not yet posted to the site):

Terence Stoeckert advises: "First, stop voting. At the least, never again vote for the lesser of two evils."

If we stop voting, we play into the oligarchs' hands -- so that suggestion is possibly the worst advice one could possibly give.

As for voting for the "lesser of two evils" ("LTE&quot , while LTE voting my well be worthy of criticism, I would remind you that this ruling did NOT come about as a result of voters choosing between the lesser of two evils. All five of the justices who voted to overturn the aggregate contribution limits in McCutcheon were nominated by presidents of ONE of the two parties: the GOP, and ALL FOUR who dissented were nominated by Democratic Presidents. Similarly, in Citizens United, the SAME FIVE JUSTICES were in the majority, three of the dissenters were nominated by Democrats and one, Justice Stevens, was a liberal Republican nominated by Gerald Ford.

Whatever criticism one may have of Presidents Clinton and Obama, it was the Justices they nominated who did NOT stand with the majority in this case. And it was the Justices nominated by Reagan, Bush I and Bush II that WERE the majority. But that probably doesn't sit well with your "both aprties are the same" narrative, does it?