Memo from the desk of Mitch McConnell, re: Elena Kagan

Dear fellow GOP Senators, We will soon begin deliberations on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, and it is of the utmost importance that we stand united in our opposition to her. There are many reasons for us to resist her rise to the highest court in the land, but the case was best summarized yesterday by Judson Phillips of Tea Party Nation who writes "Obama wants to transform this country from a right of center country, to a European style socialist country. He knows the congress is going to go from Democratic controlled to either Republican controlled or split evenly. To get much of his agenda enacted or saved, he is going to need control of the judiciary." Mr Phillips then goes on to emphasize that we should oppose "any nominee who comes through from Obama even if that means for the next two years, we only have eight justices." I believe we all understand the inherent truth in these words. Unfortunately, we cannot speak bluntly to the American people during an election year without suffering cynical accusations of obstructionism from both our Democratic opponents and the liberal mainstream media. Therefore it is important that we get our talking points together so that we may present objections that the average voter can easily understand. Kagan has virtually no paper trail, meaning there are few past writings for us to attack. And almost everything she has written is within an academic context, making it far too boring to read... Just what is she trying to hide? This, however, is not an easy matter. Kagan has virtually no paper trail, meaning there are few past writings for us to attack. In addition, almost everything she has written is framed within an academic context, making it far too boring to read. Just what is she trying to hide? Therefore, I've seen fit to put together an opening list of topics for your use. I am sure that many of you have thoughts of your own, and I look forward to discussing them with you both individually and together as a group. 1. As I said above, Kagan has virtually no paper trail. I think this is odd, and with proper presentation, I'm sure that the American people will think it odd as well. 2. On the other hand, Kagan was unable to hide her 2003 memo blasting the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy, which is the law of the land. If this doesn't show an activist slant, I don't know what does. 3. As dean of Harvard Law, Kagan allowed military recruiters on campus when the Solomon Amendment allowed federal funds to be withheld from non-complying universities. One year later, when the law was struck down, she once again banned the recruiters, proving she hates the military. 4. Re: 3, this may also be seen as a clear indication that she has absolutely no regard for national security. 5. Also, re: 3. a flipflopper. 6. Kagan could prove to be every bit as liberal as Justice Stevens, effectively keeping the court in stasis. 'In Stasis' is the key phrase; research show that most Americans react negatively to the phrase, believing it refers to being buried alive. 7. Jim Inhofe opposes her, and most Americans believe he was right about global warming. 8. Kagan would be the first nominee in the past 41 years with no judicial experience. I realize that until recently many of you were advocating the selection of someone outside of the judicial arena, but it need not be seen as a negative if we emphasize that the GOP is the party of flexibility, while the Democrats are the party of rigid thinking. 9.Three women on the Supreme Court? At the same time? What the hell is up with that? White men are quickly becoming a minority. 10. Re: 9. Depending on your state, this may be phrased as 'What does Obama have against black men? Even George Bush nominated a black man. 11. In 1980, when Kagan was only 20 years old, she got drunk on vodka and cried after liberal Democrat Elizabeth Holtzman lost her race for the Senate. Holtzman, as you may recall, went on to write 'The Impeachment of George W. Bush: a practical guide for concerned citizens'. Enough said. 12. Re: 11. We don't need a drunk on the Supreme Court. 13. Also, re:11. Or a crybaby. 14. Kagan has no children. Democrats may site this as a positive since Kagan has never been married, but if you're going to select someone so far out of the traditional experience of American women, why not just choose a man? 15. Maybe she's never been married because, re:14, Kagan is rumored to be a lesbian. Even if this turns out to be nothing but innuendo, she certainly looks like a lesbian, and that should be enough to give us pause. 16. Re: 15. What the hell sort of a haircut is that anyway? Yours in victory 2010, Mitch McConnell

A FGAQ Exclusive!

In this exclusive excerpt from his forthcoming memoirs, George Bush describes one of his rare misunderestimates. I know I've spent a lot of this book talking bout how I've been deceived and manipulated by just about everyone from Vlad Putin to Hank Paulson to my own daddy, and you're probably surprised that after all the chicanery I've endured I'm not more of a cynical man. Shoot, even Barney has been know to try and put one over on me from time to time. But even though the title of my book is 'Not My Fault', I've got to come clean and say that's only true in the majority of the time. Fact is, there are times I've even manage to fool myself. I first met Hariet Miers back in Austin back in 1989. It was a party at my old buddy Nate Hecht's place and Hariet was Nate's arm candy. At least that's the way he saw it. Hariet pined away for that guy for years and years, eventually becoming an old maid in the process. Anyway, I had quit drinking three years earlier when I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior, so needless to say I wasn't having any fun. I mean, I'd have fun sometimes, just not at parties, cause I'd be coveting everybody's margaritas and be sitting there with a diet Coke and a handful of chips. Shoot, even Laura would have a glass of wine. She didn't cut me a bit of slack, so I started talkin to Hariet to try and make Laura jealous, and found out she was born again too. And she was Texan through and through, just like I imagine myself to be. I didn't make Laura jealous, but I did meet the woman who would become my own personal lawyer. It's crazy that a president would have to have his own personal lawyer, isn't it? But you know, when someone gets duped and deceived with the frequency that I do, it's mighty comforting to have someone watching your back. I take a lot of personal pride in the fact that I never once got impeached, and I think a lot of the credit goes straight to Hariet. I kinda wanted to make her my Attorney General, but I realized that if I did, there'd be other demands on her time, so I gave that job to Gonzo. Maybe that hurt her feelings, I don't know, all I can say is that she never missed an opportunity to make Mexican jokes. Not very Christian, I'll admit, but pretty darn funny. Well, when Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement from the Supreme Court, I was in a real quandary about who to nominate. You'd think I'd have a lot of people to ask for advice but I didn't. I was mad at just about everyone in Congress for one reason or another, particularly their refusal to privatize Social Security. I couldn't ask Cheney, cause he would just recommend someone he liked, and most of the people he liked were mean or crazy or both. Turd Blossom had already tricked me into too many bad decisions already, Laura didn't have any opinion, and Barney couldn't talk. So I asked Hariet. She just giggled and said "I don't know, why don't you just nominate me?" I thought this was a brilliant idea. The Supreme Court only works a few months a year, so the rest of the time she could still work as my personal lawyer. You got to consider, the last person to recommend themselves for the job was Dick Cheney, and you know how well that worked out. Of course by the time she told me that she had just been kidding, I'd already made the announcement and it was too late. Boy, did I have egg on my face. But a president can't back down, that's a sign of weakness that your enemies will hop on like a trampoline, so we soldiered on. Got her briefed and drilled, had her talk to a everybody in Washington for advice, but it was all to no avail. She didn't understand basic constitutional law concepts, which I never noticed when she was my personal lawyer. I mean, why would I? It was real sad the way all the senators made fun of her, not to mention those comedians on TV. Course, as I realized by then, it was merited. In her own way, Hariet was the first Sarah Palin. That was one of my biggest mistakes, I'm man enough to admit it. Of course the next person I nominated, Sam Alito, was an absolutely brilliant choice, and America will be thanking me for John Robert for decades to come.

a friend on the court

The LA Times reports today that Ginni Thomas, wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, has created a new TEA party group, Liberty Central Inc. "The group plans to issue score cards for Congress members and be involved in the November election, although Thomas would not specify how. She said it would accept donations from various sources - including corporations - as allowed under campaign finance rules recently loosened by the Supreme Court." Isn't that convenient, the loosening of those corporate/political restrictions? I'll bet that might even work to the benefit of Liberty Central, cause there's probably at least one or two corporations who are so cynical that they imagine some possible benefit could be derived from donating to a lobbying group where the CEO just happens to be married to a Supreme Court Justice. Justice Thomas is quick to dismiss any possible conflict of interest, noting that it would be virtually impossible for him to rule in a more corporate friendly way than he already does. "Now if a specific corporation was to donate heavily to my wife's group and a case involving them came before the court, there are those who might say that I should recuse myself. To them I say screw you, there's nothing in the law that says I have to, and quite frankly, I've got this gig for life." In spite of his wife's political activism, Justice Thomas remains a committed Republican, although he express a certain solidarity with TEA party dogma. "I too believe that the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood and tyrants, but it also needs to be fertilized with plenty of corporate booty."

Roberts unsettled

Chief Justice Roberts has something he needs to get off his chest. Not only off his chest, but off his mind. It's been weighing heavily on both locations for several weeks now, and after giving it diligent deliberation, he has finally given voice to the cause of his concern: the terrible decision regarding the Supreme Court's ruling allowing unlimited corporate campaign spending. No, it's not the idea of turning the electoral system over to our corporate overlords that bothers him, it's the fact that the President criticized the ruling at the State of the Union that Roberts finds truly unsettling. "The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court - according to the requirements of protocol - has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling," Roberts told an audience at University of Alabama Law School. "I suppose we could change the protocol so that we would also be allowed to holler, but quite frankly, most of us are a little shy about doing so because we don't want to draw attention to these silly black robes. Which we have to wear to the event because of protocol. Hmm, come to think of it, I suppose we could change the protocol on that as well... after all, we are the Supreme Court." Roberts dictated a few quick notes on judicial fashion to a handy legal clerk before continuing. "But if I can cut to the chase, to the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we are there." "Somebody tell that half-wit that attendance isn't mandatory," interjected Justice Clarence Thomas. "I didn't go, and I don't plan on going again next year. Scalia didn't go. Alito went even though he didn't want to, and he ended up making half a fool of himself." "All I did was shake my head and move my lips," shouted Justice Alito, quick to the defense. "Jesus Christ, Thomas, what I was trying to was loosen up the protocol a little bit, just like the boss suggested." "Your comments are premature, Justice Alito," replied Roberts. "I haven't ruled on the matter of protocol yet. And Justice Thomas, I'm taking your argument under advisement. I may put forward a decision to not go to next years speech as well." "Well, I wouldn't miss it for the world," Justice Ginsberg responded decisively. "I rarely get to go anywhere exciting anymore. And these black robes are just fine. They're about the nicest thing I've got in my wardrobe at my age." "You're still a youngster to me, Justice Ginsberg," Justice Stevens said gallantly. "And while we're on the subject of age, let me take exception to Justice Roberts comment about the State of the Union degenerating into a pep rally. I've been going to these speeches for thirty-five years, and they haven't degenerated into anything. The president says where the nation is and where he wants to lead it, and for a couple of hours everyone pretends to be on the same page in an attempted show of unity. Just what do you have against pep rallies, anyway?" "He's a friggin activist," muttered Justice Sotomayor. "Wow," said Justice Robert, taken aback. "I may be the big cheese on this court, but it looks like I've still got a lot to learn." "Tell me about it," Justice Scalia concurred.

contempt

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has charged Barack Obama with contempt for "disrespecting our court, to our face, on national television". The President has been ordered to pay a civil fine of $500. "The President told the American people that we had opened the floodgates to special interests and foreign corporations," Chief Justice Roberts said upon announcing the decision. "That's none of his business. Maybe he just hasn't heard of this little thing we like to call separation of powers. You know, I would have liked to fine him right then and there, but since Scalia and Thomas didn't bother to show up for the speech, I didn't think I'd have the votes." Meanwhile, Justice Alito spoke to FOX News to explain what had prompted his 'inappropriate' behavior. "My behavior was not inappropriate," explained Alito. "I can't stand it when somebody is rude in my courtroom, and there we were, in the court of public opinion, listening to the president disrespect us. And I didn't mutter 'not true', I muttered 'contempt of court'. The truth is, I should have been shouting it out." Alito's claim is somewhat suspect however, as there is a certain amount of bad blood between him and Obama. During his 2006 confirmation hearings, then Senator Obama voted against him, saying that Alito "consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless." "He surely did, and then he gave me the big thumbs down," said Alito. "Well, look who's powerless now. And I want that five hundred bucks by Monday. No personal checks, either."

Protocol breached!

In a startling break with tradition, Samuel Alito has violated the long observed protocol which requires Supreme Court Justices to sit motionless and expressionless at State of the Union speeches like a bunch of wax dummies. Alito, being nowhere near as obtuse as Justice Thomas nor as obnoxious as Justice Scalia, has long been overshadowed by the other conservatives on the court, but he briefly seized the spotlight last night by visibly shaking his head and mouthing 'not true' in response to President Obama's criticism of the court's decision to embellish corporate freedom of speech rights. "For a Supreme Court Justice, it was the behavior of a wild man," opined retired justice Sandra Day O'Connor. "It's much like Joe Wilson yelling 'You lie' - if Wilson had also jumped on top of his seat and ripped open his shirt. Yes, it's that bad." "There's a good reason that justices don't betray emotion during the speech," continued O'Connor. "Other than for confirmation, it's the only time the American people get a chance to see us, and it's important that we maintain the illusion that we have no opinions whatsoever. So if the president says 'The state of our union is strong', we don't applaud, because who knows, maybe it is and maybe it isn't. I remember in 1982 when I was still new to the bench and President Reagan in his speech declared that 'Apple pie is good' and I almost sacrificed my judicial dignity by rising to cheer. Thank God Justice Burger was there to stop me or I would have made a complete fool of myself, just like Sam Alito did last night."

legal fiction

"If it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more." - Chief Justice John Roberts, a long time ago, via Ruth Marcus Because it actually is a little-understood concept, we need to discuss the idea of a corporation as a person. (Difficult is the word I initially used, but it's really not that hard to grasp). The first thing that you learn in a business law class are the three basic forms of organization - a sole proprietorship (a pimp, for example) where you have all of the liability, debts and profits; a partnership (an escort service, for example) where you share all the liability, debts and profits; and a corporation (a whorehouse, for example) where for all practical purposes you don't even actually exist. How many times have you heard about a Donald Trump enterprise going bankrupt? And yet, there he stands, proud and tall, canonized on the Church of Television with willing submissives queuing up in the wings. This is because The Donald knows how to incorporate. It's easy, and depending on which state you incorporate in, it only costs a few hundred dollars. And as opposed to the sole proprietorship or partnership, when a Trump hotel or casino or whorehouse goes bankrupt, The Donald is unphased because The Donald is untouched. In other words, The Trump Plaza Hotel contains no actual Trump. This is meant as an introduction as to why a corporation is legally a person. You need someone to sue (and in turn, someone who can sue you). Let's say that you were putting up a satellite dish on a penthouse at the Plaza Hotel in 1994 and you leaned against a balcony rail after you completed your hard labor and the rail broke and you plunged to the street and shattered your spine. Well, you sure as shit couldn't sue The Donald. Legally, he doesn't even exist in this scenario. But you could sue the Plaza Hotel, take all it's assets, and make The Donald, who includes it amongst his holdings, very sad (not really, but this is just an example). Let's say, for purposes of this example, that The Donald has one hundred million billion dollars but the corporation he controls which in turn controls the Plaza Hotel only has a net worth of a dollar ninety-nine. Well, a dollar ninety-nine is about as much as you're going to get, minus legal expenses. So much for our example. The corporations that we are interested in are much bigger than The Donald's, albeit not nearly as parody worthy. Bank of America, Exxon Mobil, UnitedHealth Group, they all strive towards one goal - maximizing profits. This is not a good thing or a bad thing, it's an amoral thing. Unless you are a shareholder, or are demonstrably damaged by the corporation, it's not about you. If you must interact with UnitedHealth Group, you don't ever really interact with CEO Stephen Hemsley, you interact with the entity know as UnitedHealth Group. Stephen is just a well-paid representative of the corporate person, and he has limited liability regarding any actions that the corporate person may take, even if he's the one that makes it dance. Corporate personhood falls into the category of 'legal fiction', which are facts created and defined by courts. In the 1886 Supreme Court case 'Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad', the court reporter's summary included the following: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." Here is a fascinating little tidbit - the court itself never addressed the issue of fourteenth amendment protection in their ruling. So here we are in 2010 with the Roberts Supreme Court activist ruling that limiting a corporation's political spending is a violation of it's protected free speech, an issue that no one had asked them to rule on. And what an utterly bizarre decision, although it shouldn't be surprising coming from a court even more radical than the one that selected our 43rd president, This is clearly insane, the legal fiction made flesh. In reality, a corporation is not a person, it has no opinions or beliefs beyond the directives of it's officers, and those directives most frequently are to optimize the bottom line. Bereft of restrictions, they will only seek to serve themselves at the expense of all those who refuse to serve them. To repeat myself, this is not a good thing or a bad thing, it's an amoral thing, just like cancer. But to allow corporations unfettered access to the control of the government reveals a deep cynicism towards the institution formerly known as democracy. The Supreme Court has sold us all out, and in corporate America, they have limited liability.

CORPORATE OVERLORDS VICTORIOUS!

In what can only be described as rockin' good news for our corporate overlords, the Supreme Court today ruled that henceforth from this day on there will no longer be Kremlin-like restrictions on the amount of money corporations may spend for the election or defeat of a political candidate. The decision finally puts to an end years of brutal repression of America's most important citizens, at long last restoring free speech to those who truly have only their own best interests at heart. "So many of our citizens seem to have forgotten that corporations are people, too," Chief Justice Roberts said when announcing the 5-4 decision. "And as people they have certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of political power. Because what is economic power without political power? An empty shell, that's all, hardly what five of us on the court would call freedom. All over the world it's so easy to see, people everywhere just want to be free." "Listen people, listen, that's the way it should be," added Clarence Thomas. "Peace in the valley, people got to be free." "Well, this cheers me up a little," said Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillison. "We've been under the yoke of The Man for so many years that I don't even know how we'll react to this new found freedom... Nah, just kidding, guess we'll go buy ourselves some new politicians." "This is such a relief," sighed UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen Hemsley. "For so many years now we've had to steal elections rather buy them, and even though it's been born of necessity, it just make us feel kind of dirty. Gosh, I've got to tell you, I'm so exhilarated that I wish there was an election right away." "They're closer than you think," chuckled Goldman Sachs CEO Lloy Blankfein. "You want to talk about relief? Just this morning Obama announced that he's planning new restrictions on our bread and butter - our valuable high risk investments. What a nightmare. For him, that is. Because now we're free to buy us a whole new Congress that will support whatever we pay them to support. It's like I can at last breath again." "I feel like such a fool," said a glum Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard. "Here I stand, having made the utterly stupid mistake of deciding to run for the Senate against Barbara Boxer. If I had just kept the faith and stayed at Hewlett-Packard a little longer, I could have bought Barbara Boxer instead of competing against her. Oh well, at least I'm glad that the political process is once again out of the hands of the people and back with the corporations where it belongs."

Corporations are people too!


Johnny Roberts & the Fortune 500 - 'People Got To Be Free'